text:
# Parametrically driven dark solitons

## Abstract

We show that unlike the bright solitons, the parametrically driven kinks are immune from instabilities for all dampings and forcing amplitudes; they can also form stable bound states. In the undamped case, the two types of stable kinks and their complexes can travel with nonzero velocities.

The parametric driving is well known to be an efficient way of compensating dissipative losses of solitons in various media. Examples include surface solitons in vertically oscillating layers of water Faraday ; Elphick\_Meron ; light pulses in optical fibers under phase-sensitive amplification fibers  and in Kerr-type optical parametric oscillators Longhi ; magnetisation solitons in easy-plane ferromagnets exposed to oscillatory magnetic fields in the easy plane BBK . A serious problem associated with the parametric energy pumping, however, is that the driven solitons are prone to oscillatory instabilities which set in as the driver’s strength exceeds a certain — often rather low — threshold BBK ; oscillatory .

With a few notable exceptions, the parametrically driven solitons considered so far had the form of pulses decaying to zero at spatial infinities. These were solutions of the nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation with the “self-focusing” nonlinearity:

$$i\psi _t+\psi _{xx}+2|\psi |^2\psi \psi =h\psi ^{}i\gamma \psi ,$$
(1)
where $`\psi `$ is the amplitude of a nearly-harmonic stationary wave oscillating with half the driving frequency, $`\gamma `$ the damping coefficient, $`h`$ the driving strength, and  indicates complex conjugation. However, in a number of applications the amplitude equation of the parametrically driven wave turns out to have the nonlinearity of the “defocusing” type:

$$i\psi _t+\frac{1}{2}\psi _{xx}|\psi |^2\psi +\psi =h\psi ^{}i\gamma \psi .$$
(2)
In fluid dynamics, the “defocusing” parametrically driven NLS (2) describes the amplitude of the oscillation of the water surface in a vibrated channel with a large width-to-depth ratio Elphick\_Meron ; Larraza . (On the contrary, the “focusing” equation (1) pertains to the case of narrow channels.) The same equation (2) arises as an amplitude equation for the upper cutoff mode in the parametrically driven damped nonlinear lattices lattices . In the optical context, it was derived for the doubly resonant $`\chi ^{(2)}`$ optical parametric oscillator in the limit of large second-harmonic detuning Trillo . Next, in the absence of damping, stationary solutions $`\psi =M_y+iM_z`$ of eq.(2) minimise the Ginzburg-Landau free energy for the anisotropic $`XY`$ model, $`F=𝑑x`$, where

$$=\frac{1}{2}(_x𝐌)^2(1+h)𝐌^2+\frac{1}{2}𝐌^4+2hM_y^2+_0,$$

and $`𝐌=(0,M_y,M_z)`$. This model was used to study domain walls in easy-axis ferromagnets near the Curie point XY . Nonstationary magnetisation configurations were considered in the overdamped limit: $`\psi _t=\delta F/\delta \psi ^{}`$ Coullet ; Coullet\_Emilsson . The damped hamiltonian dynamics $`\psi _t=i\delta F/\delta \psi ^{}\gamma \psi `$ provides a sensible alternative; this is precisely our eq.(2). Finally, for $`\gamma =0`$ there is yet another, independent, magnetic interpretation of eq.(2); this will be introduced below.

Localised structures characteristic of a defocusing medium are domain walls, or kinks, also known as “dark solitons” in the context of nonlinear optics. The purpose of this note is to explore the stability and bifurcations of the parametrically driven kinks and their bound states.

Two stationary kink solutions of (2) are available in literature. One is usually called the Néel, or Ising, wall:

$$\psi _N(x)=iA\mathrm{tanh}(Ax)e^{i\theta }.$$
(3)
Here $`A^2=1+\sqrt{h^2\gamma ^2}`$ and $`\theta =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arcsin}\frac{\gamma }{h}`$ Elphick\_Meron ; Larraza ; Trillo . For $`\gamma =0`$, the Néel wall coexists with the Bloch wall:

$$\psi _B(x)=iA\mathrm{tanh}(2\sqrt{h}x)\pm \sqrt{13h}\text{sech}(2\sqrt{h}x),$$
(4)
$`A^2=1+h`$ Sarker . Originally, the “magnetic” terminology was motivated merely by the fact that $`|\psi |=0`$ in the core of the wall (3), and so the point $`x=0`$ is a phase defect similar to Néel points in solid state physics Coullet\_Emilsson . On the contrary, in the core of the Bloch wall the phase changes smoothly — and this is analogous to Bloch walls in ferromagnets. Below we show that the analogy with magnetism is in fact much deeper than originally thought. Letting $`h=\gamma =0`$, the Néel wall becomes the usual, undriven, dark soliton whereas the Bloch wall degenerates into a flat solution.

Both Bloch and Néel walls admit a clear interpretation in other physical contexts as well. For example, when eq.(3) is used to model the Faraday resonance in water Elphick\_Meron ; Larraza  or chains of coupled pendula lattices , both solutions describe transitions between two domains oscillating $`180^{}`$ out of phase. The phase of the oscillation is discontinuous across the Néel wall and the amplitude changes over a narrow region; hence the wall appears as a highly localised defect. Conversely, the Bloch wall has a smooth helicoidal structure, with the amplitude varying over a wider interval. It might therefore be tempting to expect that in the region of their coexistence ($`h<\frac{1}{3}`$), the Néel wall should be unstable against the decay into the “smoother” (Bloch) wall, and this is indeed the case in the Ginzburg-Landau and Klein-Gordon counterparts of eq.(2) Coullet ; Hawrylak ; Ivanov . Surprisingly, the NLS dynamics turn out to be very different.

We will show, numerically, that when $`\gamma =0`$, both walls can stably move with nonzero velocities and form stable stationary and oscillatory, quiescent and travelling bound states. The resulting bifurcation diagram will then be interpreted using two integrals of motion of eq.(2), and a relation of our model to biaxial ferromagnets established. Turning to the dissipative case, we will give an analytical proof of the stability of the Néel wall for all $`h`$ and $`\gamma `$ and describe stable bound states formed by the damped walls. $`\mathrm{}`$

Both static kinks, (3) and (4), belong to a broader class of uniformly moving solutions of the form $`\psi (xVt)`$. We found these by solving equation $`\frac{1}{2}\psi _{xx}iV\psi _x|\psi |^2\psi +\psi =h\psi ^{}`$ numerics . Fig.1(a) shows the momentum of the travelling wall as a function of its velocity. The momentum $`P=\mathrm{Im}\psi _x\psi ^{}𝑑x`$ is one of the two conserved quantities of eq.(3) with $`\gamma =0`$, and hence is a natural choice for the integral characteristic of its solutions. The second integral is energy, and it will also be used below:

$$E=\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{|\psi _x|^2}{2}+\frac{|\psi |^4}{2}|\psi |^2+h\psi ^2+\frac{A^4}{2}\right)𝑑x.$$
(5)
(Here $`A^2=1+h`$.) The stability of the travelling walls was examined numerics  by computing eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ of

$$\stackrel{}{\phi }=\lambda J\stackrel{}{\phi },$$
(6)
where the column $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=(u,v)^T`$, the operator $``$ is given by

$$=\frac{I}{2}_x^2+\left(\begin{array}{cc}3^2+^2+h\hfill & \hfill 2V_x+\gamma \\ 2+V_x\gamma \hfill & \hfill ^2+3^2h\end{array}\right),$$

and $`J`$ is the antisymmetric matrix with $`J_{21}=J_{12}=1`$. Eq.(6) is obtained by linearising eq.(2) about $`\psi =+i`$ in the co-moving frame, and letting $`\delta \psi =(u+iv)e^{\lambda t}`$.

In a striking contrast to the diffusive and relativistic dynamics Hawrylak ; Coullet ; Ivanov , our numerical analysis of eq.(6) reveals that not only the stationary Néel wall, but the entire branch of travelling kinks in Fig.1(a) is stable. This multistability admits a simple explanation in terms of the energy and momentum, though. The energy of the stationary Néel wall, $`E_N=\frac{4}{3}(1+h)^{3/2}`$, is greater than that of the stationary Bloch wall, $`E_B=4\sqrt{h}\frac{4}{3}h^{3/2}`$, and so one might expect $`\psi _N`$ to decay into $`\psi _B`$ plus radiation waves — as in the relativistic case Hawrylak . However, unlike their relativistic counterparts, our Bloch and Néel walls have unequal momenta, with $`P_B>P_N`$ (see Fig.1(a)) — and this makes the $`\psi _N\psi _B`$ decay impossible.

Next, our simulations of the time-dependent eq.(2) show that two stationary Bloch walls with opposite chiralities (i.e. opposite signs in (4)) can attract and form a motionless breather-like bound state (Fig.1(b)). An attraction of stationary Bloch and Néel walls results in a moving breather. There also exist nonoscillatory, bubble-like, bound states of $`\psi _N`$ and $`\psi _B`$. Note that unlike their parent walls, all of these complexes approach the same background as $`x\mathrm{}`$ and $`x\mathrm{}`$. The bubble-like solitons admit most transparent physical interpretation: they describe “islands” of one stable phase in the sea of the other one, e.g. patches oscillating $`180^{}`$ out of phase with the rest of the vibrated water channel or chain of pendula. Below we focus on the bubbles and relegate the breathers to a separate publication.

For each $`h`$ there is a one-parameter family of motionless bubbles, the parameter being the separation distance $`z`$ between the two walls. (Accordingly, there are two zero eigenvalues in the spectrum of the operator (6) associated with each bubble, one translational and the other one corresponding to variations in $`z`$). There is a particular separation $`z=\zeta `$ for which the bubble is symmetric: $`\psi _\zeta ^{}(x)=\psi _\zeta (x)`$. The symmetric bubble turns out to have the largest momentum over bubbles with various $`z`$, while $`\zeta `$ is the smallest possible separation: $`z\zeta `$. More importantly, it is the only stable bubble. All nonsymmetric bubbles ($`z>\zeta `$) were found to have a pair of nonzero real eigenvalues $`\pm \lambda `$ in their spectrum. As $`z\zeta `$, the pair converges at the origin and so the symmetric bubble has four zero eigenvalues.

Let $`\pm \lambda `$ be a pair of eigenvalues diverging from zero as $`z`$ grows from $`\zeta `$ and assume that $`\lambda =ϵ^{1/2}\lambda _1+\mathrm{}`$ for small $`ϵ=z\zeta `$. Then the associated eigenfunction $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ expands as $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=\stackrel{}{\phi }_0+ϵ^{1/2}\stackrel{}{\phi }_1+\mathrm{}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{\phi }_0`$ is a linear combination of the two zero modes: $`\stackrel{}{\phi }_0=(C_1_x\stackrel{}{\psi }+C_2_z\stackrel{}{\psi })|_{z=\zeta }`$, with $`\stackrel{}{\psi }(,)^T`$. (The other two zero eigenvalues have only generalised eigenvectors associated with them.) Substituting this into (6) and using $`_z=_\zeta +ϵ_1+\mathrm{}`$, the order $`ϵ^{1/2}`$ yields $`_\zeta \stackrel{}{\phi }_1=\lambda _1J\stackrel{}{\phi }_0`$. A bounded $`\stackrel{}{\phi }_1(x)`$ exists only if $`\lambda _1J\stackrel{}{\phi }_0`$ is orthogonal both to $`_z\stackrel{}{\psi }`$ and $`_x\stackrel{}{\psi }`$. This orthogonality condition amounts to $`(dP/dz)|_{z=\zeta }=0`$, and the latter relation explains why the momentum has to reach its maximum at the value of $`z`$ for which a pair of real eigenvalues converges at the origin.

The other implication of the relation $`dP/dz=0`$ is that it allows the symmetric bubble to be continued to $`V0`$ Baer . The resulting branch of moving bubbles is shown in Fig.1(a). As $`|V|c=(1+2h+\sqrt{4h(1+h)})^{1/2}`$, which is the minimum phase velocity of linear waves, the bubble degenerates into the flat background, whereas when $`V,P0`$, it transforms into a pair of Néel walls with the separation $`z\mathrm{}`$. The entire branch of moving bubbles is stable, with the exception of a small region between $`V=0`$ and the point of the maximum $`|P|`$ inside which a real pair $`\pm \lambda `$ occurs (Fig.1(a)). The change of stability at points where $`dP/dV=0`$, is explained in Baer .

The diagram Fig.1(a) can further justify referring to the kinks (3) and (4) as Néel and Bloch walls. In fact stationary nonchiral interfaces called Néel walls are known in uniaxial ferromagnets, where they coexist with chiral (Bloch) walls. When the axial symmetry is broken, the two types of walls can move; this occurs in particular in easy-axis ferromagnets with the second, weaker, anisotropy axis ($`\beta ,ϵ<0`$ and $`H=0`$ in eq.(8) below) KIK . The $`P(V)`$ curve for the easy-axis walls is qualitatively similar to our Fig.1(a): The Néel wall’s momentum $`P_N=0`$ while $`P_B0`$; as the velocity $`V`$ grows, the two branches are drawn closer together and finally merge. The limit velocity $`V=w`$ is known as the Walker’s velocity KIK . The $`E(V)`$ curves are also similar.

This analogy suggests that there could be a link between the time-dependent NLS (3) and Heisenberg ferromagnets and indeed, there is one. Consider a quasi-one-dimensional ferromagnet with a weakly anisotropic easy plane $`(M_x,M_y)`$, in the external stationary magnetic field along $`M_z`$. The magnetisation vector $`𝐌=(M_x,M_y,M_z)`$ lies on the sphere, $`𝐌^2=M_0^2`$, and satisfies the (damped) Landau-Lifshitz equation KIK :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mu _0}}𝐌_\tau =𝐌\times {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta 𝐌}}{\displaystyle 𝒲𝑑\xi }\lambda 𝐌\times 𝐌_\tau ,`$ (7)
$`𝒲={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(_\xi 𝐌)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}M_z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\beta }{2}}M_x^2HM_z+𝒲_0,`$ (8)
with $`\beta >0`$. If the anisotropy parameter $`ϵ`$ is small and the field $`H`$ is close to $`\beta M_0`$: $`H=\beta M_0ϵq`$, the vector $`𝐌`$ will stay near the northern pole of the sphere. Choosing $`sqM_0\beta M_0^2/2>0`$ for $`ϵ>0`$ and $`s<0`$ for $`ϵ<0`$, we define $`M_x+iM_y=(2ϵs/\beta )^{1/2}\psi ^{}`$. Assuming that the relaxation constant $`\lambda `$ is $`𝒪(ϵ^{1/2})`$ or smaller, and that $`𝐌`$ depends only on “slow” variables $`x=(ϵs/2\alpha M_0^2)^{1/2}\xi `$ and $`t=(2ϵ\mu _0s/\mathrm{}M_0)\tau `$, eq.(7)-(8) reduces to eq.(2) with $`h=\beta M_0^2/(2s)`$ and $`\gamma =0`$. Note that the resulting NLS is undamped — although the original Landau-Lifshitz equation did include a small damping term. The effect of damping will become noticeable only on time scales longer than $`ϵ^1`$; these are not captured by eq.(2). Also note that despite the analogy between the easy-axis and easy-plane ferromagnets, there are important physical differences. In particular in the easy-axis case the walls interpolate between $`𝐌/M_0=\pm (0,0,1)`$ while in our case they separate domains with $`𝐌(0,\pm |ϵ|^{1/2},1)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proceeding to the damped situation, $`\gamma 0`$, our first goal is to demonstrate the stability of the Néel wall. We let $`\psi (x,t)=\psi _N(x)+\delta \psi (x,t)`$, where

$$\delta \psi (x,t)=[u(X)+iv(X)]e^{(\mu \mathrm{\Gamma })Ti\theta };$$
(9)
$`X=Ax`$, $`T=A^2t`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=A^2\gamma `$ and $`\mu `$ is complex. Linearising eq.(2) in small $`\delta \psi `$ we obtain an eigenvalue problem

$$(L_0+ϵ)v=(\mu \mathrm{\Gamma })u,L_1u=(\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma })v,$$
(10)
where $`ϵ=22/A^2`$ and $`L_0`$ and $`L_1`$ are the Schrödinger operators with familiar spectral properties:

$`L_0\frac{1}{2}_X^2\text{sech}^2X,L_1L_0+2\text{tanh}^2X.`$
Introducing $`\nu ^2=\mu ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ and $`w=\nu ^1(\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma })v`$ BBK , we eliminate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the eigenvalue problem (10):

$$(L_0+ϵ)w=\nu u,L_1u=\nu w.$$
(11)
Now we will show that $`\nu ^2<0`$ for all $`0ϵ<2`$, so that $`\mu ^2<\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ and all perturbations decay to zero as $`t\mathrm{}`$.

The operator $`L_1`$ has a zero eigenvalue, with the associated eigenfunction $`y_0(X)=\text{sech}^2X`$, and no negative eigenvalues. Consequently, on the subspace $``$ defined by

$$u(X)y_0(X)𝑑X=0,$$
(12)
there exists an inverse operator $`L_1^1`$ and so (11) becomes $`(L_0+ϵ)u=\nu ^2L_1^1u`$, with $`L_0+ϵ`$ symmetric and $`L_1^1`$ a positive operator. The smallest eigenvalue $`\nu _0^2`$ is given by the minimum of the Rayleigh quotient:

$$\nu _0^2=\underset{u}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{u(L_0+ϵ)u𝑑X}{uL_1^1u𝑑X}.$$
(13)
To prove that $`\nu _0^2>0`$ it is sufficient to show that the minimum of the quadratic form $`u(L_0+ϵ)u𝑑X`$ is positive on $``$ Vahitov . Assuming that $`u(X)`$ are normalised by $`u^2𝑑X=1`$, the minimum is attained on the solution $`u(X)`$ to the nonhomogeneous boundary-value problem

$$(L_0+ϵ)u(X)=\eta u(X)+\alpha y_0(X),$$
(14)
where $`\eta `$ and $`\alpha `$ are the Lagrange multipliers. The minimum equals $`\eta `$ — provided $`\eta `$ and $`\alpha `$ are chosen so that the $`u(X)`$ satisfies eq.(12) and the normalization constraint.

The operator $`L_0`$ has a single discrete eigenvalue $`E_0=\frac{1}{2}`$ with the eigenfunction $`z_0(X)=(1/\sqrt{2})\text{sech}X`$, and the continuous spectrum of eigenvalues $`E(k)=k^2`$, with

$$z_k(X)=\frac{ik+\mathrm{tanh}X}{ik1}e^{ikx},\mathrm{}<k<\mathrm{}.$$
(15)
Expanding $`y_0`$ and $`u`$ over the complete set $`\{z_0;z_k\}`$ gives

$`y_0(X)=Y_0z_0(X)+{\displaystyle Y(k)z_k(X)𝑑k},`$
$`u(X)=U_0z_0(X)+{\displaystyle U(k)z_k(X)𝑑k}.`$
Substituting into (14) and using the orthogonality of the functions in the set produces $`U(k)=\alpha (k^2+ϵ\eta )^1Y(k)`$ and $`U_0=\alpha (E_0+ϵ\eta )^1Y_0`$. Using these in (12) gives

$$𝔤_ϵ(\eta )\frac{Y_0^2}{E_0+ϵ\eta }+_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\left|Y(k)\right|^2}{k^2+ϵ\eta }𝑑k=0.$$
(16)
The minimum of the quadratic form $`u(L_0+ϵ)u𝑑X`$ is given by the smallest root $`\eta ^{}`$ of the function (16). The function $`𝔤_ϵ(\eta )`$ is increasing for $`\mathrm{}<\eta ϵ`$, apart from the point $`\eta =E_0+ϵ`$ where it drops from $`+\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. As $`\eta \mathrm{}`$, $`𝔤_ϵ(\eta )+0`$; as $`\eta ϵ`$, $`𝔤_ϵ(\eta )`$ tends to a finite value. (This follows from the fact that

$$Y(k)=\frac{ik}{1+ik}\frac{\pi k/2}{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi k/2)},$$

hence the integral in (16) converges for all $`\eta ϵ`$.) Consequently, there is only one root $`\eta ^{}`$ and its sign is opposite to the sign of $`𝔤_ϵ(0)`$. Since $`𝔤_ϵ(\eta )/ϵ<0`$, we have $`𝔤_ϵ(0)<𝔤_0(0)`$ while the value $`𝔤_0(0)`$ can be calculated as

$$𝔤_0(0)=\frac{Y_0^2}{E_0}+_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\left|Y(k)\right|^2}{k^2}𝑑k=y_0L_0^1y_0𝑑X.$$
(17)
Noticing that $`L_0^1y_0(X)=1+c\mathrm{tanh}X`$, with $`c`$ an arbitrary constant, eq.(17) yields $`𝔤_0(0)=2`$ and hence $`\eta ^{}`$ cannot be negative for any $`ϵ`$. Thus $`\nu ^2>0`$ and the Néel wall is stable for all $`h`$ and $`\gamma `$ (with $`h\gamma 0`$).

Are there any other attractors for nonzero $`\gamma `$? When $`\gamma 0`$, the momentum is, in general, changing with time: $`\dot{P}=2\gamma P`$, and therefore a uniformly moving soliton has to satisfy $`P=0`$. Since both curves in Fig.1(a) cross the $`P=0`$ axis only at the stationary Néel walls, we conclude that no other solutions persist for small nonzero $`\gamma `$. This does not, however, exclude the existence of new solutions for larger $`\gamma `$. Our numerical analysis has, in fact, revealed a window of $`h`$ values, $`\gamma <h{}_{}{}^{<}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.35}+0.8\gamma `$ (with $`0.1\gamma 0.85`$) where two Néel walls attract and form a stable stationary bubble. $`\mathrm{}`$

In conclusion, the remarkable stability of the damped-driven kinks and their bound states is in sharp contrast with stability properties of the bright solitons. The stable coexistence of two types of domain walls and their complexes in the undamped case is also worth emphasising. This multistability is not observed in the parametrically driven Klein-Gordon and Ginzburg-Landau equations and is due to the availability of the momentum integral which takes different values on different solutions.

We thank Nora Alexeeva for writing a pseudospectral code for the time-dependent NLS (2) and Boris Ivanov for useful comments on this work. IB was supported by the NRF and URC grants; SW by the NRF and the Joseph Stone fellowship; EZ by the RFFI grant 000100617.


format: text

text:
# Holes as Dipoles in a Doped Antiferromagnet and Stripe Instabilities

## I Introduction

The theoretical challenge of doped antiferromagnetic (AF) Mott insulator systems anderson  comes from their nature of strong correlations. It makes the relevant models like the Hubbard and $`tJ`$ Hamiltonians highly difficult to deal with. In such systems, the kinetic energy of charge carriers usually gets strongly frustrated trugman ; string0  and there is no single *dominant* process based on which a perturbative approach can be constructed. This opens door for various competing orders at low doping and makes the phase diagram complex review1 .

So far there still lacks a single microscopic description which can unify various competing phenomena known from both experiments in cuprates and theoretical considerations based on doped antiferromagnets. Given the fact that exact solutions of two-dimensional (2D) Hubbard and $`tJ`$ models are absent, a simplified and tractable model of doped AF Mott insulators is thus highly desirable in order to have a framework for a systematic study.

Such a type of models should incorporate three most essential ingredients of a doped AF Mott insulator. Namely, it should properly describes AF correlations at half-filling, including both *long-range* (low-energy) and *short-range* (high-energy) ones; Its Hilbert space should be restricted due to the presence of an *upper* Hubbard band at finite doping; Finally, it should explicitly embody essential frustration effects introduced by hole hopping in an antiferromagnet. Furthermore, compared to the original Hubbard and $`tJ`$ models, it ought to be simplified enough to allow a tractable treatment.

In this paper, we study an effective model string2 ; string1  of a doped AF-Mott insulator which satisfies the above criteria. This model well describes AF correlations at half-filling and precisely incorporates the so-called phase string effect at a finite doping. The latter has been identified string0  as a crucial dynamic frustration effect introduced by holes in the $`tJ`$ Hamiltonian. Here a phase string depicts a string of displaced *transverse* spins along a hole-hopping path, characterized by a sequence of signs:

$$(+1)\times (1)\times (1)\times \text{ }\mathrm{}$$
(1)
as illustrated by Fig. 1(a). It can be rigorously shown string0  that such transverse spin mismatches cannot be self-healed simultaneously with the displaced spins in the *longitudinal* (quantization) direction \[see Fig. 1(b)\], through the superexchange term of the $`tJ`$ Hamiltonian. Consequently, after a hole moves through a closed path back to its origin and the displaced spins by hole hopping are restored in the quantization direction ($`\widehat{z}`$-axis), the wavefunction should always pick up an additional Berry-phase-like sign given by (1), which is highly nontrivial in a general case.

Such a working model may be called the phase string model (section II). Based on it, we will show that in a spin ordered phase at low doping, a doped hole will generally induce a dipole-like spin configuration (section III). The kinetic energy of doped holes is severely frustrated by the phase string effect such that a hole-dipole is localized or self-trapped in space with an infinite mass. Without the balance from the kinetic energy, the long-range dipole-dipole interaction between doped holes will dominate the low-energy physics. It will lead to an inhomogeneous instability as hole-dipoles collapse into stripes (section IV). These anti-phase stripes can be understood as that holes are threaded together by the phase strings. Both metallic stripes of anti-phase and quarter-filling and insulating stripe along the diagonal direction are discussed based on the elementary hole-dipoles. The stripe phase at low doping is highly competitive to *homogeneous phases* previously studied kou  in the same model, which include the AF long-range ordered state, spin glass state, and superconducting state. Therefore, a rich array of phases are revealed in the phase string model, where AF correlations and phase string effect serve as basic driving forces.

## II An effective model of a doped antiferromagnet

The $`tJ`$ Hamiltonian is one of the simplest nontrivial models of doped Mott insulator/doped antiferromagnets anderson . Based on the exact phase string formulation string2  of the $`tJ`$ Hamiltonian, an effective low-energy model can be derived, known as the phase string model string1 .

The presence of short-range AF correlations provides a natural “ultraviolet” cutoff in deducing such an effective model from the $`tJ`$ Hamiltonian. So the local AF correlations, characterized by the *bosonic* RVB pairing lda , underpin this effective theory. It differs from the slave-boson mean-field theories fRVB  by emphasizing the underlying AF correlations; It differs from the slave-fermion mean-field theories aa ; aa1  by precisely dealing with a *singular* hopping effect in the $`tJ`$ model, i.e., the phase string effect mentioned in Introduction.

Such an effective model itself defines a class of doped Mott-insulator/doped antiferromagnet. It has been shown to possess the following properties: (I) It well describes antiferromagnetism at half-filling, including both long-wavelength, low-energy and short-range, high-energy (high-temperature) physics; (III) It has a d-wave superconducting ground state beyond a finite doping concentration; (II) It characterizes the correct restricted Hilbert space for charge and spin degrees of freedom of a doped Mott insulator, when holes are introduced.

The effective Hamiltonian can be written string2 ; string1  as $`H_{string}=H_h+H_s,`$ where

$`H_h`$ $`=`$ $`t_h{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(e^{iA_{ij}^si\varphi _{ij}^0}\right)h_i^{}h_j+H.c.`$ (2)
$`H_s`$ $`=`$ $`J_s{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}\left(e^{i\sigma A_{ij}^h}\right)b_{i\sigma }^{}b_{j\sigma }^{}+H.c.`$ (3)
with $`h_i^{}`$ and $`b_{i\sigma }`$ denoting *bosonic* holon and spinon operators, respectively. When the holon number is zero, $`H_s`$ is equivalent to the Schwinger-boson mean-field Hamiltonian aa , which well describes AF correlations at half-filling. The AF long range order is realized by the spinon Bose condensation, i.e., $`b_{i\sigma }0`$ at zero temperature. At larger doping, when holons are Bose condensed, the ground state becomes a (d-wave) superconductor muthu .

A unique feature of this effective model is the presence of link fields in Eqs. (2) and (3). They are not free gauge fields as they satisfy the topological constraints

$$\underset{c}{}A_{ij}^h=\pm \pi \underset{lc}{}n_l^h,$$
(4)
and

$$\underset{c}{}A_{ij}^s=\pm \pi \underset{lc}{}(n_l^bn_l^b),$$
(5)
for a closed loop $`c`$, in which $`n_l^h`$ and $`n_{l\alpha }^b`$ are holon and spinon number operators, respectively. In addition to $`A_{ij}^s,`$ $`\varphi _{ij}^0`$ in Eq. (2) describes a uniform $`\pi `$ flux per plaquette ($`_{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{ij}^0=\pm \pi `$). This model has a U(1)$`\times `$U(1) gauge symmetry as $`H_h`$ and $`H_s`$ are invariant under the gauge transformations:

$$h_jh_j\mathrm{exp}(i\phi _j),\text{ }A_{ij}^sA_{ij}^s+i(\phi _i\phi _j),$$
(6)
and

$$b_{j\sigma }b_{j\sigma }\mathrm{exp}(i\sigma \varphi _j),\text{ }A_{ij}^hA_{ij}^h+i(\varphi _i\varphi _j).$$
(7)
Here the holons and spinons are *basic building blocks* that properly characterize the restricted Hilbert space of a doped Mott insulator. But it is important to note that they, as independent entities, are not necessarily the true low-lying elementary excitations of the system. In this model, the electron operator is made of holon and spinon operators in the following form string2

$$c_{i\sigma }=h_i^{}b_{i\sigma }e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }},$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }`$ is a topological phase, which ensures the fermionic statistics of $`c_{i\sigma },`$ as defined by

$$e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}=(\sigma )^ie^{\frac{i}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_i^h\right]},$$
(9)
with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b=\underset{li}{}Im\mathrm{ln}(z_iz_l)\left(\underset{\alpha }{}\alpha n_{l\alpha }^b1\right),$$
(10)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h=\underset{li}{}Im\mathrm{ln}(z_iz_l)n_l^h.$$
(11)
Thus, going from the holon-spinon representation to the electron representation, topological (vortexlike) phases, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h,`$ are involved, which implies that the holon and spinon objects defined in the phase string model are topological entities themselves, as will soon become clear below.

## III Doped holes: Dipoles in spin ordered phase

How doped holes propagate in an antiferromagnet and how background spins are influenced by the hole motion are two central issues in the study of doped antiferromagnets. In the present section, we will focus on these issues in a spin ordered phase at small doping, based on the above phase string model.

### III.1 Holons as merons

The spin-flip operator can be expressed by

$$S_i^+=(1)^ib_i^{}b_i\mathrm{exp}\left[i\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h\right],$$
(12)
according to Eq. (8). The presence of the vortex phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h`$ in Eq. (12) clearly shows that a holon is a topological object that affects spins nonlocally.

At half-filling where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h=0,`$ the Bose condensation $`<b_{i\sigma }>0`$ of spinons gives rise to an AF long-range order of spins lying in the x-y plane: $`S_i^+=(1)^i<b_i^{}><b_i>`$. Through $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h,`$ each holon will induce a “meron” spin twist, which holds true as long as $`<b_{i\sigma }>0.`$ Such a spin vortex configuration (for a holon at the origin) may be characterized by the unit vector

$$𝐧_i(1)^i𝐒_i,$$

as follows:

$$𝐧_i=𝐫_i/𝐫_i,\text{ }$$
(13)
with $`𝐫_i^2=x_i^2+y_i^2.`$ It is schematically shown in Fig. 2.

To evaluate the potential energy of a holon (meron), we consider the spinon condensed part in $`H_s`$ \[Eq. (3)\]:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_sJ_s\rho _c^sa^2\underset{ij}{}\left[\mathrm{cos}A_{ij}^h1\right]+c.c.$$
(14)
in which $`\rho _c^sa^2<b^{}>^2`$($`a`$ is the lattice constant) and a reference energy corresponding to $`A_{ij}^h=0`$ has been subtracted. Explicitly $`A_{ij}^h`$ reads

$$A_{ij}^h=\frac{1}{2}\underset{li,j}{}Im\mathrm{ln}\frac{z_iz_l}{z_jz_l}n_l^h,$$
(15)
and then one has

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_s`$ $``$ $`J_s\rho _c^sa^2{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(A_{ij}^h\right)^2`$ (16)
$``$ $`E_s^m+E_s^{mm},`$
where $`E_s^m=_ln_l^h\epsilon ^m`$ with a single holon-meron self-energy

$`\epsilon ^m`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_s\rho _c^sa^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij\left(l\right)}{}}\left(Im\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_l}{z_jz_l}}\right)^2`$ (17)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}J_s\rho _c^sa^2\mathrm{ln}(L/a),`$
where $`L`$ is the size of the sample. Namely, a single holon as a meron in the spinon condensed phase will generally cost a logarithmically divergent energy.

Furthermore, the meron-meron interaction is given by

$$E_s^{mm}=\underset{l<l^{^{}}}{}n_l^hV_{ll^{^{}}}^{mm}n_l^h,$$
(18)
and

$`V_{ll^{^{}}}^{mm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_s\rho _c^sa^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij\left(ll^{^{}}\right)}{}}Im\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_l}{z_jz_l}}Im\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_l^{^{}}}{z_jz_l^{^{}}}}`$ (19)
$``$ $`\pi J_s\rho _c^sa^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|𝐫_l𝐫_l^{^{}}\right|}{L}}.`$
Here two holons will always *repulse* each other logarithmically, as they are merons of the *same* topological charge.

We note that there have been proposals of hole-merons in literature meron ; timm . They usually involve both *merons* and *anti-merons* . Two holes may thus be bound like a meron-anti-meron (vortex-antivortex) pair. By contrast, in the present case holons are always *repulsive* to each other as they carry the same topological charge. The underlying physical reason is that this is in favor of the kinetic energy for a finite concentration of holons, which become identical bosons after explicitly incorporating the phase string effect in the slave-fermion formalism. Consequently, superconductivity in the present doped AF-Mott insulator originates muthu  from the *Bose condensation* of holons, instead of the *pairing* of them. Here one should distinguish the *holon pairing* from the pairing order parameter of *electrons.* The latter still characterizes the superconducting state in the present case where spins are in RVB pairing, even though the holon pairing is absent.

Intuitively one might envisage that a phase string induced by one hole be “erased” by an another hole accompanying it. This may look like in favor of hole pairing. But such a picture is actually more in favor of stripes in which many holes precisely follow each other’s paths to eliminate the phase string effect. The basic reason is that the phase string effect of (1) is not simply a “geometric” effect: it also involves spin dynamics and is very *singular*. Thus, unless one hole *tightly* follows the other along the *same* path, like in the stripe case, the singular dynamic phase string effect cannot be completely removed by two holes simply staying close to each other. In fact, previously Trugman trugman ; review1  has already found the presence of frustrations for a hole pair’s motion in an antiferromagnet, due to *a quantum effect* originating from the fermionic character of the background spins. This effect is actually included in the phase string effect in the present approach. Finally, we note that technically, a holon is just a building block in the phase string model and the possibility that some holons may be anti-merons can be, in principle, constructed as composite objects in the present framework. But such a construction is usually not energetically favorable at finite doping and will be discussed elsewhere. The pairing of two doped holes has been discussed eder  in the $`tJ_z`$ model based on the “string” picture before.

### III.2 Holon confinement: Doped holes as dipoles

To remove such an energy divergence \[Eq.(17)\] associated with a meron spin configuration, each holon will have to “nucleate” an anti-meron from the vacuum. Being bound to the latter, a dipole composite with a finite energy will be formed. This elementary object will carry a charge $`+e`$ and replace the holon to represent a true stable *hole* in the spin ordered phase. By contrast, free *holons* disappear from the finite-energy spectrum. We can also call this phase as the holon confined phase.

#### III.2.1 *Formation of dipoles*

An anti-meron configuration is defined as a spin twist

$$b_{i\sigma }\stackrel{~}{b}_{i\sigma }\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{\sigma }{2}\vartheta _i^k\right]$$
(20)
where $`\vartheta _i^k=Im\mathrm{ln}(z_iz_k^0).`$ Here $`z_k^0`$ denotes the position (center) of an anti-meron labeled by $`k`$. Correspondingly

$$S_i^+(1)^i\stackrel{~}{b}_i^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_i\mathrm{exp}\left[i\mathrm{\Phi }_i^hi\mathrm{\Omega }_i\right]$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=_k\vartheta _i^k`$ (summing over all induced anti-merons). If $`z_k^0`$’s are close to the positions of corresponding holons, then cancellation occurs in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h\mathrm{\Omega }_i.`$ Consequently, the logarithmic divergence is removed from $`H_s`$ (see below).

Define $`n_i^x+in_i^y=e^{i\varphi _0+i\varphi _i}`$, with the unit vector $`𝐧_0`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0,\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0)`$ as the magnetization direction at infinity. For a bound pair of meron (holon)-anti-meron centered at the origin, labeled by the index $`k`$, one obtains according to (21)

$$\varphi _i^k=\text{Im }\mathrm{ln}\text{ }\frac{z_iz_k/2}{z_i+z_k/2},$$
(22)
with $`z_ke_k^x+ie_k^y.`$ Here $`𝐞_k`$ denotes the spatial displacement of the meron and anti-meron centered at $`\pm \frac{𝐞_k}{2},`$ respectively. At $`|𝐫_i|>>|𝐞_k|,`$

$$\varphi _i^k\frac{\left(\widehat{𝐳}\times 𝐞_k\right)𝐫_i}{|𝐫_i|^2}.$$
(23)
Thus, each pair of holons and anti-merons forms a composite, as shown in Fig. 3, that has a *dipolar* spin configuration at a sufficiently large distance.

In $`H_s`$, one may easily check that $`\omega _{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_j)/2`$ cancels out $`A_{ij}^h`$ and thus removes the aforementioned energy divergence. Here the energy cost Eq. (14) is replaced by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_s`$ $`=`$ $`2J_s\rho _c^sa^2{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(A_{ij}^h\omega _{ij}\right)1\right]`$ (24)
$``$ $`J_s\rho _c^sa^2{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(A_{ij}^h\omega _{ij}\right)^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}_k^d+{\displaystyle \underset{k<k^{^{}}}{}}V_{kk^{}}^{dd},`$
in which the single dipole energy

$$_k^d=\frac{J_s\rho _c^sa^2}{4}\underset{ij}{}\left(\varphi _i^k\varphi _j^k\right)^2,$$
(25)
and dipole-dipole interaction energy

$$V_{kk^{}}^{dd}=\frac{J_s\rho _c^sa^2}{2}\underset{ij}{}\left(\varphi _i^k\varphi _j^k\right)\left(\varphi _i^k^{}\varphi _j^k^{}\right).$$
(26)
In the continuum limit, $`\varphi _i^k\varphi _j^k(𝐫_i𝐫_j)\varphi ^k`$ and, according to Eq. (22),

$$\varphi ^k=\frac{\widehat{𝐳}\times \left(𝐫𝐞_k/2\right)}{\left|𝐫𝐞_k/2\right|^2}\frac{\widehat{𝐳}\times \left(𝐫+𝐞_k/2\right)}{\left|𝐫+𝐞_k/2\right|^2}.$$
(27)
Then the self-energy of a dipole can be evaluated by $`_k^d\frac{J_s\rho _c^sa^2}{4}d^2𝐫\left(\varphi ^k\right)^2.`$ In contrast to the logarithmically divergent meron-energy, there is a branch-cut connecting two poles at $`\pm \frac{𝐞_k}{2}`$ of the hole dipole, and $`_k^d`$ becomes finite

$`_k^d`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_s\rho _c^sa^2}{4}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐫\frac{\left|𝐞_k\right|^2}{\left|𝐫𝐞_k/2\right|^2\left|𝐫+𝐞_k/2\right|^2}}`$ (28)
$``$ $`\pi J_s\rho _c^sa^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|𝐞_k\right|+a}{a}},`$
at $`\left|𝐞_k\right|a`$.

#### III.2.2 *Type A and Type B dipoles*

Let us first point out that generally there are two possible anti-meron configurations as defined by Eq. (20). Type A: the core sits on a lattice site $`l`$, i.e., $`z_k^0=z_l.`$ In this case, there will be always a spin 1/2 sitting at the core of the anti-meron \[Fig. 3\], according to the single-occupancy constraint. Type B: $`z_k^0`$ is located inside a lattice plaquette, instead of a lattice site. Figs. 4(a) and (b) illustrates both cases at minimal sizes.

*Type A dipole.* Besides the energy consideration given above, it is important to make sure the self-consistency of the theory, that is, the anti-meron configuration Eq. (20) should not violate the *single-valueness* of the electron operator (the spin operator in Eq. (21) is obviously single-valued).

Consider that a winding of the coordinate $`z_i`$ around $`z_k^0`$ which is located at a lattice site. A phase $`\pm \pi `$ (corresponding to $`\sigma =\pm 1`$) will be acquired on the r.h.s. of Eq. (20). In order to ensure the single-valueness of $`c_{i\sigma }`$, the holon field has to be transformed in response to Eq. (20). We may introduce

$$h_i^{}h_i^{}e^{i\frac{\alpha _k}{2}Im\mathrm{ln}\text{ }(z_iz_k^0)},$$
(29)
with the spin index $`\alpha _k=\pm 1`$ denoting the spin at the site $`z_k^0.`$ Then the total change in the electron operator $`c_{i\sigma }`$ (for a winding of the coordinate $`z_i`$ around $`z_k^0)`$ will be $`e^{i(\sigma \pi \alpha _k\pi )}=`$ $`1`$, still satisfying the single-valueness condition.

The physical implication of (29) is as follows. It will change $`H_h`$ in Eq. (2) by

$$A_{ij}^s\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}^sA_{ij}^s\frac{\alpha _k}{2}Im\mathrm{ln}\frac{z_iz_k^0}{z_jz_k^0}.$$
(30)
It simply removes the contribution of the spinon, $`_\sigma \sigma n_{l\sigma }^b\alpha _k,`$ at the site of $`z_l=z_k^0`$ from $`A_{ij}^s,`$ i.e.,

$$\underset{c}{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}^s=\underset{c}{}A_{ij}^s\alpha _k\pi ,$$
(31)
where $`c`$ is a loop encircling $`z_k^0.`$ By incorporating the phase on the r.h.s. of Eq. (29) into $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }`$ of Eq. (8), one may also see that the contribution from the spinon at the site of $`z_k^0`$ is eliminated from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b`$ and thus from $`c_{i\sigma }.`$ It means that the spin at $`z_k^0`$ will no longer exert the *nonlocal effect,* embedded in a spinon, through $`A_{ij}^s`$ in $`H_h`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }`$ in $`c_{i\sigma }`$. Hence*, to maintain the single-valueness condition after the creation of an anti-meron, the spin 1/2 at its center site* $`z_k^0`$ *will lose its spinon character and looks like a local “defect” spin.*

Such a “defect” spin, sitting at the core of an anti-meron, will be decoupled from the environmental spins and simply behave like a free $`S=1/2`$ spin. This can be straightforwardly checked. By noting that the transformation Eq. (20) excludes the case $`z_i=z_k^0`$ due to the uncertainty of $`\vartheta _i^k,`$ the phases of those terms in $`H_s`$ that involve the links attached to the site $`z_k^0,`$ will become uncertain after the transformation. Specifically, these terms connected to $`z_k^0`$ will all vanish when one averages over $`\vartheta _0`$ after the replacement $`\vartheta _i^k\vartheta _i^k+\vartheta _0`$ in Eq. (20) for $`z_iz_k^0`$, while the rest of $`H_s`$ remains invariant. Thus, the spin 1/2 at $`z_k^0`$ is indeed decoupled from the environmental spins.

*Type B dipole.* Now consider the case that $`z_k^0`$ is located at a center of a plaquette \[see Fig. 4(b)\]. There is no longer a lattice spin at $`z_k^0`$ and the holon transformation Eq. (29) may be replaced by the form

$$h_i^{}h_i^{}e^{\pm i\frac{1}{2}\vartheta _i^k}.$$
(32)
One can check that $`c_{i\sigma }`$ still remains single-valued for a winding of the coordinate $`z_i`$ around $`z_k^0.`$ Based on Eq. (32), the holon Hamiltonian $`H_h`$ is changed by $`A_{ij}^s\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}^s,`$ with

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}^sA_{ij}^s\pm \frac{1}{2}Im\mathrm{ln}\frac{z_iz_k^0}{z_jz_k^0}.$$
(33)
Physically it means that an additional $`\pm \pi `$ flux penetrates through the plaquette where $`z_k^0`$ resides:

$$\underset{c}{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}^s=\underset{c}{}A_{ij}^s\pm \pi ,$$
(34)
with $`c`$ as a loop encircling the given plaquette.

In contrast to Type A, it is not obvious that there is a free spin 1/2 trapped around the plaquette of the core of the anti-meron. In Type B, the cost of the superexchange energy is mainly due to the spin twist around the plaquette $`z_k^0`$ which is less dramatic than in Type A, where the presence of an isolated spin 1/2 at $`z_k^0`$ means the loss of the superexchange energy for four nearest-neighboring links connected to it. But in Type B, there are additional $`\pi `$ flux quanta \[see Eq. (34)\] threading through the plaquettes, where the cores of anti-merons are located, seen by holons. So the hopping energy of holons in Type B is different from that of a Type A dipole. Generally, Type A dipoles are expected to be more stable at higher doping, while Type B dipoles should be energetically favorable at low doping.

#### III.2.3 *Localization of hole dipoles and phase string effect*

The fact that a doped hole will induce a dipolar spin configuration was first pointed out by Shraiman and Siggia ss  based on a semi-classical treatment of the $`tJ`$ model. In Shraiman-Siggia’s picture, the hole is sitting at the *center* of the dipole and such a hole-dipole is mobile in space. This mobility may be easily understood if one considers the translational invariance and the fact that the hopping overlap integral for two hole-dipoles with their centers displaced by a lattice constant should be finite in general. That a mobile hole carries a long-range dipolar spin distortion has been also studied in Refs. frenkel ; manousakis .

By contrast, in the present case, the hole is sitting at *one* of the two opposite poles of a dipole, *not* at its center. The holon itself has a *finite* hopping integral in $`H_h`$ and can hop around. Nonetheless it is confined to an anti-meron by a logarithmic potential in Eq. (28). On the other hand, an anti-meron itself as a semi-classical vortex formed by the condensed spinons is immobile: it cannot propagate in terms of $`H_s.`$ In other words, its effective mass is infinite, which is in contrast to a holon which has a finite hopping integral, or mass, according to $`H_h`$. Therefore, the hole dipole (both Type A and B) as a whole must remain localized or self-trapped in space.

This distinction between the Shraiman-Sigga dipole and the present one can be traced back to a very singular effect in the $`tJ`$ model, which has been inappropriately treated in the semi-classical approach of Shraiman-Sigga. In the following we further clarify this issue.

According to Eq. (22), there is a branch-cut connecting two poles (at $`\pm \frac{𝐞_k}{2},`$ respectively$`)`$ of a hole dipole at the origin, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Such a branch-cut can be physically understood in terms of the irreparable phase string effect, which was discovered string0  as a generic property of the $`tJ`$ model.

A phase string is basically a sequence of $`+`$ and $``$ signs shown in (1) \[also see Fig. 1(a)\], which is left by a spinless hole on the path as it moves on a spin background described by the $`tJ`$ model. The origin of the phase string is due to the disordered Marshall sign caused by the hole hopping string0 . Physically it may be interpreted as describing displaced spins, by hopping, along the *transverse* directions (in x-y plane). Specifically, the sign $`+`$ and $``$ in (1) distinguish the “backflow” spin $``$ and $``$ exchanged with a hole at each step of hopping. Since the superexchange term “respects” the Marshall sign, the phase string, describing the displaced Marshall sign, cannot be “repaired” through the superexchange term. Therefore, if one draws a circle around either the hole at B or the starting point at A, it will always intercept the phase string once (or odd times) \[see Fig. 1(a)\].

Pictorially, one may consider a bare hole created by the electron $`c`$-operator at a point A and then imagine that the spinless hole (holon) hops to the point B. It results in a dipole configuration with the two poles as its starting point A and ending point B, connected by the phase string in between \[Fig. 1(a)\]. Since the holon can reach B from different paths originated at A, the singular phase string is then replaced by (or relaxes to) a smoother *dipole* configuration. Nonetheless, the topology remains as represented by the branch-cut connecting two poles of the dipole as illustrated by Fig. 3.

In a Néel state with the magnetization lying in x-y plane, the displacement of staggered magnetization moments will reach the maximum, namely, $`\pi `$ phase per site (inversion of the spin polarization) on the hole path. It implies that going through the circle once, around the point A or B in Fig. 1(a), one finds the total spin displacement relative to the original Néel spin background is $`\pi `$, modulo $`2\pi `$, which has the same topology as a meron or anti-meron discussed above.

Finally, the localization of a hole dipole can be physically understood in terms of the phase string picture too 1hole . Since the phase string (1) cannot be “self-healed” through, say, spin dynamics, a holon moves far away from its origin A will eventually lose its phase coherence as the product (1) becomes uncertain due to the zero-point spin fluctuations in the Néel background. It means the propagating amplitude vanishes such that the holon must be localized or self-trapped around the origin A within a finite distance. The single electron spectral function for the one-hole doped case has been studied 1hole  based on such a holon localization description, in which the dispersion of the low-lying peak is originated from the “spinon” sepectrum instead. The calculated spectral function well explains the corresponding photoemission experiments 1hole .

Delocalization of holons will occur at higher doping when the spin background is changed (self-consistently) by the phase string effect. Such a holon deconfined phase is generally a superconducting state as discussed in Refs. kou ; muthu  On the other hand, at low doping, without the destruction of spin ordering, delocalization of holons can only be realized in the reduced dimension when holons follow each other’s paths such that the induced phase string frustrations can be eliminated. Such a metallic stripe in the spinon condensed phase will be discussed in the following section.

## IV Stripe instability

As discussed above, a hole-dipole object does not have a kinetic energy, or, its self-energy does not have a dispersion, since it is self-trapped in space with an infinite mass. Thus the long-range dipole-dipole interaction among dipoles may become crucial in determining the low-energy physics in such a phase where kinetic energy is strongly frustrated. In this part we will discuss the origin of stripes based on this picture.

### IV.1 Dipole–dipole interaction

For a dipole located at the origin, Eq.(27) can be reduced to

$$\varphi ^k\frac{1}{\left|𝐫\right|^2}\left[2\frac{\left(\widehat{𝐳}\times 𝐫\right)\left(𝐫𝐞_k\right)}{\left|𝐫\right|^2}\widehat{𝐳}\times 𝐞_k\right],\text{ }$$
(35)
for $`|𝐫|>>|𝐞_k|`$ and a singular part

$$\varphi ^k2\pi \left(\widehat{𝐳}\times 𝐞_k\right)\delta \left(𝐫\right),$$
(36)
at $`|𝐫|0`$ ($`|𝐞_k|0`$).

Then, in terms of (26), the dipole-dipole interaction between $`k`$-th and $`k^{}`$-th dipoles, located at $`𝐫_k`$ and $`𝐫_k^{}`$, respectively, which are well-separated in space by $`\left|𝐫_{kk^{^{}}}\right|\left|𝐫_k𝐫_k^{}\right|\left|𝐞_k\right|`$, can be expressed in leading order approximation by

$`V_{kk^{^{}}}^{dd}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_s\rho _c^sa^2}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐫\text{ }\varphi ^k\varphi ^k^{}}`$ (37)
$``$ $`J_s\rho _c^sa^2\pi [(\widehat{𝐳}\times 𝐞_k)\varphi ^k^{}\left(𝐫_k\right)(kk^{})]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi J_s\rho _c^sa^2}{\left|𝐫_{kk^{^{}}}\right|^2}}\left[𝐞_k𝐞_k^{^{}}2{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐞_k𝐫_{kk^{^{}}})(𝐞_k^{^{}}𝐫_{kk^{^{}}})}{\left|𝐫_{kk^{^{}}}\right|^2}}\right]`$
Here $`V_{kk^{^{}}}^{dd}`$ has a typical form of magnetic dipole-dipole interaction, with $`𝐞_k`$ denoting the dipole moment.

Consider orientations of dipole moments which minimize the energy of the dipole-dipole interaction Eq. (37) at a fixed distance $`\left|𝐫_{kk^{}}\right|`$. Define $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _k=𝐞_k𝐫_{kk^{}}/\left|𝐞_k\right|\left|𝐫_{kk^{}}\right|`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _k^{}=𝐞_k^{}𝐫_{kk^{}}/\left|𝐞_k^{}\right|\left|𝐫_{kk^{}}\right|.`$ We have

$$V_{kk^{}}^{dd}=\frac{2\pi J_s\rho _c^sa^2\left|𝐞_k\right|\left|𝐞_k^{}\right|}{\left|𝐫_{kk^{}}\right|^2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\phi _k+\phi _k^{}\right),$$
(38)
which is minimized at

$$\phi _k=\phi _k^{}+\text{ modulo }2\pi $$
(39)
with

$$V_{min}^{dd}=\frac{2\pi J_s\rho _c^sa^2\left|𝐞_k\right|\left|𝐞_k^{}\right|}{\left|𝐫_{kk^{^{}}}\right|^2}.$$
(40)
Other orientations of dipole moments always give rise to higher energies for a given $`\left|𝐫_{kk^{}}\right|.`$ For instance, it is easy to see that for the case of random orientations $`<𝐞_k𝐞_k^{}>=0,`$ $`V_{kk^{}}^{dd}=0`$.

### IV.2 Stripe instability

Due to translational invariance, the center of a hole-dipole can be located at any spatial point with the same self-energy. Thus, to minimize (40), the distance $`\left|𝐫_{kk^{^{}}}\right|`$ between two dipoles should be continuously shrunk. Without a balance from the kinetic energy, such collapsing seems an inevitable consequence of the dipole-dipole interaction. Of course, single hole-dipole picture is only meaningful at a scale $`\left|𝐫_{kk^{^{}}}\right|\left|𝐞_k\right|.`$ Below such a scale, one has to take into account the detailed local physics to determine the hole-spin configuration and energy.

It is important to note that this dipole-dipole “attraction” does not simply result in a real-space pairing of holes. Due to the lack of kinetic energy cost, more dipoles would rather like to lump together, with orientations of dipole moments satisfying Eq. (39), in order to lower the potential energy. They can thus either line up to form a stripe or phase separate into Wigner-crystal-like clusters. In reality, the existence of long-range Coulomb interaction may generally favor review1  a stripe configuration over *large* Wigner-crystal-like clusters. Moreover, the latter possibility can be also considered as a further instability of stripes when they are attractive to each other and subsequently collapse into 2D clusters. Thus one can always focus on single stripes first, based on the hole-dipole picture. In fact, we shall see below that, for instance, forming a metallic stripe will lead to a disassociation of individual dipoles and release additional kinetic energies which can further stabilize stripes against forming a 2D cluster.

One possible loophole in the above argument is the existence of some other forces which may be in competition with the dipole-dipole interaction. We first note that the dipole-dipole interaction could be quite weak. In a hole-dipole shown in Fig. 3, the holon sitting at one pole is actually not static: it generally will hop around the pole at A, in terms of $`H_h`$ \[Eq. (2)\], such that $`𝐞_k`$ may get strongly suppressed, and so does the dipole-dipole interaction. It is a matter of competition between the hopping energy of *holons* (which contributes to the self-energy of a hole-dipole) and the dipole-dipole interaction in Eq. (38) or Eq. (40) that self-consistently determines the actual dipole moment $`𝐞_k.`$

In realistic situation, for example, a small amount of disorders can easily pin down hole-dipoles without the penalty from kinetic energy, such that the distribution of holes may still remain *uniform* on average. Based on a homogeneous picture, it has been previously shown kou  that the AF long range state will persist over some finite doping concentration if interlayer spin-spin coupling is considered in the same model. The dipole-dipole interaction will then be responsible for causing a cluster spin glass phase beyond some critical concentration of holes and eventually an insulating-superconducting transition takes place at a critical doping $`x_c0.043`$ kou .

Even as a metastable state with local minima, such uniform phases may only evolve into stripe states of lower energy after a macroscopic time scale. So these *uniform* insulating phases are highly competitive with the *inhomogeneous* phases, in a real experimental situation where a quenched disordered phase from high temperature may result in a spin glass phase kou ; aharony ; glazman ; che ; good1 , with the help of impurities, instead of a more ordered stripe phase at low temperature.

### IV.3 Static stripes

So the long-range dipole-dipole interaction will be responsible for doped holes to “talk” to each other and for them to *collectively* collapse into stripes. It provides a mechanism for the instability of a homogeneity insulating phase and the formation of stripes. But the local symmetry and hole-spin dynamics will ultimately decide which kind of stripes is most stable. In the following, we consider some general properties of stripes with hole-dipoles as elementary building blocks.

*Anti-phase.* Let us consider a line-up of hole-dipoles along, say, $`\widehat{x}`$-axis with the dipole orientations satisfying the optimal condition Eq. (39). Namely, $`\left(𝐞_k\right)_xe_x,`$ $`\left(𝐞_k\right)_y(1)^ke_y`$, where integer $`k`$ is an index labelling dipoles. Here we assume that each dipole has the same size of a dipole moment $`\left|𝐞\right|`$ with a minimal spacing $`2e_x`$ between two dipoles. For a site far away from the $`\widehat{x}`$-axis, the spin twist is then given by

$`\varphi _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\varphi _i^k={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_xy_{ik}(1)^ke_yx_{ik}}{r_{ik}^2}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_xy_{ik}}{r_{ik}^2}}=e_x{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{(2e_xk+x_0)^2+y_i^2}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}sgn(y_i),`$
when $`\left|y_i\right|\left|𝐞\right|a.`$ Here $`y_{ik}=y_i`$ and $`x_{ik}=2e_xk+x_0`$ according to the definition.

Thus, an *anti-phase* ($`\pi `$ phase shift) is found across the stripe with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\varphi _{y>0}\varphi _{y<0}=\pi .$$
(41)
Namely, a stripe composed of hole-dipoles is topologically always an anti-phase domain wall of spins.

*Metallic stripe.* For Type A dipoles discussed in Sec. III, a minimal choice of $`𝐞`$ is $`e_x=a`$ and $`e_y=0,`$ as shown in Fig. 4(a). If one simply line up these dipoles along the $`\widehat{x}`$-axis, then the corresponding stripe is an anti-phase domain wall with quarter-filled holons

$$n_h=\frac{1}{4}$$
(42)
(i.e., one hole per two sites), as illustrated in Fig. 5(a).

Obviously the twists of spins due to the presence of hole-dipoles are all canceled out away from the stripe, such that the total potential energy is minimized. Without spin frustrations, two stripes will not gain additional energy by being close together and thus these stripes are also stable against a cluster formation. Furthermore, within each anti-phase stripe, the hole-dipoles will disassociate to gain additional kinetic energy. It is straightforward to see now holons can move along the stripe without causing additional frustrations, just like in the one-dimensional (1D) $`tJ`$ model string2 . Here the flowing of the “river of charges” along the stripe will *gain* energy $`0.9t_h`$ for each holon at quarter-filling. This gaining of the kinetic energy is in contrast to the energy *cost* for a hole-dipole escaping away from the stripe: $`^dJ_s`$ according to Eq.(28) remark1 . The energy difference will stabilize such a *metallic* stripe of quarter-filling, at least in a local minimal sense. In literature, a metallic stripe based on the $`tJ_z`$ model has been discussed in Ref. neto1 . The spectral density for a single hole in the stripe phase has been also studied in Ref. eder1 .

Based on the phase string picture, a metallic stripe discussed above can be regarded as a line which connects those branch-cuts between the starting and ending points of holons in Fig. 3. As emphasized before, a phase string is so singular that it can only be eliminated when one holon tightly tails another, which leads to a 1D line of charges rather than a pairing of holes. Physically it is the phase string effect that ultimately threads holes together in a metallic stripe.

As a natural extrapolation, one may picture a stripe liquid as composed of mesoscale stripes threaded by phase strings, after the melting of static stripes. Eventually, say at high enough temperature, the most elementary entities, i.e., hole-dipoles, should be also present, if spins are still ordered (Bose condensed). Experimentally, how to detect such mesoscale stripes or even individual hole-dipole objects is an interesting subject to further explore in the present framework.

*Diagonal stripe.* For a Type B dipole, its minimal dipole moment is shown in Fig. 4(b). Here one pole is located inside a plaquette while the pole of the holon is at a corner of the plaquette. Fig. 5(b) shows a natural stripe configuration composed of the minimal Type B dipoles in Fig. 4(b). It is a stripe along the diagonal direction, which remains as an anti-phase domain as the argument leading to Eq. (41) still holds here. But it becomes an insulating stripe instead, as holons cannot directly move along the stripe.

It has been argued that hole-dipoles of Type B may be more stable at low doping as it costs less superexchange energy. By forming a diagonal stripe, there is no obvious gain in the hole’s kinetic energy, except for some virtual process. In a single hole-dipole case, such a virtual process may be understood as each holon continuously hops around and then back to its origin, leaving irreparable phase strings on the paths which result in a spin-dipole configuration. When these holes are lined up in the stripe configuration, the phase strings are canceled out each other during the virtual hopping process such that there is no spin twist left behind away from the stripe \[Fig. 5\]. So for both types of stripe in Fig. 5, the healing of the spin AF order away from the domain wall indicates an effective *kinetic energy gain* for virtual hole hopping out of the domain wall. Furthermore, holons gains *additional* *kinetic energy* in the metallic stripe, but the *superexchange energy* of the domain wall seems favored in the diagonal stripe, under a given number of holes.

One may envisage some other kinds of static stripes. A detailed analysis of which type of stripes is most energetically favorable in a given doping concentration is beyond the scope of the present paper, and will be explored elsewhere. Finally, we note that various charge orderings due to hole-hole long-range (dipolar and Coulomb) interactions have been also studied numerically in Ref. stojkovic , based on a spin-density-wave, or itinerant approach. Our strong-couling (t-J type model) approach seems to provide a consistent picture concerning the formation of static stripes, though many details still need a further comparison.

## V Discussions

In this paper, we have studied how holes behave in a spin ordered background at low doping. In a doped AF Mott insulator described by a derivative model of the $`tJ`$ Hamiltonian, known as the phase string model, the kinetic energy of doped holes gets strongly frustrated by the phase string effect. These holes induce nonlocal effects in the spin background and behave like dipoles. In contrast to the hole dipole picture of Shraiman and Siggia ss  based on the semiclassical treatment, a holon constitutes one of the two poles in the present configuration instead of sitting at the center of the dipole ss . Consequently, hole dipoles are localized or self-trapped objects in space rather than mobile ones in the Shraiman-Siggia’s case. Such a localization or self-trapping of a hole can be intuitively understood directly in terms of the irreparable phase string effect 1hole .

That the hole kinetic energy is strongly suppressed at low doping in the phase string model is in contrast to the slave-boson theories fRVB  of the $`tJ`$ model. In the latter cases, holes are relatively free moving on various RVB backgrounds. The difference arises from the fact that in the bosonic RVB background lda , short-range *AF correlations* are much stronger than in fermionic RVB theories, which are highly unfavorable to the hole motion.

Due to the frustrations of the hole kinetic energy, the dipole-dipole interaction dominates the low-energy, long-wavelength physics. Holes correlate with each other through such an interaction which, instead of leading to a real-space pairing of holes, causes an inhomogeneous instability – stripe instability with hole-dipoles collapsing into a 1D line. An anti-phase, quarter-filling metallic stripe can be regarded as a pile up of Type A dipoles, while an anti-phase, diagonal insulating stripe may be naturally considered as composed of Type B dipoles. Here the phase string effect provides the basic thread for forming stripes: holes tightly follow each other’s paths in order to minimize the frustrations of the phase string effect and to release the kinetic energy.

Theoretically, stripes and stripes related issues have been studied intensively in literature review1 , motivated by experimental discovery tran  of static stripes in curpates. In fact, insulating stripes as a mean-field solution was first obtained zaanen ; schulz ; machida  in the Hubbard and $`tJ`$ models at low-doping even before the experiment. The present approach has gone beyond the mean-field approximation in dealing with the motion of doped holes in an antiferromagnet. It reveals that as a “renormalization” effect there does exist a *residual* long-range interaction for holes to “talk” to each other and to collectively form stripes. This approach provides a framework to further systematically investigate various properties associated with stripe phenomenon. Finally, in literature stripes as composed of ferromagnetic bonds beyond the $`tJ`$ type model have been previously proposed gooding . But the origin of the underlying physics as well as the consequence are different.

Some interesting questions remain to be answered. Firstly, if static stripes melt, are there dynamic stripes present at higher energy or higher temperature? If they exist, it is also a very challenge problem to mathematically describe such dynamic stripes of “finite sizes”. Recently a Z<sub>2</sub> gauge theory of “stripe fractionalization” has been proposed by Nussinov and Zaanen nussinov  based on a “topological” order of the sublattice parity. The Z<sub>2</sub> phase string depicted in Fig. 1(a) indeed originates from the *change* of the sublattice parity of spins due to the hole hopping. But the phase string model of Eqs. (2) and (3) is not simply a Z<sub>2</sub> gauge theory because the original building blocks are *holons* and *spinons*, not in a stripe fractionalization description.

Of course, in the end the holons are actually confined in the spinon condensed phase and elementary objects become hole-dipoles. A mesoscale stripe structure may be expected as remaining clusters at high energy or temperature, threaded by phase strings, which should eventually break into hole-dipoles. But we note that the above dipole picture and stripe instability are all discussed when spinons are Bose condensed. When such a condensation is gone at high temperature or larger doping, the dipole and stripe pictures are no longer meaningful in this framework.

Secondly, what is the relation between superconductivity and stripe phases? So far we have not explored the possibility of superconducting condensation in the spinon condensed phase, where stripes present. In the phase string model, superconducting condensation happens when holons are Bose condensed string1 ; muthu . It can occur at higher doping where no spinon condensation is present muthu . Thus, superconducting phase and stripe phase seem not necessarily concomitant in this framework. Nevertheless, the origin of superconductivity and that of stripes can all be attributed to *kinetic-energy-driven mechanisms*. Since the phase string effect plays the concrete role of kinetic-energy frustrations, various low-temperature phases including stripes, superconductivity, and even the pseudogap phenomenon may be regarded as different ways in reducing kinetic energies in such a system kou .

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge stimulating discussions with N. P. Ong which partially motivated the present work. This work is partially supported by NSFC grant nos. 90103021, 10247002, and 10204004.