text:
# Magnetization dynamics with a spin-transfer torque

## I Introduction

Recently, there is considerable interest in the phenomenon of spin-polarized current induced magnetization switching. This phenomenon was first suggested by Berger Berger  and Slonczewski Slonczewski , based on a rather general argument: for a system consisting of itinerant electrons and local moments, the total angular momentum is conserved even for the system out of equilibrium, and thus the divergence of the spin current of itinerant electrons must be accompanied by an equal and opposite change of the angular momentum of the local moment. This change is equivalent to a spin torque acting on the local moment. Since then, there are many theoretical Bazaliy ; Waintal ; Stiles ; Brataas ; Zhang ; Slonczewski2  and experimental efforts Tsoi ; Myers ; Sun1 ; Katine ; Grollier ; Albert  to understand the microscopic origins. In this paper, we do not discuss the microscopic origins and the detailed formalism of the current-induced spin torque. Instead, we consider the consequences of the spin torque on the dynamics of the local moment of a spin valve structure.

Regardless of the detailed physics involved microscopically, the effect of the spin angular momentum transfer can be captured by an additional term in the macroscopic Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (LLG) equation,

$$\frac{d𝐌}{dt}=\gamma 𝐌\times 𝐇_{eff}+\frac{\gamma a_J}{M_s}𝐌\times (𝐌\times \widehat{𝐌}_p)+\frac{\alpha }{M_s}𝐌\times \frac{d𝐌}{dt},$$
(1)
where $`\gamma `$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $`𝐌`$ is the magnetization vector of the free layer, $`\widehat{𝐌}_p`$ is the unit vector whose direction is along the magnetization of the pinned layer, $`M_s`$ is the saturation magnetization, $`𝐇_{eff}`$ is the effective magnetic field including the external field, the anisotropy field, the exchange field, the demagnetization field and the random thermal field whose form will be discussed in the next section. The term proportional to $`a_J`$ is the novel spin torque term, and the last term is the Gilbert damping term. It is noted that $`a_J`$ has dimensions of magnetic field.

Experimental verification of the spin torque has been carried out in magnetic nanowires Wegrowe , spin valve pillar structures Myers ; Katine ; Grollier , point-contact geometry Tsoi ; Tsoi2 , and magnetic tunnel junctions Sun1 ; Sun3 . The convincing observation of these experiments is that there exists a critical current density above which the magnetization can be switched back and forth. Other properties, such as thermal effects Myers2 , also agree with the spin torque term in Eq. (1). Theoretical analysis has been mostly confined to a single domain structure Sun2 ; Bazaliy2 . Both analytical and numerical solutions indicate that the magnetization reversal becomes very complicated even for a single domain structure. For example, the hysteresis for a fixed current density may display a precessional mode, and there is a possibility of an inverse hysteresis (the magnetization along the direction of applied field decreases when one increases the applied field). Miltat et al. Miltat  made a step forward in relaxing the single domain assumption by studying the magnetization reversal for an “S” state and a “leaf” state Cowburn ; these are typical equilibrium domain structures of a submicron thin film. They concluded that the effect of the current is quite different for these two structures even though they have nearly the same magnetic energy.

The spin torque is fundamental new from the pure precessional term (first term in Eq. (1)) and from the damping term (last term in Eq. (1)). The precession term conserves the magnetic energy and it determines the precessional frequency of the magnetization dynamics. The damping term makes the magnetic system relax to a local energy minimum, i.e., it dissipates the energy during magnetization dynamics. The spin torque term, however, can have both effects: it can be a source of precessional motion as an effective field and it can serve as damping (or anti-damping) sources. It is this dual function that motivates us to study magnetization dynamics in a realistic magnetic nanostructure. In this paper, we perform an extensive study on the effect of the spin torque from the LLG equation, Eq. (1). The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, the model geometry of a spin valve pillar is defined and the method for micromagnetic simulation is outlined. Next, we calculate hysteretic and dynamical properties in the presence of the spin torque; in particular, we analyze precessional states in detail. We also present the results for a non-steady-state current in Sec. III. Finally we summarize what are the most interesting features of magnetization dynamics in the presence of the current-induced spin torque.

## II Micromagnetic model with the spin torque

To mimic the experimental geometry performed by the group at Cornell Katine , we define our structure in Fig.1. The electrical current flows perpendicular to the plane of the layer. The coordinate axes are so chosen that the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes are in the plane of the layer and the $`z`$-axis is perpendicular to it. A spin-polarized current $`j`$ enters the spin valve pillar in the $`z`$ direction and we assign the positive value of the parameter $`a_J`$ in Eq. (1) for the current flowing from the thicker ferromagnetic layer to the thinner one. The current induced magnetic field is ignored.

Since we focus our study on magnetization dynamics of the free layer, we assume that the pinned ferromagnetic layer is held fixed at the direction of the easy axis of the free layer, i.e., in positive $`x`$ direction. The following materials parameters for the free layer are used: the lateral size is 64nm$`\times `$64nm, the thickness is 2.5nm, the uniaxial anisotropy field $`H_K`$ is $`500`$(Oe), and the saturation magnetization $`4\pi M_s=12,000`$ (Oe). These parameters are reasonably consistent with the experiments by the Cornell group Katine . We note that the choice of the small layer thickness has two advantages: the magnetization direction in the thickness direction will be uniform, i.e., a 2-d micromagnetics modeling is sufficiently accurate and the spin torque per unit volume is large for a fixed current density (since the total spin torque will be almost independent of the free layer thickness within the applicability of several theoretical models).

With above specified parameters, we begin our simulation by laterally dividing the free layer into an N$`\times `$N grid. In most cases presented in the paper, we choose N=16 so that the grid spacing is $`D=4.0nm`$. Our goal is to calculate magnetization dynamics as the external magnetic field, the spin torque, and the damping parameter vary. The magnitude of the spin torque is proportional to the current density. Here we have chosen the unit of $`a_J`$ in Oesteds. The numerical value of $`a_J`$ has been estimated Slonczewski ; Zhang : for the current density $`j=10^8A/cm^2`$, $`a_J`$ in Eq. (1) is about 1 kOe. This conversion between $`a_J`$ and the current density is, however, irrelevant for us since we have written our results in terms of $`a_J`$ and thus we do not specify absolute values of the current density. The Gilbert damping constant $`\alpha `$ in Eq.(1) is not accurately known in a spin valve system. Among many physical sources for the damping, there is an additional contribution at the interface. Recent studies Back ; Bret ; Tserkovnyak  for ultrathin films show that the damping constant $`\alpha `$ is much enhanced when a nonmagnetic metal is deposited on the ferromagnetic film. For $`Cu/Co`$ bilayers, the damping constant is considerably larger than that of bulk value of $`Co`$. With this difficulty in choosing $`\alpha `$, we will vary it from 0.001 to 0.2 to address the damping dependence of the magnetization dynamics.

The effect of temperature on the dynamical behavior is also included in our simulation by adding a random thermal field to the effective magnetic field. The thermal field $`H_{th,i}^\xi (t)`$ at each site $`i`$ is assumed to be an independent Gaussian random function with its zero mean and no correlation, i.e., $`<H_{th,i}^\xi (t)H_{th,j}^\eta (t^{})>=2G\delta _{ij}\delta _{\xi \eta }\delta (tt^{})`$, where $`i,j`$ are the cell indexes, $`\xi `$, $`\eta `$ represents three Cartesian components, $`G=\alpha k_BT/\mu _0\gamma M_s\nu `$, and $`\nu `$ denotes the discretization volume of the computational cells. By adding the thermal activation, the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation is converted into a stochastic differential equation with multiplicative noise. The integration of the stochastic Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation is performed by employing the stochastic Heun method, by starting from a given initial configuration, and updating recursively the state of the system, $`𝐌(t)𝐌(t+\delta t)`$ Palacios ; Scholz ; Nowak . The Heun scheme is a good compromise between numerical stability and computational complexity. In general, the statistical error of Heun scheme is made arbitrarily small by averaging over a sufficiently large number of stochastic trajectories. We do not carry out $`\delta t0`$ limiting procedure but we employ a small discretization time interval, i.e., we use $`\delta t=0.3ps`$ throughout the paper.

## III Results

Many interesting features have already been shown by simply assuming the free layer is a single domain. As studied by Sun Sun2  and Bazaliy et al. Bazaliy2 , the spin torque term in LLG makes the magnetization dynamics quite complicated. The complication arises from the observation of the LLG equation that the spin torque is fundamentally different from the effective field term and from the damping term. The effective field term, first term in Eq. (1), can be derived from the energy derivative with respect to the local magnetization vector, i.e., $`𝐇_{eff}=\frac{E(𝐌(𝐫))}{𝐌(𝐫)}`$ where $`E(𝐌(𝐫))`$ is the magnetic energy including the exchange energy between the neighboring cells, the magnetostatic (dipole) energy, the (uniaxial) anisotropy energy, and the Zeeman energy. The damping term, which can not be written as the energy derivative, selects the magnetization path such that the local magnetization always moves into lower energy states, i.e., the system is looking for an energy minimum. The spin torque neither behaves as an effective field which conserves magnetic energy nor the damping term which dissipates the energy during the motion of magnetization. The spin torque can increase or decrease the magnetic energy. This leads to some interesting solutions with stable precessional states. We will show that these stable precessional states exist for finite temperature and for non-single-domain structures.

Another interesting effect of the spin torque is the appearance of the inverse hysteresis loop for certain range of the magnetic field, i.e., the magnetization along the direction of the magnetic decreases as one increases the magnetic field. To see this, let us consider the time-independent solution, $`\frac{d𝐌}{dt}=0`$. Equation (1) becomes

$$𝚪𝐌\times 𝐇_{eff}\frac{a_J}{M_s}𝐌\times (𝐌\times \widehat{𝐌}_p)=0.$$
(2)
For a single domain, we explicitly write $`𝐇_{eff}=(H_{ext}+H_KM_x)𝐞_x4\pi M_sM_z𝐞_z`$ and $`\widehat{𝐌}_p=𝐞_x`$. By placing these expressions into Eq. (2), we find

$$M_z[(H_{ext}+H_KM_x)^2+4\pi M_sM_x(H_{ext}+H_KM_x)+a_J^2M_x^2]=0$$
(3)
The above equation indicates that $`M_z=0`$ is always a solution, i.e., the magnetization is in the plane of the layer. However, there are other possible solutions with $`M_z0`$. From Eq. (3), we have

$$(H_{ext}+H_KM_x)^2+4\pi M_sM_x(H_{ext}+H_KM_x)+a_J^2M_x^2=0.$$
(4)
Thus two solutions can be immediately identified,

$$H_{ext}^\pm =H_KM_x2\pi M_sM_x\sqrt{(2\pi M_sM_x)^2a_J^2M_x^2}.$$
(5)
For $`2\pi M_sa_J`$, two solutions are further simplified as $`H_{ext}^+=M_x(H_K+4\pi M_s\frac{a_J^2}{4\pi M_s})`$ and $`H_{ext}^{}=M_x(H_K+\frac{a_J^2}{4\pi M_s})`$. These solutions show that the magnetic field and the magnetization $`M_x`$ have opposite sign, i.e., an inverse hysteresis. However, we need to point out that these solutions do not always stable compared to the simple solution $`M_z=0`$. When one examines the stability condition, it is found that the above solutions $`H_{ext}^\pm `$ are possible for a finite range of $`a_J`$ Bazaliy2 .

The third interest feature is that there is a critical current density, or a critical value of $`a_J`$, above which the spin torque can be used to switch one magnetic configuration to another, for example, to switch the magnetization from parallel to antiparallel alignment of the two magnetic layers. If one assumes the single domain of the free layer, the critical value can be readily deduced from the average energy variation rate Slonczewski ; Sun2 ,

$$(a_J)_{crit}=\pm \alpha (2\pi M_s+H_K)+\alpha H_{ext}$$
(6)
This simple relation indicates that the current-magnetization hysteresis loop displays a jump when the current is swept through the critical current. One might raise a question that why the critical current depends on demagnetization factor $`4\pi M_s`$ in Eq. (6). The answer is that the magnetization reversal involves a significant out-of-plane component of the magnetization. Once the magnetization rotates out of the plane during a reversal process, the demagnetization factor is added to the effective field in LLG equation. Thus, the damping term \[$`\alpha 𝐌\times (𝐌\times 𝐇_{eff})]`$, which is also proportional to the effective field, contains the demagnetization factor. To overcome the damping, the critical spin torque is, therefore, proportional to the demagnetization factor.

The above features derived from the single domain structure show unique characteristics of the spin torque. To further explore the spin torque effect, one needs to go beyond the hysteresis analysis, i.e., one should look at the detailed magnetization dynamics, and one must relax the assumption of the single domain. We now present our results in the following sections.

### III.1 Hysteresis loops with spin torques

Without the spin torque, the hysteresis loop is almost a perfect square with the coercive field $`H_c=H_K`$, i.e., the hysteresis loop behaves as a Stoner-Wohlfarth particle with the applied magnetic field parallel to the easy axis. When a spin torque is added on, the hysteresis loops display three distinct features. For a small current density, $`|a_J|<2\pi \alpha M_s`$, the hysteresis loops are not affected by the spin torque, see Fig. 2a. When the current density increases to intermediate values, the hysteresis loops begin to show some precessional states; those states are shaded in black, indicating that the magnetization is never converged to a final fixed direction; instead, it goes into a stable precession and we will further discuss those precessional states in later sessions. With this intermediate strength of the spin torque, the precessional magnetization is oscillating around the easy axis. Just before the appearance of the precessional states in Fig. (2b), two irreversible jumps $`H^{}`$ and $`H^+`$ occur; they can be again understood from the single domain solution. From the expression below Eq. (5), one can identify

$$H^{}=H_K\frac{a_J^2}{4\pi M_s}$$
(7)
On the other hand, for the field swept from negative $`x`$ to positive $`x`$ direction, one can use Eq. (6) to solve for $`H^+`$

$$H^+=\frac{|a_J|}{\alpha }+H_K+2\pi M_s$$
(8)
We note that $`H^+`$ defined here is different from $`H_{ext}^+`$ of Eq. (6) because the latter is for a high magnetic field. In the present case, the irreversible jump at $`H^+`$ occurs at much smaller field. From Eqs. (7) and (8), the coercivity $`H_c=(H^+H^{})/2=H_K\frac{1}{2}(\frac{|a_J|}{\alpha }2\pi M_s)+\frac{a_J^2}{8\pi M_s}`$ decreases with the spin torque and the loops shift $`\delta H=(H^++H^{})/2=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{|a_J|}{\alpha }2\pi M_s)\frac{a_J^2}{8\pi M_s}`$ appears, i.e., the spin torque supplies a bias field to the loop.

When the current density is further increased such that $`a_J>\alpha (2\pi M_s+2H_K`$), the loops become dramatically different from those of low current densities. The loops show multiple jumps and the precessional solutions expand to a large range of the magnetic field (note the scale difference in Fig. 2c). In addition, there is the region in the loop where the magnetization increases with decreasing magnetic field, e.g., when the magnetic field decreases from -9,900 (Oe) to -12,4000 (Oe), the magnetization $`M_x`$ increases from 0.78 to 0.99. This unusual solution at high field is consistent with the single domain solution given by Eq. (4), i.e., we can solve for $`M_x`$ from Eq. (4),

$$M_x=\frac{H_{ext}(H_K+2\pi M_s\sqrt{H_K^2+(2\pi M_s)^2a_J^2}}{H_K^2+4\pi M_sH_K+a_J^2}.$$

The solutions are stable; we have varied temperatures and confirmed that these states exist for all temperatures.

### III.2 Magnetization-current hysteresis loops at finite external fields

In Fig. 3, we show M-I hysteresis loops (magnetization as a function of the spin torque) for several different external fields. When the external magnetic field is smaller than the anisotropy field, i.e., $`H_{ext}<H_K`$, the M-I loop is almost square in shape and the critical spin torque is very close to the analytical expression given by Eq. (6). For example, the loop shift is $`\delta a_J=6`$ (Oe) for the external field of 200 (Oe), see Fig. 3a. When the external field is in the range between $`H_K`$ and $`4\pi M_s`$, the precessional solutions begin to appear. Further increasing the (negative) spin torque results a new stable state, see the plateau labeled B in Fig. 3b. This new stable “B” state exists even for a single domain case as pointed out in Ref. Bazaliy2 . If one applies an external field larger than $`4\pi M_s`$, the precessional states disappear for the M-I loops. Instead, there are multiple minor loops at large current density, see Fig. 3c.

### III.3 Energy dissipation and energy pumping

The new stable states, labeled as “B” in Fig. 3b, deserve further investigation. This is because the existence of the “B” state is yet another signature of the effect due to spin torque; without the spin torque, the magnetization of the final stable state would be in the plane for any in-plane magnetic field and the torque $`𝚪=𝐌\times 𝐇_{eff}`$ equals to zero. In Fig. 4, we show the magnetization vector pattern for the “B” state: there is a significant out-of-plane component. If we calculate the effective magnetic field $`𝐇_{eff}`$ for the “B” states, we find that the effective field is not parallel to the magnetization direction, there are angles between the two vectors $`𝐇_{eff}`$ and $`𝐌`$ for those “B” states. This would be unacceptable for the LLG without the spin torque, because the non-parallel configuration between $`𝐇_{eff}`$ and $`𝐌`$ can not be in the static stable condition. However, in the presence of spin torque it is possible, because the static stable condition is zero total torque, $`𝚪_{tol}=𝐌\times 𝐇_{eff}\frac{a_J}{M_s}𝐌\times (𝐌\times \widehat{𝐌}_p)=0`$.

Another interesting observation is the variation of the magnetic energy of the system. Without the spin torque, the change of the magnetic energy of system can be easily derived from LLG equation,

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{\alpha \gamma }{1+\alpha ^2}\frac{1}{M_s}|𝐇_{eff}\times 𝐌|^2.$$
(9)
Thus, the non-parallel configuration between $`𝐇_{eff}`$ and $`𝐌`$ would continuously dissipate the energy, i.e. $`\frac{dE}{dt}<0`$, until the magnetic energy of system reaches the local minimum, i.e., $`𝐇_{eff}//𝐌`$. When the spin torque turns on, it is possible to compensate the loss of the energy by the gain from the spin torque,

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{\gamma }{1+\alpha ^2}\frac{1}{M_s}\left[\alpha |𝐇_{eff}\times 𝐌|^2a_J(\alpha M_s\widehat{𝐌}_p𝐌\times \widehat{𝐌}_p)(𝐇_{eff}\times 𝐌)\right]$$
(10)
where the first term is the energy loss due to damping and the second term is the energy input (output) due to spin torque. If the first term is less than the second, i.e. $`\frac{dE}{dt}>0`$, the magnetic energy increases. If the first term is exactly balanced with the second, the net energy loss will be null and it is therefore possible to form a stable state “B” where $`|𝐌\times 𝐇_{eff}|`$ is nonzero but $`\frac{d𝐌}{dt}=0`$. If $`\frac{dE}{dt}`$ becomes a periodic function, a stable precessional state appears.

### III.4 Precessional states

As we have shown in the preceding sections, the solution of the LLG contains stable precessional states in which the magnetization never converges to a final state as if the system had no damping at all. These precessional solutions are one of the unique properties of the magnetization dynamics driven by a spin-polarized current. Without the current, the system is always losing its energy due to Gilbert damping and thus the precession can not be sustained after certain time scales, typically in a few nanoseconds. In Fig. 5, we show two trajectories of magnetization vectors at the stable precessional states for two magnetic fields but the same current. These two trajectories clearly show a large out-of-plane component of magnetization, indicating the significant role played by the demagnetization factor.

A further inspection of the magnetic energy of the precessional states reveals interesting temporal variation of the energy. The system constantly gains energy via the transfer of the angular momentum of the conduction electrons (spin currents) to the local magnetization. Thus the precessional states are the result of competition between the Gilbert energy dissipation and the spin torque energy input. The damping and pumping rates are not the same at a given time. The magnetic energy oscillates even for a steady state current. In Fig. 6, we show the evolution of magnetic energy as a function of time for different damping constants. The initial state of the system is a “leaf state” without the external field and the spin torque. At t=0, we simultaneously apply an external field $`H_{ext}=2000`$(Oe) and $`a_J=400`$ (Oe). For a large damping constant, i.e., $`\alpha >\frac{|a_J|}{2\pi M_s}`$, the energy dissipation is dominant. Thus, the system loses magnetic energy and eventually sets into a local minimum energy as shown in Fig. 6a. With decreasing $`\alpha `$, for example $`\alpha =0.03`$, the energy dissipation by damping and energy pumping by the spin torque becomes comparable. In response to the applied field and the spin torque, the magnetic energy begins to oscillate in a precessional cycle. If the damping constant further decreases, the energy oscillates around a value that increases and eventually reaches an asymptotic value. Such a dynamic change of the magnetic energy can be explained again from Eq. (10). When $`𝐌_p`$ is parallel to $`𝐇_{eff}`$, the rate of the energy change reduces to pure dumping or negative damping, i.e.,

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{\gamma }{1+\alpha ^2}\frac{1}{M_s}\left(\alpha \frac{a_J}{|H_{eff}|}\right)|𝐇_{eff}\times 𝐌|^2.$$
(11)
If $`\alpha \frac{a_J}{|H_{eff}|}>0`$ the magnetization seeks for energy minimum, otherwise, it seeks for the energy maximum, i.e., negative damping. In general, however, $`𝐌_p`$ is not parallel to $`𝐇_{eff}`$ and thus, Eq. (10) can be positive and negative at different times and one arrives at the precessional motion.

It is interesting to observe that the frequency of the stable precession highly depends on the damping parameter; this is in sharp contrast with the normal precession where the frequency is determined by the effective field. The reason is rather simple: the stable precessional states described here are from the competition between the damping and spin torque, and they are not the initial precessional motion (which is unstable) driven by the effective field. In Fig. 7, we show the precessional frequencies as a function of damping constant $`\alpha `$. As expected, the frequency monotonically increases as one decreases the damping parameter. For the same reason, the frequency increases with increasing spin torques.

To further analyze these precessional states, we have shown, in Fig. 8 the temporal evolution of three magnetization components when the magnetization reaches a stable precessional state. The magnetization shows significant out-of-plane component (z-direction) during the oscillation. The swing of magnetization in the in-plane hard axis direction is as large as that in the easy axis direction. A noticeable difference between low temperature and room temperature is the difference for the out-of-plane component of magnetization. There are two stable precessional solutions at the given external field and spin torque. One is the precession at the upper half plane, i.e., $`M_z>0`$, as shown in Fig. 8a. Another solution is located at the lower half plane, i.e., we simply replace $`M_z`$ by $`M_z`$ and keep the $`x`$ and $`y`$ components as in Fig. 8a. These are degenerated solutions and the magnetization dynamics takes either one of the two solutions but not both at zero temperature. At room temperature, however, these two solutions can jump around, making the out-of-plane component crossing the x-y plane. This thermally activated transition between two precessional states originates from low barrier heights–the thermal energy at room temperature can not be ignored in this small structure, as shown in Fig. 8b. While the thermal energy can not wash out the precessional solutions, it does alter the magnetization dynamics significantly.

### III.5 Switching speed

We have shown that there is a critical spin torque to switch the magnetization. We now address how fast the switching is. The switching speed has been analytically calculated for a single domain sphere and a single domain thin film, in the absence of the spin torque, i.e., switching by the external field. The speed depends on the damping parameter. The optimal damping parameter for the fastest switching is $`\alpha =1`$ for the sphere and $`\alpha 0.013`$ for the thin film Kikuchi . Our question is what is the optimal damping parameter for the spin torque induced switching? How fast the switching speed compared with the field induced switching?

Let us first take a look at the influence of the spin torque on the switching speed by a magnetic field. The initial magnetization (“leaf state”) is at the positive x-direction. A reversed magnetic field is applied in the negative x-direction at $`t=0`$. When the x-component of the magnetization $`<M_x>`$ reaches at least -0.95 and it stays below this value after $`t_s`$, we define this $`t_s`$ as the switching time. In Fig. 9, we show the dependence of the switching time for three different spin torques. The switching time is enhanced for one direction of the current and is shortened for the opposite direction. We have noticed that the optimal damping parameter varies when the spin torque changes.

To study the switching speed due to spin torque, we must apply a spin torque exceeding the critical spin torque. In Fig. 10, we show the switching time after a spin torque larger than the critical spin torque is applied. The switching time is very slow as the spin torque approaches the critical spin torque. We find that the switching time can be reasonably fitted by $`t_s^1=a_Ja_{crit}`$. Since the critical spin torque $`a_{crit}`$ is proportional to the damping parameter, the applied spin torque is shifted for different damping parameters as shown in Fig. 10.

Up till now, we have concentrated our description of the spin torque in the limit of the steady state current. It is, however, desirable to see the magnetization dynamics in the case of a pulsed form. Here we should consider a simple form of the spin torque pulse: a square pulse whose width is $`t_w`$, i.e., we will ignore the rise and fall times of the pulse; in real devices, one should also consider these times. For such a pulsed electrical current, one would expect that whether the magnetization can be switched by the spin torque depends on pulse’s amplitude and width. For a fixed pulse amplitude larger than the critical spin torque, there is minimum pulse width needed to achieve current-driven magnetization reversal. In Fig. 11, we show the magnetization dynamic after the pulse of $`a_J=2500`$ (Oe) is applied at $`t=0`$. In the first two panels, the durations of the pulse are just not enough to fully reverse the magnetization, i.e., the magnetization returns to the initial state ($`<M_x>1.0`$) after one removes the current. Just a small increase of the pulse width, see Fig. 11c, the magnetization is able to fully reverse itself after the signal is taken away. Thus, $`t_w=0.775`$ (ns) is defined as the minimum width required for the current-induced magnetization reversal for the pulse amplitude $`a_J=2500`$ (Oe).

The minimum pulse width defined above depends on the pulse amplitude. With increasing pulse amplitude, the minimum pulse width decreases. We can construct a phase diagram of magnetization reversal by varying the pulse amplitude and repeating the procedure to determine the minimum pulse width in each case. As shown in Fig. 12, the minimum pulse width increases dramatically for the pulse amplitude close to the critical spin torque; this phenomenon is very similar to the classical “critical slowing down” in statistical physics: when an external force approaches a critical value, the system slows down. In our case, we find that the reversal time is mainly spent at the beginning stage of switching.

The minimum pulse width is also affected by other parameters. In Fig. 13, the computed reversal/non-reversal phase diagram is plotted in terms of the damping constant for several external magnetic fields. Since the thin film anisotropy field is about $`500`$ Oe, the largest external fields ($`|H_{ext}|200`$ Oe) used in Fig. 13 can not trigger the magnetization reversal itself. The increase of the minimum width for a larger damping constant is consistent with the picture that the spin torque is competing with the damping process. One interesting feature in Fig 13 is that the external field affects the minimum width much more significantly for large damping parameters than for small ones. This is due to the fact that the spin torque ($`a_J=2500`$ Oe) is closer to the critical spin torque for larger damping constant. By applying the magnetic field, one can shift the critical spin torque to smaller values. Therefore, the minimum width is much smaller compared to that without the magnetic field.

### III.6 Thermal switching

Finally, we address the problem of thermally activated magnetization switching in the presence of the spin torque. As the device approaches nanometer size, temperature driven magnetization reversal becomes one of key factors limiting the device performanceKoch ; Rizzo ; Wernsdorfer . We have already seen in Fig. 8b that the inclusion of the thermal activation has significantly altered the magnetization dynamics.

The thermally assisted magnetization reversal is conventionally modeled by the Néel-Brown formula $`\tau =f_0^1\mathrm{exp}(E_b/k_BT)`$ where $`\tau `$ is the thermal switching time, $`E_b`$ is the energy barrier, and $`f_0`$ is the attempt frequency of the order of $`10^9`$ (s<sup>-1</sup>). For a single domain particle, the energy barrier is simply $`E_b=E_0(1H/H_c)^\beta `$ where $`H_c`$ is the coercive field and $`E_0`$ is an extrapolation of the energy barrier at zero field. Notice that the energy barrier is independent of the damping parameter. If the spin torque is purely competing with the damping, one would expect that the spin torque does not affect the energy barrier and thus the component $`\beta `$ would be independent of the spin torque. We have found, however, the spin torque does more than altering the damping parameter as shown below. Let us suppose the magnetization of the free layer is initially saturated in the positive $`x`$ direction. At $`t=0`$, we apply a negative magnetic field which is close to but less than the switching field $`H_c`$. At the same time, a spin torque is also applied to the system. At the finite temperature, the average waiting time for the magnetization reversal is given by the Arrhenius law, the switching probability decays as $`e^{t/\tau }`$. To minimize the statistic error, we determine the relaxation time (average waiting time) by repeating the above procedure $`800`$ times for each spin torque. In Fig. 14, we show the probability of the free layer not being switched ($`1P_s^{exp}(t)`$) as a function of the relaxation time $`t`$ for a magnetic field $`H_{ext}=438`$ (Oe). The reversal probability $`P_s^{exp}(t)`$ increases with spin torque; the positive spin torque ($`a_J>0`$) leads to a faster thermal switching and the negative spin torque results in slower thermal reversal. The distribution of the relaxation time can be well-fitted to the Arrhenius formula function, but now the energy barrier depends on the spin torque: the positive current favors lower energy barrier. We show the fitted relaxation time as a function of the spin torque for two different external fields in Fig. 15. The linear relation indicates the effective energy barrier is linearly dependent on the current. Such results can be potentially very useful: one can control the energy barrier of a nanoscale magnetic element by applying a proper spin polarized current so that superparamagnetic effects can be overcome.

## IV Discussions and Conclusions

The spin torque in LLG equation adds a new degree of freedom to control and manipulate magnetization dynamics. The spin torque differs from the other common torques: the one due to the effective field and the another one due to the dissipation (Gilbert damping). The torque from the effective field is a conservative torque in the sense that the magnetic energy is conserved while the dissipative torque produces energy dissipation as long as the magnetization is not static. The spin torque can play the role of the effective field as well as the dissipation torques; it is this peculiar feature making the dynamics and hysteresis loops quite unusual. We now summarize our results below.

First, in our thin sample with the dimension of 64nm by 64m by 2.5nm, the hysteresis loops and the dynamics behave qualitatively as a single domain. For example, the magnetization of each grid never differs by more than $`5^o`$ during any dynamic processes of the magnetization reversal (except at very high magnetic fields, $`H_{ext}>4\pi M_s`$ when the spin wave excitations are generated; we will address the effect of extremely high field elsewhere). Therefore, most of the conclusions obtained from the analytical work where the layer is treated as a single domain are justified in the present study. However, the non-single domain feature is important when one addresses the questions such as the reversal speed. For example, in the single domain picture, one would never switch the magnetization by a large magnetic field or a large spin torque if the field and the magnetization directions are exactly at the easy axis, because there will be no initial torque in this case. If one takes the full micromagnetics into account, the magnetization at the center of the sample differs slightly from that at the edges with some characteristic frequencies. Such slight non-uniformity of the magnetization is just enough to allow spin-torques to reverse magnetization. Therefore, one should be cautious in utilizing the single domain picture in addressing the detailed dynamics of magnetization reversals.

The second conclusion we wish to emphasize is the unique feature of the spin torque: the new equilibrium states and the stable precessional states. These states would not be stable without the spin torque since the energy would be damped as long as the magnetization vector is not parallel to the direction of the effective magnetic field. This is an analogy to the classical moving object: the object will eventually come to rest if no power is added to the object because air resistance would consume all the kinetic energy of the object. Here, the spin torque is an external power supplied to the system. With appropriate conditions, i.e, with proper magnetic fields and damping constants, the stable precessional states appear, which is again analogous to the “resonant” states of classical mechanics. We have found that these stable precessional states are indeed very stable: they exist even if there is large thermal fluctuation and they appear to exist for a wide range of parameter space.

Next we have studies the influence of the spin torque on switching speed. We have found that the spin torque can enhance and retard the switching speed. The enhancement is large, usually a few times faster. If one wishes to have an order of magnitude increase, one should consider the spin torque and magnetic field applied in other directions, not the direction of the easy axis. It has been known that the hard axis application of these components can dramatically increase the switching speed. One can easily explore the best scenario for the ultra fast switching devices by changing directions of the spin torque. Finally, we have pointed out that the effective energy barrier for thermally assisted reversal can be influenced by the spin torque. This result further illustrates the fundamental difference between the spin torque and the damping.

In conclusion, we have shown the various dynamic behaviors in the presence of the spin torque. We hope that this work can generate more experimental efforts to verify those novel dynamic phenomena unique to the spin torque. This work is supported by NSF (ECS-0223568) and INSIC.


format: text

text:
# Magnetization Plateaux in Bethe Ansatz Solvable Spin-𝑆 Ladders

## I Introduction

After some intensive effort, the properties of the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg ladder are now well understood. Dagotto and Rice (1996); Dagotto (1999) The physics of the model is driven by the rung basis states, which dominate in the limit of strong rung coupling $`J`$. The spin gap originating between the singlet and triplet rung states for large $`J`$ is known to persist for all finite $`J`$, vanishing only at the decoupling point $`J=0`$ where the model reduces to two Heisenberg chains. More generally, the $`n`$-leg spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg ladders possess the rather striking property of being massive for $`n`$ even and massless for $`n`$ odd. The ladder models also possess interesting magnetic properties, with clear evidence of magnetization plateaux. Oshikawa et al. (1997); Cabra et al. (1998); See et al.  From quite general arguments, the magnetization $`M`$ of the spin-$`S`$ $`n`$-leg ladders should satisfy the discrete values

$$nS(1M).$$
(1)
Although the Heisenberg ladders are not solvable in the sense of the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg chain, a number of solvable ladder models have been found. These include modified models with dimer or matrix product ground states Kolezhuk and Mikeska (1998); Honecker et al. (2000); Chattopadhyay and Bose  and models solved by means of the Bethe Ansatz. Here we consider the latter class. These models include a two-leg spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ model, Wang (1999) which compared to the pure Heisenberg ladder, has an additional four-spin interaction. The model is massless in the absence of rung interactions with a transition to a massive phase at a critical (non-zero) value of the rung coupling. In this solvable model the Heisenberg rung interactions appear as chemical potentials which break the underlying $`su(4)`$ symmetry. The phase diagram has been established by means of the Bethe Ansatz solution. Wang (1999); de Gier and Batchelor (2000) In particular, magnetization plateaux are found at the values $`m=0`$ and $`m=1`$, in agreement with (1). However, the Bethe Ansatz calculations also reveal an infinitesimally thin magnetization plateaux at $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$, which may open up with the introduction of some anisotropy into the system. This thin plateau may be interpreted as a ‘plateau boundary’.

The solvable two-leg ladder model has been generalized to an arbitrary number $`n`$ of legs in which the underlying $`su(2^n)`$ symmetry is broken by the Heisenberg rung interactions, which again appear as chemical potentials in the Bethe Ansatz solution. Batchelor and Maslen (1999); de Gier et al. (2000) Solvable ladder models with Hubbard Fan (1999) and $`tJ`$ Frahm and Kundu (1999) interactions have also been found. Yet others have been constructed with mixed spin Batchelor et al. (2001) and higher symmetries arising from other known integrable models. Batchelor et al. (2000); Foerster et al. (2001) Other models Links and Foerster (2000) have been solved via mapping from the Hubbard model with appropriate boundary conditions. The $`su(4)`$ ladder model has also been extended to include an additional free parameter. Tonel et al. (2001) For the solvable 3-leg spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ model, Batchelor and Maslen (1999); de Gier et al. (2000) magnetization plateaux are found at the values $`m=\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`m=1`$ in agreement with (1). de Gier and Batchelor (2000) An additional infinitesimally thin plateau is also seen at $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$.

In this paper we investigate the properties of the Bethe Ansatz solvable two- and three-leg ladder models for general spin-$`S`$. These models are defined in Section II. In Sections III and IV we look respectively at the magnetization plateaux and their boundaries, and in Section V we give a detailed analysis of the two-leg spin-1 ladder. Our work on the solvable spin-1 ladder is motivated by the recent experimental and theoretical work on certain organic materials. For example, the compound BIP-TENO was studied experimentally, Katoh et al. (2000) and found to have magnetization plateaux of $`0,\frac{1}{2}`$, and 1. The crystal structure of this substance may be modelled effectively by a two-leg spin-1 ladder. Some models have been used to propose mechanisms by which the fractional plateau appears. Okamoto et al. (2001) Relatively little work has been done on the spin-1 Heisenberg ladder. It has been studied in the semiclassical limit via a mapping to the nonlinear sigma model and by quantum Monte Carlo simulation and bosonisation techniques. Sénéchal (1995); Allen and Sénéchal (2000)

Concluding remarks are given in section VI.

## II The models

We consider the integrable $`n`$-leg spin-$`S`$ ladders, or spin tubes with periodic boundary conditions. As usual a ‘tube’ is a ladder with an additional interaction between leg $`n`$ and leg $`1`$. We restrict our attention to the cases $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$ with uniform spins on each leg, and not the more general mixed spin case. The spins along each leg and rung have an isotropic Heisenberg interaction, with the introduction of many-body terms to retain integrability. The $`su(2)`$ spin-$`S`$ operators $`𝑺=(S^x,S^y,S^z)`$ are defined by

$$S^x=\frac{1}{2}(S^++S^{}),S^y=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}(S^+S^{}),S^z=\text{diag}\{S,S1,\mathrm{},S\},$$
(2)
where, for given $`S`$,

$`S_{m^{},m}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{S(S+1)m(m1)}\delta _{m^{},m1},`$ (3)
$`S_{m^{},m}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{S(S+1)m(m+1)}\delta _{m^{},m+1}.`$ (4)
and $`m,m^{}=S,S+1,\mathrm{},S`$. The Hamiltonian of the model is

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}H_{i,i+1}^{\mathrm{leg}}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}H_i^{\mathrm{rung}},$$
(5)
where $`L`$ is the number of rungs. The leg term is given by

$$H_{i,i+1}^{\mathrm{leg}}=P_{i,i+1}^{(2S+1)}P_{i,i+1}^{(2S+1)}\mathrm{}P_{i,i+1}^{(2S+1)}\text{(}n\text{ factors),}$$
(6)
where

$$P_{i,j}^{(2S+1)}=\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{2S}{}}(1)^{2S\alpha }\underset{\beta \alpha }{\overset{2S}{}}\frac{𝑺_i𝑺_jx_\beta }{x_\alpha x_\beta },$$
(7)
with $`x_\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\alpha (\alpha +1)S(S+1)`$. Throughout this paper, site $`L+1`$ is identified with site 1. For the simplest case of $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$, one recovers the familiar Heisenberg operator. Similarly for $`S=1`$ and $`S=\frac{3}{2}`$,

$`P_{i,i+1}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝑺_i𝑺_{i+1})^2+𝑺_i𝑺_{i+1}1,`$ (8)
$`P_{i,i+1}^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{2}{9}(𝑺_i𝑺_{i+1})^3+\frac{11}{18}(𝑺_i𝑺_{i+1})^2\frac{9}{8}𝑺_i𝑺_{i+1}\frac{67}{32}.`$ (9)
The rung term has pure Heisenberg interactions, given by

$$H_i^{\mathrm{rung}}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{nϵ}{}}J_l\left(𝑺_i^{(l)}𝑺_i^{(l+1)}1\right).$$
(10)
where $`ϵ=0`$ for tubes and $`ϵ=1`$ for ladders, and $`𝑺_i^{(n+1)}=𝑺_i^{(1)}`$. We take periodic boundary conditions along the ladder, and consider isotropic rung interactions ($`J_l=J`$). It has been shown that Batchelor et al. (2001) $`[H_{i,j}^{\mathrm{leg}},H_i^{\mathrm{rung}}+H_j^{\mathrm{rung}}]=0`$, so $`H`$ defined in (5) is also integrable for sufficiently small $`n`$.

A key ingredient in the models under consideration is that they are built from permutators. Such models can be diagonalized using the (nested) Bethe Ansatz. Sutherland (1975) The $`su(N)`$ Bethe Ansatz equations are

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j^{(1)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}}{\lambda _j^{(1)}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}}}\right)^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{M_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j^{(1)}\lambda _k^{(1)}\mathrm{i}}{\lambda _j^{(1)}\lambda _k^{(1)}+\mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j^{(1)}\lambda _k^{(2)}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}}{\lambda _j^{(1)}\lambda _k^{(2)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{M_r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j^{(r)}\lambda _k^{(r)}\mathrm{i}}{\lambda _j^{(r)}\lambda _k^{(r)}+\mathrm{i}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M_{r1}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j^{(r)}\lambda _k^{(r1)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}}{\lambda _j^{(r)}\lambda _k^{(r1)}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M_{r+1}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j^{(r)}\lambda _k^{(r+1)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}}{\lambda _j^{(r)}\lambda _k^{(r+1)}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}}},`$ (11)
where in this case $`N=(2S+1)^n`$. As usual the eigenenergies of $`_{i=1}^LH_{i,i+1}^{\mathrm{leg}}`$ are

$`E=L{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\lambda _j^{(1)}\right)^2+\frac{1}{4}}}.`$ (12)
It is important to note that since the permutator (6) is invariant under any ordering of the basis states, this result may be obtained using any choice of reference state (or pseudo-vacuum) $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and any assignment of Bethe Ansatz pseudo particles. For each choice, however, one has to re-interpret the numbers $`M_r`$ in terms of those corresponding to the ordering chosen. The rung Hamiltonian is dependent on the choice of ordering, but the change is just a rearrangement of its eigenvalues along the diagonal. We use this property to our advantage by doing calculations with that choice of ordering for which the Bethe Ansatz reference state is closest to the true groundstate of the system.

### II.1 Two-leg ladder

We turn our attention now to the specific case of the two-leg spin-$`S`$ ladder, for the moment in the absence of a magnetic field. The rung Hamiltonian (10) is given by

$$H^{\mathrm{rung}}=J(𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(2)}\mathrm{𝟏}),$$
(13)
which can be rewritten as

$$H^{\mathrm{rung}}=J\left[\frac{(𝑺^{(1)}+𝑺^{(2)})^2(𝑺^{(1)})^2(𝑺^{(2)})^2}{2}\mathrm{𝟏}\right].$$
(14)
It is convenient to change to the basis where the square and the $`z`$-component of the total spin of a given rung are diagonal. Now, the operators $`(𝑺^{(1)}+𝑺^{(2)})^2`$, $`𝑺_{}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, and $`𝑺_{}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ are all diagonal with common eigenstates. As a result we can derive the eigenvalues of $`H^{\mathrm{rung}}`$ simply by combining the eigenvalues of these operators as in the above expression. From elementary quantum mechanics, the respective eigenvalues of these operators are $`T(T+1)`$, $`S(S+1)`$, and $`S(S+1)`$, where the total spin $`T`$ can assume the values $`0,\mathrm{},2S`$. It follows that, for a two-leg ladder, the $`(2S+1)^2`$ rung states fall into $`2S+1`$ multiplets of total spin $`T`$, with eigenvalues

$$\lambda _T=\frac{J}{2}(T(T+1)2S(S+1)2),T=0,\mathrm{},2S,$$
(15)
and respective multiplicities $`m_T=2T+1`$.

It is emphasized that the Hamiltonian (6) has the same form in this new basis. The rung Hamiltonian (10) now becomes diagonal and is given by

$$H^{\mathrm{rung}}=\mathrm{diag}\{\lambda _0,\lambda _1,\lambda _1,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\underset{2T+1}{\underset{}{\lambda _T,\mathrm{},\lambda _T}},\mathrm{},\underset{4S+1}{\underset{}{\lambda _{2S},\mathrm{},\lambda _{2S}}}\}.$$
(16)
In section V we will look at the specific example of a two-leg spin-1 ladder in detail.

### II.2 Three-leg tube

We follow a similar procedure to the two-leg ladder, rewriting the Hamiltonian and changing the basis appropriately. In the case of the three-tube, the $`(2S+1)^3`$ states fall into $`3S+1`$ types of multiplet ($`x`$ denotes the integer part of $`x`$), with total spin $`T`$, whose eigenvalues are given by

$$\lambda _T=\frac{J}{2}(T(T+1)3S(S+1)6),$$
(17)
where

$$T=\frac{2S\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\right)}{2},\frac{2S\left(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\right)}{2}+1,\mathrm{},3S.$$
(18)
This has clear similarity to (15). However the situation now is somewhat more complicated. This is because in general there are several multiplets of given spin $`T`$; for example two distinct doublets having the same energy in the absence of a magnetic field. What follows is an analysis of exactly how the states fall into multiplets in a three-spin system.

Let us consider the addition of three spin-$`S`$ objects. We first add the spins at sites (1) and (3) to get a combined spin-$`S_{13}`$ system, and in turn, add the spin at site (2) to this combined system to get a state of total spin $`T`$. Note that the choice of ordering of addition affects only the basis vectors used to represent a state, and not the actual state itself. The order chosen here facilitates computation of ladder eigenvalues in the next subsection. According to quantum mechanical rules for addition of angular momenta, we have

$$0S_{13}2S,$$
(19)
and

$$\left|S_{13}S\right|TS_{13}+S.$$
(20)
So the number of spin-$`T`$ multiplets is given by the number of possible values of $`S_{13}`$ which satisfy (19) and (20). There are two cases to consider:

* : $`TS`$

In this case the right inequality of (20) is automatically satisfied. The left inequality is true when $`S_{13}`$ assumes values in the range defined by (19) that satisfy

$$\left|S_{13}S\right|T,$$
(21)
namely

$$S_{13}=ST,ST+1,\mathrm{},S+T;$$
(22)
and there are $`2T+1`$ such values.
* : $`ST`$

We note that (19) implies that $`\left|S_{13}S\right|S`$, so the left inequality of (20) is automatically satisfied. To make the right inequality true, $`S_{13}`$ must assume values in the range defined by (19) that satisfy

$$TS_{13}+S,$$
(23)
namely

$$S_{13}=TS,TS+1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}S;$$
(24)
and there are $`3ST+1`$ such values (since $`2S=TS+(3ST)`$).

To summarize these results: In a system of three spin-$`S`$ objects, the number of spin-$`T`$ multiplets (that is, $`(2T+1)`$-plets) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(S,T)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}2T+1& & ST\hfill \\ 3ST+1& & S<T3S\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
Multiplets of the same type have the same energy under the tube Hamiltonian, but are distinguishable by their value of $`S_{13}`$, the possible values of which are

$$S_{13}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}ST,ST+1,\mathrm{},S+T\hfill & & ST\hfill \\ TS,TS+1,\mathrm{},2S\hfill & & S<T3S.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
So, to compute the tube eigenvalues we use equation (17), and then use (25) to determine the number of multiplets which will have the given eigenvalues.

### II.3 Three-leg ladder

The three-leg ladder presents additional difficulty because of the broken symmetry. However, from (10) we see that the ladder and tube rung Hamiltonians are related via

$$H^{(\mathrm{ladder},\mathrm{rung})}=H^{(\mathrm{tube},\mathrm{rung})}+J(1𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)})$$
(27)
Since $`𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)}`$ commutes with the Hamiltonians (see Appendix A), their eigenvalues are similarly related via

$$\lambda _{T,S_{13}}^{(\mathrm{ladder})}=\lambda _T^{(\mathrm{tube})}+J(1\mu _{S_{13}})$$
(28)
where $`\mu _{S_{13}}`$ is the eigenvalue of $`𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)}`$ for the state. Up to a shift and scaling, this operator is similar to the two-leg ladder Hamiltonian. By symmetry, the eigenvalues of $`𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)}`$ must be the same as those of $`𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(2)}`$, and hence adaptation of (15) yields

$$\mu _{S_{13}}=\frac{1}{2}S_{13}(S_{13}+1)S(S+1)S_{13}=0,1,\mathrm{},2S$$
(29)
Thus, modifying the Hamiltonian from the tube to the ladder gives rise to an energy shift ($`J(1\mu _{S_{13}})`$) that depends, ultimately, on the value of $`S_{13}`$ for the eigenstate (the tube and ladder Hamiltonians have the same eigenstates). So, to calculate the ladder eigenvalues, we proceed as follows: first calculate the tube eigenvalues along with the number of different type of multiplets that will occur using (25). Then, using (26) compute the range of values of $`S_{13}`$ that will occur for a given type of multiplet. From these, use (29) to calculate $`\mu _{S_{13}}`$ and hence the energy shift, and finally, add these to the original tube eigenvalues to obtain the ladder eigenvalues.

The process is perhaps better clarified through an example, and we demonstrate for the case of the three leg spin-1 ladder. We put $`J=1`$ for simplicity. From (17) we determine that the tube eigenvalues are $`6,5,3,`$ and $`0`$, with respective multiplicities 1 (one singlet), 9 (three triplets), 10 (two quintuplets), and 7 (a septuplet). The eigenvalues $`\mu _{S_{13}}`$ in this case are $`2,1,`$ and $`1`$, so the corresponding shifts ($`S(1\mu _{S_{13}})`$) required to give the tube eigenvalues are $`3,2,`$ and $`0`$.

We calculate the possible $`S_{13}`$ values (and hence the possible $`\mu _{S_{13}}`$ values) that occur for each type of multiplet as given by equation (26), and then proceed to compute the energy shifts, and finally the ladder eigenvalues. The results are summarized in Table 1.

## III Magnetization Plateaux

We now analyze the effect of introducing a magnetic field $`h`$ along the positive $`z`$-direction. This causes the multiplets to split into individual nondegenerate states according to the $`z`$-component of a state’s spin. The relevant physical effect is the existence of magnetization plateaux, which occur when, in some region of phase space (defined by $`J`$ and $`h`$), the groundstate consists of rungs all having the same magnetization. We work with the magnetization per site, which is defined as

$$M=\frac{1}{nLS}\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\left(S^z\right)_i^{(l)}\right].$$
(30)
This definition is constructed in such a way that $`M`$ has a saturation value of 1. As we move through phase space, passing through regions where the system is gapless, we find that the magnetization varies continuously. However in regions where there is a nonzero gap, the magnetization remains constant, hence the term ‘magnetization plateau’.

The Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem for low-dimensional magnets gives rise to the necessary general condition Oshikawa et al. (1997); Lieb et al. (1961)

$$Q(S_cm_c),$$
(31)
for the existence of a plateau. Here $`Q`$ is the spatial period as measured by the unit cell, and $`S_c`$ and $`m_c`$ are the total spin and magnetization of the unit cell respectively. Hence for an $`n`$-leg ladder they may be taken as $`nS`$ and $`nm`$. In this definition, $`m`$ is not designed to have a saturation value of 1, and so we may take $`m=SM`$. For translationally invariant ladders, including those of this paper, we take $`Q=1`$, hence retrieving equation (1).

In the case of the two-leg ladder, we note that the introduction of a magnetic field splits the energy levels of the states within a multiplet. Each state is shifted from the value given in (15) by an amount $`hS^z`$,where $`S^z`$ is the $`z`$-component of its spin. Since the multiplet states may be characterized by their value of $`S^z`$, there is a complete loss of degeneracy upon the introduction of a magnetic field. For a rung of total spin $`T`$, the lowest energy state from each one has eigenvalue

$$\lambda _{T,\text{min}}=\frac{J}{2}[T(T+1)2S(S+1)6]hT,T=0,\mathrm{},2S.$$
(32)
We show that it is possible for any of these states to be the groundstate with a nonzero gap, subject to appropriate choice of $`J`$ and $`h`$. Consider first the case where the two rung states of lowest energy are from the same multiplet. Since the magnetic energy shifts are given by $`hS^z`$, it is clear that the difference in their energy due to the rung Hamiltonian is $`h`$. The leg Hamiltonian gives a contribution of $`4`$, so that the energy gap is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=h4`$. Therefore if $`h>4`$, all rungs are in the same state, and the system has a gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

In the case where the two lowest energy states are from different multiplets (say, $`\lambda _p`$ and $`\lambda _q`$, where $`\lambda _p>\lambda _q`$), the gap is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _p\lambda _q4`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}[p(p+1)q(q+1)]h(pq)4.`$
This can be guaranteed to be greater than zero for any $`p`$ and $`q`$ simply by taking

$$J>2\left[\frac{h(pq)+4}{p(p+1)q(q+1)}\right]$$
(34)
in the antiferromagnetic case (with a similar result in the ferromagnetic case). Hence, the lowest energy state from each multiplet has some corresponding region of phase space where it is the sole rung state occurring in the groundstate, and the ladder is gapped. The different multiplets take on all possible values of $`S_z`$ allowed under the restriction that the system consists of intrinsic spins $`S`$. Consequently, it is apparent that a plateau of every allowable magnetization is realized somewhere in phase space. This analysis can also be applied to the three-leg case without significant modification.

It is simple to check that the magnetization plateax we have found here satisfy the requirements of (31). We note that, if the gaps discussed above are nonzero, then all rungs are in the same groundstate. Hence $`Q=1`$, and we require that $`Sm=k`$, where $`S`$ and $`m`$ are the spin and magnetization of a rung, and $`k`$ is an integer. However, since $`m`$ can take values ranging from $`S`$ to $`S`$ in integer steps, it is clear that this relation will be satisfied.

## IV Plateau boundaries

It is of some interest to explore what happens on the boundary between two magnetization plateaux. We examine the two-leg case. The boundary may be defined by the line on which the groundstate of each plateau is degenerate.de Gier and Batchelor (2000) In general, we see that the states that can have minimum energy in the quadrant $`J,h>0`$ are the states from each multiplet with largest $`z`$-component of the spin, namely

$$\lambda _{T,\text{min}}=\frac{J}{2}[T(T+1)2S(S+1)]hT.$$
(35)
It is also clear that as we steadily increase the ratio $`h/J`$ that $`T`$ will progress in order through its possible values $`0,..,2S`$. That is, the plateau boundaries will occur between successively ordered states as in (35). Thus the equations of the plateau boundaries are given by $`\lambda _{T,\mathrm{min}}\lambda _{T+1,\mathrm{min}}=0`$ or more explicitly

$$h=\frac{J}{2}(T+1)T=0,1,\mathrm{},2S1.$$
(36)
Now it is a simple matter to determine what the magnetization will be on these lines. As usual we normalize so that $`M=1`$ if $`S_z=S`$ on each site. We calculate the magnetization on these boundary lines by averaging the two states that meet there. Now the state corresponding to $`\lambda _{T,\mathrm{min}}`$ must have $`S_z`$ as large as possible, that is, $`S_z=T`$. On boundary line $`T`$, then, we simply average $`T`$ and $`T+1`$, which is spread over two sites and normalized for spin. That is

$$M_T=\left(\frac{T+T+1}{2}\right)/\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}S=\frac{2T+1}{4S},T=0,1,\mathrm{},2S1.$$
(37)
Although we would not, strictly speaking, consider this a magnetization plateau, it still satisfies (31) in some sense. We can think of the groundstate now as being a mixture of two types of rung. Hence for the two-leg ladder, we take $`Q=2`$ to be a unit cell. The magnetization of the unit cell is then $`2T+1`$, with the total spin being some integer between 0 and $`4S`$. Hence $`2(Sm)`$ as defined in (31) is clearly an integer.

## V Example – the two-leg, spin-1 ladder

We look at the specific case of the two-leg, spin-1 ladder in the presence of a magnetic field. In this example the leg Hamiltonian is

$$H_{i,j}^{\mathrm{leg}}=\left[𝑺_i^{(1)}𝑺_j^{(1)}+\left(𝑺_i^{(1)}𝑺_j^{(1)}\right)^21\right]\left[𝑺_i^{(2)}𝑺_j^{(2)}+\left(𝑺_i^{(2)}𝑺_j^{(2)}\right)^21\right],$$
(38)
while the rung Hamiltonian is given by

$$H_i^{\mathrm{rung}}=J\left(𝑺_i^{(1)}𝑺_i^{(2)}1\right)h\left(\left(S^z\right)_i^{(1)}+\left(S^z\right)_i^{(2)}\right),$$
(39)
where

$$S^x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),S^y=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{i}& 0\\ \mathrm{i}& 0& \mathrm{i}\\ 0& \mathrm{i}& 0\end{array}\right),S^z=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(40)
are the spin-1 operators. We will work in the basis where the square and the $`z`$-component of the total spin of a given rung, $`𝐒=𝑺^{(1)}+𝑺^{(2)}`$, are diagonal. It follows that the nine states on a given rung fall into a spin-2 quintuplet, a spin-1 triplet, and a spin-0 singlet. Let $`S=|𝑺|`$ and let $`S^z`$ be the $`z`$-component of the total spin. We denote the rung basis by $`|S,S^z`$ and it is given in terms of the $`(S^z)^{(l)}`$ eigenstates by

$`|0`$ $`=`$ $`|0;0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(|+||0|0+||+\right)`$
$`|1`$ $`=`$ $`|1;1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|+|0+|0|+\right)`$
$`|2`$ $`=`$ $`|1;0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|+|+||+\right)`$
$`|3`$ $`=`$ $`|1;1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0|+||0\right)`$
$`|4`$ $`=`$ $`|2;2=|+|+`$
$`|5`$ $`=`$ $`|2;1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|+|0+|0|+\right)`$
$`|6`$ $`=`$ $`|2;0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(|+|+2|0|0+||+\right)`$
$`|7`$ $`=`$ $`|2;1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0|+||0\right)`$
$`|8`$ $`=`$ $`|2;2=||`$ (41)
The leg Hamiltonian (6) has the same form in this new basis. The rung Hamiltonian (39) now becomes diagonal and is given by $`H^{\mathrm{rung}}=\mathrm{diag}\{3J,2Jh,2J,2J+h,2h,h,0,h,2h\}`$.

We now consider the possible orderings of the states according to their energy in the presence of the magnetic field $`h`$. The energy considerations in this case are quite simple, as there is no degeneracy. The number of possible orderings is now quite large because the field can cause varying amounts of energy level splitting within a given multiplet, leading to overlaps between them. In fact there are 12 physically possible orderings for $`h>0`$. From now on we will restrict our attention to the first quadrant ($`J>0`$) which contains six orderings. We will list these below, computing energy gaps, and hence deriving the phase diagram.

In computing energy gaps for each ordering, we will use a procedure similar to that used in work on the $`su(8)`$ tube.de Gier et al. (2000) Since the rung Hamiltonian is diagonal, it is a simple matter to compute its contribution to this gap. However, calculating the contribution of the leg Hamiltonian is more complicated. This requires taking the thermodynamic limit of the Bethe Ansatz equations, taking Fourier transforms, and then solving. The final step comes down to the evaluation of an integral, which gave us our final result.

This integral, and hence the energy gap, ultimately depends on the type of mode we need to create in order to compute the energy gap. This follows directly from the degeneracy of the groundstate. It is therefore possible to give a general form of this integral, which depends only on the type of mode we are creating. This allows us to easily and quickly compute the gap contribution of a Hamiltonian that is to be solved by the Bethe Ansatz method.

If we denote by $`\alpha _k`$ the integral corresponding to creating a $`\lambda ^{(k)}`$ excitation, the general result is

$$\alpha _k=\frac{2}{k}\left[\gamma +\mathrm{log}4+\psi (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{k})\right],$$
(42)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler gamma constant and $`\psi (x)`$ is the digamma function. This can be simplified for a specified $`k`$. Here, we will only need the values $`\alpha _1=4`$ and $`\alpha _2=2\mathrm{log}2=1.38629\mathrm{}`$

We now proceed to analyze each ordering in turn.

* $`h<\frac{2}{3}J`$

In this case the ordering is $`\{|0,|1,|2,|3,|4,|5,|6,|7,|8\}`$. The energy is given by $`E=E_{leg}+M_1(Jh)+(M_2+M_3)h+M_4(2J3h)+(M_5+M_6+M_7+M_8)h`$, where $`M_k=_{r=k}^9N_{Pr}`$, where $`N`$ is the number of states $`|j`$ ocurring in an excited state, and $`P`$ takes the numbers $`0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8`$ to the ordering we present. (In this case, $`P`$ is the identity permutation, in the cases below, it will be some other permutation). Hence the first energy gap is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(2Jh)(3J)4=Jh4`$, leading to a critical line $`h_c=J4`$. There is another crosssover curve on which the second excitations, ($`|2`$ states) also become massless. Although we cannot calculate this exactly, we can see that it intersects the above critical line at the point $`(J,h)=(4,0)`$. This curve moves as $`M_1`$ changes, eventually traversing regions 1. and 2. to the point $`(J,h)=(2\mathrm{log}2,2\mathrm{log}2)`$ on the boundary of region 3, $`h=J`$.

Below the line $`h_c=J4`$, all rungs are in state $`|0`$, so the total magnetization of the system is $`M=0`$, as would be expected. Above this line a finite number of rungs exist in the lowest-energy triplet state, and the magnetization varies continuously.
* $`\frac{2}{3}J<h<J`$

Now the ordering is $`\{|0,|1,|2,|4,|3,|5,|6,|7,|8\}`$. This gives the same calculation as for case 1, so the critical line is the same. Regions 1. and 2. become distinguishable only when considering the third or higher excitations.
* $`J<h<\frac{3}{2}J`$

Now the ordering is $`\{|1,|0,|4,|2,|5,|3,|6,|7,|8\}`$. The first energy gap is $`E=J+h4`$, giving rise to a critical line of $`h_c=J+4`$. The second excitations become massless on this line at $`(J,h)=(8,12)`$, and move to the point $`(J,h)=(2\mathrm{log}2,2\mathrm{log}2)`$. That is, the same point as that calculated for region 1.

Now above this line, the groundstate consists entirely of rungs in state $`|1`$. As a result there is a magnetization plateau of $`M=\frac{1}{2}`$ here.
* $`\frac{3}{2}J<h<2J`$

The ordering is $`\{|1,|4,|0,|2,|5,|3,|6,|7,|8\}`$. The gap now is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2Jh4`$ and the critical curve is $`h_c=2J4`$. This intersects the critical curve of region 3. on the boundary between them. Again the second excitations become massless at $`(J,h)=(8,12)`$, and move to the point $`(J,h)=(2\mathrm{log}2,4\mathrm{log}2)`$ on the line $`h=2J`$.

Below the line $`h_c=2J4`$ the groundstate consists entirely of rungs in the $`|1`$ state, yielding a magnetization of $`M=\frac{1}{2}`$, being part of the same plateau as found in region 3.
* $`2J<h<3J`$

We now have an ordering of $`\{|4,|1,|0,|5,|2,|6,|3,|7,|8\}`$. The critical line here is $`h_c=2J+4`$. The second excitations do not become massless on this curve. They do, however, become massless at the point $`(J,h)=(2\mathrm{log}2,4\mathrm{log}2)`$.
* $`h>3J`$

The ordering is $`\{|4,|1,|5,|0,|2,|6,|3,|7,|8\}`$, yielding an extension of the critical line found in case 5. The second excitations become massless on this line at $`(J,h)=(0,4)`$.

Above the line $`h_c=2J+4`$ in regions 4. and 5. the groundstate consists entirely of rungs in state $`|4`$, and the system reaches a magnetization plateau of $`M=1`$. Outside the three plateaux found here the magnetization varies continuously.

The results of this analysis are encapsulated in the phase diagram (Fig. 1). We show its first quadrant. The shape of the curved line is interesting, showing a sharp spike with its cusp on the line $`h=\frac{3}{2}J`$. Although we have calculated some exact points, its overall shape cannot be determined analytically. We can predict some features using perturbation theory, and it is possible that the shape of the curve could be accurately determined using numerical series methods. Note also that there is more structure inside this curve, corresponding to the points at which higher excitations become massless.

## VI Concluding remarks

We have investigated the behaviour of some Bethe Ansatz solvable two- and three-leg ladder models with general spin $`S`$. These models include multi-spin interactions in order to be exactly solvable. Most importantly, the solvable ladder models include Heisenberg rung interactions of arbitrary strength which drive the physics for strong rung coupling. The values of the magnetization on each of the magnetization plateaux are seen to fit with the general prediction based on application of the Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem. Additionally, the plateau boundaries, which may be thought of as infinitesimally thin plateaux, also satisfy this criterion. We calculated the phase diagram (Fig. 1) of the spin-1 ladder in detail. Distinct plateaux occur at the values $`M=0,\frac{1}{2},1`$ in agreement with the experimentally observed Katoh et al. (2000) values for the spin-1 ladder compound BIP-TENO. It will be most interesting to derive the thermodynamic properties of this model.

This work has been supported by the Australian Research Council through grants A6990558, F69700124 and DP0208925. M. Maslen has been supported by an Australian Postgraduate Research Award.

## Appendix A Commutation of $`𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)}`$ with the Hamiltonians

We first show that $`𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)}`$ commutes with the rung Hamiltonian. For the three-leg case we have

$$H^{\mathrm{rung}}=J(\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(2)}𝑺^{(2)}𝑺^{(3)}),$$
(43)
so

$`[𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)},H^{\mathrm{rung}}]`$ $`=J\left(2[𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)},𝑰][𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)},𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(2)}][𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)},𝑺^{(2)}𝑺^{(3)}]\right)`$ (44)
$`=J\left([𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)},𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(2)}]+[𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)},𝑺^{(2)}𝑺^{(3)}]\right)`$
$`=J\left([𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)},𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(2)}+𝑺^{(2)}𝑺^{(3)}]\right).`$
This commutator may be expressed as a linear combination of commutators of the form

$$[\left(S^a\right)^{(k)}\left(S^a\right)^{(l)},\left(S^b\right)^{(k)}\left(S^b\right)^{(m)}+\left(S^c\right)^{(l)}\left(S^c\right)^{(m)}],$$
(45)
where $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ represent the co-ordinate variables $`x,y`$ and $`z`$, and $`k,l,m`$ represent the site number. Using standard properties of commutators, this can be expanded to give

$$[\left(S^a\right)^{(k)},\left(S^b\right)^{(k)}]\left(S^a\right)^{(l)}\left(S^b\right)^{(m)}+[\left(S^a\right)^{(l)},\left(S^c\right)^{(l)}]\left(S^a\right)^{(k)}\left(S^c\right)^{(m)},$$
(46)
and, using the quantum mechanical relation $`[S_j,S_k]=\mathrm{i}\epsilon _{jkl}S_l`$, this becomes

$`\mathrm{i}\epsilon _{abc}\left(S^c\right)^{(k)}\left(S^a\right)^{(l)}\left(S^b\right)^{(m)}+\mathrm{i}\epsilon _{acb}\left(S^b\right)^{(l)}\left(S^a\right)^{(k)}\left(S^c\right)^{(m)}`$
$`=\mathrm{i}\left(\epsilon _{abc}+\epsilon _{cba}\right)\left(S^c\right)^{(k)}\left(S^a\right)^{(l)}\left(S^b\right)^{(m)}`$
$`=0,`$ (47)
where summation is implied over repeated indices, and we have used the fact that spins from different sites commute.

That $`𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)}`$ commutes with the leg Hamiltonian follows directly from equation (17) of a previous paper. Batchelor et al. (2001) As was noted after that equation, arbitrary $`XYZ`$ interactions introduced on the rungs will commute with leg Hamiltonians of the type we are working with here. Of course, the same statement is true for removing such interactions, which is how the tube Hamiltonian is transformed into the ladder Hamiltonian. Since the Hamiltonians and the operator $`𝑺^{(1)}𝑺^{(3)}`$ are mutually commutative, the eigenvalues may be related directly as in (28).


text:
# Resummation in hot field theories

## 1 Introduction

Self-consistent approximation schemes based on two particle irreducible functionals have proved to be successful for studying systems where the quasi-particle description gives a good understanding of the relevant degrees of freedom. This is for example the case for thermodynamic properties of the quark-gluon plasma . These resummations schemes have also been recently applied to study the dynamics of quantum fields out of equilibrium .

In these schemes, any physical quantity is expressed in terms of the full propagator and the approximations used to compute the physical quantity and the propagator are “self-consistently” correlated with each other. For instance, for applications to thermodynamics, one starts by expressing the thermodynamic potential in terms of the full propagator . A central quantity is then the sum of the 2 PI skeleton diagrams: $`\mathrm{\Phi }[D]`$. The full self-energy $`D`$ is then given by:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=2\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}{\delta D},$$
(1)
which, together with Dyson’s equation, defines the full propagator in a self-consistent manner.

One of the main questions to be addressed before any numerical computation is that of renormalizability. Via the self-consistent equation for the self-energy, one is effectively resumming an infinite set of diagrams together with their UV singularities. One has then to devise a procedure where all the UV singularities disappear at once. The problem becomes even worse at finite temperature. In fact, since the UV singularities depend on the self-energy itself, when turning on temperature they become $`T`$-dependent.

A major progress was recently achieved by H. van Hees and J. Knoll , who showed, in the real time formalism, how to renormalize in such a way that temperature dependent counterterms never appear. In a recent work , we have extended the analysis of van Hees and Knoll using the imaginary time formalism, and clarifying some aspects of renormalization of the vacuum sector giving an explicit construction of counterterms. In this short communication, we restrict ourselves to a simple model where only parts of the difficulties dealt with in  appear.

## 2 One loop approximation in a scalar toy model

We work in a scalar theory with $`\varphi ^3`$ and $`\varphi ^4`$ interactions in $`d=4`$ space-time dimensions. To two loop order, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ functional is given in figure 1.

The gap equation is obtained by cutting one line on each diagram. We then obtain a one loop approximation for the self-energy. The diagrams entering this equation are given by the following sum-integrals:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{tad}=\frac{\lambda _0}{2}_{\omega _n,p}\mathrm{\Sigma }D(i\omega _n,p),$$
(2)
for the tadpole diagram, and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{eye}(i\omega ,k)=\frac{g^2}{2}_{\omega _n,p}\mathrm{\Sigma }D(i\omega _n,p)D(i\omega i\omega _n,kp),$$
(3)
for the eye diagram. In four dimensions, these integrals are divergent. One expects the effects of the $`\varphi ^3`$ interactions (here $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{eye}`$) to be super-renormalizable, while those of the $`\varphi ^4`$ interactions ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{tad}`$) to be just renormalizable. The ultraviolet singularities should be absorbed in the usual counterterms $`\delta Z`$, $`\delta m^2`$ and $`\delta \lambda `$. Those have to be defined in the vacuum and be compatible with the underlying perturbative diagrams that are resummed by the equation.

### 2.1 Large momentum behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$

To understand the UV structure of the gap equation, one first studies the large momentum behavior of the self energy:

* the contribution from the tadpole is a T-dependent mass: $`m_{\mathrm{}}^2`$;
* the eye contribution consists in a vacuum piece which is logarithmic and a finite temperature piece which behaves like $`\frac{T^2}{k^2}`$. This last piece plays no role in the analysis of UV singularities and can be ignored in what follows;

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(k)m_{\mathrm{}}^2(T)+m^2\mathrm{log}k^2\text{ , for large k.}$$
(4)
In particular, there are no corrections in $`k^2`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, so that $`\delta Z=0`$.

### 2.2 Analysis of divergences

We first split each integral into a vacuum piece and a thermal piece:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{tad}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0}{2}}{\displaystyle _{T=0}}(dp){\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2+m^2+\mathrm{\Pi }}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{tad}^T,`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{eye}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _{T=0}}(dp){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^2+m^2+\mathrm{\Pi })((kp)^2+m^2+\mathrm{\Pi })}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{eye}^T.`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{tad}^T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{eye}^T`$ are thermal 1 loop integrals and so are finite in the UV. The explicit integrals are divergent and depend on the temperature via the self-energy.

The eye diagram is logarithmically divergent, but the dominant behavior ot the integrand does not depend on $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Therefore, the divergence is independent of T, and can be removed by the standard one-loop counter-term of the vacuum perturbation theory:

$$\delta m_{eye}^2=\frac{g^2}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\epsilon }.$$
(6)
The tadpole diagram is quadratically divergent and thus sensitive to the subleading behavior of the propagator, that is, to the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. This is the origin of the $`T`$-dependent singularities. We can in fact be more precise: $`T`$-dependent singularities only arise from the insertion of the tadpole itself. This is because the insertion ot the dominant piece of the eye diagram ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{eye}^{(0)}`$) (see figure 2)

leads to a $`T`$-independent singularity, i.e., a new contribution to the mass counterterm. The equation for the tadpole can then be written as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{tad}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _0{\displaystyle _{T=0}}(dp)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{tad}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{eye}^{(0)}}{(p^2+m^2)^2}}\right)`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _0F(\mathrm{\Pi })+\delta m_{tad}^2,`$
where $`F(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ is a finite functional of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. $`\delta m_{tad}^2`$ absorbs usual mass singularities and the new one arising from the eye insertion:

$$\delta m_{tad}^2=\lambda _0_{T=0}(dp)\left(\frac{1}{p^2+m^2}\frac{1}{p^2+m^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{eye}^{(0)}\frac{1}{p^2+m^2}\right).$$
(8)
The remaining terms need much more attention as they carry the $`T`$-dependent singularities. We know from the $`g=0`$ case that the divergence proportionnal to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{tad}`$ is absorbed in the bare coupling constant. In order to renormalize the ensuing equation, namely (cf. eqs (7) and (8)):

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{tad}\left\{\frac{1}{\lambda _0}+_{T=0}(dp)\frac{1}{\left(p^2+m^2\right)^2}\right\}=F(\mathrm{\Pi }),$$
(9)
we set

$$\frac{1}{\lambda }=\frac{1}{\lambda _0}+_{T=0}(dp)\frac{1}{\left(p^2+m^2\right)^2},$$
(10)
which is $`T`$-independent.

Thus we have managed to renormalize the gap equation by avoiding $`T`$-dependent counterterms. The renormalized gap equations read:

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{eye}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{eye}+\delta m_{eye}^2,`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{tad}`$ $`=`$ $`g^2F(\mathrm{\Pi }_{tad}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{eye}).`$ (12)
## 3 First numerical computations

With this finite set of equations, we can evaluate the full self-energy in this particular approximation and compare it to perturbative results. This is shown in figure 3. Note that, for this particular model, the difference between the perturbative and the self-consistent results remains rather small because the well known infrared instability induced by $`\varphi ^3`$ interactions forces us to restrict ourselves to a very limited range of parameters. But the results in figure 3 demonstrate that, with our method the non local numerical problem is fully under control, and encourage us to use this method to address similar problems which are more directly relevant for physic, like QCD. New questions will arise, related to gauge invariance (see for example ).

## 4 Conclusion

We have shown in a simple model how to perform renormalization of the self-consistent approximation in the presence of non-local effects.