# COMPETITION OF FERROMAGNETIC AND ANTIFERROMAGNETIC ORDER IN THE SPIN-1/2 XXZ CHAIN AT FINITE TEMPERATURE

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we pursue the question to which extent the partially anisotropic Heisenberg chain with nearest-neighbour coupling

$$H_{XXZ}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{L}{}}(\sigma _j^X\sigma _{j+1}^X+\sigma _j^Y\sigma _{j+1}^Y+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _j^Z\sigma _{j+1}^Z).$$
(1)   
is described by conformal field theory . It is well known that (1) for anisotropy $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }<+1`$ has a critical groundstate , however with quite different physics regarding the elementary excitations . There are gapless elementary spin excitations throughout $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }<+1`$, but additional bound states in the “attractive” parameter regime $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ corresponds to the isotropic ferromagnetic Heisenberg chain with fully polarized groundstate.

Correlation functions are difficult to calculate, analytical results are known for the nearest-neighbour longitudinal correlation  $`\sigma _j^Z\sigma _{j+1}^Z_{T=0}`$ (which will be generalized to finite $`T`$ in Sec. 4) as well as field-theoretical results for the long-range behaviour of correlations for $`T=0`$  and small non-zero $`T`$ . Amazingly, the nearest-neighbour correlation $`\sigma _j^Z\sigma _{j+1}^Z_{T=0}`$ is always negative for all anisotropies $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }<+1`$. In addition, the longitudinal correlation $`\sigma _0^Z\sigma _r^Z_{T=0}`$ for large distances $`r`$ is negative in the attractive regime.

The finite temperature results for $`\sigma _0^Z\sigma _r^Z`$ as found in numerical studies are quite rich . For fixed separation $`r0`$ a transition from negative to positive values appears for some temperature $`T_0(\mathrm{\Delta },r)`$. In  the question was raised whether $`T_0(\mathrm{\Delta },r)`$ possesses a well defined (and non-zero) value in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$. Alternatively, in an asymptotic expansion in exponentials

$$\sigma _0^Z\sigma _r^Z=A\mathrm{exp}\left(r/\xi \right)+\mathrm{},$$
(2)   
the temperature dependence of the amplitude $`A`$ of the dominant term was addressed and it was argued that there is a sign change for some well defined temperature $`T_0(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ ($`=T_0(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{})`$). Nothing like this is observed in the “repulsive” regime where correlations show simple antiferromagnetic oscillations.

In the current work we want to understand analytically the sign change phenomenon. In particular, we aim at an analytic formula for $`T_0`$, see (28). For two reasons, these questions are not purely academic. First, the “attractive” $`XXZ`$ chain is often considered as a system with ferromagnetic interactions, however with antiferromagnetic groundstate, i.e. vanishing magnetization. Our analysis is aimed at a resolution of the somewhat unintuitive picture in the way of a crossover from dominant ferromagnetic correlations at high to dominant antiferromagnetic correlations at low temperatures. Second, we address the fundamental problem of the additional energy scale that has to enter the description of the “attractive” regime, but is absent in the “repulsive” case. Naturally, we will be led to pay attention to the existence of bound states.

In Sec. 2 we review the known groundstate properties of the $`XXZ`$ chain, and in Sec. 3 we set up our formalism for finite temperatures on the basis of the quantum transfer matrix. In Sec. 4 we address the problem of crossover phenomena in correlation functions and macroscopic properties. Finally, in Sec. 5 we summarize our results and list the open problems.

## 2 Groundstate Properties

In (1) the anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is conveniently parametrized by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{cos}\gamma $$
(3)   
where the range $`0\gamma \pi /2`$ corresponds to repulsive interactions and $`\pi /2\gamma <\pi `$ to attractive interactions. The elementary excitations on the (antiferromagnetic) groundstate are free states with dispersion relation

$$ϵ_f(k)=v\mathrm{sin}k,0k\pi ,$$
(4)   
and “sound” velocity

$$v=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\gamma }\pi .$$
(5)   
In addition to these “free states” there occur “bound states” in the attractive regime $`\pi /2\gamma <\pi `$. Depending on the anisotropy there are different bound states labeled by an integer $`\mu `$ in the range $`1\mu \left[\frac{\gamma }{\pi \gamma }\right]`$ with dispersion 

$$ϵ_b(k)=v\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{k}{2}\sqrt{1+a_\mu ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{k}{2}},a_\mu =\mathrm{cot}\left(\mu \frac{\pi \gamma }{\gamma }\frac{\pi }{2}\right).$$
(6)   
and $`0k\pi `$. Note the same velocity of the bound state dispersion as for the free state dispersion. However, for finite momentum the energy of the bound states is larger than that of the free states.

For the field theoretical description of the $`XXZ`$ chain the occurence of bound states in the attractive regime does not have any fundamental consequences, because of identical velocities of free and bound states in the long-wave limit. Within the bosonization approach the $`XXZ`$ chain is mapped to a Sine-Gordon model where the interaction term is argued to be infrared irrelevant (resulting in a Gaussian model). In this way correlation functions for $`T=0`$ and small $`T>0`$ with asymptotic behaviour

$$C_rC\mathrm{cos}(P_0r)\left(\frac{\frac{\pi }{\beta v}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi }{\beta v}r}\right)^{2x},$$
(7)   
are derived . To our knowledge the breakdown of this picture at higher temperatures in general, and the occurence of a new temperature scale in the attractive regime (with bound states) in particular has not been studied for the Sine-Gordon model.

The scaling dimension $`x`$ and “lattice momentum” $`P_0`$ are generally different for different correlation functions and given by a formula obtained from lattice calculations

$$x=\frac{1\gamma /\pi }{2}S^2+\frac{1}{2(1\gamma /\pi )}m^2+k,P_0=(Sm)\pi ,$$
(8)   
where $`S`$, $`m`$, $`k`$ are integers corresponding to spin, lattice momentum and position in the conformal tower. For the longitudinal spin-spin correlation function the selection rules enforce $`S=0`$, but leave open the values for $`m`$ and $`k`$. A simple inspection shows that $`(m,k)=(1,0)`$ ($`=(0,1)`$) gives the smallest scaling dimension $`x`$ for the repulsive (attractive) regime.

## 3 Finite Temperatures

### 3.1 Quantum Transfer Matrix

For a treatment of finite temperatures we employ a convenient transfer matrix approach . To this end the quantum chain at finite temperature is mapped via a Trotter-Suzuki decomposition onto a two-dimensional classical model on a square lattice of width $`L`$ (= chain length) and height $`N`$ (= Trotter number) and staggered interactions. The free energy and the decay of static correlation functions is completely described by the largest eigenvalue ($`Ł_0`$) and the next-largest eigenvalues ($`Ł_i`$) of the column-to-column transfer matrix

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}limŁ_0`$   
$`C_r`$ $`=`$ $`A_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}\right)^r+A_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}\right)^r+\mathrm{}.`$ (9)   
In the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ this matrix is referred to as the quantum transfer matrix (QTM) being the closest analogue to the usual transfer matrix of classical spin chains.

For the $`XXZ`$ chain integrability is manifest at the level of the QTM in the following way. There is a commuting family of matrices $`T(x)`$ generated by the spectral parameter $`x`$. The QTM is identical to $`T(0)`$. As most of the physical properties are directly given by the logarithm of $`T(0)`$ we define $`=\mathrm{ln}T(0)`$. The lowest eigenvalue of $``$ gives $`\beta f`$ where $`f`$ is the free energy per chain site. Furthermore, the QTM enjoys translational invariance along the vertical axis within the two-dimensional geometry. The corresponding momentum $`𝒫`$ operator is generated by $`T(x)`$ through differentiation. In summary we have

$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}T(0),`$   
$`𝒫`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{sin}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\mathrm{ln}T(x)|_{x=0}.`$ (10)   
Note the similarity to the integrability structure of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ and momentum operator $`P`$ with one important difference. The momentum operator $`P`$ is given by the row-to-row transfer matrix and $`H`$ is given by its derivative. Consequentially, we will often observe a formal correspondence $``$, $`𝒫`$ $``$ $`iP`$, $`iH`$. Of course, in a suitable continuum limit this is easily understood as Hamiltonian and momentum operator are evolution operators with respect to orthogonal directions.

Next, we review the already known eigenvalue equations for the operator $`T(x)`$. The corresponding eigenvalues are denoted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ from which the eigenvalues $``$ and $`𝒦`$ for $``$ and $`𝒫`$ are directly obtained

$``$ $`=`$ $`Ł(0),`$   
$`𝒦`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{sin}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}Ł(x)|_{x=0},`$ (11)   
the latter one taking all integer multiples of $`2\pi /\beta `$. This discretization of $`𝒦`$ naturally entails a discrete spectrum for $``$.

### 3.2 Eigenvalues and Non-Linear Integral Equations

The largest eigenvalue is given by 

$$Ł(x)=\beta e_0(x)+\frac{1}{2\gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{ln}[A\overline{A}(y)]}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{\gamma }(xy)}𝑑y.$$
(12)   
where $`e_0`$ is the groundstate energy and $`A=1+a`$, $`\overline{A}=1+\overline{a}`$ are solutions to the following set of non-linear integral equations (NLIE)

$`\mathrm{ln}a(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta v}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{\gamma }x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2(\pi \gamma )}}\beta h`$ (13)   
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[k(xy)\mathrm{ln}A(y)k(xyi\gamma +iϵ)\mathrm{ln}\overline{A}(y)\right]𝑑y.`$   
$`h`$ is the externally applied magnetic field and the integration kernel is given by

$$k(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\gamma \right)k\mathrm{cos}(kx)}{2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\gamma }{2}k\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi \gamma }{2}k}𝑑k.$$
(14)   
The corresponding equation for $`\overline{a}`$ is obtained from Eq. (13) by exchanging $`ii`$, $`hh`$ and $`a,A\overline{a},\overline{A}`$. These equations will be studied numerically in the next section yielding results for the specific heat, magnetic susceptibilities, and nearest-neighbour correlation for various anisotropies $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and wide temperature ranges.

The next-largest eigenvalues describing the decay of longitudinal spin-spin correlation functions, i.e. eigenvalues with spin quantum number $`S=0`$, are given by 

$`Ł(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta e_0(x)+\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\gamma }}(x\theta _1)\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\gamma }}(x\theta _2)\right]`$ (15)   
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}[A\overline{A}(y)]dy}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{\gamma }(xy)}},`$   
where $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ are determined from

$`\mathrm{ln}a(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta v}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{\gamma }x}}+\pi i+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2(\pi \gamma )}}\beta h+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi }{\pi \gamma }(x(y_0+i\gamma /2))}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi }{\pi \gamma }(x(y_0i\gamma /2))}}`$ (16)   
$`K(x(\theta _1+i\gamma /2))K(x(\theta _2+i\gamma /2))`$   
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[k(xy)\mathrm{ln}A(y)k(xyi\gamma +iϵ)\mathrm{ln}\overline{A}(y)\right]dy.`$   
and $`K(x)`$ is defined by $`K(x)^{}=2\pi ik(x)`$, or explicitly

$$K(x)=i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\gamma \right)k\mathrm{sin}(kx)}{2k\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\gamma }{2}k\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi \gamma }{2}k}𝑑k.$$
(17)   
There appear three parameters $`\theta _1`$, $`\theta _2`$, and $`y_0`$ in the upper equations corresponding to “hole positions” (both $`\theta _{1,2}`$ on the real axis, or forming a complex conjugate pair) and one “complex rapidity” (with Im$`(y_0)=\pi /2`$) of the underlying Bethe ansatz pattern for the QTM. There are higher-lying states satisfying similar integral equations, however with more parameters $`\theta _i`$ and $`y_j`$.

The parameters $`\theta _1`$, $`\theta _2`$, and $`y_0`$ do not take arbitrary (continuous) values, they have to satisfy the coupled equations

$$a(\theta _1+i\gamma /2)=a(\theta _2+i\gamma /2)=a(y_0+i\gamma /2)=1,$$
(18)   
leading to a quantization of the eigenvalues. In general the equations (16,18) have to be solved numerically in order to deal with the problem of non-linearity. For the case of the largest and next-largest eigenvalues an iterative approach proved useful showing convergence within a numerical accuracy of $`10^6`$ already after approx. 10 steps, see ref.  for the non-critical cases with $`\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$, and ref.  for the critical case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$. A comparable numerical analysis for $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$ is in progress, however not yet completed. For this reason we apply an analytical study within a reasonable approximation to (16,18).

### 3.3 Conformal Field Limit for Low Temperatures

In  the equations (15,16) were treated in the low-temperature limit. Despite the apparent complexity of the non-linear integral equations, quite a universal picture evolved. A certain symmetry of the integration kernel allowed for analytic manipulations avoiding the necessity of an explicit solution of the non-linear equations. Each eigenvalue could be written in terms of dilogarithmic integrals which resulted in the explicit formula

$$Ł=\beta e_0\frac{2\pi }{v}T(xc/12)+o(T^2)+iP_0,$$
(19)   
where the central charge is $`c=1`$ and the scaling dimension $`x`$ and lattice momentum $`P_0`$ are given by (8). From (9,19) we see

$$C_r\mathrm{cos}(P_0r)ϵ^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{2\pi }{v}}xTr}.$$
(20)   
which coincides with the conformal field theory result (7) in the low-temperature limit.

On one hand we see that (15,16) recover CFT, on the other hand, the non-linear integral equations are not restricted to low temperatures, but go beyond. It is this behaviour that will be studied in the next sections.

### 3.4 Solution in Lowest Order

A principal treatment of the NLIE is based on iterations. For instance in the case of (13) a reasonable initial choice for the functions $`a`$ and $`\overline{a}`$ is just $`a_0=\overline{a}_0=0`$. Inserting this into the right hand side of (13) leads to

$$\mathrm{ln}a_1(x)=\frac{\beta v}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{\gamma }x}.$$
(21)   
This process should be continued ad infinitum, however we content ourselves with the approximation $`a_1`$ for the function $`a`$. Inserting $`a_1`$ and $`\overline{a}_1`$ into (12) we obtain the first order approximation (1OA) in the sense of an iterative procedure to the largest eigenvalue of the QTM which already reproduces correctly: (i) the low-temperature asymptotics $`Ł=\beta e_0+c(\pi T/6v)`$ with central charge $`c=1`$, and (ii) the high-temperature behaviour $`Ł=\mathrm{ln}2`$. This success may be understood in the following way. At low temperatures the corrections described by the integral terms in (13) are small, and at high temperatures both of them cancel each other. We conclude that the (1OA) is a respectable approximation useful for the entire temperature range.

#### 3.4.1 Free States

Next, we study the excitations (16,18) in (1OA) yielding

$$Ł(x)=\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\pi }{2\gamma }(x\theta _1)\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\pi }{2\gamma }(x\theta _2)\right],$$
(22)   
where we have dropped the common offset $`\beta e_0(x)`$ in (15). From this and (11) we derive the eigenvalues

$``$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_1+ϵ_2,`$   
$`𝒦`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _f(ϵ_1)+\kappa _f(ϵ_2),\kappa _f(ϵ)=\pm v\mathrm{sinh}ϵ,`$ (23)   
where the parameters $`\theta _i`$ have been parametrized by $`ϵ_i(0)`$ such that $`\kappa _i`$ is a unique function of $`ϵ_i`$ except for the sign in the $`\kappa _f`$ dispersion which is given by the sign of the parameter $`\theta _i`$. Note the similarity of the “momentum-energy” dispersion $`\kappa _f(ϵ)`$ for the “free states” of the QTM with the dispersion (4)

$$\kappa _f(ϵ)=iϵ_f(iϵ).$$
(24)   
We know already from general principles that $`𝒦`$ is strictly equal to an integer multiple of $`2\pi /\beta `$. This does not necessarily imply a similar property for each individual $`\kappa _i=\kappa _f(ϵ_i)`$, however values close to multiples of $`2\pi /\beta `$ are generally taken.

We see this most easily for the case $`\kappa _1=\kappa _2`$, i.e. $`\theta _1=\theta _2`$. The quantization condition (18) for $`y_0`$ requires $`y_0=\mathrm{}`$. If we apply the (1OA) treatment to (16), the quantization condition (18) simply reads $`\mathrm{ln}a(\theta _i+i\gamma /2)=i\beta v/\mathrm{sinh}(\pi /\gamma )\theta _i=`$ odd multiple of $`\pi i`$. Using this when inserting (22) into (11) we directly find $`\kappa _1=k_2=2\pi /\beta `$.

If both $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$ take the smallest possible values of same sign and the $`XXZ`$ chain is in the attractive regime $`\pi /2\gamma <\pi `$ the quantization conditions impose complex values for the parameters $`\theta _{1,2}`$. This leads us to the study of bound states of the QTM.

#### 3.4.2 Bound States

Here we content ourselves to a motivation of why in the attractive regime complex solutions to (18) close to

$$\theta _{1,2}=\theta \pm i\left(\gamma \frac{\pi }{2}\right),$$
(25)   
appear. To this end let us assume that $`\theta _1`$ has a positive imaginary part and we calculate $`\mathrm{ln}a(\theta _1+i\gamma /2)`$ from (16). For low temperatures the dominant term is $`\beta v/\mathrm{cosh}(\pi /\gamma )(\theta _1+i\gamma /2)`$ whose real part tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. The only term matching this divergence is the $`y_0`$ term in the first line of (16) if $`\theta _1y_0=\gamma \pi `$. Likewise we conclude for $`\theta _2`$ with negative imaginary part the condition $`\theta _2y_0+\gamma =0`$. Using Im$`y_0=\pi /2`$ we write $`y_0=\theta +i\pi /2`$ and arrive at (25).

We like to note that for the case of higher-lying states involving more than one complex rapidity $`y_0`$ there are additional bound states. These always involve two complex conjugate parameters $`\theta _{1,2}`$ and a “string” of complex rapidities $`y_j`$ with minimum number 1 and maximum number $`[\gamma /(\pi \gamma )]`$, a situation similar to that of the Hamiltonian. However, for the crossover phenomenon in the correlation functions the case explicitly studied above is sufficient.

The momentum-energy dispersion is obtained from (22,25) inserted into (11) and eliminating $`\theta `$. More easily we may use the relation to (6) $`\kappa _b(ϵ)=iϵ_b(iϵ)`$. With $`\mu =1`$ we find

$$\kappa _b(ϵ)=\pm v\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{ϵ}{2}\sqrt{1a^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{ϵ}{2}},a=\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{\pi \gamma }{\gamma }\frac{\pi }{2}\right).$$
(26)   
## 4 Crossover Phenomena

In this section we are going to investigate various crossover phenomena in correlation functions as well as macroscopic properties of the $`XXZ`$ chain in the attractive regime. Of prime interest is the calculation of the crossover temperature as function of the anisotropy parameter $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }0`$.

### 4.1 Crossover in Correlation Functions

With the knowledge of Sec. 3.4 we are in the position to examine the crossover of the asymptotics of the longitudinal correlation function from ferromagnetic behaviour at high temperature to antiferromagnetic behaviour at low temperature. In particular we want to derive an analytic formula for the crossover temperature as function of the anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In principle such a crossover may occur under two separate circumstances

* (i) the prefactor $`A_1`$ of the dominant term in (9), i.e. that with longest correlation length $`\xi _1=1/(_1_0)`$, turns zero for some temperature.
* (ii) the leading and next-leading terms in (9) have prefactors $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ of different sign, and a crossover of the correlation lengths $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ occurs for some temperature.

Unfortunately, we cannot calculate the prefactors as matrix elements are currently out of reach of our formalism. In the work  scenario (i) was advocated, because it naturally leads to a crossover for $`\sigma _0^Z\sigma _n^Z`$ at a temperature $`T_0(n)`$ which in dependence on the separation $`n`$ converges to $`T_0`$ with exponential rate (formula (2.10) of  with three fit parameters). For scenario (ii) the dependence of $`T_0(n)`$ would be algebraic $`T_0+A/n`$ with two fit parameters $`T_0`$ and $`A`$. In fact, the exponential fit looks more convincing than the algebraic fit. However, the latter procedure involves one fit parameter less.

As the implications of the fit procedures are not conclusive we performed a numerical study of the QTM for finite $`N`$ which already allows for quite accurate, non-trivial high temperature investigations for values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ close to 0. Surprisingly, this exercise having been aimed at discriminating between the two scenarios showed for $`N=4`$ that actually both take place at the same temperature! However, for $`N=6`$ only scenario (ii) is realized. We have performed complete eigenvalue computations for much larger numbers $`N`$ up to 14 and always find scenario (ii) realized. For these larger numbers of $`N`$ we have not yet computed the matrix elements such that we cannot decisively comment on (i) at the moment.

In the following we investigate scenario (ii) in detail, i.e. the crossover in the two largest correlation lengths, or equivalently in the corresponding “energies” $``$ for the lowest state with $`𝒦=0`$ and the two lowest states with $`𝒦=\pm 2\pi /\beta `$ which are free and bound states, respectively. Such a level crossing analysis can of course be performed within our approach.

The condition for the crossover of a free state with momenta $`\kappa _1=\kappa _2=2\pi /\beta _0`$ and a bound state with momentum $`\kappa =2\pi /\beta _0`$ where $`\beta _0`$ corresponds to crossover temperature $`T_0`$ is

$`ϵ=ϵ_1+ϵ_2\text{ and }2\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _1+\kappa _2`$   
$`2\mathrm{sinh}ϵ_i\sqrt{1a^2\mathrm{sinh}^2ϵ_i}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}ϵ_i,`$ (27)   
with solution $`\mathrm{sinh}^2ϵ_i=\frac{3}{4a^2}`$. Inserting this into $`\kappa _f(ϵ_i)=2\pi /\beta _0`$ yields

$$T_0=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\gamma }\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\pi \gamma }{\gamma }\frac{\pi }{2}\right).$$
(28)   
This is in excellent agreement with the numerical analysis of , see Fig. 1. An almost perfect agreement with the numerical results has been achieved by introducing a multiplicative correction close to 1 and independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Of course, some correction term had to be expected as we only calculated within the 1OA.

In addition we show “analytical” results for the nearest-neighbour correlations $`\sigma _j^Z\sigma _{j+1}^Z_{T>0}`$ derived as derivatives of the free energy with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, see Fig. 2.

### 4.2 Crossover in Macroscopic Quantities

Finally, we like to present a qualitative argument based on the dispersion relations of the elementary excitations of the Hamiltonian (4,6) to show crossover between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic behaviour at high and low temperatures, respectively. Notice that the dispersion of free states (4) is quasislinear, i.e. is approximated well by a linear relation as long as the momentum transfer is less than the reciprocal lattice vector $`\pi `$. For the bound states (6) the linear regime is much smaller. For $`0<k<(\pi \gamma )\pi /2\gamma `$ the dispersion behaves like $`ϵ_b(k)v\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{k}{2}`$, i.e. it is quasi-linear. For $`(\pi \gamma )\pi /2\gamma <k<\pi `$ we find the dependence $`ϵ_b(k)v\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}a\mathrm{sin}^2k/2`$, i.e. quadratic behaviour typical for the elementary excitations of an isotropic ferromagnetic system. The crossover takes place for $`a\mathrm{sin}k_c/2=1`$ with crossover temperature

$$T_0^{}=ϵ_b(k_c)=2^{3/2}v/a=2^{3/2}\pi \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\gamma }\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\pi \gamma }{\gamma }\frac{\pi }{2}\right).$$
(29)   
Note that $`T_0^{}`$ is larger than $`T_0`$ by a factor of 20.52…, though the functional dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is identical. We see that both arguments (crossover of free and bound states of the QTM, and crossover from linear to quadratic dispersion of the bound states of the Hamiltonian) share the same physical origin, but apply to different properties. In fact, at temperatures of the order $`T_0^{}`$ we see characteristics in the susceptibility data which do not exist for the repulsive regime $`0<\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$, see Fig. 3. For any $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we have $`lim_{T0}\chi (T)T=0`$, whereas for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ the result is divergent, $`\chi (T)J/(6T^2)`$, see . The noncontinuity of the limiting values is the reason for the observed temperature maximum of the quantity $`\chi (T)T`$.

For completeness we show results for the specific heat of the $`XXZ`$ chain in the attractive as well as repulsive regime.

Note there are no characteristics like finite temperature maxima in $`c(T)`$ in addition to the usual “peak” typical for spin systems with a finite number of degrees per lattice site.

## 5 Conclusion

We have studied the competition of ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic order in the longitudinal correlation function of the spin-1/2 $`XXZ`$ chain in the attractive regime. Within the scenario of level crossing of the quantum transfer matrix we found an explanation of the sign change in the dominant exponential asymptotics from positive to negative values when passing from high to low temperatures. Notably, we found an analytic formula for the crossover temperature $`T_0(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (28) as function of $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$ which may be viewed as the maximum temperature below which conformal field theory is applicable. The agreement of $`T_0`$ as determined numerically and analytically is very good.

The physical origin underlying the crossover phenomena in correlation functions (as well as the magnetic susceptibility) may be viewed in the existence of bound states. The various manifestations of these peculiar properties of the spectrum of the quantum transfer matrix (as well as the Hamiltonian) have been discussed. A lesson to be drawn from these findings is that the physical properties of systems possessing bound states are much richer than the usual low-energy treatment within bosonization and a subsequent approximation by Gaussian models.

We want to point out two important questions which remained unanswered. First, for the explanation of the crossover there are two different scenarios conceivable. For the numerical analysis a sign change of the coefficient $`A_1`$ of the leading term in (9) was assumed , the analytical work in this paper was based on a level crossing scenario as also found in explicit numerical treatments of QTMs for Trotter numbers $`4N14`$. The new level crossing scenario would suggest a numerical size analysis of the crossover temperature somewhat different from that employed in . In preliminary numerical work we have seen this change to affect the numerical value of the crossover temperature $`T_0`$ in only about the second significant digit. In our future work we want to focus on a numerical analysis of the Hamiltonian  and the QTM approach (to be published) yielding identical numerical values for $`T_0`$.

Second, even within the level crossing scenario of our analytic reasoning the result (28) represents an analytic approximation to the characteristic temperature $`T_0`$. A comprehensive numerical treatment of (15,16) beyond the (1OA) approximation is on the way.

As a result of the analytical and numerical computations of finite $`N`$–QTM’s we expect a decisive answer to the open problems.

## Acknowledgments

A.K. acknowledges financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under grant No. Kl 645/3-1 and support by the research program of the Sonderforschungsbereich 341, Köln-Aachen-Jülich. One of us (BMM) is partially supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant DMR9703543.

## References