arXiv:0705.3255v3 [cond-mat.str-el] 10 Sep 2007 eae emos h n nw sthe as known one the , related ramn ftemdl nquestion. in models schemes) the quasi-exact group of or treatment renormalization Ansatz) various Bethe allow via the- which (bosonization, (solution dimension, of exact one number to either a unique is methods, there oretical Second, a nanowires. lattices, mate- optical quantum anisotropy, as uniaxial such strong systems, with physical the rials for real relevant many are of such models description such for First, reason an The twofold. is been studies. interest theoretical traditionally intense have of bosons object and fermions related et hsclyrlvn ii faohr1 oe of model. model Hubbard 1D repre- the another also – of importance it limit paramount relevant 1D Furthermore, physically many a chains. describe fermions sents to mobile Heisenberg used non-interacting to be from and may ranging constants it coupling systems, the level, one between of doping from interactions ratio hop the the spin-spin tuning to the By particles and cap- them. the It another, of to versatile. ability site remarkably the yet both simple, tures as out stands eosre led ttesnl-oedpn ee.In the of level. spectrum doping low-energy single-hole the may the case This at that respectively. already charge, observed only be and that spin excitations elementary only carry and into (hole) aisaeidpnet edn otewl-nw effect separation: well-known spin-charge the to of leading independent, are namics enetnieysuidi h past. the in studied extensively been h aueo pnnhlnitrcin.I hspaper this In the interactions. detail consider spinon-holon in we of explore to nature us the encouraged controversy seeming pnnhlnbudsae epeetdtie quantita- detailed present We a attractive state. to effective bound leading the spinon-holon emerge, model naturally interactions this spinon-holon In ( anisotropic interactions. has spin which model, general vr osntrsl nterbnigo pairing. or binding their in how- result which, not interaction does attractive ever, effective are excitations by holon and affected spinon that shown also been has u ftevs ait f1 oeso togycor- strongly of models 1D of variety vast the of Out n-iesoa 1)ltiemdl fsrnl cor- strongly of models lattice (1D) One-dimensional nteone-dimensional the In pnnhlnitrcin na anisotropic an in interactions Spinon-holon eateto hsc n srnm,Uiest fCalifor of University Astronomy, and Physics of Department ASnmes 11.d 11.i 51.q 75.40.Mg th 75.10.Pq, 71.10.Li, as 71.10.Fd, dispersion numbers: PACS spinon in changes identify We behavior. latter. the of in o h eedneo h idn nryo h anisotr the on found energy the is energy binding in binding value the The state of simulations. bound numerical attra dependence localized precise effective the a an for in to resulting tions leads excitations, anisotropy holon the and that show We tions. ecnie eeaiaino h one-dimensional the of generalization a consider We .INTRODUCTION I. t - J oe salmtn aeo more a of case limiting a as model t - t 2 J - z J h pitn fteelectron the of splitting the ii n eoi h stoi ii,gigt eoexponent zero to going limit, isotropic the in zero and limit oe pnadcag dy- charge and spin model Jurij 1 3,4,5,6,7 mkv .L hryhv tvnR White R. Steven Chernyshev, L. A. Smakov, ˇ t XXZ - J t oe clearly model - J eetyit Recently lk)spin- -like) oe has model Dtd ue1,2013) 11, June (Dated: 6 This nd Here where n ucino nstoy ecnie eeaiainof generalization a consider we the anisotropy, of function CsCoBr eietleiec fsi-hresprto ntereal the in separation t spin-charge of evidence perimental aeil ihteIigaiorp,sc sCsCoCl as such anisotropy, could Ising sites, work the spin-chain 128 insulating our with in and of materials studies 23 test photemission to from experimental come up An of systems respectively. on renormalization (DMRG) density-matrix group di- and verify exact and (ED) using case, simulations, agonalization numerical isotropic implications precise the the with for them and picture anisotropy physical of this function of binding a the of as behavior energy the for predictions analytical tive ftecpaefml,SrCuO family, cuprate the of n es iheege cln with scaling differ- two energies into with spectrum sets, spin-charge excitation quasi- ent the of to in splitting leads the peaks hole, by particle manifested single is a which with separation, even (GS). it, interacting state is ground Doping of (AF) model antiferromagnetic model the an Heisenberg with so spins, isotropic possible, an is to hopping (one reduced particle the half-filling no which At site) without in per subspace sites. a space, doubly-occupied to Hilbert restricted any is The acts, (1) Hamiltonian assumed. conditions boundary are Periodic (BCs) operator. spin fermion the eiet nthe in periments tonian - i H J nodrt td h pnnhlnitrcina a as interaction spinon-holon the study to order In h one-dimensional The t stefrinnme prtro site on operator number fermion the is - ij oe-iesystem. model-like t J - t J S = oe ihaiorpcsi-pninterac- spin-spin anisotropic with model - ealdqatttv nltcpredic- analytic quantitative Detailed . i rie rie aiona967 USA 92697, California Irvine, Irvine, nia c oitroaesotl ewe finite a between smoothly interpolate to J H i ⊥ oe 1 ihaHamiltonian a with (1) model σi 3 − H n others. and , · = hi:acmrhniestudy comprehensive a chain: t tv neato ewe h spinon the between interaction ctive rmr atrfrti non-trivial this for factor primary e ij S niiae emo ihspin with fermion a annihilates X p r rsne,advrfidby verified and presented, are opy P σ j ⊥ = + ( i = c H σi † − J isotropic i,i z S c t σj  i x +1 X S σ S 8 .. + H.c.) + j i x z 9 with ( ent hti h atsc ex- such past the in that note We S c t + j - σi † z J al ntevicinity the in ially esnegsi-hi material spin-chain Heisenberg + S c σj oe sdfie yaHamil- a by defined is model i y α S 3 S H.c.) + aepoie ietex- direct provided have , j y i ⊥ J n parameter and , ·  S S t j ⊥ i or · − H S J j ij n respectively. , − i 4 fteform the of n j n i σ and ,  i 4 n nsite on . j  α , S con- i (2) (1) 3 is i 2 , , 2 trols the anisotropy of spin-spin interactions. The origi- nal isotropic t-J model is recovered by setting α = 1. 0 The α = 0 limit of Hamiltonian (2) is known as t-Jz model. Its GS in the undoped state is an Ising antifer- -2 romagnet, and the effect of doping it with a single hole (0) s is easy to understand (see Fig. 1 for an illustration). It results in a creation of a spinon-holon due (k)-E

s α=0.0 to an effective attraction between the immobile spinon E -4 α=0.1 α=0.5 (the Hamiltonian does not contain any spin-flipping term α=1.0 which would allow it to propagate) and a free holon.10 The binding energy can then be calculated analytically: -6 0 π/4 π/2 3π/4 π 5π/4 3π/2 7π/4 2π ∆=2t 1 1 + (J /4t)2 . (3) − z k h p i We present several different methods to obtain this result FIG. 2: Lowest ED energies Es(k) − Es(0) vs k in L = 21 in the Appendix. Setting α to a non-zero value presents chain with zero holes at Jz /t = 4.0 (spinon dispersion). Solid lines show spinon dispersion for an infinite system obtained three distinct possibilities. First of all, it is possible that 11 any non-zero value of α immediately destroys the bound from BA. All the energies are in units of t. state, so α = 0 is the only singular point in the phase di- agram with a finite ∆. Second, there is a possibility that ∆ varies smoothly with α, interpolating between the fi- tion II we present our numerical results, discussing in nite value at α = 0 and zero value in the isotropic case. detail the finite-size effects of the data and the proce- Finally, the ∆(α) dependence can go to zero at some non- dure for extrapolation to the infinite system size. Section trivial critical value 0 < αc < 1. Out of these possibilities III contains the theory for the binding energy, based on the first one appears to be the least likely one, as it is Bethe-Salpeter equation. We summarize our results in intuitively clear that small transverse spin-spin interac- section IV, and present three different ways to derive the tion cannot immediately destroy the bound state. While expression for the binding energy of t-Jz model (3) in the at α = 0 the spinon will become mobile, for small α it Appendix. is still6 going to be too “massive”, compared to virtually free holon. We cannot unequivocally rule out the last option (binding becomes too weak to be detected numer- II. NUMERICAL RESULTS ically near the isotropic limit), but we argue that in this regime the spin background is Ising-like, with long-range We have used the ED and DMRG techniques to cal- spin order for any anisotropy α < 1. This fact strongly culate the ground state energies (GSEs) of the model for suggests that the only anisotropy-driven critical point in different system sizes and doping levels. This informa- the system is at α = 1. To confirm this hypothesis and tion was then used to extract the binding energy of a carefully examine the remaining option, a detailed in- spinon-holon state in the infinite size limit. vestigation of the binding energy as a function of α is In ED we start by considering a subset of states of a required. Such an investigation is the main topic of this paper. We have chosen the representative value of Jz/t =4.0 2 for most of our calculations, after confirming that the α=0.0 α=0.1 results at other values of 1 Jz/t 8 are qualitatively 1.5 ≤ ≤ α=0.5 similar. We also present the final results for the binding α=1.0 energy for Jz/t = 1.0. In general, we do not expect any 1 (0) qualitative difference for any other Jz/t value as Eq. (3) h gives ∆ < 0 for any J . The choice of J /t = 4.0 was z z 0.5 made mostly to optimize the numerical accessibility of (k)-E h the binding energy in a wider range of α. E The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In sec- 0

-0.5

0 π/4 π/2 3π/4 π 5π/4 3π/2 7π/4 2π k

FIG. 1: (Color online). A hole in the Ising AF background FIG. 3: Lowest ED energies Eh(k) − Eh(0) vs k in L = 21 (circle), moved by four sites from origin. The location of chain with one hole at Jz/t = 4.0 (holon dispersion). Dashed immobile spinon is indicated by the dashed box. lines are guides to the eye. All the energies are in units of t. 3 system of size L with given total hole number n and to- 0 tal Sz. To take advantage of the translational symmetry, we then use these to construct a basis out of eigenstates -0.2 of the translation operator with a given momentum k. -0.4

Finally, the Hamiltonian matrix in this reduced basis is (0) p -0.6 constructed, and its lowest eigenvalue is calculated itera- tively using the Lanczos algorithm. The implementation -0.8 (k)-E p

of every step in the procedure is described in detail in E -1 Ref. 12. With these techniques we were able to calcu- α=0.0 late the GSEs of systems of up to 23 sites with ED. Us- -1.2 α=0.1 α=0.5 13,14 α ing DMRG we have calculated GSEs of systems of -1.4 =1.0 up to L = 128 sites using periodic boundary conditions 0 π/4 π/2 3π/4 π 5π/4 3π/2 7π/4 2π (PBCs), which greatly increases the numerical effort re- k quired. Up to m = 1400 states per block were kept in the finite system method, with corrections applied to the FIG. 4: Lowest ED energies Ep(k)−Ep(0) vs k in L = 20 chain 15 density matrix to accelerate convergence with PBCs. with one hole at Jz/t = 4.0 (spinon-holon pair dispersion). We have carefully tested our algorithms by compar- Dashed lines are guides to the eye. ing the results of ED and DMRG for different system sizes, both with and without the hole. We have also compared the ED energies with the independent results creases, so the ground state switches from the k = 0 to for the GSEs of the XXZ model.16 In all cases agreement k = π sector at some finite intermediate value. Notably, to at least 7 decimal places was achieved. these observations are in stark contrast with assumptions The elementary excitations of the model may be stud- by Shiba and Ogata,3 who claim that the k = 0 and ied by looking at systems of different sizes with either k = π energies are going to be degenerate for any finite no or one hole. In the case of an odd number of sites system in the isotropic case (they are degenerate in an in- and no holes the PBCs are frustrating, corresponding to finite system though). Furthermore, their interpretation creation of a frustrated ferromagnetic link – a spinon ex- of the holon dispersion (presented in Fig. 6 of Ref. 3) is citation. The lowest energies for each momentum sector somewhat misleading: they attribute the double-peaked for a chain of 21 sites with PBC at different anisotropies structure of the dispersion to “strong antiferromagnetic are shown in Fig. 2. This gives us the spinon disper- correlations”. Our calculations confirm that the holon sion, which evolves from completely flat in the Ising case dispersion close to the k = 0 and k = π points may be α = 0 to quasi-relativistic in the isotropic case α = 1. very well fitted with a simple cosine dispersion of a free Solid lines in Fig. 2 show the exact BA result for the particle. This indicates that the characteristic double- spinon spectrum in the XXZ-model:11 peaked shape is formed by two different holon branches, centered at k = 0 and k = π. As one moves away from ω =c 1 κ2 sin2 q. (4) these points towards k = π/2, the energy of the excita- q − tions grows, eventually making the creation of a spinon- q antispinon pair energetically favorable, as suggested in Here c/J = K√1 α2/π, and κ is determined from z Ref. 6. That results in mixing of the two holon branches, the condition πK′/K−= cosh−1 (1/α), where K K(κ) ≡ which leads to a rounding of the dispersion peaks. and K′ K(√1 κ2) are complete elliptic integrals of ≡ − Finally, an even-sized system with one hole corre- the first kind. The lowest spinon energy is attained at sponds to a situation where both spinon and holon are q = π/2 for any α> 0. ± present. The GSE as a function of k for the system con- A configuration with odd number of sites and one hole taining a spinon-holon pair is presented in Fig. 4. contains a “pure” holon, which can propagate through We can measure the energies of an interacting spinon- the system without disturbing the otherwise perfect AF holon pair, as well as those of individual spinon and holon background. Typical holon dispersions, obtained by mea- excitations, by taking the GSE of a corresponding config- suring the energies of a 21-site chain with one hole, are uration and subtracting the extensive part of the energy presented in Fig. 3. The holon’s minimum energy de- ˜ǫαL, whereǫ ˜α is the energy per site of an infinite XXZ pendence on α is non-trivial. At α = 0 the system has chain, known from Bethe Ansatz.17 That way we can ob- unique lowest energy point at momentum zero. This is tain the spinon, holon, and spinon-holon pair energies for only true for a finite system though, as in the infinite a set of different system sizes. After extrapolating to the system this energy would be degenerate with the one at infinite system size, the corresponding energies Es, Eh, k = π. However, since we do not have a reciprocal space and Ep can be used to calculate the binding energy of point exactly at k = π, for a finite system the energy the spinon-holon state in an infinite system as at the momentum points closest to k = π is somewhat higher. This mismatch is an important source of finite- ∆= Ep Es Eh. (5) size effects in our measurement, as we discuss below. As − − the anisotropy α is increased, the energy at k = π de- We will refer to this approach as “method A”. 4

In order to obtain an accurate estimate for the exci- -33.030 tation energies in the infinite size limit, we have to deal 2.80 with a variety of finite-size effects. The lifting of de- -33.032 generacy in holon dispersion mentioned above is one of -33.034 2.75 them. It turns out that its effect on the resulting GSE (L) p ε depends on whether the system size L (or L 1 if L is )

− φ -33.036 odd) is divisible by 4 or not, so we will refer to these two 2.70 E( data branches as 4-even and 4-odd, respectively. Such -33.038 a mod(4) dependence has been extensively discussed in 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 1/L the literature (see Ref. 6 and references therein). In the -33.040 4-even branch the energy ǫk=0 provides an upper bound for the true GSE, while ǫk=π serves as a lower bound, -33.042 and the bounds are reversed for the 4-odd case. Another -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 source of finite-size corrections is the incommensurabil- φ ity of the momentum space points in the systems of odd size. For example, it can be seen from Fig. 2 that for FIG. 6: Ground state energy as the function of phase φ for the GS corresponds to momentum π/2 in the L = 16, Jz/t = 4.0, α = 0.5. Dashed line is a quadratic fit. L = limit. However, for any finite-sized system with ∞ Inset shows the comparison of raw staggered pair energy data odd L there will be no reciprocal space point k = π/2, (open circles) and phase-corrected data (solid circles) for the instead the GSE will occur at one of the nearest points same Jz and α, and different system sizes. with momentum k = π/2 δ , where with δ = π/L. As ± L L the system size is increased, δL will go to zero, and the GSE will drift towards its infinite-L limiting value. Sim- since we have to use a phase shift of π to move the k = π ilarly, we cannot directly measure the GSE for holons point of the original model to momentum k = 0 for a (Fig. 3) at k = π. All these factors lead to a highly model with boundary twist. Such a phase shift is readily non-trivial finite size dependence. As an example, Fig. implemented just by switching the sign of the hopping 5 shows the size dependence of the raw holon energies. constant t to the opposite one. That enabled us to re- To get a meaningful extrapolation the separate analysis construct the points, lost due to the splitting into 4-even of 4-even and 4-odd branches, which contain only half of and 4-odd branches, by complementing the holon GSE the original points, is required. data with measurements performed on the model with The situation with incommensurate k-space points can t = 1, as shown in Table I. − be improved by imposing twisted boundary conditions on The spinon-holon pair GSE data also suffer from the the model.19 A boundary twist leads to the translation k-mismatch, as the GS is achieved at an incommensurate of the points in k-space, but does not affect the energy k-point.19 In principle, the same procedure may be ap- spectrum. Thus, by adjusting the twist one can shift plied to improve the pair energy data. There, however, the k-point with anticipated minimum energy from an the phase shift φ needed to shift the energy minimum incommensurate location in k-space to an accessible one. to an accessible momentum point is size-dependent, so it In case of holons such a procedure is particularly simple, has to be determined individually for every data point. By replacing t in (2) by teiφ and tuning the phase shift φ, we were able to measure the total energy of the system 2.3 as a function of φ using ED. An example of such depen- α=0.3 dence is presented in Fig. 6. One remarkable feature of 2.25 α=0.4 this dependence is that it is very well fit by a quadratic α=0.5 polynomial, so it is sufficient to know the energy at two different non-zero values of φ to recover the “true” low- 2.2 est energy at the minimum with excellent accuracy. The (L)

h inset of Fig. 6 shows dramatic improvement of the data E 2.15

Branch mod(L − 1, 4) sign(t) 2.1 0 +1 4-even 2 -1 2.05 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0 -1 4-odd 1/L 2 +1

FIG. 5: Raw holon GS energies for Jz/t = 4.0 and differ- TABLE I: Splitting of holon energy data for different sizes L ent anisotropies α as a function of inverse system size 1/L. and different signs of the hopping constant t into the 4-even Dashed lines are guides to the eye. and 4-odd branches. 5 due to the phase-induced correction. While such bound- 0.9 ary conditions can be readily handled by ED, our DMRG 0.8 WdV code required extensive modifications to support them. Jz/t=1.0 0.7 Thus, in this work we perform the extrapolations using Jz/t=4.0 only the raw spinon-holon pair GSE data, split into 4- 0.6 even and 4-odd branches. Further improvement of the 0.5 precision of our results by using phase-adjusted data is λ possible. 0.4 After the data for holon and pair are split into such 0.3 branches, we need to extrapolate them to the L = limit, using a reasonable fitting form. From the holon∞ 0.2 (Fig. 7) and pair (Fig. 9) excitation energy data it 0.1 is evident, that it has a complicated size dependence, 0 which cannot be adequately described by a polynomial. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Clearly, at large L the difference between the limiting α value and the data points drops exponentially with in- creasing L. Incidentally, the size dependence for the FIG. 8: Comparison of the analytic values of λ from Ref. 18 GSE of the XXZ model, deduced by Woynarovich and (dashed line) with the values obtained by fitting the holon de Vega (WdV) from BA,18 is also dominated by an ex- data with form (6) and keeping λ a free fitting parameter ponential factor exp( λL). That inspired us to attempt (symbols). fitting the holon and− pair data with the functional form

−λL EL = E∞ + e Pn(1/L), (6) 0.3), the exponential factor in (6) makes the asymptotic approach to the infinite value very rapid, allowing us to where Pn(x) is a polynomial of order n (n 4) in x with adjustable coefficients. Not only does it work≤ remarkably simply adopt the energy value for the largest available well for both holons and pairs (extrapolations are shown size as the infinite-size limiting value. Increasing α re- in Fig. 7 and Fig. 9 with dashed lines), but the values of sults in decreasing λ, which pushes the onset of the expo- the coefficient λ we have found by keeping this parameter nential size dependence to larger and larger system sizes. free in our holon fits provide an excellent match to the In this regime the extrapolation using form (6) must be used. Around α 0.5 parameter λ becomes compara- analytic values found by WdV for the XXZ model (their ∼ comparison is presented in Fig. 8). Therefore, we have ble with the inverse of the maximum available system assumed that for holons the λ values found by WdV are size. At higher anisotropies the onset of the exponential either exact, or a very good approximation. Thus, we behavior in size dependence takes place at characteristic used them in our holon fits, reducing the total number sizes, not accessible by our calculations (as can be seen of free parameters by one. For pairs the values of the λ on the lower right panel of Fig. 9), making the precise parameter did not correlate with WdV results at all, so extrapolation of the pair excitation energy impossible. it had to be kept as a free parameter in the fit. We can improve the accuracy of the extracted infinite When the parameter λ is sufficiently large (for α < size value E∞ by noting that both for holons and pairs ∼

2.012 3.064 2.88 2.15 α α 3.062 =0.1 =0.3 2.87 2.86 2.011 3.060 (L) 2.10 (L) 2.85 h p 3.058 E E 2.84 3.056 2.83 2.010 α α =0.1 =0.3 2.05 3.054 2.82 3.00 3.2 α=0.5 α=0.7 3.1 2.25 2.5 2.90 3.0 (L) 2.20 (L) h 2.80 2.9 2.4 p E E 2.8 2.15 2.70 α=0.5 α=0.7 2.3 2.7 2.10 2.60 2.6 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 1/L 1/L 1/L 1/L

FIG. 7: The 4-even (circles) and 4-odd (squares) branches of FIG. 9: The 4-even (circles) and 4-odd (squares) branches of holon energy data for Jz/t = 4.0 and different anisotropies α. spinon-holon pair energy data for Jz/t = 4.0 and different The “good” branch is used to extrapolate to L = ∞, using anisotropies α. The “good” branch is used to extrapolate to form (6) with n = 4 and the WdV values of λ from Ref. 18 L = ∞, using form (6) with n = 4. 6

1 1 -0.565 Branch mod(L, 4) sign(t) for EL−1 sign(t) for EL+1 -0.20 B1 0 -1 +1 -0.570 -0.25 B1 B2 0 +1 -1 -0.575 (L) B2

∆ B3 -0.30 B3 2 -1 +1 -0.580 B4 B4 2 +1 -1 α=0.1 α=0.3 -0.35 -0.585 0.00 0.00 TABLE II: Subdivision of the numerical data for ∆(L) into -0.05 different branches due to finite size effects in method B. -0.05 -0.10 -0.10 (L)

∆ -0.15 -0.15 -0.20 one of the branches is always more “well-behaved” than α=0.5 α=0.7 -0.20 -0.25 the other one. For example, non-uniform behavior of the 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 4-even branch for holons can be seen on the lower left 1/L 1/L panel of Fig. 7 (it peaks slightly around 1/L = 0.025), and on the upper panels of Fig. 9 for the 4-odd pair FIG. 11: Size dependence for different branches of binding en- branch. This non-uniformity of the “bad” branch usu- ergy ∆(L) at Jz/t = 4.0. For branch definition see Table II. ally results from the GS switching from one momentum Solid lines are guides to the eye, dashed curve is the polyno- sector to a different one as a function of L. In our anal- mial extrapolation of the “good” branch B2. Legend applies to all panels. ysis we have used only the extrapolations obtained with the “well-behaved” branch – 4-odd for holons and 4-even for pairs. The energy for the spinon excitations can, in the order of 10% (100%) for J /t =4.0 (J /t =1.0), and principle, be extracted from the numerical data in a simi- z z for α =0.7 it exceeds 100% for both representative values lar way. However, to further improve our results, we have of J . As mentioned before, we do not consider the bind- used the analytic expression for the spinon excitation en- z ing energy results for α> 0.6 to be reliable due to issues ergy E = ω , given by Eq. (4), thus eliminating the s q=π/2 with pair energy extrapolation. Also, at larger values of finite-size effects from the spinon GSE completely. α the value of the binding energy becomes comparable Finally, the binding energy results for L = obtained −7 ∞ with the accuracy of our DMRG method (about 10 to by method A using (5) for Jz/t =4.0 and Jz/t =1.0 are 10−8 absolute precision, leading to about 10−4t accuracy presented in Fig. 10. These data are of high-precision of the binding energy at L = 128 and Jz/t = 4.0), im- for α < 0.5. We estimate the maximum relative error posing a natural limitation on the quality of the data. of the resulting binding energy by studying the quality of the fits and the variation of ∆∞ depending on the fit An alternative way to extrapolate the binding energy type. At α = 0.5 the error does not exceed 3% (10%) to the infinite size limit is to calculate it for every sys- for Jz/t = 4.0 (Jz/t = 1.0) and becomes negligible very tem size L individually, and then do the extrapolation of rapidly for smaller values of α. For α =0.6 the error is of the resulting size dependence to L = . In this method (referred to as “method B”) we intentionally∞ avoid using 0 any BA results, to see whether the reliable binding en- small α ergy data may be obtained based on the numerical results theory alone. One could hope that the finite-size effects of vari- Method B Jz /t=4.0 -0.2 Method A ous components entering the binding energy may cancel out, allowing the extrapolation to the infinite-size limit 0 using a simple polynomial in 1/L, instead of an expo- ∆ -0.4 nential. This approach, not depending on the theoretical /t -0.02 results, provides an important validity test for the results Jz /t=1.0 ∆/t of method A. -0.6 -0.04 Since holon and spinon GSEs are only available for odd L, and the spinon-holon pair ones only for even L, -0.06 we define the finite size binding energy for an even size -0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 L as 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 α ∆(L)= E0 +E1 [E0 +E0 +E1 +E1 ]/2, (7) L L − L−1 L+1 L−1 L+1 h FIG. 10: (Color online). Binding energy ∆ as a function of where EL is the ground state of a system with L sites, α for Jz/t = 4.0 and Jz /t = 1.0 (inset). Data includes the doped with h holes. This expression is analogous to (5): theoretical prediction (solid line), numerical results from ED sum of first two terms corresponds to the pair energy, and DMRG data obtained by method A (circles) and method 0 0 1 1 while (EL−1 + EL+1)/2 and (EL−1 + EL+1)/2 represent B (diamonds). Dashed line shows the linear approximation the average energy of a system of size L with a spinon (25), valid at small α. and holon, respectively. Again, due to staggering of the 7

′ ′ ∞ dω π dq GSEs, binding energy data splits into a 4-even and 4- ′ ′ , with ′ = is used. In q ≡ −∞ 2π q q −π 2π odd branches, depending on whether L is divisible by 4 or the vicinity of the pole of Γ, Eq. (8) should reduce to a R R P P R not. However, in this case we have an additional freedom homogeneous integral equation with Γ whose dependence 1 of choosing the sign of t for holon energies EL−1 and on one of the momenta q¯ is only parametric and can be 1 20 EL+1. Taking this into account results in 4 different data dropped branches, defined in Table II. The remaining possibilities 1 1 of using the same sign of t both for E and E have ′ s h ′ L−1 L+1 ΓP(q)= Vq,q Gq′ GP−q′ ΓP(q ). (9) been discarded as obviously suboptimal. ′ Zq The size dependence of different data branches for dif- ferent anisotropies is presented in Fig. 11. Due to split- The holon and spinon create a bound state if this integral ting, the number of points in each branch is pretty small, equation has a solution. By introducing a function so we have used a polynomial of maximum possible de- s h gree (one less than the number of points) to perform the χP(q)= GqGP−qΓP(q), (10) extrapolation to the infinite system size. From our previ- Zω ous experience we know that the “good” holon branch in s h multiplying both sides of (9) by GqGP−q, and integrating method A corresponds to branch B2, therefore we used over ω, we arrive at the extrapolated value from this branch as our final re- sult for the binding energy. As can be seen in Fig. 10, s h ′ ′ the data from methods A and B are in excellent agree- χP(q)= GqGP−q Vq,q χP(q ). (11) ω ′ ment in the range of α, where its calculation is reliable. Z  Xq However, we have found that the method B data always Evaluation of the first integral on the rhs requires knowl- has a larger relative error than method A, mainly due to edge of the spinon and holon Green’s functions. For now the size-dependence of the spinon component, eliminated we will just assume that they are free particles with some in method A. dispersions ωq and ǫk, the specific form of which is to be determined: III. THEORETICAL RESULTS 1 Gs = , q,ω ω ω + iδ − q Because in the Ising limit the spinon is impurity-like, h 1 the spinon-holon binding at α = 0 can be solved in a Gk,ǫ = . ǫ ǫk + iδ number of ways (see Appendix) to give Eq. (3). For − finite α the binding energy of the spinon-holon state may With this assumption the integral is trivially done, yield- be calculated analytically by finding the poles of the two- ing the final form of the Bethe-Salpeter equation for particle scattering amplitude Γ. We will use shorthand χP(q): notation q = (q,ω) and k = (k,ǫ) to denote the momenta 1 ′ and energies of spinon and holon, respectively. χP(q)= Vq,q′ χP(q ). (12) E ǫP −q ωq ′ Scattering amplitude Γ obeys the Bethe-Salpeter − − q equation,20 presented in diagrammatic form in Fig. 12. X Generally, it depends on both the incoming q, k and out- From this equation it is clear that χP(q) is nothing going q¯, k¯ 2-momenta of spinon and holon. Using that but the pair wavefunction and the equation (12) is the momentum and energy are conserved, k + q = k¯ + q¯ = Schr¨odinger equation for it in integral form. The pair P (P, E), we may write it as energy E may be thought of as the binding energy ∆, ≡ measured relative to the lowest energies of the particles

′ s h ′ ǫ0 = min[ǫk] and ω0 = min[ωq]: ΓP(q, q¯)= Vq,q¯ + Vq,q Gq′ GP−q′ ΓP(q , q¯). (8) ′ Zq E =∆+ ǫ0 + ω0. (13) Here V ′ is the spinon-holon interaction, and Gh(s) is the q,q In the Ising limit ǫ = 2t cos k, ǫ = 2t, ω = ω = holon (spinon) Green’s function. A shorthand notation k − 0 − q 0 J /2, and V ′ = ω , so Eq. (12) is readily solved by z q,q − 0 C χP(q)= , (14) E ǫ − ω − P q − 0 yielding a dispersionless (P -independent) bound state with ∆ given by (3). From general considerations, the binding energy in 1D should scale as V 2m, where V is FIG. 12: Bethe-Salpeter equation for the spinon-holon scat- interaction strength and m is the particle− mass. In the tering amplitude (circle). Spinons (holons) are shown by 2 Ising case this gives ∆ Jz /t, in agreement with the dashed (solid) lines. exact result (3). ∼− 8

Away from the Ising limit (at nonzero α) the physical The remaining question is that of the spinon-holon in- picture changes qualitatively. First of all, due to the spin- teraction. One can analyze the binding problem in the flips the spinon is no longer stationary; it may propagate small-α limit rigorously. The changes to the holon and through the lattice and has a π/2 momentum in the the AF GSEs are of order O(α2), while the spinon energy ± ground state. Second, the spinon-holon interaction Vq,q′ changes in the order O(α): changes. Finally, the holon dispersion is altered as well 0 and may acquire some “dressing”. The changes in the ωq = ω + δωq = Jz/2+ αJz cos2q. (18) latter, however, should not affect the pairing in any sig- nificant way due to the fact that only the holon dispersion One of the consequences of non-zero anisotropy is the π/2 momentum of the GS of the spinon. This immedi- near the energy minimum matters for it. The holon mass ± renormalization has been analyzed in detail in Ref. 19 ately implies that the spinon-holon pairing should result in a bound state with finite total momentum P = π/2, and it was found insignificant throughout the anisotropic ± regime 0 α 1. This means that both the “dressing” in agreement with the numerical data, shown in Fig. and the holon≤ ≤ dispersion changes are minor and should 4. Since the energy of the system is lowered when the not affect pairing. On the other hand, changes in the AF domain walls associated with the spinon and holon spinon dispersion are qualitative and drastic. At α = 0, pass through each other, the interaction between the two can be written as a “contact” attraction of the strength the spinon may be viewed as a gapped, immobile exci- 0 V = Jz/2. Using real-space considerations we find that tation with the energy ωq = Jz/2. With increasing α it − evolves into a relativistic one, turning completely gap- this leads to a direct relation between interaction in the less in the isotropic limit α = 1, where its dispersion is momentum space and spinon dispersion. To the order ω = J (π/2) cos q . The spinon dispersion for the XXZ O(α) the interaction can be shown to be: q z | | model at intermediate values of α, shown by solid lines in 0 V ′ = ω (δω +δω ′ )/2. (19) Fig. 2, is known exactly from BA,11 see Eq. (4). While q,q − − q q the parameter c/Jz in this equation changes almost lin- This equation may be used to derive an analytic expres- early between 1/2 and π/2 as α goes from 0 to 1, the sion for the binding energy ∆, exact to the first order in parameter κ varies from 0 to 1 rather steeply, achieving α. Substituting (19) into (12) we get the value of approximately 0.996 at α =0.5. As a result, √ 2 the spinon gap ωs given by ωs = c 1 κ becomes suf- 1 0 δωq B ficiently small already at α 0.5. One− can obtain the χP(q)= A ω + + , (20) ∼ −Eq 2 2 asymptotic behavior for ωs, valid for α > 0.5, and show     that it approaches zero exponentially in∼ (1 α)−1/2 as where α 1: − ′ → A = χP(q ), (21) 2 α q′ ωs 4c exp π . (15) X ≈ − 8(1 α) ′  r −  B = δωq′ χP(q ), (22) ′ The smallness of the spinon gap may be used to write Xq the spinon spectrum in approximate “quasi-relativistic” Eq E ǫP −q ωq. (23) form in this regime: ≡ − − After inserting this result for χ(q) into (12), dropping π 2 the higher-order terms in α, and some algebraic manip- ω = c2 q + ω2. (16) q − 2 s ulations, we end up with the following equation for ∆: r   Another effect of increasing α is a dramatic decrease of J 1+2α cos2q 1= z . (24) the spinon’s effective mass − 2 ∆ (ǫ − ǫ ) 2α(cos2q + 1) q − P q − 0 − − X ∂2ω 1 m = q (17) Further expansion in α and calculation using the “bare” 2 0 ∂q holon energy ǫk = ǫ 2t cos k, yields an expression for   q=π/2 k ≡ ∆ which is valid to order O(α): −1 2 which goes from (4αJz) at α 1 to ωs/c at α > 0.5. ≪ ∼ ∆ =∆0(1 Cα), (25) Such a change can be observed in the spectra in Fig. − 2, where increasing α makes the energy minimum into with ∆ given by Eq. (3) and a sharp tip, indicating the mass reduction. Thus, even 0 without knowing a specific form of interaction, one can 2J 2 anticipate that the spinon-holon binding will be strongly C = z . (26) affected by such changes in the spinon spectrum. We also 16t2 + J 2 16t2 + J 2 4t z z − note that since the spinon becomes much lighter than the p p  holon, m m (2t)−1, the role of the holon dispersion Interestingly, the initial slope of ∆(α)/∆(0) depends only s ≪ h ≃ in (12) becomes secondary close to the isotropic limit. weakly on the value of Jz: it is bound between C = 4 9 at Jz = 0 and C = 2 at Jz/t 1 and varies smoothly as solid lines in Fig. 10. Not only this equation naturally between them. This linear-α result≫ (25) is shown in Fig. yields our small-α results, but it also provides a very 10 with dashed lines. It is in extremely close agreement close agreement with the numerical data for all values of with the numerical data in the small-α regime. Jz and for all α we can access numerically. This pro- Having established the form (19) of the spinon-holon vides a very convincing a posteriori verification of our interaction for small α, we can now try to address the spinon-holon interaction Ansatz. question of how might the general form of the interaction, Since we neglect the changes in the holon dispersion, valid for any anisotropy α, look like. While there are no the deviation of our theoretical result for ∆ from an ex- strict analytical arguments for it, we may formulate a act answer is expected to occur in order O(α2). We veri- number of criteria, which this form must satisfy. First of fied that in the small-α limit. Results of the comparison all, the interaction Vq,q′ must be symmetric with respect of analytic and numerical results are presented in Fig. to momenta, Vq,q′ = Vq′,q. Second, it must reproduce 13. At α = 0, numerical data obtained using method B the small α limit (19) as α 0. One can also anticipate for the largest system size accessible by ED (19-21 sites) that it should be straightforwardly→ related to the spinon agrees with the exact analytical result (3) within the nu- energy, similar to Eq. (19). merical precision (10−7t). However, any small anisotropy Based on these requirements, we propose the following results in a finite-size effect, linear in α (see inset of Fig. form of the interaction in the momentum space: 13). This may be understood in terms of the momen- tum space mismatch, discussed earlier: for any finite Vq,q′ = √ωqωq′ . (27) α and finite size L we cannot obtain the “true” GSE − value for spinon from the numerical simulations, because This is somewhat reminiscent of the -phonon the momentum point corresponding to its lowest energy interaction that is proportional to square-root of the (q = π/2) is incommensurate with the available momen- phonon energy. Using this Ansatz for Vq,q′ , spinon en- tum points. Thus, a finite-size effect of the order O(1/L) ergy from BA, and neglecting the changes in the holon is expected for any finite α. The extrapolated data, on 0 2 dispersion (ǫk =ǫk) we arrive at a solution of Eq. (12) of the other hand, displays the expected O(α ) deviation. the form Although we have no formal proof of the validity of our interaction Ansatz for all α, the agreement with the √ωq χ(q) = const , (28) numerical data makes it very plausible. As the bind- E × q ing energy becomes small, it is the long-wavelength fea- leading to the following equation for ∆: tures of the dispersions and interaction that determine the pairing. One can see from Eq. (27) that at α 1 → ωq the characteristic interaction at low energies is V ω . 1= . (29) ≈ s − ∆ (ǫ − ǫ ) (ω ω ) Thus, within the qualitative picture of pairing in 1D, q P q 0 q 0 X − − − − both the interaction and the spinon mass become pro- Solving this equation numerically yields the complete de- portional to the spinon gap ωs that tends to zero ex- pendence of the binding energy ∆ on anisotropy α shown ponentially. One then expects the asymptotic behavior 2 3 ∆ V m ωs . From Eq. (29) we can derive such ∼ − ∼ − 3 2 an asymptotic expression explicitly: ∆ (Jz, α)ωs /c , -0.5 where ≈ D J = 4 theory ∆ / t z ED, 19-21 sites 1, t Jz; ED+DMRG extrapolated 2 ≫ (Jz, α)= 1 πc (30) -0.6 D  , t Jz.  2 4t ln(c/2t) ≪   Notably, the exponential behavior of the binding energy -0.7 0 is determined solely by the asymptotic behavior (15) of -0.05 the spinon gap ωs, with the expression in the exponential (∆ −∆ ) t n -0.1 dependent only on α and not on Jz/t. Thus, the holon α ∆ -0.8 t energy scale is secondary as it only enters the prefactor. -0.15 Altogether, this explains the quick (exponential) drop-off -0.2 α 0 0.05 0.1 ∆ exp 3π2 (31) -0.9 ∼− − 8(1 α) 0 0.05 0.1  r −  J⊥ / Jz already at intermediate values of α > 0.5. From this asymptotic expression and∼ Eq. (29) one can

FIG. 13: (Color online). Analytic (∆t) and numerical (∆n) see that the binding energy vanishes in the isotropic limit results for the binding energy at small values of α for Jz/t = together with the spinon gap. Thus, our spinon-holon in- 4.0. Inset shows the relative difference between the theoretical teraction Ansatz also provides a natural and simple ex- and numerical results. planation of the non-zero binding at finite q but no bound 10 state at α = 1. This is possible because the interaction of poration Award (JSˇ and AC) and by NSF grant DMR- the holon with the long-wavelength spinon Vq,q′ vanishes 0605444 (SRW). together with the spinon energy. Then, the pairing is not strong enough to produce a bound state in the isotropic limit. We also find that in the isotropic limit the spinon- APPENDIX A: DIFFERENT TREATMENTS OF THE α = 0 PROBLEM holon pair wave-function, Eq. (28), is χ(q) 1/√ωq. In ∼ real space, this would correspond to 1/√r spinon-holon correlation, exactly the behavior found in Ref. 6. For pedagogical purposes we describe three different analytic ways to determine the bound state energy of the t-Jz model, doped with a single hole. IV. CONCLUSIONS Method 1. The first method we discuss is the exact cal- culation of the hole’s real-space Green’s function. It can 22,23 We have performed extensive analytical and numerical be accomplished using the expansion in paths, or the 24,25 studies of an anisotropic version of the t-J model, doped recursion technique that is also identical to the Lanc- with a single hole. Our main result is that the anisotropy zos method. We use the latter as the most straightfor- of the spin-spin interaction leads to an effective attrac- ward. The bound state energy may be determined as the tion between the spinon and holon excitations, resulting pole of the diagonal element in existence of a spinon-holon bound state. Using the ED 1 and DMRG techniques we have numerically estimated G (ω)= ψ ψ , (A1) ii i ω i the binding energy as a function of anisotropy. We have   − H described in detail the finite-size effects which arise due where ψi is the state of the system in which the hole is to various factors and, by examining various ways to mit- located at site i. It may be calculated exactly by noting igate or eliminate them, worked out a procedure for ex- that we may bring the Hamiltonian to a tridiagonal form trapolation of the finite-size data to the infinite size limit, by generating a basis resulting in precise estimates of the binding energy up to anisotropy α =0.5. The resulting numerical values have 2 n +1 = H n an n bn n 1 , (A2) been found to be in excellent agreement with the theory, | i | i− | i− | − i based on Bethe-Salpeter equation. Using the experience where gained while studying the small anisotropy limit, we have n n n n formulated the criteria for the form of the spinon-holon a = h |H| i , b2 = h | i . (A3) n n n n n 1 n 1 interaction in momentum space, and proposed a form h | i h − | − i (27) for it, which results in excellent agreement of ana- It is easy to see that in this basis the diagonal Green’s lytical and numerical results. Finally, we have identified function may be represented as a continued fraction: the changes in the spinon spectra as the primary factor affecting the behavior of the binding energy as a func- 2 1 b1 tion of anisotropy. We have demonstrated that the bind- G11(ω)= 1 1 = 2 . (A4) ω b2 ing energy goes to zero exponentially, as a power of the   ω a1 ω−a2−... − H − − spinon gap, when isotropic limit is approached. This be- havior also explains why there is no spinon-holon binding In the case of the t-Jz model the coefficients in the con- in the isotropic t-J model. These results could be tested tinued fraction have the form in photoemission experiments in 1D spin-chain systems 2 b1 = 1 with Ising anisotropies. 2 2 We would like to note that the problem we have con- b2 = 2t 2 2 2 2 sidered is strictly single hole, and its extension to the b3 = b4 = b5 = . . . = t (A5) finite-doping case is not trivial. For instance, even in the pure Ising limit one could deliberately avoid creating and any spinons by putting an even number of holes in the a = ω0 J /2 holon-only states (see Ref. 21). However, if spinons are 1 − ≡− z present in the system, the interaction between them and a2 = a3 = a4 = . . . =0. (A6) the holons remains attractive even at a finite hole doping and may lead to their binding. Thus, we may rewrite (A4) as 1 G (ω)= , (A7) ii ω + ω0 2Σ(ω) V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. − where

We would like to thank A. Bernevig and O. Starykh for 2 2 fruitful discussions. This work was supported in part by t t Σ(ω)= t2 = . (A8) DOE grant DE-FG02-04ER46174 and by a Research Cor- ω ω Σ(ω) − ω−... − 11

Solving for Σ(ω) yields the Green’s function The integral on the rhs 1 G(ω)= , (A9) S = p G0(ω) p (A18) 2 2 h | | i Jz/2 √ω 4t p ∓ − X with poles given by can be calculated using elementary methods to find ω¯ = 4t2 + J 2/4. (A10) 1 ± z S = . (A19) √ω2 4t2 The energy correspondingp to the lowest pole is lower than − hole’s kinetic energy 2t, indicating the presence of a Thus bound state. The expression− for the binding energy ∆ = 2t ω¯ is equivalent to (3). The residue of ω0√ω2 4t2 − | | 4 T (ω)= − (A20) that pole is given by: −ω0 + √ω2 4t2 − J J Z = z = z . (A11) The exact Green’s function of a particle with a scatterer 2 2 2 ω¯ 16t + Jz is a function of incoming and outgoing momenta k and | | k′, given by At large t/Jz, in agreementp with the naive expectations, ′ ′ Z (Jz/2)/2t, the ratio of spinon-holon interaction G(k, k )= G0(k)+ G0(k)T G0(k ). (A21) strength≈ to the holon kinetic energy. Method 2. Another approach is to consider the immo- This yields the following matrix element: bile spinon to be an impurity and solve the problem of ′ 1 1 a freely moving hole scattering on it using the T -matrix k G(ω) k = δ ′ + T (ω) . h | | i ω +2t cos k k,k ω +2t cos k′ formalism. To that end we write the Hamiltonian of the   hole as (A22) Transforming to real space by integrating over momenta = 2t cos(k)c† c , (A12) k and k′, we get the diagonal Green’s function at the H0 − k k k point of origin: X where ck is the annihilation operator for a hole with mo- ′ Grr(ω) = k G(ω) k mentum k. The impurity Hamiltonian may be written ′ h | | i as Xk,k 1 1 ′ 0 † = + 2 2 T (ω) = ω c cr, (A13) √ω2 4t2 ω 4t H − r − − 1 i.e. it lowers the energy by ω0 J /2 if the hole is present = (A23) ≡ z ω0 + √ω2 4t2 at the origin site. Transforming it to the momentum − space after assuming r = 0 yields that is equivalent to (A9). This Green’s function has the † poles at the locations given by (A10), so it yields binding ′ 0 ′ = ω ckck . (A14) energy equivalent to (3). H − ′ Xk,k Method 3. Finally, the last approach is based on the The impurity Hamiltonian is such that each of its matrix physical picture of hole decay into a spinon and holon, elements is equal to ω0. The equation for T -matrix is confined to two half-spaces (see Fig. 1), and solving the − Dyson’s equation for such a decay exactly. The Dyson T = ′ + ′G T. (A15) equation for the hole at origin has the form H H 0 1 Inserting complete sets of states and using the fact that G(ω)= , (A24) G is diagonal and k ′ k′ = ω0 for arbitrary k, k′, (G0)−1 Σ(ω) 0 − we get the followingh equation|H | i for− the matrix elements: where ′ 0 0 ′ k T k = ω ω p G0 p p T k . (A16) h | | i − − h | | ih | | i 0 1 p G (ω)= , (A25) X ω Close examination of this expression reveals that the T - ′ and self-energy Σ(ω) may be written in terms of the matrix is independent of k and k . Denoting the matrix spinon Green’s function D(ω) and the holon Green’s element by T (ω) we obtain (1/2) function in a half-space Gh (ω):

0 ′ T (ω)= ω 1+ T (ω) p G (ω) p . (A17) 2 dω ′ (1/2) ′ − h | 0 | i Σ(ω)=2t D(ω )G (ω ω ). (A26) p ! 2π h − X Z 12

′ Since Here Gh(x, x ; ω) is just an inverse Fourier transform of the Green’s function of a free hole: 1 D(ω)= , (A27) ω ω0 ′ − dp ei(x−x )p G (x, x′; ω)= . (A31) the integral is readily done, leading to the expression for h 2π ω +2t cos p self-energy Z It depends only on the difference of the coordinates x x′, Σ(ω)=2t2G(1/2)(ω ω0). (A28) − h − as expected for a translationally invariant system. We are interested in the diagonal matrix element of (A30): The Green’s function (A24) can then be written in terms of the shifted frequencyω ˜ = ω ω0 as − G(1/2)(x; ω) G(1/2)(x, x; ω)= 1 h ≡ h G(˜ω)= . (A29) = G (x x; ω) G (x + x; ω).(A32) ω˜ + ω0 Σ(˜ω) h − − h − (1/2) Using (A31) it may be readily found to be To calculate Gh (˜ω), that is the Green’s function of a free hole subject to a “hard-wall” boundary condition at the origin, we note that it can be expressed as the anti- (1/2) 2 2 2Gh (ω)= ω ω 4t , (A33) symmetric part of the hole’s Green’s function Gh(ω) in ± − the entire space. For example, in the coordinate repre- p sentation we obtain: again leading to the expression for G(ω) equivalent to Eqs. (A9) and (A23) and expression for ∆, equivalent to G(1/2)(x, x′; ω)= G (x, x′; ω) G (x, x′; ω). (A30) (3). h h − h −

1 T. Giamarchi, Quantum Physics in One Dimension, vol. 20 V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, 121 of International Series of Monographs on Physics (Ox- Quantum Electrodynamics, vol. 4 of Landau and Lifshitz ford University Press, 2004). Course of Theoretical Physics (Pergamon Press, 1982). 2 E. H. Lieb and F. Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1445 (1968). 21 C. D. Batista and G. Ortiz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4755 3 H. Shiba and M. Ogata, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 108, (2000). 265 (1992). 22 Y. Nagaoka, Sol. State Comm. 3, 409 (1965). 4 S. Sorella and A. Parola, Phys. Rev. B 57, 6444 (1998). 23 W. F. Brinkman and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 2, 1324 5 M. Brunner, F. F. Assaad, and A. Muramatsu, Eur. Phys. (1970). J. B 16, 209 (2000). 24 O. A. Starykh and G. F. Reiter, Phys. Rev. B 53, 2517 6 B. A. Bernevig, D. Giuliano, and R. B. Laughlin, Phys. (1996). Rev. B 65, 195112 (2002). 25 A. L. Chernyshev and P. W. Leung, Phys. Rev. B. 60, 1592 7 P.-A. Bares, G. Blatter, and M. Ogata, Phys. Rev. B 44, (1999). 130 (1991). 8 S. E. Nagler, W. J. L. Buyers, R. L. Armstrong, and B. Briat, Phys. Rev. B 27, 1784 (1983). 9 C. Kim, A. Y. Matsuura, Z. X. Shen, N. Motoyama, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, T. Tohyama, and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4054 (1996). 10 J. Smakov,ˇ A. L. Chernyshev, and S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 266401 (2007). 11 J. D. Johnson, S. Krinsky, and B. M. McCoy, Phys. Rev. A 8, 2526 (1973). 12 S. Haas, Ph.D. thesis, Florida State University (1995), URL http://physics.usc.edu/~shaas/haasthesis.pdf. 13 S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992). 14 S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B. 48, 10345 (1993). 15 S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B. 72, 180403 (2005). 16 D. Medeiros and G. G. Cabrera, Phys. Rev. B 44, 848 (1991). 17 C. N. Yang and C. P. Yang, Phys. Rev. 150, 321 (1966). 18 H. J. de Vega and F. Woynarovich, Nucl. Phys. B 251, 439 (1985). 19 X. Zotos, P. Prelovek, and I. Sega, Phys. Rev. B 42, 8445 (1990).