format: text

text:
# The Ferromagnetic Heisenberg XXZ chain in a pinning field

## I Introduction

The quantum spin-$`j`$ Heisenberg XXZ chain has been the focus of intensive studies in recent years. The spin 1/2 chain by itself has connections with a surprising variety of interesting mathematical structures, such as quantum groups Pasquier and Saleur (1990), vertex algebras Jimbo and Miwa (1995), and fundamental problems in combinatorics Kuperberg (1996); Batchelor et al. (2001), to name just a few. Of course, the interest in the XXZ model is not limited to mathematics. In 1995, Alcaraz, Salinas, and Wreszinski Alcaraz et al. (1995) and, independently, Gottstein and Werner Gottstein and Werner  discovered that, with suitable boundary terms, the ferromagnetic XXZ chain possesses a family of kink ground states which describe a domain wall of finite thickness (these domain walls are exponentially localized, with a width depending on the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which diverges as $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$). Moreover, it was shown in Alcaraz et al. (1995), that similar states exist for the spin $`j`$ model for arbitrary $`j`$ and in all dimensions.

From the physical point of view, the discovery of Giant Magnetoresistance and its connection with transport properties in the presense of magnetic domain walls has also spurred renewed interest in the microscopic description of domain walls Dantas et al. (2000); van Gorkom et al. (1999); Jonkers et al. (1999); Koma and Yamanaka ; Koma and Yamanaka (1999, 2000); Mibu et al. (1998); Nakanishi and Nakamura (2000); Tatara and Fukuyama (1997); Wegrowe et al. (2000). Of particular relevance are low-lying excitations associated with them. Koma and Nachtergaele discovered that, although the XXZ model has a gap in its spectrum above the trivial translation invariant ground states, gapless excitations exists associated with diagonal domain walls (11, 111, …) in two or more dimensions Koma and Nachtergaele (1996). The scaling behavior of these excitations was recently determined in Bolina et al. (2000) and Caputo and Martinelli (2001), Caputo and Martinelli (2002).

It is interesting to note that the kink and antikink ground states were discovered by a careful study of the XXZ chain with the special boundary conditions that make the spin 1/2 model $`SU_q(2)`$-symmetric. Although this quantum group symmetry is destroyed for $`j>1/2`$ or $`d>1`$, interface ground states exist in general. In one dimension it has been proven rigorously that no other ground states exist, in the sense of local stability, no matter what boundary conditions are considered Matsui (1996); Koma and Nachtergaele (1998). In the last reference it was also proved that the XXX chain does not have domain wall ground states that are stable in the infinite-volume limit.

There is an obvious need for a clear understanding of excitations near magnetic interfaces in order to develop more accurate models of electron scattering at such interfaces. It has been noted, however, that pinning of interfaces by impurities may have to be taken into account as well Jonkers et al. (1999). Here, we study the XXZ chain perturbed at one site by a magnetic field as a caricature model for a pinned domain wall. Admittedly, the one-dimensional nature of the model restricts its direct applicability to experimental situations. We will see however that the low-lying spectrum of this model of pinned interfaces exhibits a number of interesting features that we expect will carry over, mutatis mutandis, to the two- and three-dimensional case.

Let us now define the model precisely and briefly summarize our main results. The spin $`j`$ XXZ Hamiltonian without boundary terms and with anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$ is defined on the finite chain labeled by the integers from $`a`$ to $`b`$ by

$$H_0=\underset{x=a}{\overset{b1}{}}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(S_x^1S_{x+1}^1+S_x^2S_{x+1}^2)+S_x^3S_{x+1}^3j^2\mathrm{𝟏}\right],$$
(1)
where the copies of the spin operators at position $`x`$, $`S_x^1,S_x^2,S_x^3`$ satisfy the usual commutation relations:

$$[S_x^\alpha ,S_x^\beta ]=iϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }S_x^\gamma .$$
(2)
The anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$ has been put in front of the $`\mathrm{𝖷𝖷}`$ part so that we can easily take the Ising limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$. Unless otherwise stated, we set $`a=1`$. We consider the perturbation of $`H_0`$ obtained by adding a term $`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{S}_y`$, i.e. a magnetic field at the site $`y`$. As a way to impose boundary conditions, we also add magnetic fields in the $`z`$-direction at the boundary spins. First, consider boundary fields in the negative $`z`$-direction at both ends, which we will refer to as ($`++`$) boundary conditions (b.c.), indicating that they favor the spins at the ends to point in the positive $`z`$-direction.

If the perturbation at the interior site $`y`$ has a component orthogonal to the $`z`$-direction, we find that the ground state is unique and describes a droplet state, i.e., the magnetization is reduced from its maximum possible value in some neighborhood of $`y`$. Strictly speaking, the magnetization is reduced everywhere in the chain, but by an amount that decays exponentially fast away from $`y`$.

However, when the field is in the $`z`$-direction, then there is a critical value $`B_c`$ such that for $`B<B_c`$, the all spin-up state is the ground state. At $`B=B_c`$, there are infinitely many ground states which are droplet states describing domains of negative magnetization of arbitrary size embedded in a environment of positive magnetization. For stronger fields, $`B>B_c`$, the magnetic field selects the all spin-down state as its ground state. This is illustrated in Figure 1.

The ground state picture is simpler when we impose ($`+`$) b.c., i.e. fields in opposite directions at the boundary spins. For boundary fields of magnitude (3), and without a perturbation in the interior, we then have a set of kink states as the ground state, one for every possible value of the magnetization Alcaraz et al. (1995); Gottstein and Werner . In that case, any non-zero field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ at an interior site $`y`$ selects a unique ground state. If $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ is parallel to the $`z`$-direction the ground state is in the continuous spectrum, and hence there are excitations of arbitrary small energy. If there is a non-vanishing component of $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ in the $`xy`$-plane, the unique ground state is separated by a gap form the rest of the spectrum. The unique ground state is a kink state centered at a position which we calculate. We also obtain an estimate for the gap.

In Section 2, we define the model and find the set of ground states. Section 3 is devoted to the study of the gap in the spin $`1/2`$ case. Some less illuminating calculations are presented in three appendices.

## II The model and its ground states

The main lesson to be learned from the proof of completeness of the list of ground states of the infinite ferromagnetic XXZ chain (cf. Koma and Nachtergaele (1997)), is that one only needs to study finite chain Hamiltonians with very simple b.c. This remains true if we add a bounded perturbation with finite support to the Hamiltonian, e.g., a magnetic field at one site. These simple b.c. are fields in the $`z`$-direction with either equal or opposite sign which we will introduce shortly.

The Hamiltonian $`H_0`$, defined in (1), is non-negative, and the two translation invariant all spin-up/down states are the ground states of $`H_0`$. It will be convenient to separate them by adding the equal-sign boundary fields, $`jA(S_1^3+S_b^3)`$ with

$$A=A(\mathrm{\Delta })=\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Delta }^2},$$
(3)
and define the droplet and antidroplet Hamiltonian

$`H_0^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`H_0jA(S_1^3+S_b^32j\mathrm{𝟏}),`$ (4)
$`H_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+jA(S_1^3+S_b^3+2j\mathrm{𝟏}).`$
For convenience we have normalized the ground state energy to 0. By reflecting all $`S_x^3`$ into$`S_x^3`$ the two Hamiltonians, $`H^{++}`$ and $`H^{}`$ are unitarily equivalent and we only study $`H_0^{++}`$.

Additional ground states emerge when we add opposite-sign boundary terms. It turns out that precisely for the fields $`\pm jA(S_1^3S_b^3)`$ one discovers the full set of new ground states. Therefore, we define the kink and antikink Hamiltonian

$`H_0^+`$ $`=`$ $`H_0jA(S_1^3S_b^3),`$ (5)
$`H_0^+`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+jA(S_1^3S_b^3).`$ (6)
Again, by spin reflection, the kink and anti-kink Hamiltonians are unitarily equivalent. Let us define

$`h_{xx+1}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(S_x^1S_{x+1}^1+S_x^2S_{x+1}^2)S_x^3S_{x+1}^3+j^2\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (7)
$`jA(S_x^3S_{x+1}^3),`$
and

$`h_{xx+1}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(S_x^1S_{x+1}^1+S_x^2S_{x+1}^2)S_x^3S_{x+1}^3+j^2\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (8)
$`+jA(S_x^3S_{x+1}^3).`$
In terms of these interactions terms we may write

$$H_0^+=\underset{x=1}{\overset{b1}{}}h_{xx+1}^+,$$
(9)
and

$$H_0^+=\underset{x=1}{\overset{b1}{}}h_{xx+1}^+.$$
(10)
This will be used in Section 3.

It is useful to introduce another parameter, $`0<q<1`$, such that $`q+q^1=2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The Hamiltonians defined in (5) and (6) in the spin 1/2 case, commute with a representation of $`SU_q(2)`$. For $`j>1/2`$, the only obvious conserved quantity is the total $`S^3`$-component, which commutes with all the Hamiltonians defined above.

In the following we first deal with the kink Hamiltonian, $`H_0^+`$. There is a unique ground state for each value (sector) $`m`$ of $`S^3`$, all of which have the same energy 0. The eigenvalues, $`m_x`$, of $`S_x^3`$ are in $`\{j,j+1,\mathrm{},j1,j\}`$, such that the total $`S^3`$-component takes the values $`m=_{x[1,b]}m_x`$. The eigenvectors of $`S^3`$ are denoted by $`|(m_x)`$, and we have $`S_y^3|(m_x)=m_y|(m_x)`$. Further, let

$$w_m=\sqrt{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2j}{m+j}\right)}.$$

The unique ground states in the respective $`S^3`$-sectors are called kink states which were found by Alcaraz, Salinas and Wreszinski Alcaraz et al. (1995). They are given by

$$\psi _m=\underset{\{m_x\}}{}\underset{x=1}{\overset{b}{}}q^{x(jm_x)}w_{m_x}|(m_x),$$
(11)
As the $`\psi _m`$ are not normalized, we also define $`\varphi _m=\psi _m/\psi _m`$. The sum over $`\{m_x\}`$ is restricted to combinations such that $`m_x=m`$. If $`m=\pm jb`$ is maximal/minimal, then the state $`\varphi _m`$ is the all spin-up/down state, i.e. the magnetization profile in the $`z`$-direction, $`\varphi _m|S_x^3|\varphi _m=\pm j`$. Both from a physical and mathematical point of view, the infinite chain limit is the most interesting case. Clearly, more care has to be taken when using an infinite volume Hamiltonian. The natural tool is the GNS representation. In our case here, there are four (unitarily) inequivalent representations on Hilbert spaces, which are also called sectors. These are the (anti)kink sectors containing the infinite volume (anti)kink ground states, and the (anti)droplet sectors with the all spin (down)up ground state. As mentioned above, for the infinite volume limit it is sufficient to study the effect of the perturbation for the finite chain Hamiltonians, $`H_0^{++}`$ and $`H_0^+`$. For more details, we refer to Koma and Nachtergaele (1997).

For our purposes it will be very convenient to define the states

$$\psi (z)=C\underset{|m|jb}{}z^{jbm}\psi _m.$$
(12)
where $`C`$ is a normalization constant. They are product states, i.e.

$$\psi (z)=\underset{x=1}{\overset{b}{}}\chi _x(z),$$
(13)
with

$$\chi _x(z)=(1+|z|^2q^{2x})^j\underset{m_x=j}{\overset{j}{}}(zq^x)^{jm_x}w_{m_x}|(m_x).$$
(14)
The same construction can be carried through for the antikink Hamiltonian. We denote the corresponding states for the antikink Hamiltonian by $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z)`$. If we let

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_x(z)`$
$`=`$ $`(1+|z|^2q^{2x})^j{\displaystyle \underset{m_x=j}{\overset{j}{}}}(zq^x)^{jm_x}w_{m_x}|(m_x),`$
then $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z)=_{x=1}^b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_x(z)`$ are ground states of $`H^+`$.

Now, let $`\stackrel{}{B}=(B_1,B_2,B_3)`$ be a magnetic field vector with (real) parameters, and $`V=\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{S}=B_1S^1+B_2S^2+B_3S^3`$. Then the eigenvalues of $`V`$ are $`\stackrel{}{B}m`$ with $`m=j,j+1,\mathrm{},j`$. Define

$`H^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$ $`=`$ $`H_0^++\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{S}_y,`$ (16)
$`H^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})`$ $`=`$ $`H_0^{++}+\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{S}_y.`$ (17)
In the study of the spectrum of $`H^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$ and $`H^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$, it is important to distinguish two cases: $`B_1^2+B_2^2>0`$ and $`B_1^2+B_2^2=0`$. The ground state in these two cases is described in Propositions II.1 and II.3, and the Remarks II.2.

###### PROPOSITION II.1 (Kink sector, $`B_1^2+B_2^2>0`$).

Let $`1yb`$. Then, the ground state of $`H^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$ is the state $`\psi (z)`$ of eq (13) with $`z=\frac{\stackrel{}{B}+B_3}{B_1iB_2}q^y`$. Its energy is $`j\stackrel{}{B}`$.

The proof is a combination of previously known results and a straightforward calculation. See Appendix A.

###### REMARKS II.2.

1. The ground state of $`H^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$ is the state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\stackrel{~}{z})`$ of equation (II) with $`\stackrel{~}{z}=\frac{\stackrel{}{B}B_3}{B_1+iB_2}q^y`$. This follows by a rotation by the angle $`\pi `$ with respect to the $`x`$-axis.
2. For simplicity, let us assume that $`B_1^2+B_2^2=1`$. If $`B_3=0`$, then the ground state, $`\psi (z=(B_1+iB_2)q^y)`$, is a kink state (exponentially) localized at the magnetic field at $`y`$; among the spanning set of ground states $`\psi (z)`$, the perturbation picks the one which is most localized at $`y`$. If $`B_30`$, the extra term $`B_3S_y^3`$ has the effect of shifting the kink from $`y`$ by the distance $`|\mathrm{log}_q(\sqrt{1+B_3^2}+B_3)|`$ to the left if $`B_3>0`$, and to the right (by the same distance) if $`B_3<0`$.
3. The proof also shows that the state $`\psi (z)`$ with $`z=+\frac{\stackrel{}{B}+B_3}{B_1iB_2}q^y`$ is an eigenstate of $`H^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$ with energy $`+j\stackrel{}{B}`$. We see this (it is obviously linear if the field is in the $`x`$ or $`y`$ direction only, see Figure 2) branch ascending from $`|B_3|/2`$ in Figure 2-3. In Figure 4 it has too high an energy to be among the plotted lowest eigenvalues.
4. Of special interest is the second-lowest eigenvalue, in particular, whether there is a gap uniformly in the number of sites, $`b`$, and how it depends on $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ and the anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This will be treated in Section 3. We can extend a method Nachtergaele (1996) which was first applied to prove a gap for $`H_0^+`$.
5. We discuss now qualitatively the low energy spectrum, and assume for simplicity that $`j=1/2`$ and $`B_2=0`$. It was proven in Koma and Nachtergaele (1997) that the gap above the $`b+1`$ ground states of the unperturbed Hamiltonian, $`H_0^+`$, is equal to $`1\mathrm{cos}(\pi /b)\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$, which tends to $`1\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$ in the infinite chain limit.

If $`B_3=0`$, then there are $`b`$ eigenvalues (recall, $`b`$ is the length of the chain) of $`H^+(B,0,0)`$ descending from 0. This can be seen as follows. We introduce the function $`N(B)=\chi _{(\mathrm{},0]}\left(H^+(B,0,0)\frac{1}{2}B\mathrm{𝟏}\right)`$ counting the number of non-positive eigenvalues; here $`\chi _{(\mathrm{},0]}`$ is the characteristic function of $`(\mathrm{},0]`$. $`N(B)`$ is monotonically increasing, and equal to $`b+1`$ for $`|B|<1\mathrm{\Delta }^1+𝒪(b^1)`$; this is guaranteed by the gap above the ground states. In item 6 below we calculate the lowest energy state, $`\psi _e`$, descending from $`1\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$ at $`B=0`$ with energy equal to $`1\mathrm{\Delta }^1\frac{1}{2}|B|`$ (up to $`𝒪(b^1)`$). This state is ‘parallel’ to the ground state energy and intersects with the state in item 2 at $`|B|=1\mathrm{cos}(\pi /b)\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$, see Figure 2.

We can say more about the average of these lowest $`b+1`$ eigenvalues by recalling the Min-max Principle, namely that their average is a concave function in $`B`$. By symmetry ($`BB`$) its (left and right) derivative is always negative and less than $`1/2`$. Since the average is 0 at $`B=0`$ it continues to be negative. In the infinite volume limit there is an infinite number of ground states of $`H_0^+`$, and eigenvalues for $`H^+(B,0,0)`$ have to accumulate at some value between $`\frac{1}{2}|B|`$ and $`1\mathrm{\Delta }^1\frac{1}{2}|B|`$, see Figure 2, and in case $`B_30`$, see Figures 3-4.
6. If $`B_30`$, then there appear to be $`by+1`$ eigenvalues descending from $`|B_3|/2`$; $`by+1`$ is the number of kinks to the left of $`y`$, see Figure 3. The next eigenvalues depend on $`B_3`$. If $`|B_3|<1\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$, then the next lowest $`y`$ eigenvalues descend from $`|B_3|/2`$. If $`|B_3|>1\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$, then the state $`\psi _e`$ appears to be the next lowest in energy, see Figure 4.
7. We can calculate the state mentioned in the previous two items. Let $`\psi _e=_{x=1}^ba_xS_x^{}|`$ be the first excited state of $`H_0^+`$ in the one-overturned spin-sector. The coefficients $`a_x`$ are a solution to the discrete Laplace equation (see Koma and Nachtergaele (1998), or cf. Appendix C by setting $`B=0`$). The energy of $`\psi _e`$ is equal to the gap $`1\mathrm{\Delta }^1+𝒪(b^1)`$. Now, define

$$\psi _e(z)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{b}{}}z^n(S_q^{})^n\psi _e=\underset{x=1}{\overset{b}{}}a_xS_x^{}\psi (z).$$

By choosing $`z`$ as in Proposition II.1, we obtain the equation

$$H^+(\stackrel{}{B})\psi _e(z)=\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }^1\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{B}\right)\psi _e(z)+𝒪\left(b^1\right).$$

In Figure 2, this is the straight line parallel to the ground state energy.

Next, we consider the kink sector and magnetic fields of the form $`B_1=B_2=0,B=B_30`$. Let $`B>0`$. Then, as $`b`$, the size of the system increases, the ground state tends to the all spin-down state, $`|`$. This vector is no longer in the infinite volume kink-sector very much as $`e^{ikx}`$ is not a genuine (i.e., normalizable) eigenvector of the Laplacian on the real line. In other words, $`|`$ is part of the continuous spectrum. So let us consider the orthogonal sequence of kink states, $`\psi _n`$; $`n`$, as usual, is the total $`z`$-component. Then, the sequence $`\psi _n,H^+(0,0,B),\psi _n`$ converges to $`jB`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Since the spectrum is closed and $`jB`$ is the least possible eigenvalue it has to be the ground state energy. Therefore, in the infinite chain limit, $`jB`$ is contained in the continuous spectrum, and is hence non-isolated. We conjecture that there is no other continuous spectrum close to $`j|B|`$, and thus $`j|B|`$ is purely an accumulation point of eigenvectors. We do not give a proof of this here. Similarily, if $`B<0`$, then the bottom of the spectrum is $`jB`$ and there is no gap above the ground state, which is obviously the all spin-up state. We illustrate the low energy spectrum in Figure 5.

Let us collect our results in the following proposition:

###### PROPOSITION II.3 (Kink sector, $`B_1^2+B_2^2=0`$).

The bottom of the spectrum of $`H^+(0,0,B)`$ is equal to $`j|B|`$, which is part of the continuous spectrum. Excitations above the ground state are gapless.

Now we consider the Hamiltonian $`H^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})`$. It is useful to decompose this as a sum of a kink and anti-kink Hamiltonian ($`b3`$):

$`H_{[1,b]}^{++}+2jA\left(j\mathrm{𝟏}+S_y^3\right)=H_{[1,y]}^++H_{[y,b]}^+,`$
and thus

$`H_{[1,b]}^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})2j^2A\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`=`$ $`H_{[1,y]}^+(\frac{B_1}{2},\frac{B_2}{2},\frac{B_3}{2}jA)`$ (18)
$`+H_{[y,b]}^+(\frac{B_1}{2},\frac{B_2}{2},\frac{B_3}{2}jA).`$
We start with the case $`B_1^2+B_2^2>0`$. As in the kink sector we will find a unique ground state. Let

$$z=\frac{(B_1,B_2,B_32jA)+B_32jA}{B_1iB_2}q^y,$$

then according to Proposition II.1, $`\psi _{[1,y]}(z)`$ is the unique ground state of $`H_{[1,y]}^+(B_1/2,B_2/2,B_2/2jA)`$, while the anti-kink state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{[y,b]}(\stackrel{~}{z})`$ is the corresponding ground state of $`H_{[y,b]}^+(B_1/2,B_2/2,B_3/2jA)`$. They are both product states which happen to satisfy $`\chi _y(z)=(1)^{2j}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_y(\stackrel{~}{z})`$, because

$`\frac{1}{2}(B_1S_y^1+B_2S_y^2+(B_32jA)S_y^3)\chi ^{\mathrm{}}(z^{\mathrm{}})`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{j}{2}(B_1,B_2,B_32jA)\chi ^{\mathrm{}}(z^{\mathrm{}}),`$
where $`\chi ^{\mathrm{}}(z^{\mathrm{}})`$ stands for either $`\chi _y(z)`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_y(\stackrel{~}{z})`$. Thus

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{B})=\underset{x=1}{\overset{y}{}}\chi _x(z)\underset{x=y+1}{\overset{b}{}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_x(\stackrel{~}{z})$$

is the unique ground state of $`H_0^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})`$ with energy $`j(B_1,B_2,B_32jA)+2j^2A`$.

Similar to the kink-sector, the vector

$$\underset{x=1}{\overset{y}{}}\chi _x(z)\underset{x=y+1}{\overset{b}{}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_x(\stackrel{~}{z})$$

is another eigenstate with energy $`j(B_1,B_2,B_32jA)+2j^2A`$.

Finally, we come to the case $`B_1=B_2=0,B=B_3`$. When $`B=0`$, it was proven in Nachtergaele and Starr (2001) that for spin $`1/2`$, and in the infinite volume limit $`1\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$ is the gap above the ground state. It can also be shown that there exists a gap, $`\delta `$, for higher spins although no precise estimates are known. This implies that uniformly in the size of the lattice, that the all spin-up vector is the unique ground state for $`B<B_c=\delta /(2j)`$, where $`\delta `$ is the (strictly positive) gap of $`H_0^{++}`$. As we mentioned in the Introduction, the value $`B=A/(2j)`$ is very particular and interesting. It has been analyzed Starr (2001) in the context of droplet states for spin $`1/2`$ but again the method extends to general $`j`$. In fact, the set of ground states is infinitely degenerate (in the infinite volume) and consists of pairs of symmetric kink-antikink states (i.e. droplets), all of which have the same energy $`jA`$. The magnetization profile in the $`z`$-direction is symmetric with respect to the center of the field at $`y`$. Excitations are gapless because large droplets which are antisymmetric with respect to $`y`$ come arbitrarily close in energy to $`jA`$.

Since the ground state energy is concave, and since for $`B=0`$ and $`B=A/2j`$, the all spin-up vector is a ground state, we conclude that for all $`B<A/(2j)`$, the all spin-up vector is the unique ground state. Numerical experiments for spin $`1/2`$ indicate that in the region $`B<A`$ the eigenvalues are ordered by their total $`S^3`$-value such that the second-lowest eigenstate is in the sector with one overturned spin, and has energy $`_{}(B)=1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+B^2}+\frac{1}{2}|B|`$, see (51); its (infinite volume) derivation is given in Appendix C. The third-lowest eigenvector is in the sector with two overturned spins, and so on. The lowest eigenvalues with respect to the total $`S^3`$-component accumulate at the line $`AB/2`$. They all meet at the critical value $`A`$, where the ground state becomes infinitely degenerate. Assuming that this ordering holds true, we conjecture that the gap for spin $`1/2`$ and $`BA`$ equals $`1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+B^2}+\frac{1}{2}(|B|B)`$, which converges to $`1\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ for large $`B`$, and vanishes at $`B=A`$.

For $`B>A/(2j)`$, the all spin-down state is the unique ground state with energy $`A/(2j)jB`$, which is part of the continuous spectrum; in fact, $`A/(2j)jB`$ is purely an accumulation point of eigenvectors. It seems that for $`B>A/2j`$ the eigenvalues are also ordered according to their total $`z`$-component, $`n`$, but this time in the opposite way. I.e. lower $`n`$ means lower energy, and clearly the lowest is the all spin-down state. Similar to the kink sector, we will not prove here that the rest of the continuous spectrum is separated from the ground state.

The situation is illustrated in Fig. 6-8 for $`j=1/2`$, cf. also Figure 1. Let us summarize our results in the following proposition:

###### PROPOSITION II.4 (Droplet sector).

The ground state of the droplet Hamiltonian, $`H^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})`$, on a chain of length $`b3`$ depends on the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ in the following way:

1. If $`B_1^2+B_2^2>0`$, then the ground state is unique. The ground state energy is $`j(B_1,B_2,B_32jA)+2j^2A`$.
2. If $`B_1=B_2=0,B=B_3`$, and $`B_c=A/(2j)`$, then for $`B<B_c`$ the unique ground state of $`H^{++}(0,0,B)`$ is the all spin-up vector with energy $`jB`$. For $`B=B_c`$ the ground states are droplet states which are (in the thermodynamic limit) infinitely degenerate with energy $`jA`$. In infinite volume, excitations above these ground states are gapless. For $`B>B_c`$, the all spin-down state is the unique ground state, which is an accumulation point of eigenvectors. Hence, excitations are gapless.

## III Estimate for the spectral gap in the case $`j=1/2`$

Here we prove a uniform lower bound on the difference between the ground state energy and the energy of the first excited state for the spin $`1/2`$ Hamiltonians $`H_{[1,b]}^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$ and $`H_{[1,b]}^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})`$ on a finite chain $`[1,b]`$ with the impurity field at $`y`$.

Before we prove these gap inequalities we introduce the methods which were invented in Nachtergaele (1996) and Nachtergaele . Let $`𝒞_i,i=0,\mathrm{},N`$ be a sequence of connected intervals with $`_{i=0}^N𝒞_i=[1,b]`$, and such that two intervals have at most one lattice point in common. Let $`h_{𝒞_i}0`$ be some (local) Hamiltonians acting on $`^{2|𝒞_i|}`$, and define

$$H_{[1,b]}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}h_{𝒞_i}.$$
(19)
$`H_{[1,b]}`$ acts on $`_b=_{i=1}^b^2`$. We assume that $`\mathrm{ker}H_{[1,b]}\{0\}`$. Let $`\gamma _i`$ denote the gap of $`h_{𝒞_i}`$, i.e. the smallest non-zero eigenvalue of $`h_{𝒞_i}`$. It is clear that

$$\mathrm{ker}H_{[1,b]}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{ker}h_{𝒞_i}.$$
(20)
Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }[1,b]`$, then we define $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be the orthogonal projection onto the

$$\mathrm{ker}\underset{i:𝒞_i\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}h_{𝒞_i}.$$
(21)
We use the convention that if $`𝒞_i\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for any $`i`$, then we set $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. From these definitions we derive the following properties:

1. $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }G_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=G_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}G_\mathrm{\Lambda }=G_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$.
2. $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }G_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=G_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}G_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mathrm{}`$.
3. $`h_{𝒞_i}\gamma _i(\mathrm{𝟏}G_{𝒞_i})`$.

Next we define the intervals $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=_{ji}𝒞_j`$, and operators $`E_i,i0`$, on $`_b`$ by

$$E_i=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟏}G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}\hfill & \text{for}& i=0\hfill \\ G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i+1}}\hfill & \text{for}& 1i<N\hfill \\ G_{[1,b]}\hfill & \text{for}& i=N\hfill \end{array}.$$
(22)
These operators are mutually commuting projections adding up to $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, i.e.

$$E_i^{}=E_i,E_iE_j=\delta _{ij}E_i,\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}E_i=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(23)
The key assumption in order to deduce a gap for $`H_{[1,b]}`$ from the gaps of $`h_{𝒞_i}`$ is the following assumption:

###### ASSUMPTION III.1.

There exists a positive constant $`ϵ`$ such that $`0ϵ<1/\sqrt{2}`$ and

$$E_iG_{𝒞_{i+1}}E_iϵ^2E_i,0iN1,$$
(24)
or equivalently,

$$G_{𝒞_{i+1}}E_iϵ,0iN1.$$
(25)
Further, we assume that the gaps, $`\gamma _i`$, for the local Hamiltonians are bounded from below, i.e. $`\gamma _i\gamma >0`$.

The conditions (24) and (25) are equivalent due to $`G_{𝒞_{i+1}}E_i=G_{𝒞_{i+1}}G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}`$ $`G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i+1}}`$.

Now we are ready to state the main theorem which we apply in all three case below.

###### THEOREM III.2 (Nachtergaele Nachtergaele (1996)).

With the above definitions and under the assumptions in (25) let $`\psi `$ be orthogonal to the ground states of $`H_{[1,b]}`$. Then

$$(\psi ,H_{[1,b]}\psi )\gamma (1\sqrt{2}ϵ)^2\psi ^2.$$
(26)
I.e. the gap in the spectrum of $`H_{[1,b]}`$ above 0 is at least $`\gamma (1\sqrt{2}ϵ)^2`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\psi `$ be orthogonal to the ground state, i.e. $`G_{[1,b]}\psi =0`$. Then, $`\psi ^2=_{0n<N}E_n\psi ^2`$.

We estimate $`E_n\psi ^2`$ in terms of $`(\psi ,H_{𝒞_n}(\stackrel{}{B})\psi )`$ as follows. First notice, that for $`mn2`$, or $`mn+1`$, $`E_mG_{𝒞_n}=G_{𝒞_n}E_m`$. Now we insert $`G_{𝒞_n}`$ and the resolution of identity, $`\{E_n\}`$, and we get

$`E_n\psi ^2`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`(\psi ,(\mathrm{𝟏}G_{𝒞_n})E_n\psi )+(\psi ,{\displaystyle \underset{0m<N}{}}E_mG_{𝒞_n}E_n\psi )`$
$`=`$ $`(\psi ,(\mathrm{𝟏}G_{𝒞_n})E_n\psi )+((E_{n1}+E_n)\psi ,G_{𝒞_n}E_n\psi ).`$
Let $`c_1,c_2>0`$, then

$`E_n\psi ^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_1}}(\psi ,(\mathrm{𝟏}G_{𝒞_n})\psi )+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{2}}(\psi ,E_n\psi )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_2}}(\psi ,E_nG_{𝒞_n}E_n\psi )+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{2}}(\psi ,(E_{n1}+E_n)^2\psi ),`$
where we used the inequality

$$|(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)|\frac{1}{2c}\varphi _1^2+\frac{c}{2}\varphi _2^2$$

in both terms of (27). Let $`\gamma =\mathrm{min}\{\gamma _{𝒞_i}\}`$ be the minimum of the gaps of the Hamiltonians $`h_{𝒞_i}`$.

The first term on the rhs of (III) is less than $`\frac{1}{2c_1\gamma }(\psi ,h_{𝒞_n}\psi )`$. Now, assuming the key estimate, $`G_{𝒞_n}E_n<ϵ`$, we see that

$`\left(2c_1{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{c_2}}\right)E_n\psi ^2c_2(E_{n1}+E_n)\psi ^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_1\gamma }}(\psi ,h_{𝒞_n}\psi ).`$
We sum over $`n`$ using $`\psi ^2=_{0n<N}E_n\psi ^2`$ from above and get

$$\left(2c_1\frac{ϵ^2}{c_2}2c_2\right)\psi ^2c_2\psi ^2\frac{1}{c_1\gamma }(\psi ,H_{[1,b]}\psi ).$$

Finally, we optimize the constants $`c_1,c_2`$ yielding $`c_1=1ϵ\sqrt{2},c_2=ϵ/\sqrt{2}`$. This proves the gap inequality. ∎

In all the upcoming proofs on the various gaps we use the same definition of subsets $`𝒞_n,\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ of $`[1,b]`$ and projections $`G_n,E_n`$. As usual $`y[1,b]`$ denotes the spot of the magnetic field. Let $`n_l,n_r`$ be some non-negative integers such that $`n_r+n_l1`$, and assume that $`n_r>0`$; the choice of $`n_l,n_r`$ in general will depend on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$. The idea behind the definition of $`𝒞_n`$ is that we cover the chain $`[1,b]`$ by adding points to an initially chosen interval $`𝒞_0=[yn_l,y+n_r]`$ in an alternating manner. First we add a point to the right of $`𝒞_0`$, then to the left until we reach the point 1. Then we add points only to the right of $`𝒞_{2(yn_l1)}`$ until we finish at $`b`$. More precisely, we define the sets $`C_n`$ in the following way:

###### DEFINITION III.3.

Let $`𝒞_0=[yn_l,y+n_r]`$, where we may assume that $`yn_l1byn_r`$ such that $`𝒞_0[1,b]`$. The intervals for $`n>0`$ are then $`𝒞_1=[y+n_r,y+n_r+1],𝒞_2=[yn_l1,yn_l],\mathrm{},𝒞_{2(yn_l1)}=[1,2],𝒞_{2(yn_l)1}=[2y+n_rn_l1,2y+n_rn_l],\mathrm{},𝒞_{b(n_l+n_r)1}=[b1,b]`$.

We start with the kink case.

###### PROPOSITION III.4 (Kink sector, $`B_1^2+B_2^2>0`$).

Let $`\psi `$ be orthogonal to the ground state of the kink Hamiltonian, $`H_{[1,b]}^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$, on a chain of length $`b`$. Then, there exists a strictly positive function $`g^+(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and a function $`0ϵ(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })<1/\sqrt{2}`$, which are both independent of $`b`$, such that the following gap inequality is satisfied

$`(\psi ,H_{[1,b]}^+(\stackrel{}{B})\psi )g^+(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })(1\sqrt{2}ϵ(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta }))^2\psi ^2.`$ (29)
###### Proof.

First we shift the ground state energy to be 0, and define the new Hamiltonian

$$H_{[1,b]}(\stackrel{}{B})=H_{[1,b]}^+(\stackrel{}{B})\frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{2}\mathrm{𝟏}.$$

With the set-up from Definition (III.3) we can write the Hamiltonian, $`H_{[1,b]}(\stackrel{}{B})`$, in the following form:

$`H_{[1,b]}(\stackrel{}{B})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{b(n_l+n_r)1}{}}}h_{𝒞_i}`$
using

$`h_{𝒞_i}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}H_{𝒞_0}(\stackrel{}{B})\hfill & \text{ for }& \hfill i=0\\ h_{xx+1}^+\hfill & \text{ for }& \hfill i>0\end{array},`$
where $`𝒞_i=[x,x+1]`$ for some $`1x<yn_l`$ or $`y+n_rx<b`$, and with $`h_{xx+1}^+`$ from (7).

We can express the gap conditions as

1. $`H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\stackrel{}{B})g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^+(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })(\mathrm{𝟏}G_0)`$, where $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^+(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the gap for the finite chain Hamiltonian, $`H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$.
2. $`h_{xx+1}^+=\mathrm{𝟏}G_{[xx+1]}`$ for $`1x<yn_l`$ and $`y+n_rx<b`$.

Let $`\gamma =\mathrm{min}\{g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^+(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta }),1\}`$ which is strictly positive. Finally, we need to verify the second condition in Assumption III.1, and define

$$C_n:=\underset{0\psi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n+1}}:E_n\psi =\psi }{sup}\frac{G_{𝒞_n}\psi }{\psi }.$$
(31)
So let $`\psi `$ satisfy

$$G_n\psi =\psi \text{and}G_{n+1}\psi =0.$$
(32)
First, let $`n=2m,0myn_l1`$; the case $`n2(yn_l)`$ is similar, and the case of odd $`1n<2(yn_l)`$ will be considered later.

Let $`\psi `$ be a ground state of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$, i.e. $`G_n\psi =\psi `$ such that $`G_{n+1}\psi =0`$. Then with the definition from (14)

$$\psi =\underset{i=yn_lm}{\overset{y+n_r+m}{}}\chi _i(z)\chi _{yn_r+m+1}^{}(z),$$

where $`\chi _x^{}(z)`$ is perpendicular to $`\chi _x(z)`$. Let us make some definitions and call $`f:=\frac{\stackrel{}{B}+B_3}{B_1iB_2}`$, $`\chi :=\chi _{y+n_r+m}(z)=|+fq^{n_rm}|`$, $`\chi ^{}:=\chi _{y+n_r+m}(z)=fq^{n_rm1}`$ $`||`$, and $`(1+q^2)^{1/2}|\xi =q||`$. Then,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_{𝒞_n}\psi ^2}{\psi ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{|\xi \xi |\chi \chi ^{}^2}{\chi \chi ^{}^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{1+q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+|f|^2q^{2(n_r+m+1)}}{1+|f|^2q^{2(n_r+m)}}}.`$
Let $`m=0`$, then we choose $`n_r`$ such that rhs is less than $`1/2`$. The condition for $`C_0<1/\sqrt{2}`$ is thus $`|f|q^{n_r}>1`$. By monotonicity it is clear that the condition, $`C_{n=2m}<1/\sqrt{2}`$, holds true for $`m0`$.

Now we come to odd integers, $`n=2m+1`$ with $`0myn_l1`$. Let $`\psi `$ satisfy $`G_n\psi =\psi `$, and $`G_{n+1}\psi =0`$, then $`\psi `$ is of the form $`\psi =\chi _{yn_lm1}^{}(z)_{i=yn_lm}^{y+n_r+m}\chi _i(z)`$. We have thus

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_{𝒞_n}\psi ^2}{\psi ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+|f|^2q^{2(n_l+m+1)}}{1+|f|^2q^{2(n_l+m)}}}.`$
Let $`m=0`$, then we choose $`n_l`$ such that rhs is less than $`1/2`$. This is accomplished if $`1>|f|q^{n_l}`$. By monotonicity, $`C_{n=2m+1}<1/\sqrt{2}`$ for $`m0`$. Our condition for the choice of $`n_l,n_r`$ is thus

$$q^{n_r}<\left|\frac{\stackrel{}{B}+B_3}{B_1iB_2}\right|<q^{n_l}.$$

###### REMARK III.5.

It is clear that there always exist integers $`n_l`$ and $`n_r`$ such that $`1>|f|q^{n_l}`$ and $`1<|f|q^{n_r}`$ are satisfied. Now suppose that $`q<\left|\frac{\stackrel{}{B}+B_3}{B_1iB_2}\right|<1`$, then we may choose $`n_l=0`$ and $`n_r=1`$. In this case, $`g^+(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })=g_2^+(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is found explicitly in Appendix B, see (38). If $`B_3=0`$, then one needs to choose $`n_l=n_r=1`$ and diagonalize a three-site Hamiltonian which we will not do here.

###### PROPOSITION III.6 (Droplet sector).

$`B_1^2+B_2^2>0`$. Let $`\psi `$ be orthogonal to the ground state of the droplet Hamiltonian, $`H_{[1,b]}^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})`$, on a chain of length $`b`$. Then, there exists a strictly positive function $`g^{++}(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and a positive function $`0ϵ(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })<1/\sqrt{2}`$, which are both independent of $`b`$, such that the following gap inequality is satisfied

$$(\psi ,H_{[1,b]}^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})\psi )g^{++}(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })(1\sqrt{2}ϵ(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta }))^2\psi ^2.$$
(33)
###### Proof.

First, we need to shift the ground state energy, and define a new Hamiltonian

$$H_{[1,b]}(\stackrel{}{B})=H_{[1,b]}^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})+\frac{1}{4}(B_1,B_2,B_3A)\frac{1}{4}A.$$

Using the sets from Definition (III.3) we have the decomposition

$`H_{[1,b]}(\stackrel{}{B})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{b(n_l+n_r)1}{}}}h_{𝒞_i},`$
with

$`h_{𝒞_i}=\{\begin{array}{cc}H_{𝒞_0}(\stackrel{}{B})\hfill & \text{ for }i=0\hfill \\ h_{xx+1}^+\hfill & \text{ for some }x\text{}1x<yn_l\hfill \\ h_{xx+1}^+\hfill & \text{ for some }x\text{}y+n_rx<b,\hfill \end{array}`$
depending on whether $`𝒞_i`$ is to left (right) of $`y`$. $`h_{xx+1}^+`$ and $`h_{xx+1}^+`$ are taken from equations (7), respectively (8). We have the following gap properties:

1. $`H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\stackrel{}{B})g_{𝒞_0}^{++}(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })(\mathrm{𝟏}G_0)`$, where $`g_{𝒞_0}^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})`$ is the gap for the Hamiltonian, $`H_{𝒞_0}(\stackrel{}{B})`$.
2. $`h_{xx+1}^+=\mathrm{𝟏}G_{[xx+1]}`$ for $`1x<yn_l`$.
3. $`h_{xx+1}^+=\mathrm{𝟏}G_{[xx+1]}`$ for $`y+n_rx<b`$.

We are left with verifying the key estimate (25). So let $`0\psi `$ satisfy $`G_n\psi =\psi `$ such that $`G_{n+1}\psi =0`$. If the interval $`C_{i+1}`$ is to the left of $`y`$ then we have the same situation as in the previous proof with the condition $`1>|f|q^{n_l}`$ and the slightly modified $`f=\frac{(B_1,B_2,B_3A)+B_3A}{B_1iB_2}`$.

If the interval $`C_{i+1}`$ is to the right of $`y`$, then we will arrive at the same condition for $`n_r`$, namely $`1>|f|q^{n_r}`$. This is true by symmetry but one can easily derive this in the very same way we did in the other case. ∎

###### REMARK III.7.

The same remarks are in order here for the droplet Hamiltonian. So let us suppose that $`\left|\frac{(B_1,B_2,B_3A)+B_3A}{B_1iB_2}\right|<1`$, or equivalently, $`AB_3`$, then we choose $`n_l=0`$ and $`n_r=1`$. In this case, $`g^{++}(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })=g_2^{++}(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is explicitly calculated in Appendix B, see (40).

###### PROPOSITION III.8 (Droplet sector).

Let $`B_1=B_2=0`$, and $`B<A`$. Let $`\psi `$ be orthogonal to the all spin-up ground state of the droplet Hamiltonian, $`H_{[1,b]}^{++}(0,0,B)`$, on a chain of length $`b3`$, and let $`g_3^+(B,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be the gap for the three-site Hamiltonian from eq (48). Then,

$$(\psi ,H_{[1,b]}^{++}(B)\psi )2g_3^+(B,\mathrm{\Delta })\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\frac{q}{q+q^1}}\right)^2\psi ^2.$$
(35)
###### Proof.

Again, we need to shift the ground state energy, and define a new Hamiltonian

$$H_{[1,b]}(B)=H_{[1,b]}^{++}(0,0,B)\frac{B}{2}\mathrm{𝟏}.$$

As before, we use the same decomposition of $`H_{[1,b]}(B)`$ into local Hamiltonians, $`h_{𝒞_i}`$. The first gap condition of $`𝒞_0`$ has to be changed into

$$H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(B)g_{𝒞_0}^+(B,\mathrm{\Delta })(\mathrm{𝟏}G_0).$$

We only need to compute

$$C_n:=\underset{0\psi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n+1}}:E_n\psi =\psi }{sup}\frac{G_{𝒞_n}\psi }{\psi }.$$

So let us take a (non-zero) vector $`\psi `$ such that $`G_n\psi =\psi `$ and $`G_{n+1}\psi =0`$. If $`𝒞_{n+1}`$ is to the left of $`y`$, then $`\psi =||\mathrm{}`$, and $`G_{𝒞_n}=\mathrm{𝟏}|\xi \xi |`$. Then

$$\frac{G_{𝒞_n}\psi ^2}{\psi ^2}=\frac{1}{1+q^2},$$

which is less than $`1/2`$, and $`(1\sqrt{2}ϵ)^2=2\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\frac{q}{q+q^1}}\right)^2`$.

By symmetry this is also the condition if $`𝒞_{n+1}`$ is to the right of $`y`$. More precisely, $`\psi =|\mathrm{}|`$, and $`G_{𝒞_n}=\mathrm{𝟏}|\zeta \zeta |`$ with $`(1+q^2)^{1/2}|\zeta =q||`$.

By choosing $`𝒞_0=[y1,y+1]`$, we have verified the statement. The three-site gap, $`g_3^+(B,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is calculated in Appendix B. ∎

## Appendix A Proof of Proposition II.1

###### Proof.

First, it is clear that the bounded perturbation $`V=\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{S}_y`$ can shift the ground state energy of $`H_0^+`$ by no more than its norm, $`j\stackrel{}{B}`$. We claim, and show below, that the product state $`\psi (z=\frac{\stackrel{}{B}+B_3}{B_1iB_2}q^y)`$, which is a ground state of $`H_0^+`$, is a also a ground state of $`V`$. Therefore, we have found a ground state of $`H_0^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$. That it is the unique ground state follows by combining two facts: 1) $`\psi (z)`$ is the unique kink state with this property, which we will show, and 2) the vectors $`\psi (z)`$, for arbitrary complex $`z`$, span the full ground state space of $`H_0^+`$ Gottstein and Werner ; Koma and Nachtergaele (1998) and there is gap to the rest of the spectrum Koma and Nachtergaele (1997); Koma et al. . So, it only remains to prove that among all vectors $`\psi (z)`$, there is a unique one that is a ground state and that the corresponding value of $`z`$ is as stated in the proposition.

Since $`\psi (z)`$ is of product form, and $`V`$ acts non-trivially only at site $`y`$, we are left to show that

$$\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{S}_y\chi _y(z)=j\stackrel{}{B}\chi _y(z).$$
(36)
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`\stackrel{}{B}=1`$. Then, $`zq^y=\frac{1+B_3}{B_1iB_2}`$. Now, checking all $`2j+1`$ vector components in (36) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _n(B_1+iB_2)w_{n+1}(zq^y)^{jn1}+nB_3w_n(zq^y)^{jn}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{n1}(B_1iB_2)w_{n1}(zq^y)^{jn+1}`$
$`=`$ $`jw_n(zq^y)^{jn},`$
with $`\rho _n=\sqrt{j(j+1)nn^2}`$, and for $`|n|j`$. This leads to the following equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _nw_{n+1}(1B_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{n1}w_{n1}(1+B_3)^2`$
$`nB_3w_n(1+B_3)`$
$`=`$ $`jw_n(1+B_3).`$
By a straightforward calculations one verifies that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _nw_{n+1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{n1}w_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`jw_n,`$
$`\rho _{n1}w_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`(j+n)w_n,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _nw_{n+1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{n1}w_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`nw_n.`$
This proves (36). ∎

## Appendix B Explicit diagonalizations of small-site spin $`1/2`$ Hamiltonians

### B.1 $`H_{12}^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$

Here we diagonalize the two-site Hamiltonian, $`H_{12}^+(\stackrel{}{B})`$, with magnetic field not parallel to $`z`$-axis at $`y=1`$. By the XX symmetry we may assume $`B_2=0`$. Since we already know two eigenvalues, namely, $`\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{B_1^2+B_3^2}`$, it is best to factor them out from the characteristic equation. Another way is to diagonalize the Hamiltonian restricted to the orthogonal complement of the two known eigenvectors. The Hamiltonian is of the form

$`2H_{[1,2]}^+(B_1,B_3)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}B_3& 0& B_1& 0\\ 0& 1A+B_3& \mathrm{\Delta }^1& B_1\\ B_1& \mathrm{\Delta }^1& 1+AB_3& 0\\ 0& B_1& 0& B_3\end{array}\right).`$
The characteristic polynomial, $`p`$, is equal to

$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(t^2B_3^2)(t^22t+2AB_32B_1^2B_3^2)`$
$`+`$ $`2B_1^2(tAB_3)+B_1^4.`$
We divide this polynomial by $`t^2B_1^2B_3^2`$ (Note that we have multiplied the Hamiltonian by two) obtaining

$$p(t)=(t^22tB_1^2B_3^2+2B_3A)(t^2B_1^2B_3^2).$$

The two eigenvalues we are looking for are thus

$$t_\pm =1\pm \sqrt{1+B_1^2+B_3^22B_3A}.$$

One can easily verify that

$$\sqrt{B_1^2+B_3^2}1\sqrt{1+B_1^2+B_3^22B_3A}.$$

Hence, the gap between the lowest eigenvalues of $`H_{[1,2]}^+(B_1,B_2,B_3)`$ is equal to

$$g_2^+(\stackrel{}{B})=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+\stackrel{}{B}^22B_3A}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{B},$$
(38)
which is a positive function.

### B.2 $`H_{[12]}^{++}(\stackrel{}{B}),B_1^2+B_2^2>0`$

The diagonalization of the two-site droplet Hamiltonian, $`H_{[12]}^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})`$, with the field at $`y=1`$ is very similar to the two-site kink Hamiltonian. We have

$`2H_{[12]}^{++}(B_1,B_3)A\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}B_3A& 0& B_1& 0\\ 0& 1+B_3& \mathrm{\Delta }^1& B_1\\ B_1& \mathrm{\Delta }^1& 1B_3& 0\\ 0& B_1& 0& AB_3\end{array}\right).`$
The characteristic polynomial, $`q`$, of the rhs is equal to

$`q(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(t^2(B_3A)^2)(t^22t2B_1^2B_3^2+A^2)`$
$``$ $`2B_1^2(tA^2)+B_1^4.`$
$`t=\pm \sqrt{B_1^2+(B_3A)^2}`$ are two roots and we factor them out from $`q(t)`$, and obtain

$`q(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(t^22tB_1^2B_3^2+A^2)(t^2B_1^2(B_3A^2)).`$
The two new eigenvalues of $`H_{[12]}^{++}(\stackrel{}{B})`$ are

$$t_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1+\stackrel{}{B}^2A^2}+A\right).$$

The gap above the ground state is therefore

$`g_2^{++}(\stackrel{}{B},\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(1\sqrt{1+\stackrel{}{B}^2A^2}`$ (40)
$`+\sqrt{B_1^2+B_2^2+(B_3A)^2}).`$
### B.3 $`H_{[13]}^{++}(0,0,B),B<A`$

Since in this case there is only a magnetic field in the $`z`$-direction we can easily diagonalize the three-site droplet Hamiltonian, $`H=H_{[13]}^{++}(0,0,B)`$, with the field in the middle at $`y=2`$. Then $`H`$ commutes with the symmetry $`S:S(u_{\sigma _1}u_{\sigma _2}u_{\sigma _3})=u_{\sigma _3}u_{\sigma _2}u_{\sigma _1}`$, where $`\sigma _i=\pm `$. We choose the following eigenbasis of $`S`$:

$`v_1`$ $`=`$ $`(1,0)(1,0)(1,0),`$
$`v_2`$ $`=`$ $`(0,1)(0,1)(0,1),`$
$`v_3`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,0)(1,0)(0,1)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(0,1)(1,0)(1,0),`$
$`v_4`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,0)(0,1)(0,1)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(0,1)(0,1)(1,0),`$
$`v_5`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,0)(1,0)(0,1)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(0,1)(1,0)(1,0),`$
$`v_6`$ $`=`$ $`(1,0)(0,1)(1,0),`$
$`v_7`$ $`=`$ $`(0,1)(1,0)(0,1),`$
$`v_8`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(0,1)(0,1)(1,0)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,0)(0,1)(0,1).`$
$`v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4`$ are eigenvectors of $`H`$ with eigenvalues $`e_1=\frac{B}{2}`$, $`e_2=A\frac{B}{2},e_3=\frac{1}{2}(A+1+B)`$ and $`e_4=\frac{1}{2}(A+1B)`$, respectively. What remains are two copies of the two-dimensional matrix (due to the symmetry $`S`$)

$`N(B)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}A+1+B& (\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta })^1\\ (\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta })^1& A+1B\end{array}\right).`$
The matrix $`N`$ is equal to $`H^{++}(B)`$ reduced to the span$`\{v_5,v_6\}`$, as well as to span$`\{v_7,v_8\}`$. The eigenvalues are equal to

$`e_5=e_7`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left(A+1\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^2+B^2}\right),`$ (42)
$`e_6=e_8`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left(A+1+\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^2+B^2}\right).`$ (43)
Notice that for $`B<\overline{B}=\frac{3A^24A+1}{4(1A)}`$,

$$e_1<e_5=e_7<e_2.$$
(44)
This says that the lowest energies in the total $`S^3`$-sectors are ordered (though not strictly) by their energy. The gap for $`BA`$ is equal to

$`g_3^+(B,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (48)
$`=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}\left(1+A\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^2+B^2}B\right)\hfill & \text{ for }& B\overline{B}\hfill \\ AB\hfill & \text{ for }& \overline{B}BA\hfill \end{array}.`$
## Appendix C Excitation $`_{}(B)`$

Here we calculate the lowest eigenvalue of $`\stackrel{~}{H}(B)=H_0^{++}+B(S_0^3\frac{1}{2})`$ in the sector with one overturned spin. Since we want to avoid complications from finite chain boundary effects, we prefer to treat the infinite volume case with the magnetic field at 0, say. We first take $`B0`$.

Let $`\psi =_xa_xS_x^{}|`$. Then, for $`\psi `$ being an eigenvector of $`\stackrel{~}{H}(B)`$ with energy $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, we have $`|S_x^+\stackrel{~}{H}(B)|\psi =\stackrel{~}{}a_x`$, and thus we get the equations

$`a_{x+1}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }(1)a_xa_{x1},\text{for}|x|>1`$ (49)
$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }(1\stackrel{~}{}+B)a_0a_1.`$ (50)
It turns out that in addition to the pure absolutely continuous spectrum of the discrete Laplacian (in the units here, it is the interval $`[1\mathrm{\Delta }^1,1+\mathrm{\Delta }^1]`$) there are two (a highest and a lowest) eigenvalue generated by the perturbation $`BS_0^3`$. Let

$$r_\pm =\mathrm{\Delta }(1\stackrel{~}{})\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2(1\stackrel{~}{})^21}$$

be the solutions to the characteristic polynomial. Then, all solutions of (49) are of the form $`a_x=\alpha _1r^x+\alpha _2r^x`$ for $`|x|>1`$. Notice that $`r_+=r_{}^1`$. We now look for the solution $`a_x=r^{|x|}`$ with $`r=r_{}`$ which produces an eigenvector. With this choice, we have $`|r_{}|<1`$, we insert this into (50). Then we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }B=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2(1\stackrel{~}{})^21},$$

from which we conclude $`\stackrel{~}{}_\pm (B)=1\pm \sqrt{B^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$. From the gap at $`B=0`$ we know Koma and Nachtergaele (1997) that $`\stackrel{~}{}(0)=1\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$. Thus, the correct solution is $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}(B)`$ which, for the original Hamiltonian of interest, namely $`H_0^{++}+BS_0^3`$, has to be shifted back by $`B/2`$.

Similarly, if $`B0`$, then we study $`\stackrel{~}{H}(B)=H_0^{++}+B(S_0^3+\frac{1}{2})`$ which amounts to replacing $`B`$ by $`B`$ in (49-50).

The lowest energy state of $`H_0^{++}+BS_0^3`$ in the sector with one overturned spin is thus

$$_{}(B)=1\sqrt{B^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}+\frac{1}{2}|B|.$$
(51)
###### Acknowledgements.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant # DMS-0070774. B.N. would like to thank the Dipartimento de Matematica of the Università de Bologna, where this work was initiated, for warm hospitality. We are indepted to Daniel Ueltschi for a very thorough reading of the manuscript and the figure in the introduction. W.S. wants to thank Shannon Starr for providing the matlab programs Starr (2001) with which many of the propositions in this article where tested, and dedicates this paper to the memory of his uncle Ernst.


text:
# Existence of the density of states for one-dimensional alloy-type potentials with small support

## 1. Model and results

We study spectral properties of families of Schrödinger operators on $`L^2()`$. The considered operators consist of a non-random periodic Schrödinger operator plus a random potential of Anderson or alloy type:

(1) $`H_\omega :=H_0+V_\omega ,H_0:=\mathrm{\Delta }+V_{per}.`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Laplace operator on $``$ and $`V_{per}L^{\mathrm{}}()`$ is a $``$-periodic potential. The random potential $`V_\omega `$ is a stochastic process of the following form

(2)
$$V_\omega (x)=\underset{k}{}\omega _ku(xk)$$

where $`\{\omega _k\}_k`$ is a collection of independent identically distributed random variables, called coupling constants. Their distribution has a bounded density $`f`$ with support equal to a bounded interval. The non-negative single site potential $`uL^{\mathrm{}}()`$ has compact support and an uniform positive lower bound on some open subset of $``$. The potential $`V:=V_{per}+V_\omega `$ is (uniformly in $`\omega `$) bounded, hence $`H_\omega `$ is a selfadjoint, lower semibounded operator on the Sobolev space $`W^{2,2}()`$. For any interval $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l:=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l(x):=[l/2,l/2]+x`$ we can restrict $`H_\omega `$ to $`L^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_l)`$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions. We denote the restriction by $`H_\omega ^l`$. It is again selfadjoint and lower semibounded and has discrete spectrum.

For $`\mu (A):=_Af(x)𝑑x`$ define the product measure $`:=_k\mu `$. We consider the collection $`\{\omega _k\}_k`$ as an element of the probability space $`(\mathrm{\Omega }=\times _k,)`$. The expectation w.r.t. $``$ is denoted by $`𝔼`$.

By the general theory of ergodic random Schrödinger operators  we know that there exists a $`\omega `$-independent set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`\sigma (H_\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for $``$-almost all $`\omega `$. In the same way the spectral components $`\sigma _{ac},\sigma _{sc}`$ and $`\sigma _{pp}`$ are non-random subsets of the real line. Moreover, there exists a non-random distribution function $`N`$ called the integrated density of states (IDS) which can be obtained by a macroscopic limit: Denote by

(3)
$$N_\omega ^l(E)=l^d\mathrm{\#}\{i|\lambda _i(H_\omega ^l)<E\}=l^dTrP_\omega ^l(]\mathrm{},E[)$$

the finite volume IDS or normalized eigenvalue counting function of $`H_\omega ^l`$. Here $`P_\omega ^l(]\mathrm{},E[)`$ denotes the spectral projection of $`H_\omega ^l`$ on the energy interval $`]\mathrm{},E[`$. Then for all continuity points $`E`$ of $`N`$:

(4)
$$N(E)=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}N_\omega ^l(E)\text{ }\text{-almost surely}.$$

Our main result reads:

###### Theorem 1 (Wegner estimate).

Let $`H_\omega `$ be as above. For any $`E`$ there exist a constant $`C`$ such that

(5)
$$𝔼\left[TrP_\omega ^l([Eϵ,E])\right]Cϵl,ϵ0.$$

Estimates of this type on the expectation value of the number of eigenvalues in a given energy interval go back to Wegner’s paper  where he considers the discrete analog of $`H_\omega `$ on $`l^2(^d)`$. Theorem 1 proves the Lipschitz-continuity of the averaged finite volume IDS. So this function has a derivative at almost all energy values $`E`$. Using (4) this implies

###### Corollary 2.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1 the IDS is Lipschitz continuous. Thus its derivative, the density of states $`dN/dE`$ exists for almost all $`E`$ and it is uniformly bounded on any interval $`]\mathrm{},E]`$.

By the Čebyšev inequality (5) implies

(6)
$$\left\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }\right|\sigma (H_\omega ^l)[Eϵ,E]\mathrm{}\}Cϵl,ϵ0.$$

For the application to the proof of localization only this form of the estimate is needed.

###### Theorem 3 (Localization).

Let $`H_\omega `$ be as in Theorem 1 and $`E\sigma (H_\omega )`$ any lower spectral edge. Then there exists an $`ϵ>0`$ such that $`H_\omega `$ has $``$-almost surely pure point spectrum in $`[E,E+ϵ]`$ with exponentially decaying eigenfunctions.

We thus recover a result from , whose proof uses different methods. In the present note we prove only Theorem 1, while the proof of Theorem 3 can be found in the Diploma thesis . It uses the multiscale analysis of Fröhlich and Spencer  in the version of von Dreifus and Klein . Apart from the Wegner estimate (5), a key ingredient is the Lifshitz asymptotics of the IDS derived by Mezincescu in  as well as a finite–infinite volume comparison lemma for the IDS \[15, Lem. 4.2\]. A detailed discussion of localization can be found e.g. in  and the literature cited there. Section 3.4 of this monograph shows that Theorem 3 can actually be strengthened to imply dynamical localization. For one-dimensional random operators there are several other techniques at disposal to prove localization, cf. e.g  and the references therein.

###### Remark 4.

By assumption we have some open set $`O`$ and $`\kappa >0`$ such that $`u\kappa \chi _O`$. For some $`s>0`$ the set $`O`$ contains a cube $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ of sidelength $`s`$. By shifting the origin of $``$ we can therefore assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ has its center at $`0`$ and thus $`u\kappa \chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(0)}.`$ Moreover, by rescaling $`f`$ and $`u`$ we assume $`\kappa =1`$. Note that by adding a part of the periodic potential to $`V_\omega `$ we may assume without loss of generality that the support of $`f`$ starts at $`0`$, i.e. $`suppf=[0,\omega _+]`$ for some $`\omega _+>0`$.

Recently there has been increased interest in Wegner estimates for single site potentials $`u`$ that change sign . However even for nonnegative $`u`$ with small support the situation is not clearly understood. By ”small support” we mean that

(7)
$$\underset{k}{}u(xk)$$

is not bounded away from zero by a positive constant. Such potentials in arbitrary space dimension are considered e.g. in . However, the derived Wegner estimates are valid only at spectral boundaries.111See, however, the recent .

Let us finish this section by mentioning that so far there is no Wegner estimate proven without the uniform positivity of $`|u|`$ on some open set. Namely, nothing is known in the case

(8)
$$0uL_c^2(),|\{x|u(x)>0\}|>0$$

where $`||`$ denotes Lebesgue measure. Property (8) implies the existence of some $`\kappa >0`$ such that $`U_\kappa :=\{x|u(x)>\kappa \}`$ has positive measure. However $`U_\kappa `$ need not contain an open set.

## 2. Proof of Theorem 1

Let us denote with $`\rho :[0,1]`$ a smooth, monotone function with $`\rho =1`$ on $`[ϵ,\mathrm{}[`$ and $`\rho =0`$ on $`]\mathrm{},ϵ]`$. The $`n`$-th eigenvalue of the operator $`H_\omega ^l`$ is denoted by $`E_n^l(\omega )`$. We estimate similarly as in \[10, page 509\]

$`𝔼\left[TrP_\omega ^l([Eϵ,E+ϵ])\right]{\displaystyle \mathrm{}\underset{k\mathrm{\Lambda }^+}{}f(\omega _k)d\omega _k\underset{n}{}_{2ϵ}^{2ϵ}𝑑\theta \rho ^{}(E_n^l(\omega )E+\theta )}.`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+:=\{k|suppu(k)\text{ intersects }\mathrm{\Lambda }_l\}`$ while $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}:=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$. The above line can be bounded using the estimates from Section 3 by

(9) $`C_1{\displaystyle \mathrm{}\underset{k\mathrm{\Lambda }^+}{}f(\omega _k)d\omega _k\underset{n}{}_{2ϵ}^{2ϵ}𝑑\theta \underset{j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{}\frac{\rho (E_n^l(\omega )E+\theta )}{\omega _j}}`$
$`=C_1{\displaystyle \underset{j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{}\underset{k\mathrm{\Lambda }^+j}{}f(\omega _k)d\omega _k\underset{n}{}_{2ϵ}^{2ϵ}𝑑\theta 𝑑\omega _jf(\omega _j)\frac{\rho (E_n^l(\omega )E+\theta )}{\omega _j}}.`$
using Beppo Levi’s theorem. Denote by $`H^l(j,\omega _+)`$ the operator $`H_\omega ^l`$ where the random variable $`\omega _j`$ has been set to its maximum value $`\omega _+`$, and similarly $`H^l(j,0)`$. The eigenvalues of the two above operators are abbreviated by $`E_n^l(j,\omega _+)`$, resp. $`E_n^l(j,0)`$. Using monotonicity we estimate from above the sum over $`n`$ in the second line of (9) by

(10)
$$f_{\mathrm{}}\underset{n}{}_{2ϵ}^{2ϵ}𝑑\theta \left\{\rho (E_n^l(j,\omega _+)E+\theta )\rho (E_n^l(j,0)E+\theta )\right\}$$

Let the single site potential $`u`$ be supported in $`[R,R]`$. Introduce now the operators $`H_\omega ^{l,}`$, $`=D,N`$ which coincide with $`H_\omega ^l`$ up to additional Dirichlet, respectively Neumann b.c. at the points $`jR`$ and $`j+R`$. Their eigenvalues are $`E_n^{l,}(j,\omega _+)`$. By Dirichlet-Neumann bracketing, the braces in (10) are bounded by

(11) $`\rho (E_n^{l,D}(j,\omega _+)E+\theta )\rho (E_n^{l,N}(j,0)E+\theta ).`$
As $`H_\omega ^{l,}=H_\omega ^{j,}H_\omega ^{c,}`$ is a direct sum of two operators acting on $`L^2(jR,j+R)`$ and $`L^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_l[jR,j+R])`$ the sum over the terms in (11) can be separated:

(12) $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\rho (E_n^{c,D}(j,\omega _+)E+\theta )\rho (E_n^{c,N}(j,0)E+\theta ).`$
(13) $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\rho (E_n^{j,D}(j,\omega _+)E+\theta )\rho (E_n^{j,N}(j,0)E+\theta ).`$
Since the the difference in the boundary conditions is a rank two perturbation in resolvent sense (see e.g. ), the interlacing theorem says that the first term in (12) is bounded by $`\rho (E_{n+2}^{c,N}(j,\omega _+)E+\theta )`$. A telescoping argument bounds the whole sum in (12) by twice the total variation of $`\rho `$, which is equal to one. The sum in (13) we estimate by

$$\begin{array}{c}Tr\left[\chi _{[E3ϵ,\mathrm{}[}(H_\omega ^{j,D}(j,\omega _+))\chi _{]E+3ϵ,\mathrm{}[}(H_\omega ^{j,N}(j,0))\right]\hfill \\ \hfill 2+Tr\left[\chi _{[E3ϵ,\mathrm{}[}(H_\omega ^{j,D}(j,0)+u_j_{\mathrm{}})\chi _{]E+3ϵ,\mathrm{}[}(H_\omega ^{j,D}(j,0))\right]C_2,\end{array}$$

where the constant $`C_2`$ depends only on $`E+3ϵ,V_{per},\omega _+`$ and $`u`$, cf. . The proof of Theorem 1 is finished by the the upper bound on (9):

$`C_1f_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{}\underset{k\mathrm{\Lambda }^+j}{}f(\omega _k)d\omega _k(C_2+2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}ϵl}=4C_1(C_2+2)f_{\mathrm{}}ϵl.`$
## 3. Single site potentials of small support

In this section we prove the uniform lower bound

(14)
$$\underset{k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{}\frac{E_n^l(\omega )}{\omega _k}C_4(I)>0$$

for all eigenvalues $`E_n^l`$ of $`H_\omega ^l`$ inside a bounded energy interval $`I`$. The bound $`C(I)`$ does not depend on the sidelength $`l`$ and on the eigenvalue index $`n`$. By the chain rule

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (E_n^l(\omega )E+\theta )}{\omega _k}}=\rho ^{}(E_n^l(\omega )E+\theta ){\displaystyle \underset{k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_n^l(\omega )}{\omega _k}}`$
(14) implies the estimate needed in Section 2:

$`\rho ^{}(E_n^l(\omega )E+\theta )C_4(I)^1{\displaystyle \underset{j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (E_n^l(\omega )E+\theta )}{\omega _j}}.`$
To infer the lower bound (14) set $`S=_{k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k))`$ and apply the Hellman-Feynman theorem. For a normalized eigenfunction $`\psi _n`$ corresponding to $`E_n^l(\omega )`$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_n^l(\omega )}{\omega _k}}={\displaystyle \underset{k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{}}\psi _n,u(k)\psi _n{\displaystyle _S}|\psi _n|^2.`$
If the integral on the rightern side would extend over the whole of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$ it would be equal to $`1`$ due to the normalization of $`\psi _n`$. A priori the integral over $`S`$ could be much smaller, but the following Lemma shows that this is not the case.

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`I`$ be a bounded interval and $`s>0`$. There exists a constant $`c>0`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k)}}|\psi |^2c{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(k)}}|\psi |^2`$
for all $`l`$, all $`k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_l`$ and for any eigenfunction $`\psi `$ corresponding to an eigenvalue $`EI`$ of $`H_\omega ^l`$.

Thus $`_S|\psi |^2c_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}|\psi |^2`$ with the same constant as in Lemma 5.

###### Proof.

For

(15)
$$\varphi (y):=_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k+y)}𝑑x|\psi (x)|^2=_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k)}𝑑x|\psi (xy)|^2$$

one has

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}\varphi (y)\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k)}}𝑑x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}\psi (xy)\right]\overline{\psi (xy)}+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k)}}𝑑x\psi (xy){\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}\overline{\psi (xy)}\right|`$
$``$ $`2\psi _{L^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k+y))}\psi ^{}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k+y))}.`$
Sobolev norm estimates (e.g. Theorems 7.25 and 7.27 in ) imply

$$\psi ^{}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k+y))}C_5\psi _{L^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k+y))}+\psi ^{\prime \prime }_{L^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k+y))}.$$

By the eigenvalue equation we have

(16)
$$\left|\frac{}{y}\varphi (y)\right|C_6\psi _{L^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k+y))}^2=C_6\varphi (y),C_6=C_6(VE_{\mathrm{}}).$$

Gronwall’s Lemma implies $`\varphi (y)\mathrm{exp}(C_6|y|)\varphi (0)`$ and thus

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(k)}}|\psi |^2e^{C_6}s^1{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s(k)}}|\psi |^2.`$
At the Conference in Taxco we learned from J.M. Combes that there is a article in preparation together with P. Hislop and F. Klopp with slightly weaker results as in this work applying also to the higher dimensional case .