# Triangular Trimers on the Triangular Lattice: an Exact Solution

## Abstract

A model is presented consisting of triangular trimers on the triangular lattice. In analogy to the dimer problem, these particles cover the lattice completely without overlap. The model has a honeycomb structure of hexagonal cells separated by rigid domain walls. The transfer matrix can be diagonalised by a Bethe Ansatz with two types of particles. This leads two an exact expression for the entropy on a two-dimensional subset of the parameter space.

In the course of years a few exactly solvable lattice gas models have been found. The Ising model , proposed in 1920 by Lenz  as a model of a ferromagnet, can be interpreted as a lattice gas with hard-core repulsion and short-range attraction. The (zero-field square lattice) Ising model was solved in 1944 by Onsager . It exhibits gas–liquid coexistence below a critical temperature and a single fluid phase above.

Another lattice gas is the hard hexagon model , solved in 1980 by Baxter . It has a continuous fluid–solid transition. At high-density (solid) the particles select one of three sub-lattices; at low-density (fluid) these sub-lattices are evenly occupied.

As a final example we mention the dimer problem. It was solved for planar lattices in 1961, independently by Kasteleyn  and by Temperley and Fisher . A dimer is a particle that occupies two adjacent lattice sites. As in the Ising and the hard hexagon model two particles cannot occupy the same lattice site. In contrast to these models it is also required that all sites are occupied. The configurations are coverings of a lattice with dimers, without empty sites or overlap. The dimer problem is reviewed in Ref. . We discuss the dimer model on the honeycomb lattice in some detail, because it has illustrative similarities to a new model we shall introduce below.

A configuration of the honeycomb lattice dimer model can be viewed as a number of domains consisting of vertical dimers, separated by zigzagging domain walls made up of dimers of the other two orientations. This is illustrated in Fig. 1. The domain walls run from the bottom to the top of the lattice, so that any horizontal line through the system meets all domain walls. Hence the number of domain walls is the same in each horizontal slice, in other words, it is a conserved quantity.

Consider the entropy for fixed density $`\rho `$ of domain wall dimers. From the exact solution of the model it can be calculated that for low $`\rho `$ the entropy per dimer is given by

$$S(\mathrm{log}2)\rho \frac{\pi ^2}{24}\rho ^3.$$

The linear term reflects the zigzag freedom of the domain walls; each domain wall dimer contributes $`\mathrm{log}2`$ to the entropy. The cubic term is due to the (repulsive) interaction between the domain walls: when two domain walls meet some of the zigzag freedom is lost.

Now give chemical potentials $`\mu `$ to the dimers in the domain walls and $`0`$ to the vertical dimers. For $`\mu \mathrm{log}2`$ the free energy $`F=\mu \rho S(\rho )`$ is is an increasing function of $`\rho `$ for small $`\rho `$, so no domain walls will be present. For $`\mu \mathrm{log}2`$ the free energy has a minimum at some small positive value of $`\rho `$. At $`\mu =\mathrm{log}2`$ there is a transition between a frozen phase consisting of vertical dimers only and a rough phase where dimers of all three orientations are present.

Inspired by the dimer model we consider coverings of the triangular lattice by triangular trimers. A trimer is a particle that occupies three lattice sites. As in the dimer problem we require that there are no empty sites and that there is no overlap. Fig. 2 shows a typical configuration. In this paper we present our main results on this model. We intend to publish a more detailed account later.

The model admits very regular configurations where the trimers occupy a sub-lattice of the triangular faces. There are six such sub-lattices, which we number 0, 1, …, 5 as indicated in Fig. 2. Note that the up and down triangles make up the even-numbered and odd-numbered sub-lattices, respectively.

Consider configurations where trimers on sub-lattice 0 predominate. They consist of hexagonal domains of trimers on this sub-lattice, separated by straight domain walls that form an irregular honeycomb network. There are three types of domain walls, of different orientations. The domain walls that run from lower right to upper left will be termed L; they are made up of trimers on sub-lattice 5. Those running from lower left to upper right will be called R; they consist of trimers on sub-lattice 1. The vertical domain walls are made up of trimers on sub-lattice 3. When domain walls of the three different types meet in a Y-shape a trimer on sub-lattice 2 or 4 occurs. This is illustrated in Fig. 3.

For the time being we require that the model is isotropic, in the sense that there are equal amounts of the three types of domain walls. Let $`\rho `$ denote the density of domain wall trimers. The domain walls are rigid, so they have no zigzag freedom contributing to the entropy. Therefore the low density expansion of the entropy contains no term linear in $`\rho `$. There is, however, freedom in the sizes of the domains . For example, it is possible to enlarge a single domain while simultaneously shrinking its six neighbours. The contribution per domain depends on the linear dimensions of the domains, and is roughly proportional to $`\mathrm{log}\rho `$. The number of domains is approximately proportional to $`\rho ^2`$. Hence the “breathing” entropy is given for low $`\rho `$ by

$$SK\rho ^2\mathrm{log}\rho ,$$
(1)   
where $`K`$ is some (positive) proportionality constant.

If a chemical potential $`\mu `$ is given to the domain wall trimers, the free energy for low $`\rho `$ is

$$F\mu \rho +K\rho ^2\mathrm{log}\rho .$$

This is an increasing function of $`\rho `$ for $`\mu <0`$ and a decreasing function for $`\mu 0`$. Hence the free energy takes its minimum either at $`\rho =0`$ or at a large value of $`\rho `$, for which the approximation (1) is not valid. For small $`\mu `$ there are no domain walls, but when $`\mu `$ passes some threshold $`\rho `$ jumps to a positive value. Thus the phase transition is different from that in the honeycomb lattice dimer model, where the domain wall density increases gradually at the phase transition.

Now we return to the model without the isotropy requirement. Let $`N`$ denote the total number of trimers, $`N_i`$ the number of trimers on sub-lattice $`i`$, and $`\rho _i`$ the partial density $`N_i/N`$. These six sub-lattice densities obviously satisfy

$$\rho _0+\rho _1+\rho _2+\rho _3+\rho _4+\rho _5=1.$$
(2)   
It can be shown that, when toroidal boundary conditions are imposed, they also satisfy

$$\rho _0\rho _2+\rho _2\rho _4+\rho _4\rho _0=\rho _1\rho _3+\rho _3\rho _5+\rho _5\rho _1.$$
(3)   
When the total density of down trimers $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}=\rho _1+\rho _3+\rho _5`$ is small, it follows easily from (2) and (3) that one of $`\rho _0`$, $`\rho _2`$ and $`\rho _4`$, say $`\rho _0`$, is larger than the other two. If there is no further symmetry breaking $`\rho _0>\rho _1=\rho _3=\rho _5>\rho _2=\rho _4`$. By the same token when $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ is close to $`1`$ the symmetry between the down sub-lattices is broken. Therefore when $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ is increased from $`0`$ to $`1`$ at least one phase transition is expected.

Beside (2) and (3) we have found no more constraints on the sub-lattice densities. Therefore of the six sub-lattice densities four are independent. We would like to know the entropy (per trimer) as function of these four parameters. We have been able to compute it for a two-dimensional subset of the four-dimensional parameter space. The calculation is rather lengthy, so here we only give an outline of the method, and a description of the final result.

View each vertical domain wall as a combination of one L domain wall and one R domain wall. Then the L and R domain walls run without interruption from the bottom to the top of the lattice. Therefore the number of L domain walls and the number of R domain walls are constant throughout the system. This is analogous to the situation described above for the dimer model on the honeycomb lattice, except that there are now two conserved quantities $`n_\text{L}`$ and $`n_\text{R}`$ instead of a single one. We introduce the densities $`\rho _\text{L}=n_\text{L}/L`$ and $`\rho _\text{R}=n_\text{R}/L`$, where $`3L`$ is the number of sites in a horizontal row of the lattices. They can be expressed in terms of the sub-lattice densities:

$`\rho _\text{L}`$ $`=`$ $`1\rho _0\rho _1+\rho _3+\rho _4,`$ (4)   
$`\rho _\text{R}`$ $`=`$ $`1\rho _0+\rho _2+\rho _3\rho _5.`$ (5)   
It is suggestive to interpret the vertical lattice direction as “time” and the horizontal direction as “space”. The domain walls then are viewed as world lines of two types of particles, L and R. In a vertical domain wall one L and one R particle form a “bound state”.

The model can be formulated in terms of a transfer matrix, which describes the “time” evolution of the system of L particles and R particles in one “space” dimension. Solving the model boils down to determining the largest eigenvalue of this operator, or more precisely, its maximum over all particle numbers $`n_\text{L}`$ and $`n_\text{R}`$. This we have achieved using coordinate Bethe Ansatz; the solution is similar to that of the square-triangle random tiling model, due to Widom  and Kalugin . A model can be solved in this way only if, in some sense, the many-particle interactions factorise into two-particle interactions. It turns out that for the present model this is indeed the case. It is noteworthy that the L particles among each other are free fermions, as are the R particles, but that the interaction between an L and an R particle is non-trivial.

The Bethe Ansatz allows for numerical computations for the system on an infinitely long cylinder of finite circumference. These computations can be done to arbitrary precision, and effectively for the full four-dimensional parameter space of the model. In the thermodynamic limit the Bethe Ansatz gives rise to a set of two coupled integral equations. The physical quantities we are interested in, such as the densities $`\rho _\text{L}`$ and $`\rho _\text{R}`$ and the entropy, can be expressed in terms of the functions satisfying these equations. These can be solved analytically in a special case . Thus we have obtained an exact expression for the entropy for a two-dimensional family of sub-lattice densities. It will be seen below that this family is given by $`\rho _1=\rho _3=\rho _5`$ (or $`\rho _0=\rho _2=\rho _4`$).

This solution is parametrised by a complex number $`\widehat{b}`$ with $`\text{Im }\widehat{b}>0`$. Write

$$\widehat{b}=b_\text{L}b_\text{L}^1=b_\text{R}b_\text{R}^1$$
(6)   
with $`\text{Re }b_\text{L}0`$ and $`\text{Re }b_\text{R}0`$. It follows that $`\text{Im }b_\text{L}>0`$, $`\text{Im }b_\text{R}>0`$ and $`b_\text{L}b_\text{R}=1`$. Take contours $`C_\text{L}`$ and $`D_\text{L}`$ running from $`b_\text{L}^{}`$ to $`b_\text{L}`$, and $`C_\text{R}`$ and $`D_\text{R}`$ running from $`b_\text{R}`$ to $`b_\text{R}^{}`$. The arrangement of these four curves must be as shown in Fig. 4, but their precise shape is immaterial. (In fact there are more solutions, corresponding to contour configurations different from that in Fig. 4. Since they are related by permutations of the six sub-lattices, we only treat one case here.) Define the complex function

$$t(z)=\left(\frac{zz^1\widehat{b}}{zz^1\widehat{b}^{}}\right)^{1/6}.$$

Fix a branch $`t_\text{L}(z)`$ with branch cuts $`C_\text{R}`$ and $`D_\text{L}`$ by $`t_\text{L}(0)=\mathrm{exp}(\pi \text{i}/3)`$, and a branch $`t_\text{R}(z)`$ with branch cuts $`C_\text{L}`$ and $`D_\text{R}`$ by $`t_\text{R}(0)=\mathrm{exp}(\pi \text{i}/3)`$. The domain wall density $`\rho _\text{L}`$ is given by

$$\rho _\text{L}=\frac{1}{2\pi \text{i}}_{C_\text{L}}\frac{t_\text{L}(z)+t_\text{L}(z)^1}{z}\text{d}z,$$

and $`\rho _\text{R}`$ is given by the same equation with all subscripts L changed into R. The sub-lattice densities are

$`\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\rho _\text{L}+\rho _\text{R})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\rho _\text{L}^2\rho _\text{L}\rho _\text{R}+\rho _\text{R}^2),`$ (7)   
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\rho _\text{R}\rho _\text{L})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\rho _\text{L}^2\rho _\text{L}\rho _\text{R}+\rho _\text{R}^2),`$ (8)   
$`\rho _4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\rho _\text{L}\rho _\text{R})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\rho _\text{L}^2\rho _\text{L}\rho _\text{R}+\rho _\text{R}^2),`$ (9)   
$`\rho _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\rho _\text{L}+\rho _\text{R}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\rho _\text{L}^2\rho _\text{L}\rho _\text{R}+\rho _\text{R}^2)\text{for odd }i.`$ (10)   
Define auxiliary integrals $`\varphi _\text{L}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{L}`$ by

$`\varphi _\text{L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Re}{\displaystyle _{b_\text{L}}^{b_\text{L}^1}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\text{L}(z)+t_\text{L}(z)^1}{z}}\text{d}z,`$ (11)   
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\text{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_\text{L}(z)+t_\text{L}(z)^11}{z}}\text{d}z.`$ (12)   
The real parts of these integrals do not depend on the choice of the integration contours, which must not meet the branch cuts $`C_\text{R}`$ and $`D_\text{L}`$. The auxiliary integrals $`\varphi _\text{R}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{R}`$ are defined analogously. The entropy per trimer is given by

$$S=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{L}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{R}+\frac{1}{6}(2\rho _\text{R}\rho _\text{L})\varphi _\text{L}+\frac{1}{6}(2\rho _\text{L}\rho _\text{R})\varphi _\text{R}.$$

We started out with the model parametrised by the six sub-lattice densities satisfying the constraints (2) and (3). The exact solution described above has two parameters, so it covers a two-dimensional set of sub-lattice densities. The solution is however parametrised by a complex number $`\widehat{b}`$, and not in terms of these densities. It follows from (10) that $`\rho _1=\rho _3=\rho _5`$ for the exact solution. The space of sub-lattice densities satisfying this constraint as well as (2) and (3) is two-dimensional.

In the limit $`\widehat{b}0`$ the domain wall densities $`\rho _\text{L}=\rho _\text{R}`$ vanish; the system is then filled with sub-lattice 0 trimers and its entropy is zero. At $`\widehat{b}=2\text{i}`$ the system is in a symmetric phase with all sub-lattice densities equal to $`1/6`$; its entropy is $`S_{\text{sym}}=\mathrm{log}(3\sqrt{3}/4)`$. When $`\widehat{b}`$ is taken between $`0`$ and $`2\text{i}`$ on the imaginary axis, $`b_\text{L}`$ and $`b_\text{R}`$ lie on the unit circle. Then $`\rho _\text{L}=\rho _\text{R}`$, so the sub-lattice densities satisfy $`\rho _2=\rho _4`$. For small $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}1/2`$ this equation together with $`\rho _1=\rho _3=\rho _5`$ describes the most symmetric case for the sub-lattice densities. Based on numerical Bethe Ansatz calculations we believe that for given $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}1/2`$ the system takes its maximum entropy at these sub-lattice densities. Fig. 5 shows the entropy $`S`$ as function of $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$. The entropy for $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}1/2`$ was obtained from that for $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}1/2`$ using the symmetry between the up and the down trimers.

The entropy $`S`$ is a convex function of $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`0\rho _{\mathrm{}}1/2`$. A system with $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ in this interval is thermodynamically unstable. It would separate into a phase with $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}=0`$ and a phase with $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}=1/2`$, except for the fact that the model does not admit an interface between these two phases. Similarly a system with $`1/2\rho _{\mathrm{}}1`$ would demix into phases with $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}=1/2`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}=1`$.

The transition between these phases can also be controlled by assigning a chemical potential $`\mu `$ to the down trimers instead of imposing their density $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$. From Fig. 5 it is seen that for $`\mu 2S_{\text{sym}}`$ the free energy $`F=\mu \rho _{\mathrm{}}S(\rho _{\mathrm{}})`$ takes its minimum at $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}=0`$, so all trimers are on one of the up sub-lattices. For $`2S_{\text{sym}}\mu 2S_{\text{sym}}`$ the minimum of $`F`$ is at $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}=1/2`$, so all sub-lattices are equally occupied. For $`\mu 2S_{\text{sym}}`$ the minimum of $`F`$ is at $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}=1`$, so the system is again in a frozen phase.

We thank Jan de Gier for fruitful discussions. This work is part of the research programme of the “Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM)”, which is financially supported by the “Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO)”.