format: text

text:
# Remarks on actions on compacta by some infinite-dimensional groups

## 1 Introduction

Let a topological group act continuously by uniform isomorphisms on a uniform space $`X`$. (One important situation is where $`X=G/H`$ is a homogeneous factor-space of $`G`$, equipped with the right uniform structure.) A compact space $`K`$, equipped with a continuous action of $`G`$, is called an equivariant compactification of $`G`$ if there is a uniformly continuous mapping $`i:XK`$ with dense image, commuting with the action of $`G`$. Compactifications of this type always exist, moreover every such $`X`$ admits a maximal $`G`$-equivariant compactification.

Here we discuss some ways in which equivariant compactifications can be used to study minimal actions and amenability of some infinite-dimensional groups. The latter term is used in an intuitive sense, to refer to concrete topological groups of importance in mathematics, such as, for instance, the full unitary groups of the infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Some of these groups form infinite-dimensional Lie groups in one or other sense.

A topological group $`G`$ is called amenable if every compact $`G`$-space admits an invariant (regular Borel) probability measure. In particular, $`G`$ is extremely amenable if every compact $`G`$-space contains a fixed point (that is, admits an invariant Dirac measure). No non-trivial locally compact group is extremely amenable, but among infinite-dimensional groups extreme amenability is not uncommon.

A continuous action of $`G`$ on a compact space $`X`$ is called minimal if the $`G`$-orbit of every point $`xX`$ is everywhere dense in $`X`$. Every topological group $`G`$ possesses the universal minimal flow ($`G`$-space), $`(G)`$, such that every other minimal $`G`$-flow is a factor of $`(G)`$. For locally compact groups the size of the universal minimal flow is so immense that no constructive description is ever likely. (Cf. e.g. ) It comes as a surprise then that the universal minimal flow of at least some infinite-dimensional groups is manageable.

Moreover, it turns out that extremely amenable groups can be used as a tool in order to give an explicit description of the universal minimal flow $`(G)`$ even in cases where the flow is nontrivial. If a topological group $`G`$ contains a ‘large’ extremely amenable subgroup $`H`$, then the universal minimal flow of $`G`$ is a subflow of the equivariant compactification of the homogeneous space $`G/H`$, which is a much smaller object than $`G`$ itself. In some cases, it enables one to describe $`(G)`$. Such a technique was first used by the present author in order to prove that the circle $`𝕊^1`$ forms the universal minimal flow for the group of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of $`𝕊^1`$. Here we will use the argument in order to give a more transparent proof of the recent remarkable result by Glasner and Weiss, who have characterized the universal minimal flow of the infinite symmetric group $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$, equipped with the standard Polish topology, as the compact space of all linear orders on $``$. (The proof proposed here has an advantage that it extends the result beyond the separable case, to groups of permutations of an arbitrary infinite rank.)

Let us get back to the concept of an amenable topological group. A finer scale of ‘shades of amenability’ is given by the following concept: say that a homogeneous factor-space $`G/H`$ (or just a uniform $`G`$-space $`X`$) is amenable in the sense of Eymard and Greenleaf if the maximal equivariant compactification of $`G/H`$ supports an invariant probability measure.

Here is an important particular case. A unitary representation $`\pi `$ of a group $`G`$ in a Hilbert space $``$ is amenable in the sense of Bekka if there is a state on the von Neumann algebra of all bounded operators on $``$, which is invariant under the action of $`G`$ by conjugations. It turns out that a representation $`\pi `$ is amenable if and only if the unit sphere in the Hilbert space of the representation, upon which $`G`$ acts by isometries, is an amenable uniform $`G`$-space.

In general, it is more difficult to verify amenability of infinite-dimensional groups than that of locally compact or discrete ones, because some tools present in the locally compact case are missing. For example, if a locally compact group $`G`$ contains a closed copy of the free non-abelian group on two generators, then $`G`$ is non-amenable, because amenability is inherited by closed subgroups of locally compact groups. Not so beyond the locally compact case: in fact, every topological group embeds into an extremely amenable group as a topological subgroup. Another example: a locally compact group $`G`$ is amenable if and only if every strongly continuous unitary representation of $`G`$ is amenable. For infinite-dimensional groups, neither implication need hold.

Here we show that in some situations the property of amenability is, in a sense, ‘partly’ inherited by topological subgroups.

We extend Bekka’s concept as follows. Say that a representation $`\pi `$ of a group in a Banach space $`E`$ by bounded linear operators is amenable if the projective space of $`E`$ (upon which the group $`G`$ acts by isometries in a natural way) is an amenable $`G`$-space.

We show that every uniformly continuous representation of an amenable topological group is amenable. Since Eymard–Greenleaf amenability of an action (in particular, the Bekka amenability of a representation) of a group $`G`$ is clearly inherited by every subgroup $`H<G`$, we obtain a new possible way to prove that a topological group $`G`$ is non-amenable: to find a uniformly continuous representation $`\pi `$ of $`G`$ and a subgroup $`H<G`$ such that the restriction of $`\pi `$ to $`H`$ is apriori non-amenable.

The most natural class of infinite-dimensional groups admitting uniformly continuous representations are Banach–Lie groups and algebras of operators. As an illustration of our methods, we show that the general linear groups $`\mathrm{GL}(L_p)`$ and $`\mathrm{GL}(\mathrm{}_p)`$, where $`1p<\mathrm{}`$, are non-amenable if equipped with the uniform operator topology. Even for Hilbert spaces this seems to be a new result, answering a question that Pierre de la Harpe asked me back in 1999.

## 2 Some abstract nonsense

### 2.1 Uniformities and compactifications

For a topological group $`G`$, we denote by $`𝒰_r(G)`$ the Bourbaki-right (= Ellis-left) uniform structure, whose entourage basis consists of the sets

$$V_r=\{(x,y)G\times Gxy^1V\},$$

and $`V`$ runs over the neighbourhood filter, $`𝒩_G`$, of $`G`$ at the neutral element $`e_G`$. The symbol $`\mathrm{RUCB}(G)`$ will denote the $`C^{}`$-algebra of all Bourbaki right uniformly continuous bounded complex-valued functions on $`G`$, equipped with the supremum norm.

Denote by $`𝒮(G)`$ the Samuel compactification of the uniform space $`(G,𝒰_r(G))`$, that is, the maximal ideal space of $`\mathrm{RUCB}(G)`$. This object (together with the distinguished point, $`e=e_G`$) is the well-known greatest ambit of $`G`$. () In other words, $`𝒮(G)`$ is a $`G`$-ambit (a compact $`G`$-space with a distinguished point having dense orbit), admitting a continuous equivariant map, preserving the distinguished points, to any other $`G`$-ambit.

Any two minimal compact $`G`$-subspaces of $`𝒮(G)`$ (whose existence is guaranteed by Zorn’s lemma) are isomorphic as $`G`$-spaces. (This is a non-trivial fact, because there is, in general, no canonical isomorphism.) This unique minimal $`G`$-space is denoted $`(G)`$ and called the universal minimal $`G`$-space (or $`G`$-flow).

Let $`H`$ be a (closed or not) subgroup of a topological group $`G`$. The Bourbaki-right uniform structure $`𝒰_r(G/H)`$ is by definition the finest uniform structure on $`G/H`$ making the factor-map

$$GggHG/H$$

uniformly continuous if $`G`$ is equipped with the uniformity $`𝒰_r(G)`$. In general, the uniformity $`𝒰_r(G/H)`$ need not be separated even if $`H`$ is a closed subgroup, and the topology generated on $`G/H`$ by $`𝒰_r(G/H)`$ may be coarser than the factor-topology on $`G/H`$.

The standard action of $`G`$ on $`G/H`$ on the left extends to the action of $`G`$ on the Samuel compactification $`\sigma (G/H,𝒰_r(G/H))`$. (Notice that the Samuel compactification is always a separated uniform space, and so the compactification map need not be an embedding.) We will denote the latter compact space by $`𝒮_H(G)`$.

The Banach $`G`$-module $`C(𝒮_H(G))\mathrm{UCB}(G/H,𝒰_r(G/H))`$ embeds into the Banach $`G`$-module $`\mathrm{UCB}(𝒮(G))`$. Since the action of $`G`$ on the latter is well-known to be continuous, the same is true of the action of $`G`$ on the former Banach space (and $`C^{}`$-algebra), and as a corollary, the action of $`G`$ on the compact space $`𝒮_H(G)`$ is continuous. With the image of the coset $`H`$ as the distinguished point, $`𝒮_H(G)`$ is thus a $`G`$-ambit.

### 2.2 Amenable groups and homogeneous spaces

A topological group $`G`$ is called amenable if one of the following equivalent conditions holds. All measures are assumed to be regular Borel.

1. There is a left-invariant mean on the space $`\mathrm{RUCB}(G)`$.
2. There is an invariant probability measure on the greatest ambit $`𝒮(G)`$.
3. There is an invariant probability measure on every compact space upon which $`G`$ acts continuously.
4. There is an invariant probability measure on $`(G)`$.

See e.g. (, Chapter 12).

A topological group $`G`$ is called extremely amenable if one of the following equivalent conditions is true.

1. There is a multiplicative left-invariant mean on $`\mathrm{RUCB}(G)`$.
2. There is a fixed point in $`𝒮(G)`$.
3. There is a fixed point in every compact space upon which $`G`$ acts continuously. (The fixed point on compacta property.)
4. The universal minimal flow $`(G)`$ is a singleton.

Even if this property looks exceedingly strong (in particular, no non-trivial locally compact group can possess it), now we know numerous examples and entire classes of infinite-dimensional groups that are extremely amenable. The following list is not exhaustive: the unitary group of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space with the strong operator topology; the group of classes of measurable maps from the unit interval to the circle rotation group, or, more generally, to any amenable locally compact group, equipped with the topology of convergence in measure; the group of homeomorphisms of the closed (or open) unit interval with the compact-open topology; the group of measure-preserving transformation of the standard Lebesgue measure space with the weak topology, as well as the group of measure class preserving transformations; the group of isometries of the Urysohn universal metric space;  unitary groups of certain von Neumann algebras and $`C^{}`$-algebras.

If $`H`$ is a subgroup of a topological group $`G`$, then the homogeneous space $`G/H`$ (or the pair $`(G,H)`$) is Eymard–Greenleaf amenable if there is a left-invariant mean on the space $`\mathrm{UCB}(G/H,𝒰_r(G/H))`$. Equivalently, there exists an invariant probability measure on the ambit $`𝒮_H(G)`$.

More generally, one can talk of amenability of an action of a group $`G`$ on a uniform space $`X`$ by uniform isomorphisms. In such a situation, the topology on $`G`$ becomes irrelevant.

###### Definition 2.1.

Let a group $`G`$ act by uniform isomorphisms on a uniform space $`X`$. Say that the action of $`G`$ is Eymard–Greenleaf amenable, or that $`X`$ is an Eymard–Greenleaf amenable uniform $`G`$-space, if there exists a $`G`$-invariant mean on the space $`\mathrm{UCB}(X)`$. Equivalently (by the Riesz representation theorem), there exists an invariant probability measure on the Samuel compactification $`\sigma X`$.

For example, in the case $`X=(G/H,𝒰_r(G/H))`$ the above notion coincides with Eymard–Greenleaf amenability.

The following simple observation lends the concept some gravitas.

###### Proposition 2.2.

Every continuous action of an amenable locally compact group $`G`$ on a uniform space $`X`$ by uniform isomorphisms is amenable.

###### Proof.

Choose a point $`x_0X`$ and set, for each $`f\mathrm{UCB}(X)`$ and every $`gX`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(g):=f(gx_0).$$

The function $`\stackrel{~}{f}:G`$ so defined is bounded (obvious) and continuous, as the composition of two continuous maps: the orbit map $`ggx_0`$ and the function $`f:X`$. Also, for each $`hG`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{{}_{}{}^{h}f}(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{h}f(gx_0)`$
$`=`$ $`f(h^1gx_0)`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}(h^1g)`$
$`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{h}\stackrel{~}{f}(g),`$
that is, the operator

$$\alpha :\mathrm{UCB}(X)f\stackrel{~}{f}\mathrm{CB}(G)$$

is $`G`$-equivariant. (Here $`\mathrm{CB}(G)`$ denotes the $`C^{}`$-algebra of all bounded complex-valued continuous functions on $`G`$.) It is also clear that $`\alpha `$ is positive, linear, bounded of norm one, and sends the function $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Since $`G`$ is amenable and locally compact, there exists a left-invariant mean $`\varphi `$ on the space $`\mathrm{CB}(G)`$, and the composition $`\varphi \alpha `$ is a $`G`$-invariant mean on $`\mathrm{UCB}(X)`$. ∎

This result is no longer true for more general topological groups, cf. a discussion in Subsection 4.3.

### 2.3 More on the ambit $`𝒮_H(G)`$

Let $`G`$ act continuously on a compact space $`X`$. Suppose there is a point $`\xi X`$ stabilized by $`H`$. The orbit map

$$Ggg\xi X$$

then factors through the factor-space $`G/H`$, because for each $`hH`$ one has $`(gh)\xi =g(h\xi )=g\xi `$. Denote the resulting map $`G/HX`$ by $`i`$. Since the orbit map $`GX`$ is uniformly continuous relative to the uniformity $`𝒰_r(G)`$, the inductive definition of the uniformity $`𝒰_r(G/H)`$ implies that $`i`$ is uniformly continuous as well. Consequently, $`i`$ extends in a unique way to a continuous equivariant map $`𝒮_H(G)X`$. We conclude that $`𝒮_H(G)`$, with the distinguished point $`H`$ (the coset of $`e_G`$), is the universal compact $`G`$-ambit with the property that $`H`$ stabilizes the distinguished point.

In general, the compact $`G`$-space $`𝒮_H(G)`$ need not be minimal. The corresponding examples are easy to construct.

However, notice the following.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`G`$ be a topological group, and let $`H`$ be a closed subgroup. Suppose the topological group $`H`$ is extremely amenable. Then any minimal compact $`G`$-subspace, $``$, of $`𝒮_H(G)`$ is a universal minimal compact $`G`$-space.

###### Proof.

Let $`X`$ be an arbitrary minimal compact $`G`$-space. Because of extreme amenability of $`H`$, there is a point $`\xi X`$, stabilized by $`H`$. In view of the universality property of $`𝒮_H(G)`$ described above, there is a morphism of $`G`$-spaces $`j:𝒮_H(G)X`$ (taking $`H`$ to $`\xi `$). Because of minimality of $`X`$, the restriction of the map $`j`$ to $``$ is onto $`X`$. We are done. ∎

###### Example 2.4.

Let $`G=\mathrm{Homeo}_+(𝕊^1)`$, the group of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of the circle with the usual topology of uniform convergence, and let $`H`$ be the isotropy subgroup of any chosen element $`\theta 𝕊^1`$. Then $`H`$ is isomorphic to the topological group $`\mathrm{Homeo}_+[0,1]`$ and therefore extermely amenable. The right uniform factor-space $`G/H`$ is easily verified to be isomorphic to the circle $`𝕊^1`$ with the unique compatible uniformity, and therefore the ambit $`𝒮_H(G)`$ is $`𝕊^1`$ itself with the distinguished point $`\theta `$. Since it is obviously a minimal $`G`$-space, we conclude by Lemma 2.3: $`𝕊^1`$ is the universal minimal $`\mathrm{Homeo}_+(𝕊^1)`$-space. This fact, established by the present author in (), was probably the first instance where a non-trivial universal minimal flow of any topological group has been computed explicitely.

Here is another consequence of Lemma 2.3, showing that the class of extremely amenable group is closed under extensions, similarly to the class of amenable groups. This result was established (through a direct proof) during author’s discussion with Thierry Giordano and Pierre de la Harpe in April 1999, and is, thus, a joint result.

###### Corollary 2.5.

Let $`H`$ be a closed normal subgroup of a topological group $`G`$. If topological groups $`H`$ and $`G/H`$ are extremely amenable, then so is $`G`$.

###### Proof.

In this case, the ambit $`𝒮_H(G)`$ is just the greatest ambit $`𝒮(G/H)`$ of the factor-group, and it contains a fixed point since $`G/H`$ is extremely amenable. Now we conclude by Lemma 2.3. ∎

## 3 The universal minimal flow of the infinite symmetric group

Here we use Lemma 2.3 in order to reprove a result by Glasner and Weiss describing the universal minimal flow of the infinite symmetric group. An idea of this new proof was briefly sketched by us in (, Exercises 11 and 12), but appears here in any detail for the first time.

Let $`X`$ be an infinite set (countable or not), and let $`G=𝔖_X`$ denote the full group of permutations of $`X`$, equipped with the topology of simple convergence on $`X`$ viewed as a discrete space. For countable $`X`$, this topology is well known to be Polish (separable completely metrizable).

Denote by $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$ the set of all linear orders on $`X`$, equipped with the (compact) topology induced from $`\{0,1\}^{X\times X}`$. (Here a linear order $``$ is identified with the characteristic function of the corresponding relation $`\{(x,y)X\times X:xy\}`$.)

The group $`𝔖_X`$ acts on $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$ by double permutations:

$$(x^\sigma y)(\sigma ^1x\sigma ^1y)$$

for all $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$, $`\sigma 𝔖_X`$, and $`x,yX`$. This action is continuous and minimal (an easy check).

A linear order $``$ on $`X`$ is called $`\omega `$-homogeneous if every finite subset $`AX`$ can be mapped onto any other subset $`BX`$ of the same cardinality by an order-preserving bijection (order automorphism) of $`(X,)`$. In particular, it follows that $``$ is a dense order without least and greatest elements. (In the case where $`X`$ is countable, this condition is equivalent to $`\omega `$-homogeneity.)

Every infinite set $`X`$ supports an $`\omega `$-homogeneous linear order. (Here is one proof: $`X`$ can be given the structure of an ordered field, because it has the same cardinality as $`(X)`$, the purely transcendental field extension of $``$, and the field $`(X)`$ is well known to be linearly orderable. And every linearly ordered field is $`\omega `$-homogeneous due to the existence of piecewise-linear monotone maps.) Choose an arbitrary such order on $`X`$, say $``$.

Let $`H=\mathrm{Aut}()`$ be the subgroup of all permutations preserving the linear order $``$. The left factor-space $`G/H=𝔖_X/\mathrm{Aut}()`$ can be identified with a certain collection of linear orders on $`X`$, namely those obtained from $``$ by a permutation. Denote this collection by $`\mathrm{LO}_{}`$. Thus, $`G/H\mathrm{LO}_{}`$ embeds into $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$.

As every compact space, $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$ supports a unique compatible uniform structure. It induces a totally bounded uniform structure on $`\mathrm{LO}_{}`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

The uniform structure on $`G/H\mathrm{LO}_{}`$, induced from the compact space $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$, coincides with the right uniform structure $`𝒰_r(𝔖_X/\mathrm{Aut}())`$.

###### Proof.

We want to show that the uniform structure on $`G/H`$, induced from the compact space $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$, is the finest uniform structure making the quotient map

$$𝔖_X𝔖_X/\mathrm{Aut}()\mathrm{LO}_{}$$

right uniformly continuous. The proof consists of two parts.

(1) The map $`\sigma ^\sigma `$ is uniformly continuous.

Let $`F=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}\omega `$ be any finite subset, determining the following standard basic entourage of the uniformity of $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$:

$$W_F:=\{(<_1,<_2)\mathrm{LO}_X\times \mathrm{LO}_X:<_1|_F=<_2|_F\}.$$

Denote by $`\mathrm{St}_F`$ the common isotropy subgroup of all $`x_iF`$, that is,

$$\mathrm{St}_F:=\{\sigma 𝔖_X\sigma (x_i)=x_i,i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\}.$$

This $`\mathrm{St}_F`$ is an open subgroup of $`𝔖_X`$ and in particular a (standard) open neighbourhood of the identity. As such, it determines an element of the Bourbaki-right uniformity $`𝒰_r(𝔖_X)`$:

$$V_F:=\{(\sigma ,\tau )𝔖_X\times 𝔖_X\sigma \tau ^1\mathrm{St}_F\}.$$

In other words, $`(\sigma ,\tau )V_F`$ iff for all $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ one has $`\tau ^1x_i=\sigma ^1x_i`$.

If now $`(\sigma ,\tau )V_F`$, then for every $`i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ one has

$`x_i^\sigma x_j`$ $``$ $`\sigma ^1x_i\sigma ^1x_j`$
$``$ $`\tau ^1x_i\tau ^1x_j`$
$``$ $`x_i^\tau x_j,`$
meaning that the restrictions of the orders $`{}_{}{}^{\sigma }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }`$ to $`F`$ coincide, and thus $`(^\sigma ,^\tau )W_F`$.

(2) The image of the entourage $`V_F`$ under the (Cartesian square of) the map $`\sigma ^\sigma `$ is exactly all of $`W_F(\mathrm{LO}_{}\times \mathrm{LO}_{})`$.

Indeed, suppose $`(<_1,<_2)W_F(\mathrm{LO}_{}\times \mathrm{LO}_{})`$, that is, $`<_1`$ and $`<_2`$ are linear orders on $`X`$, obtained from $``$ by suitable permutations, and whose restrictions to a finite subset $`F`$ coincide.

Choose two permutations $`\sigma ,\tau 𝔖_X`$ such that $`<_1=^\sigma `$ and $`<_2=^\tau `$. For each $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, one necessarily has

$$\sigma ^1x_i=\tau ^1x_i$$

(if it were not so, then the orders $`{}_{}{}^{\sigma }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }`$ would differ on $`F`$). Consequently, $`(\sigma ,\tau )V_F`$.

Now we conclude that every uniform structure, $`𝒰`$, on $`\mathrm{LO}_{}`$ that makes the map

$$(𝔖_X,𝒰_r)\sigma ^\sigma (\mathrm{LO}_{},𝒰)$$

uniformly continuous, must be coarser than the restriction of the uniformity of $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$ to $`\mathrm{LO}_{}`$. Indeed, for every element $`W𝒰`$ there is, by the assumed uniform continuity of the above map, a finite $`F\omega `$ with the image of $`V_F`$ contained in $`W`$, that is, with $`W_FW`$. This accomplishes the argument. ∎

###### Lemma 3.2.

The ambit $`𝒮_{\mathrm{Aut}()}(𝔖_X)`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$, with the distinguished element $``$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 3.1, $`(𝔖_X/\mathrm{Aut}(),𝒰_r(𝔖_X/\mathrm{Aut}())`$ embeds into $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$ as a uniform subspace and an $`𝔖_X`$-subspace. Also, $`\mathrm{LO}_{}`$ is everywhere dense in $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$. As a consequence, the Samuel compactification of the precompact uniform space $`(𝔖_X/\mathrm{Aut}(),𝒰_r(𝔖_X/\mathrm{Aut}())`$ is simply its completion, that is, $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$. ∎

An application of Lemma 2.3 (bearing in mind that the topological group $`H=\mathrm{Aut}()`$ is extremely amenable ) yields immediately:

###### Theorem 3.3 (Glasner and Weiss ).

The compact space $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$ forms the universal minimal $`𝔖_X`$-space. ∎

###### Remark 3.4.

The original theorem by Glasner and Weiss was established in the case of countable $`X`$. Our proof remains true for symmetric groups of arbitrary infinite rank.

###### Remark 3.5.

The group $`𝔖_X`$ contains, as a dense subgroup, the union of the directed family of permutation subgroups of finite rank, and consequently it is amenable. As a result, there is an invariant probability measure on the compact set $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$. Glasner and Weiss have proved that such a measure is unique, that is, the action by $`𝔖_X`$ on $`(𝔖_X)\mathrm{LO}_X`$ is uniquely ergodic.

Their argument can be made quite elementary (no Ergodic Theorem!) as follows. Let $`\mu `$ be a $`𝔖_X`$-invariant probability measure on $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$. If $`FX`$ is a finite subset, then every linear order, $`<`$, on $`F`$ determines a cylindrical subset

$$C_<:=\{\mathrm{LO}_X:|_F=<\}\mathrm{LO}_X.$$

Every two sets of this form, corresponding to different orders on $`F`$, are disjoint and can be taken to each other by a suitable permutation. As there are $`n!`$ of such sets, where $`n=|F|`$, the $`\mu `$-measure of each of them must equal $`1/n!`$. Consequently, the functional $`𝑑\mu `$ is uniquely defined on the characteristic functions of cylinder sets $`C_<`$, which functions are continuous and separate points, because sets $`C_<`$ are open and closed and form a basis of open subsets of $`\mathrm{LO}_X`$. Now the Stone–Weierstrass theorem implies uniqueness of $`𝑑\mu `$ on all of $`C(\mathrm{LO}_X)`$.

###### Remark 3.6.

Every extremely amenable subgroup $`H`$ of $`𝔖_X`$ is contained in one of the subgroups of the form $`\mathrm{Aut}()`$. (Indeed, $`H`$ must possess a fixed point in the space $`LO_X`$, that is, preserve a linear order $``$ on $`X`$.)

At the same time, not every subgroup of the form $`\mathrm{Aut}()`$ is extremely amenable. For example, if the linear order $``$ is such that for some cover of $`X`$ by three disjoint convex subsets $`A,B,C`$ one has $`A<B<C`$, $`A`$ and $`C`$ are densely ordered, and $`B`$ has type $``$, then the group $`\mathrm{Aut}()`$ is topologically isomorphic to the product of three groups of order automorphisms, and since $`\mathrm{Aut}(B)`$ is not extremely amenable, neither is $`\mathrm{Aut}()`$.

On the other hand, a similar construction can be used to produce examples of groups of type $`\mathrm{Aut}()`$ which are extremely amenable even if the order $``$ is not dense (admits gaps).

###### Example 3.7.

The tame topology on the group $`U(\mathrm{})=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}U(n)`$ is the topology of simple convergence on the sphere $`𝕊(\mathrm{})=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝕊^n`$ (the intersection of the unit sphere of $`\mathrm{}_2`$ with the direct limit space $`^{\mathrm{}}`$), viewed as discrete. Thus, $`U(\mathrm{})`$ receives the subgroup topology from $`𝔖_{𝕊(\mathrm{})}`$. This topology is of considerable interest in representation theory of the infinite unitary group, where unitary representations strongly continuous with regard to the tame topology are called tame representations.

As a consequence of the Remark 3.6, the group $`U(\mathrm{})`$ with the tame topology is not extremely amenable: indeed, it is easy to see that no linear order on $`𝕊(\mathrm{})`$ is preserved by all operators from $`U(\mathrm{})`$. Thus, the universal minimal flow $`(U(\mathrm{})_{tame})`$ is nontrivial.

###### Remark 3.8.

Let a group $`G`$ act by uniform isomorphisms on a uniform space $`X`$. The pair $`(G,X)`$ has the Ramsey–Dvoretzky–Milman property if for every bounded uniformly continuous function $`f`$ from $`X`$ to a finite-dimensional Euclidean space, every finite $`FX`$, and each $`\epsilon >0`$ there is a $`gG`$ such that the oscillation of $`f`$ on the translate $`gF`$ is less than $`\epsilon `$. This concept links extreme amenability with Ramsey theory, because a topological group $`G`$ is extremely amenable if and only if every continuous transitive action of $`G`$ by isometries on a metric space has the Ramsey–Dvoretzky–Milman property.

The statement in Example 3.7 can be strengthened: a result by Graham on the so-called sphere-Ramsey spaces implies that already the pair $`(U(\mathrm{}),𝕊(\mathrm{}))`$, where $`𝕊(\mathrm{})`$ is equipped with the discrete ($`\{0,1\}`$-valued) metric, does not have the Ramsey–Dvoretzky–Milman property.

This sort of dynamical properties, formulated for appropriate groups of affine transformations, is linked to the central open question of Euclidean Ramsey theory: is every finite spherical metric space Ramsey?

## 4 Amenable representations

### 4.1 The projective space

Let $`E`$ be a (complex or real) Banach space. Denote by $`_E`$ the projective space of $`E`$. If we think of $`_E`$ as a factor-space of the unit sphere $`𝕊_E`$ of $`E`$, then $`_E`$ becomes a metric space via the rule

$$d(x,y)=inf\{\xi \zeta :\xi ,\zeta 𝕊_{},p(\xi )=x,p(\zeta )=y\},$$

where $`p:𝕊_E_E`$ is the canonical factor-map. Notice that the infimum in the formula above is in fact minimum. The proof of the triangle inequality is based on the invariance of the norm distance on the sphere under multiplication by scalars. The above metric on the projective space is complete.

Let $`T\mathrm{GL}(E)`$ be a bounded linear invertible operator on a Banach space $`E`$. Define a mapping $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ from the projective space $`_E`$ to itself as follows: for every $`\xi 𝕊_E`$ set

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(p(\xi ))=p\left(\frac{T(\xi )}{T(\xi )}\right).$$

The above definition is clearly independent on the choice of a representative, $`\xi `$, of an element of the projective space $`x_E`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

The mapping $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is a uniform isomorphism (and even a bi-Lipschitz isomorphism) of the projective space $`_E`$.

###### Proof.

It is enough to show that $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is uniformly continuous, because $`\stackrel{~}{TS}=\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and so $`\stackrel{~}{T^1}=\stackrel{~}{T}^1`$. Let $`x,y_E`$, and let $`\xi ,\zeta 𝕊_E`$ be such that $`p(\xi )=x`$, $`p(\zeta )=y`$, and $`\xi \zeta =d(x,y)`$. Both $`T(\xi )`$ and $`T(\zeta )`$ are bounded below by $`T^1^1`$, and therefore

$`d(\stackrel{~}{T}(x),\stackrel{~}{T}(y))`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}T^1T(\xi )T(\zeta )`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}T^1T\xi \zeta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}T^1Td(x,y).`$
Let us recall the following notion from theory of transformation groups.

###### Definition 4.2.

Let a group $`G`$ act by uniform isomorphisms on a uniform space $`X=(X,𝒰_X)`$. The action is called bounded (or else motion equicontinuous) if for every $`U𝒰_X`$ there is a neighbourhood of the identity, $`Ve_G`$, such that $`(x,gx)U`$ for all $`gV`$ and $`xX`$.

Notice that every bounded action is continuous.

###### Example 4.3.

The action of $`\mathrm{GL}(E)`$ on the unit sphere $`𝕊_E`$ (and moreover the unit ball) of a Banach space $`E`$ is bounded, by the very definition of the uniform operator topology.

###### Lemma 4.4.

The correspondence

$$\mathrm{GL}(E)T\stackrel{~}{T}$$

determines an action of the general linear group $`\mathrm{GL}(E)`$ on the projective space $`_E`$ by uniform isomorphisms. With respect to the uniform operator topology on $`\mathrm{GL}(E)`$, the action is bounded.

###### Proof.

The first part of the statement is easy to check using Lemma 4.1. As to the second, if $`T𝕀<\epsilon `$, then for every $`\xi 𝕊_E`$

$`\stackrel{~}{T}(x)x`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}T^1T(x)x`$
$`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \epsilon }{2(1\epsilon )}}.`$
### 4.2 Extension of Bekka’s amenability

We want to reformulate the concept of an amenable representation in the sense of Bekka in order to present a natural extension of it.

Let $`\pi `$ be a unitary representation of a group $`G`$ in a Hilbert space $``$. One says that $`\pi `$ is amenable  if there exists a state, $`\varphi `$, on the von Neumann algebra $`()`$ of all bounded operators on the space $``$ of representation, which is invariant under the action of $`G`$ by inner automorphisms: $`\varphi (\pi (g)T\pi (g)^1)=\varphi (T)`$ for every $`TB()`$ and every $`gG`$.

The group $`G`$ acts on the unit sphere $`𝕊_{}`$ by isometries, and it was shown by the author that a unitary representation $`\pi `$ of a group $`G`$ in a Hilbert space $``$ is amenable if and only if $`𝕊_{}`$ is an amenable uniform $`G`$-space in the sense of our Definition 2.1, that is, there exists a $`G`$-invariant mean on the space $`\mathrm{UCB}(𝕊_{})`$ or, equivalently, an invariant probability measure on the Samuel compactification of the sphere $`𝕊_{}`$.

While the implication $``$ is based on some results obtained by Bekka using deep techniques by Connes, the implication $``$ is elementary. We need to reproduce it here.

$``$ Let $`\psi `$ be a $`G`$-invariant mean on $`\mathrm{UCB}(𝕊_{})`$. Every bounded linear operator $`T`$ on $``$ defines a bounded uniformly continuous (in fact, even Lipschitz) function $`f_T:𝕊_{}`$ by the rule

$$𝕊_{}\xi f_T(\xi ):=T\xi ,\xi .$$

Now set $`\varphi (T):=\psi (f_T)`$. This $`\varphi `$ is a $`G`$-invariant state on $`()`$. $``$

Notice that the function $`f_T`$ in the proof above is symmetric: for every $`\lambda `$, $`|\lambda |=1`$, and each $`\xi 𝕊_\pi `$, one has $`f_T(\lambda \xi )=f_T(\xi )`$. In other words, $`f_T`$ is constant on the preimages of $`p`$. Consequently, $`f_T`$ factors through a function $`\stackrel{~}{f}_T`$ on the projective space $`_{}`$; clearly, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_T`$ is also uniformly continuous and bounded. It means that the above proof only uses the existence of a $`G`$-invariant mean on the function space $`\mathrm{UCB}(_{})`$.

On the other hand, the Banach space (and $`G`$-module) $`\mathrm{UCB}(_{})`$ admits an obvious equivariant embedding into $`\mathrm{UCB}(𝕊_{})`$; namely, it can be identified with the Banach $`G`$-submodule of all functions symmetric in the above sense. The restriction of a $`G`$-invariant mean from $`\mathrm{UCB}(𝕊_{})`$ to $`\mathrm{UCB}(_{})`$ is again a $`G`$-invariant mean.

We have thus established the following.

###### Theorem 4.5.

A unitary representation $`\pi `$ of a group $`G`$ in a Hilbert space $``$ is amenable if and only if the projective space $`_{}`$ is an Eymard–Greenleaf amenable uniform $`G`$-space. ∎

The advantage of this reformulation is that it allows for an extension of the concept of an amenable representation to group representations by bounded linear operators that are not necessarily unitary.

###### Definition 4.6.

Say that a representation $`\pi `$ of a group $`G`$ by bounded linear operators in a normed space $`E`$ is amenable if the action of $`G`$ by uniform isometries on the projective space $`_E`$, associated to $`\pi `$ as in Lemma 4.4, is Eymard–Greenleaf amenable in the sense of Definition 2.1.

###### Theorem 4.7.

Let $`G`$ be a locally compact group, and let $`\mu `$ be a quasi-invariant measure on $`G`$. Let $`1p<\mathrm{}`$. The left quasi-regular representation of $`G`$ in $`L_p(\mu )`$ is amenable if and only if $`G`$ is amenable.

###### Proof.

The left quasi-regular representation, $`\gamma `$, of $`G`$ in $`L_p(\mu )`$ (cf. e.g. ) is given by the formula

$${}_{}{}^{g}f(x)=\left(\frac{d(\tau g^1)}{d\tau }\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}f(g^1x),$$

where $`d/d\tau `$ is the Radon-Nykodim derivative. It is a strongly continuous representation by isometries. Necessity ($``$) thus follows at once from Proposition 2.2.

To prove sufficiency ($``$), assume $`\gamma `$ is amenable. Then there exists an invariant mean, $`\varphi `$, on $`\mathrm{UCB}(𝕊_p)`$, where $`𝕊_p`$ stands for the unit sphere in $`L_p(\mu )`$. For every Borel subset $`AG`$, define a function $`f_A:𝕊_p`$ by letting for each $`\xi 𝕊_p`$

$$f_A(\xi )=\xi \chi _A^p,$$

where $`\chi _A`$ is the characteristic function of $`A`$. The function $`f_A`$ is bounded and uniformly continuous on $`𝕊_p`$. For every $`gG`$,

$`{}_{}{}^{g}f_{A}^{}(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`f_A\left({}_{}{}^{g^1}\xi \right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _A}\left|{}_{}{}^{g^1}\xi (x)\right|^p𝑑\mu (x)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _A}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu g}{d\mu }}\left|\xi (gx)\right|^p𝑑\mu (x)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{gA}}\left|\xi (y)\right|^p𝑑\mu (y)`$
$`=`$ $`f_{gA}(\xi ),`$
that is, $`{}_{}{}^{g}f_{A}^{}=f_{gA}`$. It is now easily seen that $`m(A):=\varphi (f_A)`$ is a finitely additive left-invariant measure on $`G`$, vanishing on locally null sets, and so $`G`$ is amenable. ∎

### 4.3 Uniformly continuous representations

In contrast with Proposition 2.2, even a strongly continuous unitary representation of an amenable non-locally compact topological group need not be amenable. The simplest example is the standard representation of the full unitary group $`U()_s`$ of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, equipped with the strong topology. It is not amenable because it contains, as a subrepresentation, the left regular representation of a free nonabelian group, which is not amenable. (The left regular representation of a locally compact group $`G`$ is amenable if and only if $`G`$ is amenable, cf. also Theorem 4.7.)

A part of the story here is that when a topological group $`G`$ acts continuously by uniform isomorphisms on a uniform space $`X`$, the resulting representation of $`G`$ by isometries in $`\mathrm{UCB}(X)`$ need not be continuous. (This is the case, for instance, in the same example $`G=U()_s`$, $`X=𝕊_{}`$.) Equivalently, the extension of the action of $`G`$ to the Samuel (uniform) compactification $`\sigma X`$ is discontinuous, and therefore one cannot deduce the existence of an invariant measure on $`\sigma X`$ from the assumed amenability of $`G`$.

Here is a simple case where the continuity of action is assured.

###### Lemma 4.8.

Suppose a topological group $`G`$ acts in a bounded way on a uniform space $`X`$. Then the resulting representation of $`G`$ in $`\mathrm{UCB}(X)`$, as well as the action of $`G`$ on $`\sigma X`$, are both continuous.

###### Proof.

Since $`G`$ acts on $`\mathrm{UCB}(X)`$ by isometries, it is enough to show that the mapping $`Gg^gf\mathrm{UCB}(X)`$ is continuous at identity. By a given $`\epsilon >0`$, choose a $`U𝒰_X`$ using the uniform continuity of $`f`$, and a symmetric neighbourhood $`Ve_G`$ so that $`|f(x)f(y)|<\epsilon `$ whenever $`(x,y)U`$ and $`(x,gx)U`$ once $`gV`$ and $`xX`$. Now for each $`xX`$, $`|f(x)f(g^1x)|\epsilon `$ once $`gV`$, that is, $`f^gf_{sup}<\epsilon `$, and we are done.

Now recall that the Samuel (maximal uniform) compactification of $`X`$ is the maximal ideal space of $`\mathrm{UCB}(X)`$. It is a simple observation (which was made, for instance, by Teleman) that a representation of a topological group by isomorphisms of a commutative $`C^{}`$-algebra is strongly continuous if and only if the associated action of $`G`$ on the maximal ideal space is continuous. ∎

The following three corollaries are immediate.

###### Corollary 4.9.

Let a topological group $`G`$ act in a bounded way on a uniform space $`X`$. If $`G`$ is amenable, then $`X`$ is an Eymard–Greenleaf amenable uniform $`G`$-space. ∎

###### Corollary 4.10.

Let $`\pi `$ be a uniformly continuous representation of a topological group in a Banach space $`E`$. If $`G`$ is amenable, then $`\pi `$ is an amenable representation. ∎

###### Corollary 4.11.

Let $`E`$ be a Banach space, and let $`G`$ be a topological subgroup of $`\mathrm{GL}(E)`$ (equipped with the uniform operator topology). If $`H`$ is a subgroup of $`G`$ and the restriction of the standard representation of $`\mathrm{GL}(E)`$ in $`E`$ to $`H`$ is non-amenable, then $`G`$ is a non-amenable topological group. ∎

### 4.4 Groups of operators

###### Theorem 4.12.

The general linear groups $`\mathrm{GL}(L_p)`$ and $`\mathrm{GL}(\mathrm{}_p)`$, $`1p<\mathrm{}`$, with the uniform operator topology are non-amenable.

###### Proof.

Both spaces $`L_p`$ and $`\mathrm{}_p`$ can be realized as $`L_p(\mu )`$, where $`\mu `$ is a quasi-invariant measure on a non-amenable locally compact group, $`H`$. (For instance, $`H=\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ for the continuous case and $`H=\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ for the purely atomic one.) Identify $`H`$ with an (abstract, non-topological) subgroup of $`\mathrm{GL}(L_p(\mu ))`$ via the left quasi-regular representation, $`\gamma `$. The restriction of the standard representation of $`\mathrm{GL}(L_p(\mu ))`$ to $`H`$ is $`\gamma `$, which is a non-amenable representation (Theorem 4.7), and Corollary 4.11 applies. ∎

It is interesting to compare the above result with the following.

###### Theorem 4.13.

The isometry group $`\mathrm{Iso}(\mathrm{}_p)`$, $`1p<\mathrm{}`$, $`p2`$, equipped with the strong operator topology, is amenable, but not extremely amenable.

###### Proof.

The isometry groups in question, as abstract groups, have been described by Banach in his classical 1932 treatise  (Chap. XI, §5, pp. 178–179). For $`p>1`$, $`p2`$ the group $`\mathrm{Iso}(\mathrm{}_p)`$ is isomorphic to the semidirect product of the group of permutations $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the countable power $`U(1)^{}`$ (in the complex case) or $`\{1,1\}^{}`$ (in the real case). Here the group of permutations acts on $`\mathrm{}_p`$ by permuting coordinates, while the group of sequences of scalars of absolute value one acts by coordinate-wise multiplication. The semidirect product is formed with regard to an obvious action of $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`U(1)^{}`$ (in the real case, $`\{1,1\}^{}`$).

The strong operator topology restricted to the group $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the standard Polish topology, and restricted to the product group, it is the standard product topology. Thus, $`\mathrm{Iso}(\mathrm{}_p)𝔖_{\mathrm{}}U(1)^{}`$ (correspondingly, $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}\{1,1\}^{}`$) is the semidirect product of a Polish group with a compact metric group. Since $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ is an amenable topological group, so is $`\mathrm{Iso}(\mathrm{}_p)`$. Since the non-extremely amenable group $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a topological factor-group of $`\mathrm{Iso}(\mathrm{}_p)`$, the latter group is not extremely amenable either. ∎

###### Remark 4.14.

Using the description of the universal minimal flow of $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ due to Glasner and Weiss discussed in Section 3, as well as some standard means of uniform topology, one can show that the universal minimal flow of the topological group $`\mathrm{Iso}(\mathrm{}_p)`$ is homeomorphic to the product of the compact space $`\mathrm{LO}_{\mathrm{}}`$ of all linear orders on the natural numbers with the compact group $`U(1)^{}`$ (complex case) or $`\{1,1\}^{}`$ (real case). This compact space is equipped with a skew product action:

$$(\sigma ,f)(,g)=(^\sigma ,f^\sigma g),$$

where $`{}_{}{}^{\sigma }g(n)=g(\sigma ^1n)`$. Again, this action is uniquely ergodic. We leave the details out.

###### Remark 4.15.

By contrast, for $`p=2`$ the unitary group of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space with the strong operator topology is extremely amenable. This is due to Gromov and Milman.

We conjecture that the groups $`\mathrm{Iso}(L_p)`$, $`1p<\mathrm{}`$, with the strong operator topology are all extremely amenable.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Joshua Leslie and Thierry Robart for their hospitality during the conference on Infinite Dimensional Lie Groups in Geometry and Representation Theory and for their patience during the preparation of this volume. Stimulating conversations with Thierry Giordano, Eli Glasner, Pierre de la Harpe, and Michael Megrelishvili are acknowledged. The present research has been supported by the Marsden Fund of the Royal Society of New Zealand through the grant project ‘Geometry of high-dimensional structures: dynamical aspects.’


text:
# 𝑆𝑟𝐶𝑢₂(𝐵𝑂₃)₂: A Unique Mott Hubbard Insulator ^{†∗}

## 1 Introduction

Quantum spin systems are of great current interest, as shown by this symposium, with roots in two distinct sources. On the one hand the theory of model systems providing a rich variety of possibilities, and on the other, the field of synthetic materials, which has generated a vast number of systems, often close to theoretical models. As a result of this interplay, several interesting systems have been made in the laboratory, challenging our understanding by producing not only the expected, but also on occasion, the unexpected. Such a system that has caught attention recently is $`SrCu_2(BO_3)_2`$, a two dimensional $`S=1/2`$ isotropic Heisenberg antiferromagnet in two dimensions on a particular lattice with the property that it is solvable exactly for the ground state. Indeed it was solved two decades ago  by Sutherland and one of us. In this article we summarize the story so far, and also explore possible interesting physics that could arise if this system is doped.

The situation of exactly solvable models in the area of statistical mechanics is rather limited. There is a general feeling that the special models are non-generic and rare, and hence somewhat ornamental. Enlightened opinion has been more positive, and indeed the role of some solvable models is very well recognized. In contrast, the situation in condensed matter physics is very positive. The interaction between new systems, new phenomena and novel concepts has been rewarding. The table below gives a few examples of popular systems, their realizations and the unique concepts associated with them.

| Year | Model Systems | Realization | New Concepts |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1930 | one dimensional Heisenberg Bethe AFM | CPC, CuO chains | Quantum Disorder, Spinons |
| 1968 | one dimensional Majumdar Ghosh AFM | (approximate mapping) $`CuGeO_3`$ | Broken Discrete Symmetries and Spinons |
| 1969-87 | one dimensional $`1/r^2`$ Calogero, Sutherland, Haldane, Shastry systems | Parametric Correlations in Quantum Chaos | Spinons, Unusual Statistics |
| 1969 | one dimensional Hubbard Model | Benzene, Annulenes | Spin Charge Separation, Holons, Spinons, SC Fluctuations from repulsion, Mott Hubbard Insulating state |
| 1988 | one dimensional Spin-1 Heisenberg AFM, Affleck, Kennedy, Lieb and Tasaki chain | Ni Chains, NENP | Haldane Spin Gap |
| 1990 | one dimensional n leg Heisenberg Ladders | Vanadates $`CaV_nO_{2n+1}`$ | Integer vs non integer phenomena, Superconductivity from doping Insulators |
| 1981 | two dimensional S=1/2 Shastry Sutherland model | $`SrCu_2(BO_3)_2`$ | Dimer states, Magnetization Plateaus… |

The $`1/r^2`$ system in this table is different from the rest in that the physical realization comes from the world of quantum chaos, the continuum model is the description of parametric correlations in chaotic systems. The sole two dimensional system in the list is the main concern of this article. It has for long been unique in its very existence as a two dimensional member of the family of solvable models. It is particularly surprising since it is a model with essential simplicity as evidenced by the absence of crossed bonds. It is now even more remarkable in that nature finds a way of fulfilling the conditions for solvability in the compound $`SrCu_2(BO_3)_2`$. We discuss the origin of the model, its discovery in real life, some recent interesting developments in the physical properties, and some possible future directions.

### 1.1 Origin of the model

In view of the enormous current interest in the problem, and also questions from colleagues, it may not be inappropriate to say a few words on the Shastry Sutherland (SS) model on a special lattice, and how it came about. In 1980, I (BSS) joined the University of Utah as a junior faculty member in the group consisting of Professors D C Mattis and B Sutherland. After an inspiring talk from Professor J R Schrieffer on polyacetylene, I mentioned to Professor Sutherland that a clear magnetic analog of polyacetylene ground state is the Majumdar Ghosh (MG) model, the one dimensional Heisenberg with a second neighbour interaction half as strong as the first. Professor Majumdar, my PhD advisor at TIFR in Bombay earlier, had invented this model in an effort to go beyond the Bethe nearest neighbour antiferromagnet ( AFM). The model was well known to me, in spite of rather wise discouragement by Majumdar from working on Exactly Solvable models, as a discipline unconnected with traditional topics in Solid State and Many Body Physics, in view of the almost zero probability of finding a new one! I remember being surprised that Sutherland, already then a sensei in the area of exactly solvable systems, had not come across this model! In that characteristically American way, there was no gap between learning of a new thing and getting excited and plunging into. I also caught the excitement that I had carried, but so far resisted (!). We first came up with the soliton excitations of the MG model, the so called spinons, as isolated unpaired spin 1/2 propagating objects in the midst of a sea of singlet dimerized spins. These were identical to the solitons of Schrieffer in spirit, but fractionalized the spin degrees of freedom rather than charge. Such excitations have since become a paradigm in the post High Tc language of strongly correlated systems, where the fixed singlets of MG give way to dancing singlets, the Resonating Valence Bond States envisioned by Anderson.

In an effort to go beyond one dimension to higher dimensions, we tried various things. It was clear that a decomposition into triangles was the key to the MG model, and there was no essential reason why this had to be only one dimensional. The general point made was clear, the search for Integrable systems in higher dimensions is not very rewarding, the conditions for integrability seem hard to satisfy in higher than one dimension, however, the search for exactly solvable models ( for the ground state) is more promising a priori. In a $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert space there is a huge number ( $`d^2/2`$)of, in general, non commuting operators that simultaneously share a given eigenstate, for example the dimer covering, and the search boils down to states and operators that satisfy the somewhat subjective criterion of “naturalness”. As a result we pondered for several weeks on likely systems such as the two dimensional triangular lattice, where it became clear that no dimer like states work since the triangles share bonds with more than one other triangle. One needed a lattice where for a given triangle, no more than one bond is shared with another. This line of thinking led to the SS lattice shown in Fig.1(a).

The proof of the ground state is simple and worth repeating if only briefly. The Hamiltonian can be written as a sum over triangles

$$H=J\mathrm{\Sigma }_tH_t=J(\underset{<i,j>}{}\stackrel{}{S}_i.\stackrel{}{S}_j+2\alpha _{SS}\underset{<l,m>}{}\stackrel{}{S}_l.\stackrel{}{S}_m)$$
(1)
where the subscript $`t`$ refers to triangles, with $`H_t=\alpha _{SS}\stackrel{}{S}_1.\stackrel{}{S}_2+(\stackrel{}{S}_1+\stackrel{}{S}_2).\stackrel{}{S}_3`$, $`\alpha _{SS}`$ is the bond strength parameter, sites $`1,2`$ refer to the two sites on the diagonal and $`3`$ the third site. Here and later we will denote the “dimer” bonds by $`l,m`$ and the non dimer nearest neighbours as $`i,j`$. The first, and remarkable point is that the dimer state $`\psi =_{l<m}[l,m]`$ is an eigenstate of $`H`$. Here the product runs over all dimers on the lattice, which must provide a covering of the lattice ( i.e. every lattice point must occur once and only once in the product). This happens because we can rearrange the operation of the Hamiltonian into two classes of terms, the wanted and the unanted terms. The wanted terms isolate the spin interactions on the dimer spins. Remarkably all unwanted terms have the form $`\stackrel{}{S}_j.(\stackrel{}{S}_1+\stackrel{}{S}_2)[1,2]`$, for appropriate indices, which vanishes on using the singlet property. By Rayleigh Ritz variational principle $`E_{dimer}E_0`$, but by the Anderson decomposition strategy we have a lower bound $`E_0N_te_t`$. Happily the upper and lower bounds coincide for $`\alpha _{SS}1`$, and we are guaranteed that this is the ground state. Later work improves this lower bound on $`\alpha _{SS}`$ somewhat to $`0.74`$.

These dimer ground states in two dimensions turn out to be surprisingly robust, for example the coupling constant $`\alpha _{SS}`$ is determined by an inequality rather than an equality, so there is an entire phase where the dimer states are the ground state, unlike the one dimensional case where one has a solution at isolated points only. This clearly greatly increases the probability of finding such models realized in nature, whereas in one dimension we should only expect proximities. Further the ground state is insensitive to the spin space isotropy of the underlying Hamiltonian, and one has the strange situation where the ground state has a greater symmetry than of the Hamiltonian! The phrase “superstability”  describes this kind of robustness shared by most of the dimer ground state systems. An example of robustness comes from later in the story, where we find that the ground state of stacks of the SS lattice, rotated by $`\pi /2`$ and coupled by vertical spin interactions, a model that describes the real 3-d material $`SrCu_2(BO_3)_2`$, “magically” manages to have the dimer state as the true ground state!

### 1.2 The system $`SrCu_2(BO_3)_2`$

Almost two decades later, Kageyama and coworkers at the ISSP in Tokyo found that $`SrCu_2(BO_3)_2`$, synthesized earlier in 1991 by Smith and Keszler, had very unusual properties. The spin $`1/2`$ moments of Copper living in well isolated two dimensional layers seemed to lock up into singlets, and a clear spin gap behaviour was observed by NMR. They concluded that this is a unique system, the first truly two dimensional spin gapped system with $`S=1/2`$. The data was analyzed by Mihayara and Ueda (MU), who realized that the physical system was describable by an exactly solvable model. They proposed the model, found its solution, and then realized that it was essentially (topologically) the same model as SS, but looked different due to the details of the lattice. The Copper lattice is shown in Fig.1(c), and by opening up the angle $`\theta `$ continuously, one reaches the SS lattice ( with $`\theta =\pi /2`$ ). An intermediate value of $`\theta =\pi /4`$ in Fig.1(b) aids the imagination. Changing the angle $`\theta `$ clearly preserves the orthogonality of the “dimer” bonds but changes the bond length relative to the inter dimer bond lengths. This is crucial, since the criterion for solvability $`\alpha _{SS}0.74`$ becomes realizable only in this picture. A nice visualization of this deformation is available courtesy Dr H Kageyama at http://www.issp.u-tokyo.ac.jp/labs/mdcl/ueda/kage/head.html. The Hamiltonian is written by MU and some recent papers as $`H=J[\alpha _{MU}_{i<j}\stackrel{}{S}_i.\stackrel{}{S}_j+_{l<m}\stackrel{}{S}_l.\stackrel{}{S}_m]`$, with $`J^{}J\alpha _{MU}`$, and hence we clearly have $`\alpha _{SS}\alpha _{MU}=\frac{1}{2}`$. The current estimates of ($`J,\alpha _{MU}`$) using experimental data on $`SrCu_2(BO_3)_2`$ range from  ($`85^0K,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.635}`$) to  ($`71.5^0K,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.603}`$). Thus $`\alpha _{SS}0.78`$ is perilously close to, but on the safe side of the phase boundary at $`0.74`$.

### 1.3 Recent Developments

We next mention a few of the very large number of papers that have been written recently, with apologies in advance for possible incompleteness. After the discovery of the spin gap, neutron scattering has confirmed the absence of magnetic LRO and inelastic scattering has given clear indication of a flat dispersionless triplet excitation mode at about 3 meV, as well as of many branches of dispersing bound states of triplet excitations. NMR experiments were the first to show the spin gap at about 30 K. ESR experiments show the presence of a second gap at about 4.7 meV which implies a substantial binding energy of two triplets. Raman studies show a singlet bound state at about 3.7 meV . The magnetic exchange constants, as mentioned are in the 60-80 K range. This is convenient for exploring with available pulsed high magnetic field experiments, which reveal the surprising existence of magnetic plateaus at $`M/M_s=1/4,1/3,1/8..`$. There is interesting data on the effect of magnetic excitations on phononic thermal conductivity.

Thus a large set of experiments have already been done, and provide many constraints on the theory. We should mention that the knowledge of the exact solution of the ground state does not give much insight into the excitations in this class of systems. One knows that in general terms, the singlet dimers can be broken into triplets, and that isolated triplets find it hard to propagate on the SS lattice due to its topology. This leads to flat bands of triplet excitations, i.e. very massive objects, consistent with neutron data. Pairs of triplets, however, escape the topological constraints, much as holes in the Nèel Antiferromagnet, and move about quite freely. Thus one has kinetic binding and the bound state has substantial dispersion.

In a sense the unexpected and new physics so far has been the presence of these plateaus. These are unique in that they are the first two dimensional plateaus seen, and have attracted considerable interest. Several possible scenarios have been suggested to explain these. One picture is that of massive triplet excitations acting as hardcore bosons, that hop as well as interact. The effective interactions are strong due to large mass, and Wigner crystallization is proposed to explain the plateaus. Alternatively one can view this plateau formation as the Quantum Hall Effect of hard core bosons, and a Chern Simons type field theory provides a fair description. The structure of the Hofstadter spectrum on the SS lattice is reflected in the plateaus. At the moment it is not easy to reach a conclusion as to the best interpretation, especially since the experiments do not show plateaus that have anything like the precision of the Quantum Hall Effect.

The phase diagram at zero field has come in for close scrutiny by several authors, using series expansion ideas, rigorous bounds, large N field theories, as well as effective field theories of bosonic dimers. Exotic and unusual intermediate phases are suggested by these studies, including a “topologically ordered phase with deconfined $`S=1/2`$ spinons, which should give rise to an exotic superconductor with anomalous flux properties under doping”. An early paper by Albrecht and Mila discusses the transition between the dimer and AFM phases using Schwinger Bosons, and concludes that it should be first order. A qualitatively new intermediate spin liquid phase with power law correlations has been proposed by Koga and Kawakami. The phase diagram in Fig.2 is from reference  for a large $`N`$ theory, and represents a possible set of phases with various kinds of magnetic order. The Koga-Kawakami phase may be viewed as the SRO $`(\pi ,q)`$ phase.

We should also mention new theoretical models that are generalizations of the SS ideas to higher dimensions and other systems. The beautiful model of Müller-Hartmann, Singh, Knetter and Uhrig  has a new set of exchange interactions added to the SS model, and had a very rich set of constants of motion. It is very tractable, giving rise to magnetization plateaus that are similar to but not identical to the experimental ones.

## 2  Mean Field Theory of the Doped Dimer Superconductor, a Possible test of RVB

In this section we discuss the possibility of doping the dimer state, and what one may expect from it. Firstly we remark that the insulating dimerized ground state of $`SrCu_2(BO_3)_2`$ may usefully be considered as a Mott Insulating state of an underlying Hubbard model. To see this consider the Hubbard model on the SS lattice with

$$H=t\underset{<ij>,\sigma }{}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+h.c.)\alpha t\underset{<l,m>,\sigma }{}(c_{l,\sigma }^{}c_{m,\sigma }+h.c.)+U\underset{r}{}n_{r,}n_{r,}$$
(2)
where the (somewhat overused) symbol $`\alpha `$ represents the ratio of hoppings on the two kinds of bonds, and the Hubbard interaction term sums over all types of sites. Clearly the superexchange argument fixes it in terms of the ratio of the exchange parameters via $`\alpha ^2=2\alpha _{SS}`$, and we note that $`\alpha =\pm 1.25`$ using the insulating state estimates, with the sign undetermined. In the non-interacting limit the band structure is interesting, we have four subbands, with the extrema of two of them touching quadratically at the zone center. At half filling, one has four electrons per unit cell and the system is a semi-metal with a finite density of states, and thus it has typical metallic behaviour such as a linear specific heat. A parallel may be drawn with the semi-metallicity of graphite on the hexagonal lattice with two electrons per unit cell and also of a fiduciary $`MgB_2`$ with well separated planes. In the case of graphite however, one has a “Dirac like” linear spectrum, and hence the density of states near the “fermi point” , i.e the contact point vanishes.

This semi-metal becomes an insulator at large enough $`U`$, undergoing a transition to the dimerized state that does not break rotation invariance nor the lattice translation symmetry, and may be called a Mott transition in the same sense as that of the one dimensional Hubbard model at half filling at infinitesimal $`U`$. Since the large $`U`$ behaviour is exactly known, namely the dimer ground state, further terms in the $`t/U`$ expansion beyond superexchange should be useful in elucidating the nature of the Mott transition here . This transition has not yet been studied in literature. Starting from the semi-metal and turning on $`U`$, one may either have a level crossing transition to the gapped insulator, or more interestingly a continuous opening of the charge gap. In the gapped insulating phase, the four spin correlation function pertaining to dimer order $`<S_aS_bS_cS_d><S_aS_b><S_cS_d>`$, and thus there is ODLRO in this correlation function without any obvious symmetry that is broken. With this distinction, without necessarily a major difference, we may refer to $`SrCu_2(BO_3)_2`$ as a Mott insulator.

Having this realization of the Mott Hubbard insulator, we naturally enquire if the philosophy of the RVB theory of Superconductivity due to Anderson applies here. This theory is built upon the idea that repulsive interactions of the Hubbard type lead to superconductivity via the intermediate step of superexchange, or Heisenberg interactions in the insulating state. The superexchange leads to singlet pairing between electrons of opposite spin, and these pairs are analogous to the Cooper pairs, but are localized due to the Mott-Hubbard gap. Under doping the Mott-Hubbard gap collapses, these preexisting pairs propagate freely, and lead to superconductivity. In the present case, the Cooper pairs at half filling should be viewed as the dimer-singlets, which on doping should move around by the same logic, and lead to superconductivity. Since the values of exchange are smaller by an order of magnitude from those in High Tc systems, we expect lower Tc’s, say tens of degrees K, but accompanied by the characteristic signature of singlet pairing and also of definite phase relations of Cooper pairs on the bonds, analogous to the d-wave pairing. While this theory is remarkably effective in providing a comprehensive view point, it still lacks unambiguous experimental support or a rigorous mathematical foundation, and one would welcome other supports to its validity or otherwise. In this context we work out in this section the mean field theory of a fiducial doped $`SrCu_2(BO)_3`$, and calculate some characteristics of the proposed superconducting compound.

Before doing so, let us note that doping can be of either chemical type, as in say $`Sr_{1x}M_xCu_2(BO_3)_2`$ with a monovalent alkali $`M`$ or a trivalent lanthanide. However, one interesting possibility is suggested by the comparison of $`MgB_2`$ with graphite. One learns that $`MgB_2`$ is isoelectronic with graphite, but avoids being a semimetal by dispersing the bands in the direction transverse to the two dimensional sheets, it self-dopes by decreasing the transverse lattice constant. It is possible that a divalent element like $`Mg`$ in place of $`Sr`$ with a smaller ionic radius could decrease the transverse lattice constant of $`SrCu_2(BO_3)_2`$ sufficiently so that it would have substantial transverse dispersion. We should clarify that unlike $`MgB_2`$ which appears to be a case of phonon mediated superconductivity , we are examining the case for a non phononic mechanism, the RVB mechanism for doped $`SrCu_2(BO_3)_2`$. Gate charging might be another attractive possibility. We now turn to the calculation proper.

### 2.1 RVB type mean field theory on the SS lattice

We next present the mean field theory of a $`tJ`$ type model on the SS lattice. The hopping amplitudes and the exchange integrals on SS lattice are as shown in Fig.(3). The nearest neighbour (n.n.) hopping amplitude is $`t`$, and the next nearest neighbour (n.n.n.) hopping amplitude is $`\alpha t`$ where $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless number. The exchange couplings, $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$ along the n.n. and n.n.n. directions respectively, are such that $`J^{}=\alpha ^2J`$, as governed by the large $`U`$ physics of the Hubbard model on SS lattice. Thus $`\alpha ^2=2\alpha _{SS}`$ of the previous section.

The $`tJ`$ type model, thus arrived at is an appropriate generalization of the original SS model, in order to deal with doping. In the following, we will first describe the tight binding band structure of the free electrons on the SS lattice. Then, we will do the mean field theory of the interacting model and discuss its implications for superconductivity, in a manner analogous to the early RVB mean field theories of $`tJ`$ model on a square lattice done in the context of high-T<sub>C</sub> superconductivity.

#### The band-structure :

The SS lattice has a periodicity of $`2a_o`$, both along $`\widehat{\text{x}}`$ as well as $`\widehat{\text{y}}`$ directions, where $`a_o`$ is the lattice constant. With each site contributing just one relevant orbital, the tight-binding model on SS lattice is described by a four band hamiltonian given below.

$$H_t=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\left[c_0^{}(𝐤)c_1^{}(𝐤)c_2^{}(𝐤)c_3^{}(𝐤)\right]_\sigma 𝐓(𝐤)\left[\begin{array}{c}c_0(𝐤)\\ c_1(𝐤)\\ c_2(𝐤)\\ c_3(𝐤)\end{array}\right]_\sigma $$
(3)
Here, $`\sigma =`$ or $``$, and the wave-vector, $`𝐤=(k_x,k_y)`$, is such that $`\frac{\pi }{2a_o}k_x,k_y\frac{\pi }{2a_o}`$. The subscripts, $`0,1,2,3`$, refer to four different site within a unit cell. The dispersion matrix, $`𝐓(𝐤)`$, is a $`4\times 4`$ hermitian matrix as given below.

$$𝐓(𝐤)=t\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& 2\text{cos}(k_xa_o)& 2\text{cos}(k_ya_o)& \alpha \text{e}^{i(k_xk_y)a_o}\\ 2\text{cos}(k_xa_o)& 0& \alpha \text{e}^{i(k_x+k_y)a_o}& 2\text{cos}(k_ya_o)\\ 2\text{cos}(k_ya_o)& \alpha \text{e}^{i(k_x+k_y)a_o}& 0& 2\text{cos}(k_xa_o)\\ \alpha \text{e}^{i(k_xk_y)a_o}& 2\text{cos}(k_ya_o)& 2\text{cos}(k_xa_o)& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(4)
The band-structure for $`|\alpha |=1.25`$ is shown in Fig.(4). This value of $`\alpha `$ is taken from the studies on SrCu<sub>2</sub>(BO<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub>, where the values of $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$ are extracted by fitting the experimental data with the orthogonal dimer model. What is known from the experiments is $`\alpha ^2`$, and not $`\alpha `$. This leaves us with the ambiguity of sign of $`\alpha `$, and hence we have considered both positive as well negative values of $`\alpha `$.

Let us make a few essential observations regarding the band-structure. Firstly, the system is a semi-metal at half filling, since the middle two bands touch each other at the zone centre. Secondly, there is a band which is flat along the X$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ symmetry direction in the Brillouin Zone. This band gives rise to a severe van Hove singularity at $`\alpha `$. Thirdly, the values of band energies at zone centre are $`(4\alpha )`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`(4\alpha )`$. For $`|\alpha |>2`$, the middle two bands no more touch each other, and there is a finite band gap which makes it a band insulator at half filling. Since $`\alpha `$ for the material of real interest is roughly 1.25, we have not tried to discuss other values of $`\alpha `$.

Fig.(5) shows the non-interacting single particle density of states on SS lattice for both negative as well positive values of $`\alpha `$. When we hole-dope the system to take it away from half filling, it is expected to behave differently for positive and negative $`\alpha `$, since the flat band influences the case only when $`\alpha `$ is negative.

#### The mean field hamiltonian :

The $`tJ`$ hamiltonian on SS lattice can be written as:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=𝒫H_t𝒫+H_Jt\mu \underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\underset{p=0}{\overset{3}{}}c_{p,\sigma }^{}(𝐤)c_{p,\sigma }(𝐤)$$
(5)
The first term in $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ accounts for the projected hopping. It is essentially $`H_t`$ as given in equation(3), but with projection operator $`𝒫`$ which suppresses the double occupancy of any site (due to large Hubbard $`U`$). At a simple level, the effect of $`𝒫`$ can be brought in by replacing $`t`$ by $`\delta t`$. Here, $`\delta (=1n)`$, is the number of holes per site, and $`n`$ is the electron filling per site. The last term is the chemical potential, $`\mu t`$, times the total number of electrons. Here, $`p`$ is the site (or the orbital) label within a unit cell. The second term in equation(5), $`H_J`$, which accounts for the interaction among electrons can be written as:

$$H_J=J\left\{\underset{n.n.}{}+\alpha ^2\underset{n.n.n.}{\overset{}{}}\right\}\left(𝐒(𝐫)𝐒(𝐫^{})\frac{\widehat{\text{n}}(𝐫)\widehat{\text{n}}(𝐫^{})}{4}\right)$$
(6)
Here, $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫^{}`$ are the site labels, and $`\widehat{\text{n}}(𝐫)`$ denotes the number operator at site $`𝐫`$. The summation is pairwise in $`𝐫`$, $`𝐫^{}`$. The primed summation denotes the sum of only those pairs of n.n.n. sites which are allowed by the connectivity of the SS lattice. The operator, $`\left(𝐒(𝐫)𝐒(𝐫^{})\widehat{\text{n}}(𝐫)\widehat{\text{n}}(𝐫^{})/4\right)`$, can also be written as $`\frac{1}{2}𝐛^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{})𝐛(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$, which provides the basis for mean field decoupling of $`H_J`$ in the off-diagonal channel. The operator, $`𝐛(𝐫,𝐫^{})=c_{}(𝐫)c_{}(𝐫^{})c_{}(𝐫)c_{}(𝐫^{})`$, is the singlet bond operator.

Let us define an off-diagonal or the pairing mean field, $`𝐛(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$, in the following way.

$$𝐛(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }\text{e}^{i\theta _x}\hfill & \text{for}𝐫𝐫^{}=\pm a\widehat{\text{x}}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }\text{e}^{i\theta _y}\hfill & \text{for}𝐫𝐫^{}=\pm a\widehat{\text{y}}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}\text{e}^{i\theta _{x+y}}\hfill & \text{for}𝐫𝐫^{}=\pm a(\widehat{\text{x}}+\widehat{\text{y}})\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}\text{e}^{i\theta _{xy}}\hfill & \text{for}𝐫𝐫^{}=\pm a(\widehat{\text{x}}\widehat{\text{y}})\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
The phases, $`\theta _x`$, $`\theta _y`$, $`\theta _{x+y}`$ and $`\theta _{xy}`$, as well as the amplitudes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, are all independent of the coordinates. Hence, we are considering a uniform case. With this choice of the order parameter, we decouple $`H_J`$. The corresponding mean field hamiltonian can be written as:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}^{MF}=\stackrel{~}{H}_t+H_J^{MF}+L(4J\mathrm{\Delta }^2+J^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})$$
(8)
where $`L`$ is the number of unit cells. In order to write $`\stackrel{~}{H}_t`$ and $`H_J^{MF}`$ conveniently, we introduce a notation. Let us define the Nambu operators, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_C(𝐤)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R(𝐤)`$ in the following way.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_C(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}c_0(𝐤)\\ c_1(𝐤)\\ c_2(𝐤)\\ c_3(𝐤)\end{array}\right]`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_R(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[c_0(𝐤)c_1(𝐤)c_2(𝐤)c_3(𝐤)\right]`$ (14)
The subscripts, $`C`$ and $`R`$, indicate that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_C(𝐤)`$ is a column vector and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R(𝐤)`$ is a row vector. In this notation, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_t`$ can be written as :

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_t=\underset{𝐤}{}\left\{\text{tr}\left\{\stackrel{~}{𝐓}(𝐤)\right\}+\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_C^{}(𝐤)\mathrm{\Psi }_R(𝐤)\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{𝐓}(𝐤)& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \stackrel{~}{𝐓}(𝐤)\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_C(𝐤)\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_R^{}(𝐤)\end{array}\right]\right\}$$
(15)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}(𝐤)`$ is essentially same as the dispersion matrix, $`𝐓(𝐤)`$, except that the chemical potential forms its diagonal elements, and all the off-diagonal entries have a factor of hole doping, $`\delta `$, in order to account for the projection.

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐓}(𝐤)=t\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\mu \hfill & 2\delta \text{cos}(k_xa_o)\hfill & 2\delta \text{cos}(k_ya_o)\hfill & \delta \alpha \text{e}^{i(k_xk_y)a_o}\hfill \\ 2\delta \text{cos}(k_xa_o)\hfill & \mu \hfill & \delta \alpha \text{e}^{i(k_x+k_y)a_o}\hfill & 2\delta \text{cos}(k_ya_o)\hfill \\ 2\delta \text{cos}(k_ya_o)\hfill & \delta \alpha \text{e}^{i(k_x+k_y)a_o}\hfill & \mu \hfill & 2\delta \text{cos}(k_xa_o)\hfill \\ \delta \alpha \text{e}^{i(k_xk_y)a_o}\hfill & 2\delta \text{cos}(k_ya_o)\hfill & 2\delta \text{cos}(k_xa_o)\hfill & \mu \hfill \end{array}\right]$$
(16)
With the same notation, $`H_J^{MF}`$ can be written as :

$$H_J^{MF}=\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_C^{}(𝐤)\mathrm{\Psi }_R(𝐤)\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& 𝐃(𝐤)\\ 𝐃^{}(𝐤)& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_C(𝐤)\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_R^{}(𝐤)\end{array}\right]$$
(17)
where $`𝐃(𝐤)`$ is a non-hermitian $`4\times 4`$ matrix as given below.

$$𝐃(𝐤)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & J\mathrm{\Delta }\text{e}^{i\theta _x}\text{cos}(k_xa_o)\hfill & J\mathrm{\Delta }\text{e}^{i\theta _y}\text{cos}(k_ya_o)\hfill & \frac{J^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{2}\text{e}^{i\theta _{xy}}\text{e}^{i(k_xk_y)a_o}\hfill \\ J\mathrm{\Delta }\text{e}^{i\theta _x}\text{cos}(k_xa_o)\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{J^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{2}\text{e}^{i\theta _{x+y}}\text{e}^{i(k_x+k_y)a_o}\hfill & J\mathrm{\Delta }\text{e}^{i\theta _y}\text{cos}(k_ya_o)\hfill \\ J\mathrm{\Delta }\text{e}^{i\theta _y}\text{cos}(k_ya_o)\hfill & \frac{J^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{2}\text{e}^{i\theta _{x+y}}\text{e}^{i(k_x+k_y)a_o}\hfill & 0\hfill & J\mathrm{\Delta }\text{e}^{i\theta _x}\text{cos}(k_xa_o)\hfill \\ \frac{J^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{2}\text{e}^{i\theta _{xy}}\text{e}^{i(k_xk_y)a_o}\hfill & J\mathrm{\Delta }\text{e}^{i\theta _y}\text{cos}(k_ya_o)\hfill & J\mathrm{\Delta }\text{e}^{i\theta _x}\text{cos}(k_xa_o)\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right]$$
(18)
Here, $`J^{}=\alpha ^2J`$ as mentioned earlier. Finally, we write the $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{MF}`$ as :

$`\stackrel{~}{H}^{MF}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_C^{}(𝐤)\mathrm{\Psi }_R(𝐤)\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{𝐓}(𝐤)& 𝐃(𝐤)\\ 𝐃^{}(𝐤)& \stackrel{~}{𝐓}(𝐤)\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_C(𝐤)\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_R^{}(𝐤)\end{array}\right]`$ (24)
$`+L\left(4J\mathrm{\Delta }^2+J^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4t\mu \right)`$
Let us denote the matrix $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{𝐓}(𝐤)& 𝐃(𝐤)\\ 𝐃^{}(𝐤)& \stackrel{~}{𝐓}(𝐤)\end{array}\right]`$ by A(k). It is an $`8\times 8`$ symplectic, hermitian matrix whose eigenvalues are real and occur in pairs. That is, an eigenvalue’s negative is also an eigenvalue.

#### The mean field free energy and the self-consistent equations :

The grand canonical free energy, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, at a given temperature $`T`$, for the mean field hamiltonian described above is,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=4L\left(J\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\frac{J^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}t\mu \right)\underset{𝐤}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left\{E_j^+(𝐤)+\frac{2}{\beta }\text{Log}\left(1+\text{e}^{\beta E_j^+(𝐤)}\right)\right\}$$
(25)
Here, $`\beta =1/\text{k}_BT`$, and $`\left\{E_j^+(𝐤),j=1,4\right\}`$ are the positive eigenvalues of $`𝐀(𝐤)`$. Let us put $`t=1`$. Now, all the energies (or parameters with units of energy) are in the units of $`t`$. We find the self-consistent equations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ by minimizing $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. These are as follows.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2J}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4L}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_j^+(𝐤)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\text{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta E_j^+(𝐤)}{2}}\right)`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{J^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4L}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_j^+(𝐤)}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}}\text{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta E_j^+(𝐤)}{2}}\right)`$ (27)
Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mu =N`$, where $`N`$ is the total number of electrons, we get the following equation for the chemical potential.

$$\delta =\frac{1}{4L}\underset{𝐤}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{E_j^+(𝐤)}{\mu }\text{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta E_j^+(𝐤)}{2}\right)$$
(28)
The hole doping, $`\delta =1N/4L`$. Solving these sets of equations self-consistently gives us $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and $`\mu `$ as a function of $`\delta `$, for given values of $`\alpha `$, $`J`$, $`\beta `$ and the phase angles $`\theta _x`$ etc.

#### The results of the mean field theory :

We solve equations (26), (27) and (28) self-consistently for different values of $`\delta `$. We are interested in both the hole as well as electron doping for a given $`\alpha `$. It is clear from the band structure that the hole doping for $`\alpha `$ is same as the electron doping for $`\alpha `$. Therefore, we have considered only the hole doping for both positive as well as negative $`\alpha `$. In all our computations, we use $`t=1`$, $`J=0.3`$ and $`|\alpha |=1.25`$. The value of $`J`$ for SrCu<sub>2</sub>(BO<sub>3</sub>)<sub>2</sub> is roughly 70<sup>0</sup>K. The ratio of $`J`$ to $`t`$ is tentative, and taken to be roughly same as that for the high-T<sub>C</sub> superconductors. Though we have four phases, $`\theta _x`$, $`\theta _y`$, $`\theta _{x+y}`$ and $`\theta _{xy}`$, only three relative phases are relevant. Therefore, we keep $`\theta _x=0`$. We have to find out those values of $`\theta _y`$ etc. for which the free energy is minimized, and see how things evolve as a function of $`\delta `$.

Let us discuss the zero temperature ($`\beta \mathrm{}`$) case first. Fig.(6) shows the variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ with respect to $`\delta `$, for $`\alpha =1.25`$ and 1.25 at zero temperature. For $`\alpha =1.25`$, the minimum of free energy occurs for $`\theta _{x+y}\theta _{xy}=\pi `$ regardless of the values of $`\theta _x`$ and $`\theta _y`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is identically zero. For $`\alpha =1.25`$, the minimum of free energy corresponds to $`\theta _x=0`$, $`\theta _y=\pi `$, $`\theta _{x+y}=0`$ and $`\theta _{xy}=\pi `$. It is a weak minimum as many other choices of the phases have similar values of the free energy. Nevertheless, this choice of phases appears to be the minimum. It is interesting to note that for $`\delta =0`$, the diagonal bond order parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, is one and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is zero (and is independent of the phases $`\theta _x`$, $`\theta _y`$, $`\theta _{x+y}`$ and $`\theta _{xy}`$). Thus, the RVB mean field theory at half filling exactly reproduces the known dimer ground state of the SS model.

To consider superconductivity in our mean field theory, we define a physical order parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SC}}=F_B\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{MF}}`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ is the mean-field order parameter ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ whichever is larger for a given doping), and $`F_B`$ is a bosonic mean field. Such an order parameter can be understood in the framework of slave boson approach, where the off-diagonal order parameter of the physical electrons is described as $`b_ib_jf_{i\sigma }^{}f_{j\sigma ^{}}^{}`$. Here $`b`$’s are the slave boson fields, and $`f`$’s are the fermionic objects. In a mean field decoupled theory, this is like $`b_ib_jf_{i\sigma }^{}f_{j\sigma ^{}}^{}F_B\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{MF}}`$. The bosonic order parameter, $`F_B`$, is a function of temperature and doping, and goes roughly like $`\delta `$. The superconducting transition temperature, T<sub>SC</sub>, is the temperature where either $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ or $`F_B`$ vanishes first while increasing the temperature. For low doping, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ is large, therefore, the T<sub>SC</sub> is same as the bose condensation temperature, T<sub>BC</sub>, for the bosonic field. Some estimates of T<sub>BC</sub> have been made earlier while studying $`tJ`$ model in the context of the high-T<sub>C</sub> superconductivity. We roughly estimate it by considering an approximate dispersion of the form, $`k_x^2+k_y^2+\frac{1}{\gamma }k_z^2`$, with the z-axis anisotropy $`\gamma 30`$. We get T$`{}_{\mathrm{BC}}{}^{}4\pi \rho ^{}\delta (1\delta )/[2+`$Log$`(4\gamma /\pi )]`$. Here, $`\rho ^{}`$ is the density of states at the energy where two middle bands touch, from the side where dispersion is quadratic, and is a measure of the curvature of the band. For $`|\alpha |=1.25`$, $`\rho ^{}0.1`$, thus T$`{}_{\mathrm{BC}}{}^{}0.22\delta (1\delta )`$.

One comment should be made regarding the interpretation of the result $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}0`$ (for $`\alpha <0`$). While at half filling this implied the dimerized insulating state, away from half filling it must be interpreted as superconductivity. The BCS type wavefunction implies the fermion pairing in real space,

$$c_i^{}c_j^{}\underset{𝐤}{}\text{e}^{i𝐤(\text{r}_i\text{r}_j)}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2+(ϵ_𝐤\mu )^2}},$$

and it extends over a range of lattice constants (due to the non-trivial k dependence of $`ϵ_𝐤`$ away from $`\delta =0`$), despite the mean field Hamiltonian having $`n.n.`$ pairing only. A similar remark holds for the four fermi operator that determines the superconducting ODLRO of Yang, namely $`c_i^{}c_j^{}c_j^{}c_i^{}0`$ for $`|\text{r}_i\text{r}_j|>>1`$.

Fig.(7) shows the phase diagram in the T-$`\delta `$ plane, as estimated from our RVB mean field theory. The temperature, T<sub>MF</sub>, is where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ vanishes. The estimated T<sub>BC</sub>, and the computed T<sub>MF</sub> are plotted as a function of $`\delta `$. The common region under these two curves is the superconducting phase bounded by critical lines. As usual all the remining lines should be viewed as crossover lines rather than critical lines. Among the remaining three regions of T-$`\delta `$ phase diagram, the low doping region below T<sub>MF</sub> and above T<sub>BC</sub> is the spin gap phase with a suppressed density of states manifested in susceptibility as well as optical conductivity. Similarly, the high doping region is the normal fermi liquid. There is a region which is usually referred to as the strange metal phase, as shown in the Fig.(7) with linear resistivity. Also, the phase diagram is similar for both positive as well negative values of $`\alpha `$. From this phase diagram, we estimate the optimal value of the superconducting transition temperature, T$`{}_{C}{}^{}10^0`$K.

In conclusion, the system considered here has a rather rich history. It may also have an important future since under doping it might be the much sought after low $`T_c`$ RVB superconductor, with linear resistivity down to 10 K and other such exotic properties, rather than a conventional phononic BCS superconductor.

## 3 Acknowledgements

BSS would like to thank the organizers of the Nishinomiya Yukawa Symposium for the warm hospitality. He thanks Professors E. Abrahams, P. Nozières, M. Schlüter, H. Kageyama, K. Ueda and J. Goplakrishnan for useful discussions spread over various years.

Article based on an invited talk given by BSS at the 16th Nishinomiya Yukawa memorial symposium on “ Order and Disorder in Quantum Spin Systems”, Nov 13-14, 2001 at Nishinomiya.

The mean field theory of the doped dimer in Section 2. is joint work with B Kumar.