this paper concerns the classical ground state of the hamiltonian @xmath1 where @xmath2 are unit vectors , and the couplings @xmath3 have the symmetry of the lattice and may extend several neighbors away ( being frustrated in the interesting cases ) .    after an antiferromagnet s ordering pattern ( or partial information ) is determined by neutron diffraction , the next question is which spin hamiltonian(s ) imply that order , if we admit interactions @xmath4 to second neighbors or @xmath5 to further neighbors .
the starting point for understanding ordered states is always the classical ground state(s ) . if the spins sit on a _ bravais _ lattice ( e.g. face - centered cubic ) , the solution is trivial due to a rigorous recipe , called the  luttinger - tisza " ( lt ) method ( see sec .  [
sec : lt ] below ) : the spins adopt ( at most ) a simple spiral  a _ coplanar _ state , meaning all spins point in the same plane of spin space  @xcite .
but if the spins form a lattice with a basis ( more than one site per primitive cell ) ,  e.g. kagom , diamond , pyrochlore , or half - garnet lattices  no mechanical recipe is known to discover the ground state . in these more complicated lattices , magnetic frustration ( competing interactions )
often induces complicated spin arrangements .
our aim has been to find a recipe for general lattices ( albeit neither exhaustive nor rigorous ) to discover the ground state spin pattern corresponding to a given set of exchange couplings @xmath6 , to neighbors at successive distances .
that is obviously a prerequisite for solving the inverse problem ( given the ordering patterns found by neutron diffraction , which combination(s ) of interactions can explain them ? ) .
furthermore , after the whole phase diagram is mapped out , we can identify the parameter sets leading to exceptionally degenerate or otherwise interesting states , so as to recognize which real or model systems might be close to realizing those special states .
in this work , we focus on a narrower question : which parameter combinations give a _ noncoplanar _ ground state , which could never happen in a bravais lattice ?
we adopt the exchange hamiltonian ( [ eq : ham ] ) , excluding single - site anisotropies and dzyaloshinskii - moriya couplings , which can trivially give non - coplanar ground states .
we do not count cases where a non - coplanar ground state belongs to a degenerate family of states that also includes coplanar ground states .
this happens trivially when two sublattices are nt coupled at all , or nontrivially when the interactions are constrained to cancel . in the latter cases thermal or quantum fluctuations usually break the degeneracy , favoring the collinear or coplanar states @xcite .
( a small amount of site - dilution or bond disorder can generate a uniform effective hamiltonian that favors non - coplanar states  @xcite , but here we only consider undisordered systems . )      there are specific physical motivations to hunt for non - coplanar states .
first , they point to possible realizations of _ chiral _
@xcite spin liquids , such as are described within bosonic large-@xmath7 formalisms ( as are hoped to approximate the behavior of frustrated magnets with @xmath8 ) .
such formalisms describe transitions from an ordered state to a quantum - disordered spin liquid ; since there is no generic reason for a state to stop being chiral at the same time it loses spin order , a chiral ordered state presumably transitions into a chiral spin liquid . hence , as a rule of thumb , a chiral spin liquid is feasible if and only if the classical ordered state ( on the same lattice ) is non - coplanar .  @xcite .    secondly , spin non - coplanarity in metals ( usually induced by an external magnetic field ) allows the _ anomalous hall effect _ observed in pyrochlore and other magnets .  @xcite this is ascribed to spin - orbit coupling and the berry phases of hopping electrons ( which are zero in the collinear or coplanar case ) .
thirdly , the symmetry - breaking of noncoplanar exchange - coupled magnetic states is labeled by an order parameter which is an @xmath9 matrix , so the order - parameter manifold is disconnected .
this permits a novel topological defect : the @xmath10 domain wall  @xcite , which is only possible in non - coplanar phases .    finally , there is current interest in `` multiferroic '' materials ( i.e. those with cross couplings of electric and magnetic polarizations ) .
for example , in the canonical multiferroics rmno@xmath11 ( where r = rare earth ) , frustrated exchange interactions induce a coplanar spiral , which in the presence of dzyaloshinskii - moriya anisotropic interactions carries an electric polarization with it  @xcite .
if these spirals were asymmetric conic spirals , like our second class of ground states , there is generically a net moment along the axis , which serves as a convenient `` handle '' to externally manipulate the orientation of the ground state ( and thus control the multiferroic properties ) .
our spins sit on a rarely studied lattice we christen the `` octahedral lattice '' , consisting of the medial lattice ( bond midpoints ) of a simple cubic lattice . thus forming corner - sharing octahedra .
thus , each unit cell has a basis of three sites , forming what we call the @xmath12 , @xmath13 , and @xmath14 sublattices ( according to the direction of the bond they sit on ) .
each cubic vertex is surrounded by an octahedron of six sites , with nearest - neighbor bonds forming its edges ; these octahedra share corners , much as triangles or tetrahedra share corners in the well - known kagom and pyrochlore lattices .
( indeed , although the `` checkerboard '' lattice was introduced as a two - dimensional version of the pyrochlore lattice  @xcite , the octahedral lattice is the best three - dimensional generalization of the checkerboard lattice . )
this lattice was first studied as a frustrated ising antiferromagnet  @xcite more recently , it was used as a ( simpler / pedagogical ) toy model in papers aimed at the `` coulomb phase '' of highly constrained spins on a pyrochlore lattice  @xcite .
it is one of the lattices constructed from the root lattices of lie algebras .
@xcite    the octahedral sites are wyckoff positions ( and hence candidates for a magnetic lattice ) in most cubic space groups , so this is plausible to find in real materials , and a few are known .
most simply , it is realized by the transition metal sites in the cu@xmath11au superstructure of the fcc lattice  @xcite ( i.e. all but one of the four simple cubic sublattices ) .
so far , the only example known in which the `` cu '' lattice is magnetic seems to be mn@xmath11ge which is ferromagnetic  @xcite another realization is in metallic perovskites such as mn@xmath11snn , though again the known materials are ferromagnetic  @xcite .
it would actually seem quite plausible to find realizations of our models , which mostly have several exchange interactions @xmath6 with competing signs , among metallic alloys : the rkky interaction , expected between local moments in any metal , oscillates with distance inside a slowly decaying envelope .    the octahedral lattice is closely related to the magnetic lattice found in the ( mostly metallic ) ir@xmath11ge@xmath15 structures , including the strong - electron - interaction superconductor mo@xmath11sb@xmath15  @xcite . in that lattice , the simple - cubic lattice sites are surrounded by _
octahedra , i.e. a dimer of _ two _ magnetic ions decorates each bond of the simple cubic lattice .
if this dimer were strongly coupled ferromagnetically , it would be a good approximation to treat it as a single spin , which is exactly the octahedral lattice . instead
, in mo@xmath11sb@xmath15 the dimers are antiferromagnetically coupled and , since mo has spin 1/2 , they form singlets  @xcite . if the spin length were longer , justifying classical treatment , we could convert to the ferromagnetic case simply by inverting the spin directions in every octahedron around an odd site of the cubic lattice , and changing the sign of all bonds coupling even sites with odd sites .
thus , much of the classical phase diagram for the mo@xmath11sb@xmath15 lattice is related to that of the octahedral lattice .    in this paper
, we mainly consider four kinds of couplings , for separations out to the third neighbors : @xmath16 for @xmath17 , @xmath4 or @xmath18 for @xmath19 , @xmath20 for @xmath21 .
notice that couplings with the same displacement need not be equivalent by symmetry , since the site symmetry is just fourfold , less than cubic .
( our naming convention is to use the prime for the separation which requires more first - neighbor steps to traverse . )
we also ( less extensively ) consider interactions @xmath22 or @xmath23 for @xmath24 . to organize our exploration of this parameter space , in analytic calculations
we shall often assume @xmath25 ( that suffices to give examples of most of the classes we found of noncoplanar ground states ) .
we begin ( sec .  [ sec : framework ] ) by developing the techniques and concepts necessary to find the phase diagram as a function of the @xmath0 s and to discover _ non - coplanar _ ground states . we found ground states using three methods
the first ( sec .
[ sec : lt ] was fourier analysis , known as the `` luttinger - tisza '' method , which can give a lower bound on the energy , but may not give a full picture of the ground state .
the second ( sec .
[ sec : iter - min ] is an iterative minimization algorithm , which numerically converges to a ground state ; we introduce several diagnostic tools for understanding the spin patterns produced by iterative minimization . the third method ( sec .
[ sec : var ] ) is the variational optimization of idealized patterns displayed by iterative minimization .
we then turn to our results , beginning with descriptions of the several classes of magnetic state we found for the octahedral lattice : various coplanar states ( sec .
[ sec : coplane ] ) , the noncoplanar , commensurate `` cuboctabedral '' spin states ( sec .
[ sec : cuboc ] ) , and a more generic group of noncoplanar , incommensurate `` conic spirals '' ( sec .
[ sec : conic ] ) ; in these the lattice breaks up into layers of spins with the same directions , each layer being rotated around the same ( spin - space ) axis relative to the layer below .
particularly noteworthy was a `` double - twist '' state we encountered , which is something like a conic spiral which also has a complex modulation in the transverse directions ( sec .  [ sec : doubletwist ] ) .
the plain stacked structures can be studied by mapping to one - dimensional ( `` chain '' ) lattices , also with couplings to many neighbors , as worked through in sec .
[ sec : mapping ] .    from this
we go on ( sec .
[ sec : phase ] ) to quickly survey the phase diagrams we found , first for the cuboctahedral lattice , and then for the chain lattice ( when treated as a lattice in its own right ) . in the conclusion , sec .
[ sec : discussion ] , we reflect on what our results might suggest for other frustrated lattices , such as the pyrochlore .
we employed several approaches to discover and understand ground states , for each given set of interactions ( these are developed rest of this section  except for the use of mappings , which we explain in sec .
[ sec : conic ] , where it becomes natural to employ this technique ) .    *
. a fourier analysis of the hamiltonian ( [ eq : ham ] ) as a quadratic form with coefficients @xmath0 , the so - called `` luttinger - tisza '' method outlined in sec .
[ sec : lt ] . * .
iterative minimization , our main `` exploratory '' technique .
starting from a random initial condition , we successively adjusted randomly chosen spins so as to reduce the energy .
[ sec : iter - min ] ) .
we then analyzed each resulting pattern with various diagnostics , as described in sec .
[ sec : iter - min ] , and tagged the non - coplanar ones for further investigation . * .
variational optimization of the iterative minimization ground state .
finding a closed - form for the ground state introduces a number of free parameters ( the most obvious being a wave - vector ) . by allowing these parameters to vary from the values found with iterative minimization
, we find a new , more rigorous , ground state . * .
mapping the ( three - dimensional ) problem to a similar problem in a one - dimensional `` chain '' lattice with a basis of two sites .
this is valid when the optimal ( three dimensional ) spin configuration is a stacking of layers , which we judged based on the results from approaches ( a ) and ( b ) .
the states on this simplified chain lattice may be found using approaches ( a ) and ( b ) , or analytically solved after parametrizing the state with a set of variational parameters .
the general theory of spin arrangements is reviewed in refs .   and .
the most fruitful approach to finding the ground states of the hamiltonian ( [ eq : ham ] ) is to treat it as a quadratic form rewriting ( [ eq : ham ] ) as @xmath26 where @xmath27 and @xmath28 are sublattice indices ; the explicit formulas for the cuboctahedral lattice case are given in appendix [ sec : pert - lt ] , eq .
( [ eq : lt - matrix ] ) . then we diagonalize this matrix , obtaining @xmath29 here @xmath30 is the number of sites per primitive cell , and @xmath31 is a band index ; thus @xmath32 are the eigenvalues of @xmath0 as an @xmath33 matrix , with @xmath7 being the number of cells ( to be taken to infinity ) , and the wavevector @xmath34 runs over the brillouin zone .
[ in the bravais lattice case , @xmath35 , the eigenvalue @xmath36 is simply the fourier transform of @xmath37 ; for @xmath38 . ]
also , @xmath39 ( complex - valued 3-vector ) is the projection of the spin configuration onto the corresponding normalized eigenmode , @xmath40 .
we shall call these the `` luttinger - tisza '' ( lt ) eigenvalues and modes  @xcite ; a mode with the most negative @xmath41 is called an `` optimal '' mode , and its wavevector is called @xmath42 .
the ideal case is that we can build a spin state satisfying two conditions    * _ condition ( 1 ) _
@xmath43 are entirely linear combinations of optimal lt modes * _ condition ( 2 ) _
@xmath44 everywhere ( unit length constraint )    if both conditions are satisfied , these _ must _ be ground states , and all ground states _ must _ be of this form .
in the case of a bravais lattice ( @xmath35 ) , the lt modes are just plane waves @xmath45 , and one can always construct a _ planar _
spiral configuration  @xcite , @xmath46 , where @xmath47 and @xmath48 are orthogonal unit vectors , and the spatial dependence consists only of optimal modes  @xcite . in the simplest cases ,
@xmath49 is at high symmetry points on brillouin zone corners , and one can construct a combination of optimal modes which is @xmath50 on all sites , which defines a _ collinear _ ground state , as in the phase diagrams in ref .  .
thus , non - bravais lattices are _ necessary _ in order to get non - coplanar states .
( but not sufficient : it appears that , on non - bravais lattices with high symmetry , the commonest ground states are still collinear or coplanar . ) in lattices - with - a - basis , however , the lt eigenmodes have different amplitudes on different sites within the unit cell , and it is not generally possible to make any three - component linear combination of the best modes that satisfies the unit - length constraint .
( there is an exception for lattices in which the neighbors - of - neighbors are all second neighbors , such as the diamond  @xcite or honeycomb  @xcite lattices .
a `` generalized '' l - t method for non - bravais lattices was introduced by ref .
( see also ref .  ) and applied to spinels with both a and b sites magnetic @xcite .
however , this method involves site - dependent variational parameters , so one must already understand the pattern of the ground state in order to make it into a finite problem ; in practice , this method appears quite similar to our method ( sec .
[ sec : conic ] and [ sec : pert - state ] ) of projecting a layered structure to a one - dimensional chain .
although the lt optimal modes ( usually ) give the _ exact _ ground states in the cases we focus on , we believe the exact ground state is frequently built mainly from almost - optimal modes ; that is , although a linear combination of optimum lt modes violates the unit - spin constraint , with a small distortion it may satisfy the constraint and be the ground state .
( that distortion necessitates admixing other modes but with small amplitudes , since they carry a large energy penalty , according to ( [ eq : modes - fourier ] ) . ) in particular , we anticipate that ( for incommensurate orderings ) the true ordering wavevector lies in the same symmetry direction as the lt wavevector ; and that the phase diagram for optimum lt wavevectors mostly has the same topology as the actual phase diagram for ground states . thus the lt modes can serve as a `` map '' for navigating the parameter space of @xmath51 and for understanding the ground state spin configurations .
an important caveat is that almost all @xmath52 vectors have symmetry - related degeneracies , and the lt analysis is silent on how these modes are to be combined with different spin directions , so the specification of the actual spin configuration is incomplete .
( an example is the `` double - twist '' state , of sec .
[ sec : doubletwist ] . ) as a corollary , a single phase domain on the lt mode phase diagram might be subdivided into several phases in the spin - configuration phase diagram , that represent different ways of taking linear combinations of the same lt modes .
this can not be detected at the lt level .
one immediate insight is afforded by considering the lt phase diagram .
short - range couplings have fourier transforms @xmath53 in ( [ eq : ham - fourier ] ) that vary slowly in reciprocal space .
such functions typically possess extrema at high - symmetry points in the brillouin zone ; the same is probably true for the optimum _ eigenvalues _ and their wavevectors @xmath49 .
that corresponds to simple , commensurate ordering in real space . in order to get the optimal lt mode ( and presumably the actual ordering ) to be incommensurate , or to possibly stabilize states with stacking directions other than ( 100 )
, one needs to include more distant neighbor couplings .    in practice ,
we never used lt to directly discover the ground state spin configuration ; its value is to quickly prove a given state is a ground state .
but the lt viewpoint did inform the fourier - transform diagnostic we used in analyzing the outputs of iterative relaxation ( sec .
[ sec : iter - min ] .
furthermore , when we operated in the `` designer '' mode ( seeking the couplings that stabilize a specified state ) we used the lt modes as a guide or clue : namely , we found the @xmath51 that made the ordering wavevector @xmath52 of our target state to be the optimal @xmath49 , which is easier than making @xmath52 be the ordering wavevector of the actual ground state .
our prime tool for exploration was iterative minimization starting from a random initial condition .
random spins are selected in turn and adjusted ( one at a time ) so as to minimize the energy , by aligning with the local field of their neighbors , till the configuration converged on a local minimum of the hamiltonian .
( our criterion was that the energy change in one sweep over the lattice was less than a chosen tolerance , typically @xmath54 ) .
it might be worried that such an algorithm gets stuck in metastable states , unrepresentative of the ground state ; such `` glassy '' behavior is indeed expected in the case of ising ( or otherwise discrete ) spins , or in _ randomly _ frustrated systems such as spin glasses . however , vector spins typically have sufficient freedom to get close to the true ground state  @xcite .
the typical ways they deviated from the ground state are just long - wavelength wandering ( `` spin waves '' ) or twists of the spin directions .
the only problem with the dynamics is that our algorithm is a variant of `` steepest descent '' , one of the slowest of relaxation algorithms .
such deviation modes are indeed slow relaxing for this kind of ( local ) dynamics , the relaxation rate of a long - wavelength spin wave at wavevector @xmath55 is proportional to @xmath56 , i.e. @xmath57 for the slowest mode in a system of side @xmath58 .
( in future applications , some version of conjugate gradient should be applied to give a faster convergence , or
if there is a problem is finding the right valley of the energy function
one might adapt elser s `` difference map '' approach to global optimization  @xcite . )    for initial explorations , we usually used very small cubic simulation boxes of @xmath59 cells ( @xmath60 , 4 , or 5 ) .
for each set of @xmath61 tested , we tried both periodic and antiperiodic boundary conditions , as well as even or odd @xmath58 .
usually one of those four cases accomodates an approximation of the infinite system ground state , though of course any incommensurate state must adjust either by twisting to shift the ordering wavevector to the nearest allowed value , or else ( as we observed ) via the formation of wall defects .
we tried to distinguish the ground states which were `` genuine '' in that a similar state would remain stable in the thermodynamic limit .
in particular , out of the four standard systems we tried ( even / odd system size , periodic / antiperiodic bc s ) , a `` genuine '' state should be the one with lowest energy .    for a large portion of the parameter space ,
the ground states were planar spirals , essentially no different from the solutions guaranteed in the bravais lattice case .
many of the noncoplanar configurations found were `` non - genuine '' artifacts of finite size when the periodic ( or antiperiodic ) boundary conditions and dimension @xmath58 were incompatible with the natural periodicity of the true ground state .
one might expect the wrong boundary condition to simply impose a twist by @xmath62 per layer on the true ground state , but instead the observed distortion of the spin texture was sometimes of the natural periodicity of the ground state , a `` buckling '' occurred ; that is , the configuration consists of finite domains similar to the true ground state , separated by soliton - like domain walls .
the greatest difficulty in our procedure was not obtaining an approximation of the ground state , or even deciding whether it was genuine .
rather , it was grasping what the obtained pattern is , and how to idealize it to a periodic ( or quasiperiodic ) true ground state of the infinite system .
we were aided by the following three diagnostics .
configurations obtained by iterative minimization were fourier transformed and the norms of each fourier component @xmath63 were summed ( combining the sublattices )  @xcite .
this suffices to identify the state when it is a relatively simple antiferromagnetic pattern , or an incommensurate state described as a layer stacking . in any case , the results can be compared to the lt mode calculation to see if the found state achieves the lt bound .
the simplest visual diagnostic of a state is the `` common - origin plot '' , in which each spin s orientation is represented as a point on the unit sphere .
for example , an incommensurate coplanar spiral state would appear as a single great circle on the common - origin plot ( see fig .  [
fig : cop ] ) .
a drawback of the common - origin plot is the lack of information on the spatial relation of the spins .
( for example , a `` cone '' might appear consisting of closely spaced spin directions , but these might belong to widely spaced sites . )
furthermore , this diagnostic is quite fragile in configurations where a domain wall or other defect has been quenched in .    in the case of one - dimensional chains ( see sec .  [
sec : mapping ] ) , we may instead use the `` end - to - end '' spin plot , where the tail of each spin vector is on the head of the previous spin vector .
the advantage is that ( i ) images are not so obscured by overlaying of different vectors , and ( ii ) spatial information is captured , in particular defects where the state has `` buckled '' .
@xcite    in tandem with the common - origin plot , an algorithm was used that found groups of spins with ( nearly ) identical spin directions , within a chosen tolerance ( typically , a dot product greater than 0.99 ) . for commensurate patterns comprising a finite set of spin directions , this allowed the magnetic unit cell and spin configuration to be read off , but it was useless for incommensurate states , in which no spin direction exactly repeats .    .
planar spiral ( b ) .
cuboctahedral state ( c ) .
asymmetric conic spiral ( d ) .
alternating conic spiral . ]
we computed the @xmath64 tensor @xmath65 ( notice @xmath66 ) and diagonalized it .
we recognize coplanar or non - coplanar spin states as those where @xmath67 has two or three nonzero eigenvalues , respectively .
( rotating the spin configuration so the principal directions of @xmath67 are the coordinate axes usually manifests the spin configuration s symmetries . )      through the diagnostic techniques described in the previous subsections , it is normally straightforward to parameterize the spins in the ground as @xmath68 , i.e. as a function of position and some arbitrary set of parameters , @xmath69 .
the exact values of these parameters can ( formally ) be calculated from optimizing @xmath70 .
one major advantage of relying upon this method is that it reduces the effect of numerical artifacts from iterative minimization .
for example , we no longer enforce an arbitrary periodicity upon the lt wavevector .
this subsection is not about a technique , but a classification of two ways that ground states may be related to each other , and thus of two kinds of phase boundaries in the phase diagrams ( sec .  [
sec : phase ] and appendix  [ app : phase - boundaries ] ) .
we call these two concepts `` encompassing states '' and `` families of degenerate states '' .
we call a ground state `` encompassed '' if it is a special case of another , more general state . for example
, a ferromagnet is encompassed by a helimagnet , since letting the helimagnetic angle go to zero produces a ferromagnet .
`` more general '' means there is a continuous family of states such that each particular combination of couplings @xmath6 s completely determines a particular member of that family .
moreover , the ( more general ) encompassing state necessarily spans at least one more dimension of spin space , so if the encompassed state is coplanar , the encompassing one is non - coplanar .
however , while every encompassing state is more general than the state it encompasses , not every more general state will encompass a particular ground state .
for example , the asymmetric conic is more general than the splayed ferromagnet ( both of these states are defined in sec .  [
sec : conic ] ) , but it does not encompass the splayed ferromagnet ; there is , however , a third class that encompasses both these classes .
_ by contrast , `` degenerate states '' means that for certain combinations of @xmath6 s , there is a continuous family of exactly degenerate ground states .
_ most commonly , this is the result of _ decoupling _ between sublattices of spins , meaning one can apply a global rotation limited to just one of the sublattices while remaining in the degenerate manifold .
this can come about in two ways .
the trivial way is when all @xmath6 s that couple those sublattices vanish .
the more interesting way is when the couplings are nonzero , but cancel generically in all the ground states ; the simplest example of this kind is the @xmath16@xmath4 antiferromagnet on the square  @xcite or bcc  @xcite lattice , in the @xmath4-dominated regime in which each of the even and odd sublattices realizes plain nel order . apart from decoupling , degenerate manifolds are also sometimes realized by simultaneous rotations involving all sublattices with some mutual constraint ( e.g. in the nearest - neighbor kagom lattice , the constraint that the spins add to zero in every triangle ) .
independent of the categories mentioned , these degenerate families may either be _ simply degenerate _ , meaning the ground state manifold is labeled by a finite number of parameters  one nontrivial angle in the case of the @xmath16@xmath4 antiferromagnet   or else _ highly degenerate _ , meaning the number of parameters scales with size as @xmath71 with @xmath72 .
an example with trivially decoupled , highly degenerate ground states is a layered lattice with vanishing interlayer couplings , so the number of free parameters scales as @xmath73 ; the @xmath74 kagom antiferromagnet is a mutally constrained , highly degenerate case with @xmath75 parameters , i.e. extensively many .
both the simply and highly degenerate families also have clear signatures in reciprocal space . in the simple case ,
the optimal wavevectors are discrete and related by symmetry , e.g. the @xmath16@xmath4 square lattice antiferromagnet has @xmath76 or @xmath77 ; in this case , the degeneracy lies in the freedom to mix these degenerate lt eigenmodes with different coefficients , not from the presence of extended ( one- , two- , or even three - dimensional ) surfaces in the brillouin zone .
by contrast , in the highly degenerate scenario , typically holding for special combinations of couplings , the lt optimum wavefectors occur not just at isolated @xmath49 in the brillouin zone , but on extended ( one- , two- , or even three - dimensional ) surfaces , i.e. one has degenerate eigenmodes of the lt matrix that are not symmetry - equivalent . the rhombohedral lattice with @xmath16 , @xmath4 , and @xmath20
has a degenerate one - parameter family of wavevectors corresponding to different coplanar spirals  @xcite . the three - dimensional pyrochlore lattice with only nearest - neighbor ( @xmath78 couplings is a well - known example of the highly degenerate scenario , requiring extensive number of parameters . in that case , the minimum @xmath79 eigenvalue is uniform throughout the brillouin zone  @xcite ( a so - called `` flat band '' ) .
what encompassing states and families of degenerate states have in common is to serve as bridges between simple states .    in the `` encompassing '' case ,
the encompassing state is typically stable in a domain of parameter space of nonzero measure .
when one adjacent phase in a phase diagram is encompassed by the other , they are necessarily related ( in our @xmath80 phase diagram ) by a continuous transition , usually involving a symmetry breaking .
in contrast , degenerate families are ( frequently ) confined to phase boundaries . even when they occupy a finite area in a slice of parameter space ( e.g. the @xmath81 plane when all other couplings are zero ) , turning on additional couplings can remove the degeneracy .
a corollary is that the naive classification of continuous or first - order phase transitions does not work .
consider two phases separated by a phase boundary on which a degenerate family is stable .
each of the two phases ( or the limit of either as the boundary is approached ) is a special case from the degenerate family
. since the limits taken from the opposite directions are different , it appears at first as an abrupt transition . on the other hand ,
it is possible to take the system continuously from one phase to the other if we pause the parameter variation when we hit the phase boundary , and follow a path through the degenerate manifold from one of the limiting states to the other one .
furthermore , turning on additional parameters generically destroys the degeneracy . that converts the degenerate family into an encompassing family , and the single phase boundary into two continuous ones .
specifically , starting in one of the main phases , we cross a small strip of phase diagram in which the configuration evolves ( determined by the parameter combination ) from one of the limiting states to the other one , and then enter the other of the main phases .
thus , the `` encompassed '' kind of transition is distinct from either a first - order transition ( between two unrelated states ) or an ordinary continous one , and will be indicated on phase diagrams with a distinct kind of line .
the `` cluster '' method is a rigorous analytic approach to ground states , alternative to the lt mode approach .
@xcite , which depends on decomposing the hamiltonian into terms for ( usually overlapping ) clusters , and finding the ground states for one cluster .
if these ground states can be patched together so as to agree where they overlap , the resulting global state must be a ground state and all ground states must be decomposable in this fashion . in this way we can characterize the degenerate states appearing for two special combinations of @xmath6 s .      in this case , the cluster is a triangle ( one face of an octahedron , including one site each from the @xmath12 , @xmath13 , and @xmath14 sublattices ) .
the ground state of such a triangle is the usual 120@xmath82 arrangement of spins .
if all such triangles are to be satisfied , then wherever two of them share an edge , the respective unshared spins are forced to have identical directions  in the present case , spins on opposite corners of the octahedron .
thus , a line of @xmath12 sublattice spins in the @xmath12 direction ( or similarly of the other sublattices in their directions ) is constrained to be the same .
this high degeneracy is not limited to the single point in parameter space @xmath83 .
if we turn on @xmath4 , which couples the nearest neighbors aling those lines of spins , the same configurations remain the ground state until @xmath4 is negative and its magnitude sufficiently large compared to @xmath84 ; less obviously , the same thing is true for @xmath85 , varied together .
this allows two different kinds of highly degenerate state :    \(a ) one sublattice ( say @xmath12 ) has @xmath86 along every line . within the other sublattices ,
each @xmath87 plane has an independent rotation about the @xmath88 axis .
thus the spin directions are @xmath89 where @xmath47 is a different unit vector in each plane , and we take the @xmath90 or @xmath91 sign in the @xmath13 or @xmath14 sublattice , respectively .
the common - origin plot for this state looks superficially like a conic spiral , the cone being formed by the @xmath13 and @xmath14 spin directions . in reality , whereas an incommensurate spiral gives a uniform weight along the spiral in the common - origin plot , this state gives a random distribution which approaches uniformity only in the limit of a very large system .
( b ) . for
a second family of ( discretely ) degenerate states , we choose    @xmath92 ; \\
\ss(n_1,n_2 + 1/2,n_3 ) & = &             \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 } } [ -f_1(n_1 ) , 0 , f_3(n_3 ) ] ; \\
\ss(n_1 , n_2 , n_3 + 1/2 ) & = &             \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 } } [ f_1(n_1 ) , -f_2(n_2),0 ] .
\label{eq : j1cuboc }     \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath93 are arbitrary .
notice that ( [ eq : j1cuboc ] ) uses ( a subset of ) the cuboctahedral directions .
typically , in a sufficiently large system , all those directions are used nearly equally ; the common - origin plot would show a cuboctahedron .
however , the spins do not have a regular pattern in space since ( [ eq : j1cuboc ] ) is random , with a discrete degeneracy @xmath73 in a system of @xmath59 cells . the states ( [ eq : j1cuboc ] ) represent a degenerate family of states , as formulated in sec .  [
sec : bridging ] : the optimum lt eigenvalues are found at _ all _ wavevectors @xmath52 lying on the ( 100 ) axes .
we are _ not _ interested in the high degeneracy for its own sake ; its significance is that various kinds of ordered states can be selected out of it , by turning on additional couplings ( even infinitesimally ) .
thus , the high - degeneracy parameter combinations will be corners of phase domains in the phase diagram .
let @xmath94 be the net spin of the octahedron centered on @xmath27 .
@xmath95 where @xmath27 is a cubic lattice vertex and @xmath96 means site @xmath97 is on one of the six bonds from @xmath27 , consider a hamiltonian written as @xmath98 on the one hand , expanding the square shows this is simply the antiferromagnet with @xmath99 . on the other hand ,
it is obvious from ( [ eq : ham - octzero ] ) that any configuration with a net ( classical ) spin of zero on every octahedron is a ground state .
this is another example of a degenerate ground state family ( sec .
[ sec : bridging ] ) ; in this case the continuous degeneracy is macroscopic .
this hamiltonian is constructed in exactly the same way as those of well - known highly frustrated lattices ( kagom , checkerboard , half - garnet , pyrochlore ) that have similar ground state degeneracies .
several different collinear or coplanar ground states can be stabilized within the octahedral lattice , only one of which requires couplings beyond @xmath4 .
we will describe them from the smallest to the largest magnet unit cells .
the most elementary of these is the ferromagnetic state , in which all spins are aligned in the same direction , and which obviously requires predominantly positive couplings .
this state is composed of a ( 0,0,0 ) lt mode with equal amplitudes on every sublattice ( so the normalization condition is already satisfied ) .
there is also the `` three - sublattice 120@xmath100 antiferromagnetic state '' , whose unit cell is the primitive cell .
each of the three sublattices has a uniform direction ; the net inter - sublattice couplings are antiferromagnetic , so ( as in the ground state of a single antiferromagnetic triangle ) the respective spin directions are 120@xmath82 apart and coplanar .
thus this state , too , is characterized by ordering wavevector @xmath101 , but not the same lt mode as the ferromagnetic state . instead , this one is from the two degenerate modes at @xmath101 that are orthogonal to the uniform mode .
( any combination of these modes has unequal magnitude on the different sublattices , which is why _ both _ modes need to be present in the spin state , combined with different spin directions . )
this state is a special case of the highly degenerate ground states found when only @xmath102 ( sec .
[ sec : onlyj1 ] ) .
the next group of coplanar states are the @xmath103 antiferromagnetic states , of which there are three kinds , characterized by having ordering wavevectors of type ( 0,0,1/2 ) , ( 0,1/2,1/2 ) , or ( 1/2,1/2,1/2 ) .
each of these states is antiferromagnetic overall within every sublattice ; the sublattices decouple , since any inter - sublattice interaction couples a spin in one sublattice to equal numbers of spins pointing in opposite directions in the other sublattice .
these are lt states ; in the ( 0,0,1/2 ) and ( 0,1/2,1/2 ) cases , the lt mode used is nonzero on only one sublattice , and a different one of the three symmetry - related wavevectors is used for each sublattice ( the one with the same distinguished direction ) . e.g.
the @xmath12 sublattice uses ( 1/2,0,0 ) or ( 0,1/2,1/2 ) modes .
notice that in these two cases , the spins repeat ferromagnetically along some directions ( within a sublattice ) ; this is a consequence of the anisotropy of the intra - sublattice couplings .
qualitatively , these states are stable when @xmath4 is different from @xmath18 .
all of these states can be realized with collinear spins .
lastly , the octahedral lattice admits helimagnetic states .
these states require at least @xmath20 couplings to become stabilized .
the helimagnetic states must be composed entirely out of @xmath104 modes .
this is because any other wave - vector would break the symmetry between the sublattices .
more precisely , helimagnetic states are generically a function of one variable , @xmath105 , and are therefore equivalent to a one - dimensional system
. it will therefore be amenable to stacking vector analysis , developed in  [ sec : conic ] . but using stacking vectors to transform the octahedral lattice to a one - dimensional chain will necessarily produce a non - bravais lattice unless the stacking vector ( 111 ) ( or a permutation of sign ) . and any helimagnetic mode in the one - dimensional non - bravais lattice will break normalization in the octahedral lattice , since some spin directions would be represented more than others ( this will be allowable for conics because they mix multiple modes , but helimagnets are explictly single mode ) .
therefore , the only allowable stacking vector ( and by implication , wave - vector ) is ( 111 ) .
the octahedral lattice possesses two kinds of `` cuboctahedral '' state , stable in different domains of parameter space , for which the common - origin plot takes the form of a cuboctahedron , i.e. twelve spin directions of the form @xmath106 and its permutations [ fig .  [ fig : cop](b ) ] .
the magnetic unit cell is @xmath107 for both of these true cuboctahedral states ( spuriously cuboctahedral states were remarked in sec .  [
sec : onlyj1 ] ) .
they differ in that the angles between neighboring spins ( which are in different sublattices ) is 60@xmath82 in one kind of cuboctahedral state but is 120@xmath82 in the other kind .
as worked through in this section , the cuboctahedral states can be understood from any of three approaches :    * cluster construction : the hamiltonian can be decomposed into a sum of terms , each for an octahedron ; we can patch together the ground states of the respective octahedra to obtain a ground state of the whole lattice .
( for 60@xmath82 cuboctahedral only . )
* degenerate perturbation theory : two special sets of couplings give degenerate families of ground states , out of which a small additional coupling can select the cuboctahedral state .
( for 120@xmath82 cuboctahedral only . ) * the luttinger - tisza framework of sec .
[ sec : lt ] .
( for both kinds of cuboctahedral state . )
the 120@xmath82 cuboctahedral state is a subset of the @xmath16only antiferromagnetic ( @xmath83 ) ground states described above ( sec .
[ sec : onlyj1 ] ) .
thus , this state is stabilized even in the limit as @xmath4 ( or other distant couplings ) become arbitrarily small .
it is the only non - coplanar state we found that does not require any couplings beyond @xmath4 and @xmath18 .
the first cuboctahedral state noticed was in the @xmath16@xmath4 magnet on the kagome lattice  @xcite , with @xmath16 ferromagnetic and @xmath4 antiferromagnetic . there is a range of ratios @xmath108 in which the magnetic unit cell on the kagome lattice is @xmath109 .
taking that cell as given , the possible ground states are those of the twelve - site cluster made by giving periodic boundary conditions to one unit cell  a cluster which is topologically equivalent to a single cuboctahedron ( even when couplings to any distance are taken into account ) , and hence include the cuboctahedral state .    turning to the present case of the octahedral lattice ,
in fact this is a union of cuboctahedral cages surrounding cube centers , complementary to the octahedral clusters surrounding the cube vertices .
we can apply the `` cluster '' construction ( see sec .
[ sec : cluster ] ) to these cages by representing its lattice hamiltonian as a sum of cuboctahedron hamiltonians , with @xmath110 , @xmath111 , @xmath112 , and @xmath113 ( @xmath16 , @xmath4 , @xmath18 and @xmath22 are shared by two cuboctahedra ) ; also @xmath114 and @xmath115 .
consider for a moment the ground state of 12 spins placed on an isolated cuboctahedron ,  @xcite with couplings @xmath116 , @xmath117 , @xmath118 , and @xmath119 .
now , it is well known that , on a chain ( i.e. a discretized circle ) , @xmath120 and ( small ) @xmath121 give a gradual , coplanar spin spiral ; on a circle with the right number of sites the spin directions point radial to that circle .
roughly speaking , the three - dimensional analog of this happens on a cuboctahedron , which is a discretized sphere : if @xmath116 is ferromagnetic and one of the more distant couplings is antiferromagnetic , the spin ground state is a direct image of the center - to - vertex vector in the cuboctahedron ( modulo a global @xmath9 rotation of the spins ) .
this notion only works for the 60@xmath82 kind of cuboctahedral , occurring for @xmath122 , in which the nearest neighbors are ( relatively ) close to being parallel .    to build a global state
in which every cuboctahedron has the cuboctahedral spin configuration , the difficult part is just to make the spins agree where they are shared between cuboctahedra : that is achieved by applying mirror operations in alternate layers of cuboctahedra , such that e.g. the @xmath123 components are multiplied by @xmath124 .      when we have only @xmath83 couplings , the ground state is a degenerate state with @xmath125 angles between nearest neighbors , as written in eq .
( [ eq : j1cuboc ] ) of sec .
[ sec : onlyj1 ] . in that degenerate state of sec .
[ sec : onlyj1 ] the spins take ( some of or all of ) the cuboctahedral directions , but do not have a genuine cubic spin symmetry . as soon as an arbitrarily small antiferromagnetic @xmath4 is added as a perturbation , a subset of these states is selected , which is the @xmath125 kind of cuboctahedral state . in the notation of ( [ eq : j1cuboc ] )
, this true 120@xmath126 cuboctahedral state takes the following form :    @xmath127 ; \\
\ss(n_1,n_2+{\frac{\footnotesize{1}}{\footnotesize{2}}},n_3 ) & = &                 \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 } } [ ( -1)^{n_1 } , 0 , \pm(-1)^{n_3 } ] ; \\
\ss(n_1 , n_2 , n_3+{\frac{\footnotesize{1}}{\footnotesize{2 } } } ) & = &                 \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 } } [ ( -1)^{n_1 } , ( -1)^{n_2},0 ] .
\end{aligned}\ ] ]    [ eq : fullcuboc ]    where @xmath90 corresponds to the 120@xmath82 state and @xmath91 to the 60@xmath82 .
alternatively , both cuboctahedral states can be understood within the lt framework . for certain domains of parameter values ,
the optimal lt modes have wavevectors @xmath128 of @xmath129 type .
it can be worked out that for e.g. @xmath130 , one eigenmode has amplitudes @xmath131 on sublattices @xmath132 , i.e. its support is only on the @xmath12 sublattice .
each of the other two eigenmodes has its support equally on the @xmath13 and @xmath14 sublattices , the amplitudes being @xmath133 . when the first eigenmode is optimal , we get the decoupled @xmath134 antiferromagnet already described in sec .
[ sec : coplane ] ; when either of the two - sublattice eigenmodes is stable , a cuboctahedral states is found .
it is obviously impossible to satisfy normalization in a spin state using just one of the two - sublattice modes , since its amplitude vanishes on the third sublattice . to build a normalized ground state
, it is necessary and sufficient to form a linear combination using all three of the symmetry - related @xmath49 wavevectors , associating each with a different orthogonal spin component .
thus the spin directions are @xmath135 , with all possible permutations and sign changes , as we already saw in eq .
( [ eq : fullcuboc ] ) . these states could be called a commensurate triple - q state . the eigenmode with amplitudes of form @xmath136
gives the 60@xmath82 cuboctahedral whereas the one of form @xmath137 gives the 120@xmath82 cuboctahedral state .      from the lt viewpoint
, one would naively expect to construct similar noncoplanar cuboctahedral states of cubic symmetry using @xmath49 of ( 1/2,1/2,0 ) : why are they absent ?
after all , the @xmath138 type wavevectors are threefold degenerate , just like the ( 1/2,0,0 ) wavevectors from which the cuboctahedral states are built , and it is straightforward to follow the analogy of those states to construct a ( 1/2 , 1/2,0 ) cuboctahedral ( just allotting each mode one of the three cartesian directions in spin space ) .
furthermore , if we include @xmath22 and @xmath23 couplings in the hamiltonian , there is a certain region of parameter space in which @xmath49 = ( 1/2 , 1/2 , 0 ) can indeed be optimal , with the optimal lt eigenmodes being orthogonal to the eigenmodes that make up the @xmath139 type antiferromagnetic state .
hence in that region , the putative @xmath140 , cuboctahedral state really is a ground state .
but closer examination of the lt matrix for @xmath141 shows that neither the cuboctahedral state , nor any noncollinear state , is
_ forced_. at this high symmetry point in the brillouin zone , all intersublattice contributions to the lt matrix @xmath53 [ see eq .  ( [ eq : ham - fourier ] ) ] cancel .
that means the @xmath142 is a diagonal matrix .
its eigenvalues are @xmath143 for the mode of the ( 1/2,1/2,0 ) antiferromagnet , plus two degenerate eigenvalues @xmath144 for the modes of interest here .    furthermore , the fact that only @xmath4 and @xmath23 enter the formula indicates that all other couplings cancel out .
not only are spins of different sublattices decoupled , but each sublattice decouples into two interpenetrating ( and unfrustrated ) tetragonal lattices .
( the latter decoupling is reminiscent of the decoupling of the @xmath4-only simple cubic antiferromagnet . ) in light of these decouplings , we can not call this state a ( 1/2 , 1/2 , 0 ) cuboctahedral ; it is merely a particular configuration out of a degenerate family that also includes collinear states .
the conic spiral states are generically incommensurate and constitute the most common class of non - coplanar state that we found .
they are layered states , where the spins are all parallel in a given layer .
that is , the lattice breaks up into layers , normal to some stacking direction @xmath145 in real space .
we encountered only @xmath146 stacked conic spirals , so we concentrate on that case , but stacking directions other than @xmath147 should be feasible in principle . within each layer , all the spin directions are the same ; as you look in each successive layer , the spin directions rotate around an axis @xmath148 in spin space . due to this layering , it is possible to map a conic state to a one - dimensional `` chain lattice '' ( as introduced in sec .
[ sec : mapping ] ) , which is a significant simplfication in the analysis .    considered from the lt viewpoint ,
a conic spiral is a mix of two different modes : two spin components follow an incommensurate wavevector @xmath52 , spiraling as in a helimagnet , and the third component follows a commensurate wavevector @xmath149 ( @xmath150[af ] in the asymmetric - conic case ) . in both @xmath52 and @xmath149
, all components transverse to the stacking direction must be zero .
the conic spirals divide into subclasses , the alternating and asymmetric conic spirals , according to whether they are symmetric under the ( spin space ) symmetry of reflecting in the plane normal to @xmath148 . in the octahedral lattice , the only type of conic spiral we observed was the asymmetric conic
however , in the chain lattice we find that two distinct classes of conic spiral are possible : the asymmetric conic and the alternating conic . in principle , both states should be possible in the octahedral lattice , but an analysis in terms of stacking vectors ( see sec . [
sec : mapping ] ) reveals that longer range couplings ( @xmath151 ) would be necessary to stabilize the conics .      in the asymmetric conic ,
the ground states are linear combinations of helimagnetic and ferromagnetic modes .
let the stacking direction be along the @xmath14 axis , so all spins are only functions of @xmath14 .
( alternatively , we could interpret @xmath14 as the position in the one - dimensional chain lattice of sec .
[ sec : mapping ] , below . )
the helimagnetic part is parametrized with a rotating unit vector : @xmath152 where @xmath153 form an orthonormal triad .
then    @xmath154    with @xmath155 .
the spins in each sublattice rotate about some common cone axis @xmath48 in spin space ; spins of the same sublattice have the same component along the cone axis ( giving net magnetic moments for both sublattices of @xmath156 , where @xmath157 is the component of a spin of sublattice @xmath27 along the common axis ) .
the different sublattices are antiferromagnetically coupled , so these net moments have different signs . and because the couplings within the sublattices are not equal to those of the other sublattice , the magnitude of the net moments are not equal .
this can be easier to understand if we think in terms of common - origin plots ( see figure  [ fig : cop ] ) , since then the spins all lie upon the surface of a sphere . in the common origin plot
, each sublattice forms a cone .
these cones are along the same axis , but oppositely oriented and their azimuthal ( conic ) angles are not equal .      in the alternating conic ,
one sublattice is a _
spiral , while the other is always a combination of the same helimagnetic mode and an antiferromagnetic mode .
this state is thus represented , again using ( [ eq : rotating - ahat ] ) :    @xmath158    where @xmath159 for the alternating conic . returning again to our common - origin plot
( see figure  [ fig : cop ] ) , one sublattice forms a great circle along the equator of the sphere .
the other sublattice now traces cones on each side of this equator ( the common axis is the vector normal to the circle ) .
the spins of the second sublattice alternate between the two sides of the equator , giving the antiferromagnetic component .
thus , the difference between sublattices is more fundamental in the case the alternating conics than in asymmetric conics .
there are two other states essentially related to these conic spirals , but are important enough to deserve their own names ( this is much the same as ferromagnetism being a special case of helimagnetism ) .
we term these states ferromagnetic and ferrimagnetic splayed states .
consider the alternating conic in the limit of the polar angle going to 0 or 1/2 . in both cases ,
the spins are confined to a plane , but they are emphatically not in a helimagnetic configuration .
the sublattice that was helimagnetic is now ferromagnetic and the sublattice that was conic now merely alternates ( that is , reflects about equatorial plane without rotation ) .
if the polar angle is 0 ( 1/2 ) , then the dot product of spins in different sublattice is positive ( negative ) and the state is a ferromagnetic ( ferrimagnetic ) splayed state .
while the difference between ferromagnetic and ferrimagnetic splayed state seems rather trivial here , it is more dramatic when we think of asymmetric conics .
the ferrimagnetic splayed state is produced when one of the conic angles and the polar angle go to 1/2 while the other conic angle remains arbitrary .
but because the coupling between sublattices is antiferromagnetic for the asymmetric conic , the conic angles of the sublattices will always confine spins to opposite sides of the `` equator . ''
this means that the asymmetric conic will never continuously transform into a ferromagnetic splayed state , and so such a transition would necessarily be first order .      for the cases of incommensurate conic spirals ,
our main analytic method is variational : we assume a functional form for the spin configuration ( based on interative minimization results ) depending on several parameters , and optimize exactly with respect to them .
say we know that the correct ground state is stacked a stack of planes with identical spins   in practice this is determined empirically from the outcome of iterative minimization ( sec .
[ sec : iter - min ] )  then the variational problem is equivalent to a one - dimensional ( and hence simpler ) one : layers of the 3d lattice may be mapped into a chain containing inequivalent sublattices .
this mapping is fruitful in two or three ways .
first , we could ( and did ) explore the chain lattice ground states using interative minimization , in much longer system lengths than would be practical in an @xmath160 system .
second , it is unifying , in that various stackings of various three - dimensional lattices map to the same chain lattice .
finally , it illuminates what conditions are necessary in order to obtain non - coplanar states .    notice that if a stacked state is the true ground state of the three - dimensional lattice , its projection must be the true ground state of the chain projection ( since the chain lattice states correspond exactly to a subset of three - dimensional states ) ; but of course the converse is false : the proven optimal state of the chain lattice might be irrelevant to the three - dimensional lattice , when a different ( e.g. unstacked ) kind of ground state develops a lower energy .
as coupling parameters are varied , that different state might become stable in a first - order transition ; our only systematic ways to address that possibility are ( i ) iterative minimization ( ii ) watching for an exchange of stability between two lt eigenmodes at different wavevectors .
and even with this method , we had to rely primarily upon iterative minimization for reliable results , as lt analysis is insufficient to determine the ground state , particularly in cases where a ground state can not be constructed from the optimal lt modes .    for the cases that concern us here , the chain lattice has a basis of two sites per cell , with inversion symmetry at each site ; we take the lattice constant to be unity .
the mappings to chain sites @xmath14 is given by @xmath161 where @xmath145 is a vector of integers , having no common factor .
we let `` even '' sites be those with @xmath14 integer and `` odd '' sites be those with @xmath162 integer+1/2 . as in three dimensions ,
we consider inter - sublattice couplings @xmath116 and @xmath118 , as well as intra - sublattice couplings out to distances 1 and 2 , namely @xmath117 and @xmath119 ( between even spins ) or @xmath163 and @xmath164 ( between odd spins ) .
notice that , if @xmath165 and @xmath166 , the chain system reduces to a bravais lattice ( with lattice constant 1/2 ) and its ground states are ( at most ) coplanar spirals , as explained in sec .
[ sec : lt ] ; that rules out @xmath167 .
notice that for stackings in low symmetry directions ( and thus requiring larger coefficients in the @xmath145 vector ) , short range @xmath0 couplings in the octahedral lattice map to long range @xmath168 couplings in the chain lattice , e.g. @xmath169 maps @xmath170 through @xmath171 to @xmath172 through @xmath173 . because longer range couplings quickly appear
, it is reasonable to explore them in the chain lattice . in order to organize our exploration of parameter space ,
we shall call @xmath116 , @xmath117 , and @xmath117 `` primary '' couplings ; @xmath118 , @xmath119 , and @xmath164 are `` secondary '' couplings , and if necessary are assumed small compared to the primary couplings .
we encountered @xmath174 stackings often enough in the iterative minimization , and we searched for @xmath175 type stackings also ( although this search was ultimately unsuccessful ) .
the @xmath176 mapping is illustrated in real space in fig .
[ fig : mapping ] .
the numerical values of the mapped couplings is given by a matrix multiplication : @xmath177 where @xmath178 is the energy within a plane of constant @xmath14 in the octahedral lattice .
notice that , for this stacking vector , couplings @xmath16 through @xmath22 are projected down to @xmath179 through @xmath117 .
this helps explain the absence of stable conics in the octahedral lattice .
we only find conics in the chain lattice for @xmath118 or longer - range couplings .
but for this stacking @xmath176 , require at least a @xmath180 coupling to generate an analogous coupling ( for the alternating conic , @xmath181 is more likely , given the asymmetry between the sublattices ) .
and @xmath13 sublattices ( red x s ) are projected onto the same point , while those in the @xmath14 sublattice ( blue squares ) are mapped onto a different point ( again a function z ) .
as such , there are twice as sites mapped onto any x as there are mapped onto a square .
the spatial structure is shown in dotted lines , while couplings are shown in solid lines . ]
this is a hypothetical ( but likely ) class of states . here
`` transversely modulated '' means that when we decompose the lattice as a stacking of layers , a single layer does not have a single spin direction , but instead a pattern of spin directions .
whereas the asymmetric conic spiral used ordering wavevectors ( say ) @xmath182 and @xmath183 , and the alternating conic spiral used @xmath182 and @xmath184 , a transversely modulated spiral might replace the first wavevector by e.g. @xmath185 .
equivalently , if we look at a column of successive cells along the stacking direction , in a plain conic spiral ( whether alternating or asymmetric ) , adjacent columns are in phase , but in the transversely modulated conic spirals , different columns are offset in phase according to a regular pattern .
it should be possible to generalize the chain mapping to such cases , but we have not tried it .
here we describe the incompletely understood `` double - twist '' state , which has attributes in common with both cuboctahedral and conic states , and was observed only for a small set of couplings ( @xmath1862 , @xmath187 , @xmath20=1 , all others zero ) .
these couplings were selected to give @xmath188 , as the ground states previously encountered had a @xmath49 either along the @xmath189 direction or on the edges of the brillouin zone . for a given @xmath190 , the value of @xmath4 is determined by : @xmath191 we particularly studied the @xmath192 case .
( note that iterative minimization necessarily probes commensurate states , due to our boundary conditions . )
this corresponds to @xmath193 , according to eq .
( [ eq : j2-q - doubletwist ] ) .
the double twist state is , to good approximation , composed solely of @xmath194 modes ( for normalization , there will necessarily be other wave - vectors , but these have relatively small amplitudes ) . unlike previous states , each sublattice has nonzero contributions from all @xmath194 wavevectors , rather than a subset .
the weight of each sublattice in a given @xmath194 mode differs between sublattices , approximately in proportion to relative weight in the lt optimal mode with a similar @xmath49 .
the spatial variation produced by this combination of modes is complicated .
there is a stacking axis in real space , which we take to be @xmath195 without loss of generality .
spin space is characterized by three orthonormal basis vectors : @xmath48 defines a conic axis , around which the other two basis vectors @xmath88 and @xmath47 rotate as a function of @xmath14 :    [ eq : a - b - basis ] @xmath196    we can parameterize this cartoon of the double twist state as @xmath197 with @xmath198 , where @xmath199 is an arbitrary phase , similarly @xmath200 . note the coordinates @xmath201 in @xmath202 are the actual sites for sublattice @xmath97 , which are half - odd - integers in the @xmath97 component .
thus , addition to the twisting of the basis vectors along the stacking direction , in ( [ eq : a - b - basis ] ) , there are spatial modulations transverse to the stacking direction that appear in the coefficients of @xmath203 and @xmath48 in ( [ eq : doubletwist ] )    while the form described by ( [ eq : doubletwist ] ) is close to what we observe with iterative minimization , it unfortunately does not satisfy normalization : the ground state necessarily contains admixtures of non - optimal modes .
( to satisfy normalization using only the @xmath194 modes would require four - component spins . ) in eq .
( [ eq : doubletwist ] ) , @xmath204 should ideally be the amplitudes ( on the three respective sublattices ) of the lt eigenvector at @xmath205 , while @xmath206 is a weighting factor that reduces the deviations of the spins in ( [ eq : doubletwist ] ) from uniform normalization .
what if we demanded , not normalization of all spins , but only that the mean - squared value of @xmath207 be one in each sublattice ?
since each cosine or sine factor has mean square of 1/2 , and since @xmath208 , we ought then to have @xmath209 . projecting the actual result of iterative minimization onto such modes gave @xmath210 .
also , whereas @xmath211 in the actual lt eigenvectors , we found @xmath212 in the results of iterative minimization .
the double twist state can be viewed as related to the hypothesized transversely - modulated conics or to the cuboctahedral states . in particular , the composition of this state in terms of lt modes is more similar to the cuboctahedral states than to any other configuration .    the lt mode underlying this state , according to ( [ eq : j2-q - doubletwist ] ) , has a continuously variable wavevector as @xmath4 is varied . due to the limitations of iterative minimization with periodic boundary conditions , we have not followed the evolution of the double - twist state
; in particular , we do not know if it becomes incommensurate in both the stacking ( @xmath14 ) direction and the transverse directions .
to understand how the ground states outlined in sec .
[ sec : coplane],[sec : cuboc ] , [ sec : conic ] , and [ sec : doubletwist ] fit together , it is necessary to examine the phase diagrams of the octahedral and chain lattices .
a series of representative cuts through the phase diagrams for both lattices gives us a general sense of their topology , and specifically in what regions non - coplanar states are stabilized .    of course , rescaling the couplings by any positive factor gives an identical ground state ( with energy rescaled by the same factor ) .
therefore we present the phase diagrams in rescaled coordinates , normally @xmath213 ( except when @xmath214 ) .
an important aspect of all the phase diagrams is the classification of the transitions into first - order ( discontinuous ) , encompassed ( continuous ) , or degenerate : the distinction between the last two kinds was explained in sec .
[ sec : bridging ] . whenever a continuous manifold of degenerate states is found ( always on a phase boundary ) ,
it is labeled in the diagrams by `` @xmath215 '' representing how the number of parameters ( needed to label the states ) scales with system size .      in the octahedral lattice
we are fortunate in that most kinds of states have energies that can be written exactly as a linear combination of couplings ( given in table  [ tab : o - states ]  @xcite ) ; the phase boundaries between such phases are simply the lines ( more exactly hyperplanes ) where the two energy functions are equal .
most other phase boundaries are handled analytically , e.g. the helimagnetic state and its `` encompassed '' ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic states . the only phase boundary _ not _ determined analytically from a variational form was the double - twist state , for which we do not have an exact variational form ; in this case the boundary was approximation by the lt phase boundary .
we would expect that approximation to be accurate for any such complex phase that is built entirely from a star of symmetry - equivalent modes , provided the neighboring phase is built from other modes .
.ground states of the octahedral lattice , with ordering wavevector @xmath52 .
[ cols="^,^,^",options="header " , ]     to classify phase boundaries in the chain lattice , it is important to consider limiting cases ( i.e. encompassed states in the nomenclature of sec .
[ sec : bridging ] ) .
states with variational parameters ( the helimagnetic wave - vector @xmath216 , as well as the conic / splay angles ) will undergo a second - order transition when their parameters reach a limiting value ( 0 or 1/2 for the helimagnet angle , 0 or 1/4 for conic angles ) . thus there is a second - order transition between helimagnetism and either antiferromagnetism or ferromagnetism , as well as between alternating conics and every other state ( except asymmetric conic ) .
asymmetric conics , on the other hand , have second - order transitions to ferromagnetism , antiferromagnetism , helimagnetism , or ferrimagnetic splayed states , but not to ferromagnetic splayed states or alternating conics .
the splayed states , meanwhile , can only have second - order transitions to ferromagnetism or antiferromagnetism ( depending upon which type of splayed state it is ) , to the other splayed state , or the appropriate conics .
all other transitions are necessarily first - order .
= 1 , @xmath118=0 , @xmath119=0 , @xmath164=0 .
note similarity of phase boundaries to figure [ fig : o,1,0 ] , despite the lack of other similarity . ]
consider first the case of @xmath116 ferromagnetic with no couplings beyond @xmath217 ( figure [ fig : c,1,0,0 ] ) .
the phase diagram displays the same quadrant structure that we found in the octahedral lattice .
however , the quadrant structure is not identical in the two lattices .
first of all , the ground states are different in the chain lattice ( helimagnetism and splayed states instead of various forms of antiferromagnetism ) .
secondly , the topology of the first and second order transitions are reversed for the two lattices .
both of these phenomena can be explained by appealing to the additional degrees of freedom in the octahedral lattice .
because the octahedral lattice has three spatial variables , it has ground states that can not exist in the chain lattice .
this includes families of degenerate states at the phase boundaries of the octahedral lattice , producing second order transitions ( when there are second order transitions in the chain lattice , they are principally due to encompassing states ) .    , @xmath118=0.28 , @xmath119=0 , @xmath164=0 .
first state with asymmetric conic , and therefore first instance of non - coplanar ground states in the chain lattice .
white circles denote helimagnetic phase , black circles anti - ferromagnetic , crosses splayed ferrimagnetic , and filled squares ( blue online ) asymmetric conic , the phases determined by numerically optimizing the variational form of the energy for these couplings . ]
next , we examine the case @xmath116 antiferromagnetic and @xmath118 ferromagnetic ( figure [ fig : c,-1,28,0 ] ) . several states in the quandrant structure are different from the ferromagnetic @xmath116 case ( i.e. ferrimagnetic vs ferromagnetic splayed ) , but more interesting is the presence of the asymmetric conic - the first instance of a nonplanar state in the chain lattice . in much the same way that tuning @xmath118 in the octahedral lattice produced helimagnetic states around the phase boundaries of the more common states , so in the chain lattice do we find that the asymmetric conic state becomes stabilized around what would be the antiferromagnetic , ferrimagnetic splayed , helimagnetic triple point . and unlike the helimagnetic state in the octahedral lattice , which had both first order and second order transitions , the asymmetric conic has only second order transitions ( this is because it is an encompassing parametrization of every other state in this slice of the phase diagram ) .
if we switch the sign of @xmath118 so that we have both @xmath218 and @xmath219 antiferromagnetic , the topology of the phase diagram ( not shown ) is much the same as figure  [ fig : c,-1,28,0 ] .
the afm / heli boundary gets shorter and moves towards the lower left , so that the four domains almost meet at a point .
more significantly , the asymmetric conic does not appear along the phase boundaries . instead , all transitions are continuous , except that along both parts of ferrisplayed / heli boundary , the portion closest to the center is first - order .
@xcite ( the point where the nature of the transition switches from first - order to continuous is thus of tricritical type . )    , @xmath118=0 , @xmath220 , @xmath164=0 .
filled squares denote conic spiral phases , of which both kinds exist in this parameter slice : symmetric conic in the upper half ( blue online ) and asymmetric conic in the lower half ( red online ) .
this is our first instance of an alternating conic . ]    finally , we consider the case of @xmath116 ferromagnetic and @xmath119 antiferromagnetic ( figure [ fig : c,-1,0,-28 ] ) .
this slice of parameter space is quite interesting as both types of conics are present .
furthermore , the alternating conic now fills a relatively large region of parameter space .
this is likely due to its highly non - linear dependence on @xmath119 ( as a function of its variational parameters ) .
to conclude the paper , we first review our principal results , and then assess how much of what we learned is transferable to other lattices .      the highlights of this paper include both concepts and methods , as well as results specific to the octahedral lattice , which seems relatively amenable to non - coplanar states .
we pay special attention ( sec .
[ sec : scarce ] ) to commonalities in the positioning of non - coplanar states in the phase diagram vis -  - vis neighboring phases .
our overall focus had a flavor of reverse engineering , in that we try to ask which couplings gave a certain phase ( or which gave any non - coplanar phase )  of course in order to do that , one must also understand the forwards question ( given the couplings , what is the phase ) . in that sense ,
our work is an example of a `` materials by design '' philosophy , whereby materials are tailored
e.g. by adjusting their chemical content  to have a combination of interactions leading to a desired state .      our basic recipe to determine the ground state of a non - bravais lattice was a two - step process ( sec .
[ sec : framework ] ) .
first , an approximate ground state configuration is generated through iterative optimization ( sec .
[ sec : iter - min ] ) of a lattice , starting from a random initial spin configuration . from this result ,
an idealized spin configuration is created . the idealized formulation ,
if it has parameters undetermined by symmetry , is then used variationally optimize the heisenberg hamiltonian ( sec .
[ sec : var ] ) , yielding also the energy per site as a function of parameters .
when this has been carried out for each candidate phase , a phase diagram ( sec .  [ sec : phase ] ) can be generated .
we refined the basic recipe further using three additional concepts or tricks .
first , although the eigenmodes of the coupling matrix do not ( in the non - bravais case ) automatically lead us to the ground state , they sometimes do work and are always a useful guide .
second , if the magnetic structure is layered , the three - dimensional octahedral lattice can be mapped to various ( non bravais ) one - dimensional lattices ; such `` chain '' lattices are much more tractable than the cuboctahedral one , but they still support non - coplanar states .
third , we applied perturbation analysis to find second - order phase boundaries ( especially in combination with variational optimization , but also in the luttinger - tisza fourier analysis ) .
namely , when a ground state could not be written exactly , but emerges as an instability of a closely related state  e.g. a helimagnetic phase out of the ferromagnetic one  we can expand around the latter state and solve for the couplings at which it goes unstable .
the insufficiency of finding regions with the correct @xmath49 for the purpose of stabilizing a targeted magnetic structures is an important caveat for the lt approach .
there are some combinations of modes which _ can not _ be stabilized by _ any _ set of pairwise interactions .
that is , we can make them be optimal modes , but only if they are part of a degenerate family that includes other optimal lt modes that are unrelated by symmetry .
we identified two categories of non - coplanar arrangements ( which could be defined for more general lattices than the octahedral one ) .
first , there are the commensurate three-@xmath52 states , exemplified here by the highly symmetric `` cuboctabedral '' spin state ( sec .
[ sec : cuboc ] ) .
a second general class includes several varieties of incommensurate `` conic spiral '' ( sec .
[ sec : conic ] ) .
the commensurate three-@xmath52 states were found for both short and long range couplings ( i.e. @xmath6 s limited to no more than second - nearest neighbors or extending beyond second - nearest neighbors ) , while incommensurate conic spirals were possible for our lattice only when there are some @xmath6 s beyond the second neighbors .
the conic spirals came in `` alternating '' or `` asymmetric '' subclasses ( stable in different parts of @xmath51 parameter space ) according to whether the spin components along the rotation axis were the same in each layer or alternated .
this suggested that an additional subclass should exist , the `` transversely modulated conic spiral '' , which is non - uniform in each layer .
in addition , we came across a `` double - twist '' ground state of high ( but not cubic ) symmetry , which has some commonalities with the cuboctahedral state but is probably best classified as a transverse - modulated conic spiral ( sec .
[ sec : doubletwist ] ) .
the conic spiral states were found to be a function of one spatial coordinate , allowing the more involved octahedral lattice to be mapped to the 1d chain lattice while preserving the ground state ( sec .
[ sec : mapping ] ) .
while this mapping is not a generic property of ground states in the octahedral lattice , it dramatically simplifies the analysis .
moreover , the transformation provides a guide for the couplings required to stabilize the conic spiral states in the octahedral lattice .    note that while the presence of inequivalent sublattices was necessary for the stabilization of non - coplanar states in the one - dimensional chain lattice , it is not so in higher dimensions .
our octahedral - lattice couplings explicitly treat all sites equivalently ; non - coplanar states emerge either when it divides into unequal layers , that map to the chain lattice , or when it supports three - dimensional spin patterns not mappable to a chain lattice .
the most dramatic examples when the chain lattice fails to represent the ground state in the octahedral lattice are the cuboctahedral states , for which there is no distinguished direction of variation ( or stacking vector )      one might have expected noncoplanar ground states to be generic ( in the non - bravais case , when they are possible at all ) but in fact they were seen in only a small portion of our parameter space ( sec .
[ sec : phase ] ) .
in fact , non - coplanar phases typically appeared in the phase diagram as `` bridges '' intermediate between simpler phases ; there are two scenarios of bridging , as formulated in sec .
[ sec : bridging ] .
first , typically along the phase boundary between two simple commensurate phases , one finds families of continuously degenerate states .
usually , this infinite family includes coplanar states but the generic member is non - coplanar ; appropriate tuning of the couplings ( e.g. including further neighbors ) can select particular non - coplanar states in different ways .
however , since the non - coplanar phase was limited ( in the first - order description ) to the ( measure zero ) boundaries between planar states , it naturally occupies only in a small region of the extended parameter space .
indeed , the non - coplanar states we found in the octahedral lattice either occurred in small wedges , e.g. the cuboctahedral or double - twist states or were only observed as accidental instances of the degenerate family in cases where the degeneracy can not be broken ( within the parameter space we took as the scope of this paper ) , e.g. the asymmetric conic states .
second , there are the `` encompassing states '' .
such states become qualitatively different as a free parameter reaches some limiting value ( a canonical example is the collinear ferromagnet as a limiting case of planar spirals . ) in the chain lattice , we often observed phase boundaries between two states that did not encompass each other ; by tuning the couplings , it was sometimes possible to stabilize a third state which encompassed the original two , so the original first - order transition is converted to two successive second - order transitions with the encompassing state in the middle .
this is the means by which conic spiral states are stabilized in the chain lattice .
recently , a framework was proposed with a motivation similar to ours , the `` regular states ''  @xcite which have a magnetic symmetry such that all sites symmetry - equivalent .
the cuboctahedral state is an example .
however , this is neither necessary nor sufficient for our own problem , to find all kinds of non - coplanar states : most of those , e.g. the double - twist state , are not regular , and conversely certain non - coplanar regular states are not stabilized by bilinear exchange interactions alone .
now we consider moving beyond the somewhat artificial octahedral lattice .
we examine the necessary conditions for non - coplanar spin configurations analogous to the two main classes we discovered ( cuboctahedral and conic spiral ) .
can our results be applied to other lattices , such as the pyrochlore lattice ?
the cuboctahedral states seem highly specific to the octahedral lattice , since they possess the same symmetries as the lattice . on the other hand , the lt construction ( each sublattice using different combinations of lt modes , the combinations being related by rotational symmetry of the different sublattices ) seems fairly generic . a general name for states like
the cuboctahedral state might be `` commensurate triple - q state '' , referring to its content of lt modes .
can such states be found in other lattices , or are there others in the octahedral lattice ?
one answer requires that the hypothetical generalized state enjoys the full symmetry of the lattice , as the cuboctahedral state does .
then the number of site classes must be a multiple of the number of spin components , i.e. of three . that will not work for the pyrochlore lattice , in which there are _ four _ site classes associated with ( 111 ) directions .
however , it might work in the half - garnet lattice , which has _
site classes associated with ( 110 ) directions .
a second , more systematic way to answer question follows the lt approach of sec .
[ sec : cuboc - lt ] .
the state must be a linear combination of three modes
one for each component of spin . for the state to enjoy the full lattice symmetry
, these must be the complete star of symmetry - related modes , thus it must have a threefold multiplicity .
furthermore , each mode must be real ( otherwise one mode requires two spin components ) ; that happens only if the wavevector is half a reciprocal lattice vector , i.e. is at the center of one of the brillouin zone s faces .
however , sec .  [ sec : cuboc - no ] gave a cautionary example : finding such modes is not _
sufficient _ , because it might give a state with decoupled sublattices , so that the cuboctahedral state would merely be one undistinguished configuration in a continuous manifold of degenerate states that even includes collinear states .
we can , in fact , borrow a notion from section  [ sec : mapping ] to guess when this happens : mapping to a chain lattice , now applied to lt modes rather than to spin structures .
the wavevector of one mode defines a set of planes , and thus a way of projecting both the sites and the mode onto a one - dimensional chain lattice . on the chain lattice , in order that the mode be real , the wavevector must be @xmath221 . if all the site planes were equivalent , the chain lattice is a bravais lattice and the mode must be a plane wave ; with @xmath222 , it is easy to see we get a decoupled pattern , namely @xmath223 . in the octahedral lattice ,
the @xmath224 modes have a threefold degeneracy and also correspond to a non - equivalent set of stacked planes , giving a cuboctahedral state , whereas the threefold degenerate @xmath224 modes have equivalent stacked planes and give decoupled states . in the pyrochlore lattice ,
the @xmath225 modes have a threefold multiplicity but have equivalent stacked planes ; on the other hand , the @xmath226 modes have inequivalent stacked planes but their multiplicity is fourfold .
thus , in the pyrochlore case this path does not lead us to a cuboctahedral state .    the third way to answer
this question is via the cluster constuction of sec .
[ sec : cuboc - cages ] , in which the lattice was decomposed into cuboctahedral cages . indeed
, some other lattices consist of a union of roughly spherical `` cage '' clusters : e.g. , in the cr@xmath11si - type or `` a15 '' structure , the majority atoms form cages in the form of distorted icosahedra .
furthermore , couplings can certainly be chosen such that the spin ground state of a cluster forms a the same polyhedron as the cluster itself .    however , our ground - state construction ( sec .
[ sec : cuboc - cages ] ) demanded that the spin configurations in adjacent cages be related by a _ reflection _ in spin space .
thus the cages alternate between proper and improper rotations of a reference configuration . that is possible only if the cage centers form a _
bipartite _ lattice , which is not true for the a15 majority - atom cage centers .
( they form a bcc lattice with first- and second - neighbor links . )
long ago , kaplan and collaborators studied _ doubly _ magnetic spinels , and identified a ( noncoplanar ) `` ferrimagnetic spiral '' configuration arising from exchange interactions ( a spiral of this sort is responsible for multiferroic properties of cocr@xmath227o@xmath228  @xcite .
this is actually a kind of double spiral ( each magnetic species accounting for one of the spirals ) .
notice that we could map that structure to a chain , too , and that chain would have two inequivalent sites , which we point out is a precondition for developing a noncoplanar state .    for a mapping to the 1d chain lattice to provide a non - coplanar state
, the mapped sites must be inequivalent by translation ; if not , the chain lattice is a bravais lattice and must have ( at most ) a coplanar spiral state .
this in turn depends on having _ unequal _ layers in the three - dimensional lattice , which is is impossible in the bravais case , but inequivalent layers can emerge from a non - bravais lattice with fully symmetric couplings .
thus , as we worked out in sec .
[ sec : mapping ] , a @xmath147 stacking in the octahedral lattice has twice as many sites on @xmath12 and @xmath13 bonds , constituting one kind of layer , as there are sites on @xmath14 bonds , constituting the other kind .
the stacking direction is one in which the wavevector is incommensurate , and so we may seek out parameter sets for which @xmath49 goes incommensurate in a desired direction .
however , this is no guarantee that the actual ground state is stacked , since it might be better energetically to combine these modes ( or ones nearby in @xmath34-space ) in a quite different way .
thus , although we found some optimal @xmath49 wavevectors in directions other than @xmath147 , they were never the basis of a stacked spiral .
the pyrochlore lattice is undoubtedly the most prominent non - bravais lattice that is likely to have non - coplanar states , and was a major motivation for the methods we developed in this paper for the more tractable octahedral lattice .
relatively few works have tackled the isotropic spin problem on the pyrochlore lattice , beyond the ( massively degenerate ) case of only @xmath16 [ analogous to the @xmath229 case on the cuboctahedral lattice ] .
the @xmath16@xmath4 , or @xmath16@xmath20 pyrochlore , with large antiferromagnetic @xmath16 , has a noncoplanar and somewhat obscure state that is not fully understood at @xmath80  @xcite . in the spinel geni@xmath227o@xmath228 , neutron diffraction found a @xmath230 ordering consisting of alternating kagom and triangular lattice layers with different densities of spins , reminiscent analogous of the @xmath147 stackings we have explored in the octahedral lattice . ref .
invoked interactions out to @xmath22 in order to rationalize this state , but did not verify it was the ground state for the suggested interactions .
finally , to address metallic pyrochlore compounds , a toy hamiltonian was investigated on the pyrochlore lattice with exchange couplings having rkky oscillations  @xcite .
very recently , a comprehensive study has been carried out for just the @xmath16@xmath4 phase diagram of the pyrochlore lattice by applying the methods of the present paper , which were equally effective in that case  @xcite .
about four complex states were identified , including that above mentioned state introduced by kawamura and collaborators  @xcite ; a state reminiscent of our double - twist state ; a more complex generalization of a conic spiral ; and a cuboctahedral spin state that has less than cubic lattice symmetry , thus evading the negative conclusions of sec .
[ sec : generalize - cuboc ] @xcite .
we thank g .- w .
chern , j - c .
domenge , c. fennie , s. isakov , t. kaplan , m. lapa , and m. mostovoy for discussions and communications .
c.l.h . was supported by nsf grant dmr-1005466 ; s. s. was supported by the cornell engineering learning initiatives program , the intel corporation , and the rawlings cornell presidential research scholars program .
to move from a collection of ground states discovered at discrete points in parameter space to draw a full phase diagram is non - trivial . to analyze the phase boundaries of the more complicated states ( those with free parameters in their parametrization ) we depend on either variational optimization ( sec .
refsec : var ) , or some kind of perturbation theory .
perturbation theory can be applied in two places : either to the lt matrix , or to the hamiltonian of a parametrized spin state .
the former is more straightforward , but is limited since most of the non - coplanar ground states are not exactly built from optimal lt eigenmodes .
an obvious caveat for either of these applications of perturbation is that they detect continuous transitions , representing infinitesimal changes in the spins : it is a bifurcation of the local minima as points in the configuration space .
but there the ground state might instead change due to a first order transition , when the energies of two separated configurations cross as parameters are varied .
we do encounter the first - order case on occasion , though not nearly so often as the continuous one . to detect such discontinuous transitions
, we must compare numerical calculations of the ground state energies .
our original question was `` given a certain set of parameters , what is the ground state '' , but in these calculations it has been turned around to `` given a particular ground state , for what parameter sets is it favored ? ''
we give an example here of the use of perturbation theory to discover the incipient instabilities of lt modes .
such an approach may be especially useful to locate the phase boundaries for transitions from an lt exact ground state to more complicated , incommensurate states .
if one is hunting for the parameter domain which would stabilize an particular mode with ordering wavevector @xmath52 , a substitute problem is to find the parameter domain in which this mode ( or one with @xmath49 similar to @xmath52 ) is the optimal lt mode .
we reiterate the caveat from sec .
[ sec : lt ] : such a discovery is a necessary but not sufficient criterion to guarantee the existence of any ground state based on the obtained @xmath49 .
( it is not sufficient because the actual ground state could feature additional modes or modes merely in the neighborhood of @xmath49 . )
the lt matrix elements @xmath231 and eigenvalues @xmath232 are functions of wavevector @xmath34 .
imagine that @xmath233 is a point of high symmetry in the zone so as to be a stationary point for @xmath232 . for some parameter sets , we know , it is a minimum and in fact optimal ; whereas for some other parameter sets , we imagine , it is only a saddle point , and the minimum occurs at some nearby wavevector of lower symmetry .
one first writes a taylor expansion of the lt matrix in powers of @xmath234 . using standard techniques ( formally identical to those used for eigenfunctions of the schrdinger equation )
it is straightforward to write a perturbation expansion for @xmath232 in powers of @xmath235 .
inspection then shows where this stops being positive definite . since the lt matrix elements are bounded , so are the eigenvalues @xmath232 .
so if the mode at @xmath233 goes unstable at quadratic order in @xmath235 , there must be higher - order positive terms in the expansion .
thus the single local minimum of @xmath232 bifurcates in some fashion .
the corresponding spin state can not be a commensurate spiral , but it might be representable in the framework of planar stackings ( sec .  [
sec : mapping ] ) .
this technique was used , for example , to analyze how the @xmath236 wavevector is destabilized in the lt phase diagram .
simulations had found degenerate antiferromagnetic orderings at that wavevector ; if an incommensurate wavevector of form @xmath237 had been stabilized , this might have been the basis of a non - coplanar spiral stacked in the @xmath238 direction .          here
@xmath240 in ( [ eq : lt - matrix - diag ] ) means the indices other than @xmath97 , similarly @xmath241 in ( [ eq : lt - matrix - offdiag ] ) is the index other than @xmath242 .
if we substitute @xmath243 , for example , the eigenvalues along this cut are    @xmath244 + 2j_x(k ) ; \\ { { \tilde{j}}}({{\bf k } } , \pm ) = &            -\frac{1}{2 }   \big[2j_2'-4j_4+(j_f(0)+4j_4)(1+\cos k)+2j_x(k )     \big ] \nonumber \\      & \pm\frac{1}{2 } \bigg\ {           [ ( j_2-j_2'+2j_4 - 2j_4 ' ) ( 1-\cos k )                         + 2j_x(k)]^2 +          16j_x^2(0)(1+\cos k ) \bigg\ } ^{1/2}.     \end{aligned}\ ] ]            the major advantage of applying perturbation theory to a parametrization of the lattice s spins , rather than the lt matrix , is that it can accomodate a more generic ground state .
this is not say that it avoids the disconnect between the state being perturbed and the actual ground state , if the perturbed state does not encompass the true ground state then the disconnect is required .
however , this method does allow us to consider states composed of multiple lt wave - vectors .    in the octahedral lattice ,
most of the ground state types we encountered  even the noncollinear ones  are essentially built using a single `` star '' of symmetry - related ordering wave - vectors .
therefore , for the octahedral lattice , the actual phase diagram mostly reflects the lt phase diagram and it is preferable to find phase boundaries via the lt perturbation method illustrated above in sec .
[ sec : pert - lt ] . for the chain lattice ,
however , the ground state is typically characterized by several wave - vectors .
such multi - lt wave - vectors are all parametrized by some form of `` conic spirals , '' a mix of a planar spiral using the wavevector @xmath249 and a deviation along the wavevector @xmath250 where @xmath251 is either integer or half - integer ( since the chain lattice is 1d , the wave - vectors are as well ) . within a range of parameter space @xmath116 through @xmath252 ( @xmath253 and higher all 0 )
, these conic spirals are the most general form of ground state , making the problem of finding the ground state amenable to variational methods .    as an illustration of determining the ground state by variational methods , we consider the problem of finding the phase boundaries for the `` alternating conic '' @xmath254 .
the spin configurations in the lattice are parametrized by eq.([eq : altconic ] ) . without loss of generality
, we take the odd sites to be the ones with planar spins .
a symmetry relates the states ( [ eq : altconic ] ) to the other family of alternating conic configurations in which even and odd sites have swapped roles , if one also swaps in parameter space @xmath255 .    up to interaction @xmath119 , the energy per unit cell
is @xmath256 setting @xmath257 to minimize ( [ eq : e - alt - conic ] ) , we see that the optimal angle @xmath258 , is given by @xmath259 notice the symmetry under reversing the signs of @xmath116 and @xmath118 and @xmath260 .
of course , a necessary condition is that the r.h.s . of ( [ eq : alpha - alt - conic ] ) lies in @xmath261 ( recall that @xmath262 by definition ) , otherwise @xmath263 is pinned to 0 or @xmath264 , which would be a planar spiral ( or possibly a collinear state , depending on the value of @xmath265 ) .    plugging ( [ eq : alpha - alt - conic ] ) into eq .
( [ eq : e - alt - conic ] ) leaves @xmath266 as the only variational parameter : [ eq : e - alt - conic - psi ] @xmath267 if we drop the secondary couplings equation ( [ eq : e - alt - conic - psi ] ) reduces to @xmath268 since ( [ e - alt - conic - simple ] ) is linear in @xmath269 , its ground state given by @xmath270 with @xmath271 integer .
if @xmath271 is odd , then eq.[e - alt - conic - simple ] breaks down , since eq.([eq : alpha - alt - conic ] ) is singular .
what actually occurs here is that the sublattices have adopted an antiferromagnetic structure , decoupling the sublattices .
because the sublattices are decoupled , @xmath27 is arbitrary ( representing the freedom the decoupled sublattices to rotate relative to each other ) .
the energy for such a configuration is @xmath272 .
conversely , if @xmath271 is even , then the ground state is a splayed state ( assuming that @xmath273 ) that means a commensurate , _ planar _ state ( using the @xmath274 plane , or collinear if @xmath263 is trivial ) .
thus , with only primary couplings , even though the two sublattices are inequivalent , we _ can not _ obtain a non - coplanar spiral .
when we turn on ( not too large ) secondary couplings , those commensurate states will remain stable out to the critical coupling , at which the optimal wavevector bifurcates . therefore we expand ( [ eq : e - alt - conic - psi ] ) in powers of @xmath275 about both kinds of stationary point  @xcite to find :      @xmath277 ^ 2}{j_2 - 4j_4 }             + j_2'-j_4'-j_2-j_4 + \\       &      \bigg(4\frac{j_1 - 3j_3}{j_2 - 4j_4 } j_3 +              2[\frac{j_1 - 3j_3}{j_2 - 4j_4}]^2 j_4-              2j_2'+8j_4'\bigg )             \delta^2              \end{split}\ ] ]      [ eq : e - alt - conic - unstable ] @xmath279 } { j_2}j_3          + j_2'+4j_4 '   \\ & e_{\frac{\pi}{2 } } : 0   \ge &        [ \frac{j_1 - 3j_3}{j_2 - 4j_4}]^2j_4          + 2\frac{j_1 - 3j_3 } { j_2 - 4j_4}j_3           -j_2'+4j_4 '           \end{aligned}\ ] ]        a.yoshimori , j. phys .
14 , 807 ( 1959 ) ; j. villain , j. phys .
solids 11 , 303 ( 1959 ) ; t. a. kaplan , phys .
116 , 888 ( 1959 ) .
t. a. kaplan and n. menyuk , phil . mag .
87 , 3711 ( 2006 ) c. l. henley , phys .
62 , 2056 ( 1989 ) .
e. f. shender , sov .
jetp , 56 , 178 ( 1982 ) . c. l. henley and b. e. larson , preprint ( arxiv 2008 ) ; b. e. larson and c. l. henley , `` ground state selection in type iii fcc vector antiferromagnets '' ( unpublished preprint , 1990 ) .
m. taillefumier , b. canals , c. lacroix , v. k. dugaev , and p. bruno , phys . rev .
b 74 , 085105 ( 2006 ) n.  nagaosa , j.  sinova , s.  onoda , a.  h.  macdonald , and n.  p.  ong , rev .
82 , 1539 ( 2010 ) c. l. henley , ann .
( n. y. ) 156 , 368 - 411 ( 1984 ) , s .- w . cheong and m. mostovoy , nature materials 8 , 13 ( 2007 ) .
t. kimura , ann .
37 , 387 ( 2007 ) .
t. kimura , j.  c.  lashley , and a.  p. ramirez , phys .
b 73 , 220401 ( 2006 ) d. khomskii , physics 2 , 20 ( 2009 ) .
y.  j.  choi , j.  okamoto , d.  j.  huang , et al . k.  s.  chao , h.  j.  lin , c.  t.  chen , m. van veenendaal , t.  a.  kaplan , and s.  w.  cheong phys . rev . lett .
102 , 067601 ( 2009 ) .
r.  moessner and j.  t.  chalker , phys .
80 , 2929 ( 1998 ) ; phys .
b 58 , 12049 ( 1998 ) .
s. t. chui , phys .
b 15 , 307 ( 1977 ) . p. reed , j. phys .
a 10 , 1745 ( 1977 ) .
m. hermele , m. p. a. fisher , and l. balents , phys . rev .
b 69 , 064404 ( 2004 ) . t. s. pickles , t. e. saunders , and j. t. chalker , epl 84 , 36002 ( 2008 ) .
r. shankar , f.  j.  burnell , and s.  l.  sondhi , ann .
324 , 267 ( 2008 ) .
h. takizawa , t. yamashita , k. uheda , and t. endo , j. phys .
matter 14 , 11147 ( 2002 ) d. fruchart , e. f. bertaut , j. p. snateur , and r. fruchart , j. de physique lett .
38 , l-21 ( 1977 ) ; d. fruchart and e. f. bertaut , j. phys .
44 , 781 ( 1978 ) t. koyama , h. yamashita , y. takahashi , t. kohara , i. watanabe , y. tabata , and h. nakamura , phys .
lett 101 , 126404 ( 2008 ) .
v. h. tran , w. miller , and z. bukowski , phys .
100 , 137004 ( 2008 ) .
t. nagamiya , `` helical spin ordering : 1 theory of helical spin configurations '' , in _ solid state physics _ vol .
20 , p. 306
f. seitz , d. turnbull , and h. ehrenreich ( academic press , new york and london 1967 ) .
j. m. luttinger and l. tisza , phys .
70 , 954 ( 1946 ) .
d. h. lyons and t. a. kaplan , phys .
120 , 1580 ( 1960 ) .
j. samuel smart , _ effective field theories of magnetism _ ( w. b. saunders , philadelphia , 1966 ) ; see chapter 8 .
d. bergman , j. alicea , e. gull , s. trebst , and l. balents , nature physics 3 , 487 ( 2007 ) .
s. okumura , h. kawamura , t. okubo , y. motome , j. phys .
79 , 114705 ( 2010 ) ; a. mulder , r. ganesh , l. capriotti , and a. paramekanti , phys . rev .
b 81 , 214419 ( 2010 ) .
occasionally the end - to - end plot is illuminating even in higher dimensions , the sequence of spins being defined by a raster scan that goes down rows  limited to one of the three sublattices  running in one of the coordinate directions . ) for example , the double - twist state ( sec .
[ sec : doubletwist ] ) was discovered from common - origin and end - to - end plots .
e. rastelli , a. tassi , and l. reatto , physical b & c 97 , 1 ( 1979 ) ; e. rastelli and a. tassi , j. phys .
c : 19 , l423 ( 1986 ) . j. n. reimers , a. j. berlinsky , and a. c. shi , phys . rev .
b 43 , 865 ( 1991 ) .
d. h. lyons and t. a. kaplan , j. phys .
solids , 25 , 645 ( 1964 ) .
schmidt and m. luban , j. phys .
a 36 , 6351 ( 2003 ) ; j .- c .
domenge , p. sindzingre , c. lhuillier , and l. pierre , phys .
b 72 , 024433 ( 2005 ) . j .-
domenge , c. lhuillier , l. messio , l. pierre , and p. viot , phys . rev .
b 77 , 172413 ( 2008 ) .
spin configurations on a cuboctahedron were studied by : j. schulenberg , a. honecker , j. schnack , j. richter , and h .- j .
schmidt , phys .
88 , 167207 ( 2002 ) .
we did not include the asymmetric conic state in table [ tab : o - states ] since we will see that it is only found on the phase boundary between two other states .
for the octahedral lattice , then , it appears only as a randomly chosen member of a family of highly degenerate states ( using the classification of sec .
[ sec : bridging ] ) , rather than a genuine ground state .    due to the complexity of the double - twist state ,
the phase boundaries of the double - twist state shown in figure  [ fig : o,-1,1/3 ] were _ not _ generated by variationally optimizing a parametrized hamiltonian and finding absolute minima .
instead , we show the phase boundary from the `` luttinger - tisza phase diagram '' , i.e. the boundary of the region of parameter space in which @xmath237 was the optimal wave - vector . as argued in sec .
[ sec : lt ] , that will produce a phase diagram topologically similar to the true phase diagram .    around the tricritical - type points where the transition switches from first - order to degenerate , there are alternating conic states only slightly higher in energy than the helimagnetic states , so that a sliver of alternating conic may be spuriously identified here if numerical results are not checked analytically .
l. messio , c. lhuillier , and g. misguich , phys . rev .
b 83 , 184401 ( 2011 ) .
m. matsuda , j .- h .
chung , s. park , t. j. sato , k. matsuno , h. aruga - katori , h. takagi , k. kakurai , k. kamazawa , y. tsunoda , i. kagomiya , c. l. henley , and s .- h .
lee , europhys .
82 , 37006 ( 2008 ) .
d. tsuneishi , m. ioki , and h. kawamura , j. phys . condens .
matter 19 , 145273 ( 2007 ) .
t. nakamura and d. hirashima , j. mag . mag .
materials 310 , 1297 ( 2007 ) .
chern , r. moessner , and o. tchernyshyov phys . rev .
b 78 , 144418 ( 2008 ) .
`` ordering of the pyrochlore ising model with the long - range rkky interaction '' a. ikeda and h. kawamura j. phys .
77 , 073707 ( 2008 ) .