text:
# Semisimplicity of the categories of Yetter-Drinfeld modules and Long dimodules

## Introduction

Let $`H`$ be a Hopf algebra at the same time acting and coacting on a vector space $`M`$. We can impose various compatibility relations between the action and coaction, leading to different notions of Hopf modules. Hopf modules are already considered by Sweedler , and they have to satisfy the relation

$$\rho (hm)=\mathrm{\Delta }(h)\rho (m)=h_1m_0h_2m_1$$

One can also require that the $`H`$-coaction is $`H`$-linear:

$$\rho (hm)=h\rho (m)=hm_0m_1$$

A module satisfying this condition is called a Long dimodule. Long dimodules are the building stones of the Brauer-Long group, in the case where the Hopf algebra $`H`$ is commutative, cocommutative and faithfully projective (see , and  for a detailed discussion). Long dimodules are also connected to a non-linear equation (see ).
Another - at first sight complicated and artificial - compatibility relation is the following:

$$h_1m_0h_2m_1=(h_2m)_0(h_2m)_1h_1$$

A module that satisfies it is called a Yetter-Drinfeld module. There is a close connection between Yetter-Drinfeld modules and the Drinfeld double (see ): if $`H`$ is finitely generated projective, then the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules is isomorphic to the category of modules over the Drinfeld double. Yetter-Drinfeld modules have been studied intensively by several authors over the passed fifteen years, see for example , , , , this list is far from exhaustive. One of the important features is the fact that the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules is braided monoidal. As Long dimodules, Yetter-Drinfeld modules are related to a non-linear equation, the quantum Yang-Baxter equation (see e.g. ). If $`H`$ is commutative and cocommutative, then Yetter-Drinfeld modules coincide with Long dimodules.
In this note, we give sufficient conditions for the categories of Yetter-Drinfeld modules and Long dimodules to be semisimple (Section 3) and we study projective and injective dimension in these categories. Our main result is that the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules is semisimple if $`H`$ is a commutative, noetherian, semisimple and cosemisimple Hopf algebra over a field $`k`$. The same is true for the category of Long dimodules, without the assumption that $`H`$ is commutative.
For generalities on Hopf algebras, we refer the reader to , , . For a detailed study of Hopf modules and their generalizations, we refer to .

## 1. Preliminary Results

Let $`k`$ be a commutative ring, and $`H`$ a faithfully flat Hopf algebra with bijective antipode $`S`$. Unadorned $``$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}`$ will be over $`k`$. We will use the Sweedler-Heyneman notation for comultiplication and coaction: for $`hH`$, we write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(h)=h_1h_2$$

(summation implicitly understood), and for a right $`H`$-comodule $`(M,\rho _M)`$ and $`mM`$, we write

$$\rho _M(m)=m_0m_1$$

$`{}_{H}{}^{}`$ and $`^H`$ will be the categories of respectively left $`H`$-modules and left $`H`$-linear maps, and right $`H`$-comodules and right $`H`$-colinear maps. If $`M`$ and $`N`$ are right $`H`$-comodules, then we denote the $`k`$-module consisting of right $`H`$-colinear maps from $`M`$ to $`N`$ by $`\mathrm{Hom}^H(M,N)`$.

$$M^{\mathrm{co}H}=\{mM|\rho _M(m)=m1\}$$

is called the $`k`$-submodule of coinvariants of $`M`$. Observe that $`H^{\mathrm{co}H}=k`$.
Suppose that a $`k`$-vector space $`M`$ is at the same time a left $`H`$-module and a right $`H`$-comodule. Recall that $`M`$ is called a left-right Yetter-Drinfeld module if

$$h_1m_0h_2m_1=(h_2m)_0(h_2m)_1h_1$$

or, equivalently,

$$\rho (hm)=h_2m_0h_3m_1S^1(h_1)$$

for all $`mM`$ and $`hH`$. $`M`$ is called a left-right Long dimodule if

$$\rho (hm)=hm_0m_1$$

for all $`mM`$ and $`hH`$. If $`H`$ is commutative and cocommutative, then a Long dimodule is the same as a Yetter-Drinfeld module. $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ and $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ will be the categories of respectively Yetter-Drinfeld modules and Long dimodules, and $`H`$-linear $`H`$-colinear maps. The $`k`$-module consisting of all $`H`$-linear $`H`$-colinear maps between two Yetter-Drinfeld modules or two Long dimodules $`M`$ and $`N`$ will be denoted by $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M,N)`$. If $`H`$ is finitely generated and projective, then the category $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ is isomorphic to the category $`{}_{D(H)}{}^{}`$, where $`D(H)`$ is the Drinfeld double of $`H`$, and $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ is isomorphic to $`{}_{HH^{}}{}^{}`$.
The functors

$$()^{\mathrm{co}H}:{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H\mathrm{and}()^{\mathrm{co}H}:{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}$$

are exact if

$$()^{\mathrm{co}H}:^H$$

is exact. This is the case if $`H`$ is cosemisimple and $`k`$ is a field.

###### Lemma 1.1.

1. Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be objects of $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. Then $`MN`$ is an object of $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$; the $`H`$-action and $`H`$-coaction are given by

$$h(mn)=h_1mh_2n\text{and}\rho (mn)=m_0n_0n_1m_1$$
2. Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be objects of $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$. Then $`MN`$ is an object of $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$; the $`H`$-action and $`H`$-coaction are given by

$$h(mn)=h_1mh_2n\text{and}\rho (mn)=m_0n_0m_1n_1$$
3. For any $`H`$-comodule $`N`$, $`HN`$ is an object of $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ via the following structures

$$h(h^{}n)=hh^{}n\text{and}\rho (hn)=h_2n_0h_3n_1S^1(h_1)$$
4. For any $`H`$-comodule $`N`$, $`HN`$ is an object of $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ via the following structures

$$h(h^{}n)=hh^{}n\text{and}\rho (hn)=hn_0n_1$$

###### Proof.

This result is well-known, and the proof is a straightforward computation. It may be found in \[1, p. 440\], \[1, Prop. 12.1.2\], \[2, Prop. 123\], and \[2, Sec. 7.2\]. ∎

###### Lemma 1.2.

1. Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. If $`H`$ is commutative, then $`M_HN`$ is an object of $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. The $`H`$-action and $`H`$-coaction are given by

$$h(mn)=hmn=mhn$$

and

$$\rho _{M_HN}(mn)=m_0n_0n_1m_1$$
2. Let $`H`$ be commutative. Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ with $`M`$ finitely generated projective in $`{}_{H}{}^{}`$. Then

1. $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)^H`$ and

    $${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M,N)={}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)^{coH}$$

    The coaction is defined by

    $$\rho (f)=f_0f_1{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)H$$

    if and only if

    (1)
    $$f_0(m)f_1=f(m_0)_0f(m_0)_1S(m_1)$$

    for all $`mM`$.
    2. $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N){}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$; the $`H`$-action is defined by $`(hf)(m)=hf(m)=f(hm)`$.

###### Proof.

1) It is clear that $`M_HN`$ is an $`H`$-module. An easy verification shows that the $`H`$-coaction is well-defined on the tensor product over $`H`$ and that the necessary associativity and counit properties are satisfied, so that $`M_HN`$ is also an $`H`$-comodule. $`M_HN`$ is a Yetter-Drinfeld module, since we have for every $`hH`$ that

$`\rho _{M_HN}(hmn)=(hm)_0n_0n_1(hm)_1`$
$`=`$ $`h_2m_0n_0n_1h_3m_1S^1(h_1)`$
$`=`$ $`h_2(m_0n_0)h_3n_1m_1S^1(h_1)`$
$`=`$ $`h_2(mn)_0h_3(mn)_1S^1(h_1)`$
2a) Let us define a map

$$\pi :\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)\mathrm{Hom}(M,NH)$$

by

$$\pi (f)(m)=f(m_0)_0f(m_0)_1S(m_1)$$

Let $`f`$ be $`H`$-linear. Using the commutativity of $`H`$, we obtain

$`\pi (f)(hm)=f((hm)_0)_0f((hm)_0)_1S((hm)_1)`$
$`=`$ $`(h_2f(m_0))_0(h_2f(m_0))_1S(h_3m_1S^1(h_1))`$
$`=`$ $`h_3f(m_0)_0h_4f(m_0)_1S^1(h_2)h_1S(m_1)S(h_5)`$
$`=`$ $`hf(m_0)_0f(m_0)_1S(m_1)=h\pi (f)(m)`$
so $`\pi (f)`$ is $`H`$-linear, and $`\pi `$ restricts to a map

$$\pi :{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N){}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,NH)$$

Now $`H`$ is finitely generated and projective as an $`H`$-module, so we have a natural isomorphism $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,NH){}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)H`$, and we obtain a map

$$\pi :{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N){}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)H$$

with $`\pi (f)=f_0f_1`$ if and only if

$$(\pi (f))(m)=f_0(m)f_1=f(m_0)_0f(m_0)_1S(m_1)$$

It is straightforward to show that $`\pi `$ makes $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)`$ a right $`H`$-comodule. Now take $`f{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M,N)`$ and $`mM`$. Then

$`\pi (f)(m)=f_0(m)f_1=f(m_0)_0f(m_0)_1S(m_1)`$
$`=`$ $`f(m_0)m_1S(m_2)=f(m)1=(f1)(m)`$
so $`f`$ is coinvariant. Conversely, take $`f{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)^{\mathrm{co}H}`$. Then for every $`mM`$

$$f(m_0)_0f(m_0)_1S(m_1)=f_0(m)f_1=f(m)1$$

and

$$f(m_0)_0f(m_0)_1S(m_1)m_2=f(m_0)m_1$$

and it follows that

$$\rho _N(f(m))=\rho _N(f(m_0))\epsilon (m_1)=f(m_0)m_1$$

and $`f`$ is $`H`$-colinear.
2b) Clearly $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)`$ is an $`H`$-module and, by a), it is an $`H`$-comodule. On the other hand, we have

$`((hf)_0(hf)_1)(m)=((hf)(m_0))_0((hf)(m_0))_1S(m_1)`$
$`=`$ $`(h(f(m_0))_0(h(f(m_0))_1S(m_1)`$
$`=`$ $`h_2(f(m_0)_0)h_3(f(m_0)_1)S^1(h_1)S(m_1)`$
$`=`$ $`h_2(f(m_0)_0)h_3(f(m_0)_1)S(m_1)s^1(h_1)`$
$`=`$ $`h_2(f_0(m))h_3f_1S^1(h_1)`$
$`=`$ $`(h_2f_0h_3f_1S^1(h_1))(m)`$
so $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N){}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. ∎

###### Remark 1.3.

The results in Lemma 1.2 remain true after we replace $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴D^H`$ by $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$. The $`H`$-coaction on $`M_HN`$ is given by

$$\rho _{M_HN}(mn)=m_0n_0m_1n_1$$

The $`H`$-coaction on $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)`$ is also defined by (1). Part 2a) of Lemma 1.2 then also holds if $`H`$ is noncommutative.

###### Lemma 1.4.

Let $`V`$ be a $`k`$-module and $`N`$ an $`H`$-module.

1. $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(HV,N)`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}(V,N)`$ are isomorphic as $`k`$-modules.
2. If $`V`$ is projective as $`k`$-module, then $`HV`$ is projective in $`{}_{H}{}^{}`$.

###### Proof.

1) is well-known: the $`k`$-isomorphism

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(HV,N)\mathrm{Hom}(V,N)$$

is defined by $`\varphi (f)(v)=f(1v)`$.
2) follows immediately from (1). ∎

Let $`V`$ be an $`H`$-comodule which is finitely generated and projective as a $`k`$-module. By Lemmas 1.1 and 1.4, $`HV`$ is an object in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ and in $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$, and is finitely generated projective as an $`H`$-module. So if $`N`$ is an object of $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ and if $`H`$ is commutative, then, by Lemma 1.2, $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(HV,N)`$ is an object in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. If $`N`$ is an object of $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$, then by Remark 1.3, $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(HV,N)`$ is an object of $`^H`$; if furthermore $`H`$ is commutative, then $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(HV,N)`$ is an object of $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$.

###### Lemma 1.5.

Let $`H`$ be commutative and $`N{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$.

1. If $`V`$ is an $`H`$-comodule which is finitely generated and projective as a $`k`$-module, then the $`H`$-comodules $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(HV,N)`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}(V,N)`$ are isomorphic.
2. Let $`k`$ be a field and $`V`$ a finite-dimensional $`H`$-comodule that is projective as an $`H`$-comodule. Then $`HV`$ is a projective object of $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$.

###### Proof.

1) Consider the canonical $`k`$-isomorphism

$$\varphi :{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(HV,N)\mathrm{Hom}(V,N),\varphi (f)(v)=f(1v)$$

$`\varphi `$ is $`H`$-colinear since

$`\varphi (f)_0(v)\varphi (f)_1=(\varphi (f)(v_0))_0(\varphi (f)(v_0))_1S(v_1)`$
$`=`$ $`f(1v_0)_0f(1v_0)_1S(v_1)`$
$`=`$ $`f((1v)_0)_0f((1v)_0)_1S((1v)_1)`$
$`=`$ $`f_0(1v)f_1`$
$`=`$ $`(\varphi (f_0))(v)f_1`$
2) By 1) and Lemma 1.2, we have

$`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(HV,N){}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(HV,N)^{\mathrm{co}H}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{Hom}(V,N)^{\mathrm{co}H}\mathrm{Hom}^H(V,N)`$
Lemma 1.5 also holds with $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ replaced by $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$, and without the assumption that $`H`$ is commutative.

###### Proposition 1.6.

Let $`k`$ be a field. An object $`M`$ of $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ or $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ is finitely generated as an $`H`$-module if and only if there exists a finite dimensional $`H`$-comodule $`V`$ and an $`H`$-linear $`H`$-colinear epimorphism $`\pi :HVM`$.

###### Proof.

If there exist a finite dimensional $`H`$-comodule $`V`$ and an epimorphism of $`H`$-modules $`\pi :HVM`$, then $`HV`$ is finitely generated as an $`H`$-module and $`M`$ is a quotient of $`HV`$ in $`{}_{H}{}^{}`$, so $`M`$ is finitely generated in $`{}_{H}{}^{}`$.
Suppose that $`M`$ is finitely generated as an $`H`$-module, with generators $`\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n\}`$. By \[3, 5.1.1\], there exists a finite dimensional $`H`$-subcomodule $`V`$ of $`M`$ containing $`\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n\}`$ and the $`k`$-linear map

$$\pi :HVM,\pi (hv)=hv$$

is an $`H`$-linear $`H`$-colinear epimorphism. ∎

Let $`H^{}`$ be the linear dual of $`H`$. If $`M`$ and $`N`$ are $`H`$-comodules, then $`\mathrm{Hom}_k(M,N)`$ is a left $`H^{}`$-module, with $`H^{}`$-action

$$(h^{}f)(m)=h^{}(f(m_0)_1S(m_1))f(m_0)_0$$

(adapt the proof of \[12, Proposition 1.1\]).

###### Lemma 1.7.

Let $`H`$ be commutative. For $`M,N{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$, $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)`$ is a left $`H^{}`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{Hom}_k(M,N)`$.

###### Proof.

For all $`\alpha H^{}`$, $`f\mathrm{Hom}_H(M,N)`$, $`hH`$ and $`mM`$, we have

$`(\alpha f)(hm)=\alpha \left(f((hm)_0)_1S((hm)_1)\right)f((hm)_0)_0`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha \left(f(h_2m_0)_1S(h_3m_1S^1(h_1))\right)f(h_2m_0)_0`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha ((h_2(f(m_0)))_1h_1S(m_1)S(h_3))(h_2f(m_0))_0`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha \left(h_4f(m_0)_1S^1(h_2)h_1S(m_1)S(h_5)\right)h_3f(m_0)_0`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha \left(f(m_0)_1S(m_1)\right)hf(m_0)_0`$
$`=`$ $`h((\alpha f)(m))`$
and it follows that $`\alpha f`$ is $`H`$-linear. Observe that we used the commutativity of $`H`$. ∎

Recall that a left $`H^{}`$-module $`M`$ is called rational if there exists a right $`H`$-coaction on $`M`$ inducing the left $`H^{}`$-action.

###### Proposition 1.8.

Let $`H`$ be a commutative Hopf algebra over a field $`k`$. If $`M,N{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ with $`M`$ finitely generated as $`H`$-module, then $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N){}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 1.6, there exist a finite dimensional $`H`$-subcomodule $`V`$ of $`M`$ and an $`H`$-linear $`H`$-colinear epimorphism $`\pi :HVM`$. So we obtain an injective $`k`$-linear map

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,N):{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N){}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(HV,N)$$

For all $`\alpha H^{}`$, $`f{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)`$, $`hH`$ and $`vV`$, we have $`\pi (hv)=hv`$, $`(1v)_0(1v)_1=1v_0v_1`$ and

$`(\alpha f)\pi (1v)=(\alpha f)(v)=\alpha (f(v_0)_1S(v_1))f(v_0)_0`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha (f(\pi (1v_0))_1S(v_1))f(\pi (1v_0))_0`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha (f(\pi (1v)_0))_1S((1v)_1)f(\pi ((1v)_0))_0`$
$`=`$ $`(\alpha (f\pi ))(1v)`$
This relation and the fact that $`(\alpha f)\pi `$ and $`\alpha (f\pi )`$ are $`H`$-linear imply that $`((\alpha f)\pi )(hv)=(\alpha (f\pi ))(hv)`$, and it follows that the map $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,N)`$ is $`H^{}`$-linear. By Lemma 1.2, $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(HV,N)`$ is an $`H`$-comodule, and therefore a rational $`H^{}`$-module. It follows that $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)`$ is a rational $`H^{}`$-module, being an $`H^{}`$-submodule of the rational $`H^{}`$-module $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(HV,N)`$. This shows that $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)`$ is an $`H`$-comodule. By Lemma 1.2, $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N){}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. ∎

###### Remark 1.9.

1) Lemma 1.7 is still true if we replace $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ by $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$, without the assumption that $`H`$ is commutative.
2) We have the following Long dimodule version of Proposition 1.8: for a (not necessarily commutative) Hopf algebra over a field $`k`$, and $`M,N{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$, with $`M`$ finitely generated as an $`H`$-module, $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)`$ $`^H`$.

## 2. Projective and injective dimension in the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`H`$ be commutative, and $`M,N,P{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$, with $`N`$ finitely generated projective as an $`H`$-module.

1. We have a $`k`$-isomorphism

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M,{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(N,P)){}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M_HN,P)$$
2. The functor

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(N,):{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H$$

preserves injective objects.

###### Proof.

1) We have a natural isomorphism

$$\varphi :{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(N,P)){}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M{}_{H}{}^{}N,P)$$

given by $`\varphi (f)(mn)=f(m)(n)`$. We will show that $`\varphi `$ restricts to an isomorphism between $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M,{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(N,P))`$ and $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M_HN,P)`$. Take $`f{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(N,P))`$ and $`\varphi (f)=g`$. Then $`f`$ is $`H`$-colinear if and only if

$$f(m_0)m_1=f(m)_0f(m)_1$$

for all $`mM`$. Using (1), we find that this is equivalent to

$$f(m_0)(n)m_1=f(m)_0(n)f(m)_1=f(m)(n_0)_0f(m)(n_0)_1S(n_1)$$

for all $`mM`$ and $`nN`$, or

$$g(m_0n)m_1=g(mn_0)_0g(mn_0)_1S(n_1)$$

which is equivalent to

$$g(m_0n_0)m_1n_1=g(mn_0)_0g(mn)_1$$

and this equation means that $`g`$ is $`H`$-colinear.
2) If $`I`$ is an injective object of $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$, then the functor

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(,I):{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H{}_{k}{}^{}$$

is exact. On the other hand, $`N`$ is $`H`$-projective, hence the functor

$$()_HN:{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H$$

is exact, and it follows from (1) that

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(,{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(N,I)):{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H{}_{k}{}^{}$$

is exact. ∎

If $`k`$ is a field, then the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ is Grothendieck, and every object has an injective resolution. For every Yetter-Drinfeld module $`M`$, we can define the right derived functors $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Ext}_{}^{H}{}_{}{}^{i}(M,)`$ of the covariant left exact functor

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M,):{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H{}_{k}{}^{}$$

###### Proposition 2.2.

Let $`H`$ be a commutative Hopf algebra over a field $`k`$, and $`M,N,P{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ with $`N`$ finitely generated projective as an $`H`$-module. Then

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Ext}_{}^{H}{}_{}{}^{i}(M,{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(N,P)){}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Ext}_{}^{H}{}_{}{}^{i}(M_HN,P)$$

###### Proof.

By the first part of Lemma 2.1, the functors

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M,{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(N,))\text{and}{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M_HN,)$$

coincide on $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. By the projectivity and the finiteness assumptions on $`N`$, the $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(N,)`$ is an exact endofunctor of $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. By the second part of Lemma 2.1, it preserves the injective objects of $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. Thus the functor $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(N,)`$ preserves injective resolutions in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. ∎

In the following corollary, $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{pdim}_{}^{H}()`$ and $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{injdim}_{}^{H}()`$ denote respectively the projective and injective dimension in the category $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$.

###### Corollary 2.3.

Let $`H`$ be a commutative Hopf algebra over a field $`k`$, and $`M,N,P{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ with $`N`$ finitely generated projective as an $`H`$-module. Then

1. $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{pdim}_{}^{H}(M_HN){}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{pdim}_{}^{H}(M)`$.
2. $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{injdim}_{}^{H}({}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(N,P)){}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{injdim}_{}^{H}(P)`$.

###### Remarks 2.4.

1) Let $`H`$ be semisimple. Then the projectivity assumption in Lemma 2.1, Proposition 2.2 and Corollary 2.3 is no longer needed.
2) If $`k`$ is a field, then $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ is a Grothendieck category with enough injective objects, and every Long dimodule has an injective resolution. For every $`M{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$, we can then define the right derived functors $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Ext}_{}^{H}{}_{}{}^{i}(M,)`$ of the covariant left exact functor

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M,):{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}{}_{k}{}^{}$$

All the results of this Section remain valid for $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$. If $`H`$ is semisimple, then the projectivity assumptions are not needed.

## 3. Semisimplicity of the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules

Throughout this Section, $`k`$ will be a field, and $`H`$ a commutative Hopf algebra. Recall that $`M{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ is called simple if it has no proper subobjects; a direct sum of simples is called semisimple. If every $`M{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ is semisimple, then we call the category $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ semisimple. We say that $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ satisfies condition ($``$) if the following holds:
if $`M{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ is finitely generated as a left $`H`$-module, then $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,):{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ is exact.
By Proposition 1.8, $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N){}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ if $`H`$ is commutative and $`M`$ is finitely generated as an $`H`$-module. Also observe that $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ satisfies condition ($``$) if $`H`$ is semisimple.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`H`$ be commutative. Assume that $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ satisfies condition ($``$) and that the functor

$$()^{\mathrm{co}H}:{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H$$

is exact. If $`M{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ is finitely generated as an $`H`$-module, then $`M`$ is a projective object in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$.

###### Proof.

We know that

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M,){}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,)^{\mathrm{co}H}$$

so $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{}^{H}(M,)`$ is exact since it is isomorphic to the composition of two exact functors. ∎

###### Corollary 3.2.

With the same assumptions as in Proposition 3.1, and with $`H`$ noetherian, we have that every object $`M{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ which is finitely generated as an $`H`$-module is a direct sum in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ of a family of simple subobjects that are finitely generated as $`H`$-modules.

###### Proof.

Let $`N`$ be a subobject of $`M`$ in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. Then $`M/N`$ is finitely generated as an $`H`$-module and we have an exact sequence

(2)
$$0NMM/N0$$

in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. $`N`$ is finitely generated as $`H`$-module, since $`H`$ is noetherian, so it follows from Proposition 3.1 that $`M/N`$ and $`N`$ are projective in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$, hence the sequence (2) splits in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$. ∎

Take $`M{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ and $`V`$ a right $`H`$-subcomodule of $`M`$. We will set

$$HV=\{\underset{iI}{}a_iv_i|a_iH,v_iV,\text{where}I\text{is a finite set}\}$$

$`HV`$ is a subobject of $`M`$ in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$; the $`H`$-action and $`H`$-coaction on $`HV`$ are given by

$`h({\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}a_iv_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}ha_iv_i`$
$`\rho ({\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}a_iv_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}(a_i)_2(v_i)_0(a_i)_3(v_i)_1S^1((a_i)_1)`$
###### Corollary 3.3.

Let $`H`$ be commutative and noetherian. Assume that $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ satisfies condition ($``$), and that the functor $`()^{\mathrm{co}H}`$ from $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ to $``$ is exact. Then $`M{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ is a direct sum in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ of a family of simple subobjects that are finitely generated as $`H`$-modules. Therefore $`M`$ is a semisimple object in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ and $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ is a semisimple category.

###### Proof.

Every $`mM`$ is contained in a finite-dimensional $`H`$-subcomodule $`V_m`$ of $`M`$, see e.g. \[3, 5.1.1\]. Then $`HV_m`$ is finitely generated as $`H`$-module, and, by Corollary 3.2, each $`HV_m`$ is a direct sum of a family of simple subobjects of $`HV_m`$ (and of $`M`$) in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$, which are finitely generated as an $`H`$-module. Consequently each $`mM`$ is contained in a simple object which is finitely generated as an $`H`$-module, so $`M`$ is a sum of simple objects finitely generated as an $`H`$-module. The sum is a direct sum since the intersection of two simple objects is trivial. ∎

###### Corollary 3.4.

Let $`H`$ be commutative, noetherian (in particular: finite dimensional), semisimple and cosemisimple. Then each $`M{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ is a direct sum in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ of a family of simple subobjects of $`M`$ finitely generated as $`H`$-modules. Hence $`M`$ is semisimple in $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ and $`{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴𝒟^H`$ is a semisimple category.

###### Proof.

The cosemisimplicity of $`H`$ implies that the functor

$$()^{coH}:^H$$

is exact, and, a fortiori

$$()^{coH}:{}_{H}{}^{}𝒴D^H$$

is exact. ∎

Take $`M,N{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$, with $`M`$ finitely generated as an $`H`$-module. By Proposition 1.8 and Remark 1.9, $`{}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,N)^H`$, and we can study the semisimplicity of $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$. We will say that $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ satisfies condition ($``$) if the functor

$${}_{H}{}^{}\mathrm{Hom}(M,):{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}^H$$

is exact for every $`H`$-finitely generated $`M{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$. The previous results of this Section then remain true after we replace the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules by Long dimodules, and without the assumption that $`H`$ is commutative. We state the results without proof.

###### Proposition 3.5.

Assume that $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ satisfies condition ($``$) and that the functor

$$()^{\mathrm{co}H}:^H$$

is exact. Then every $`H`$-finitely generated $`M{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ is a projective object in $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$.

###### Corollary 3.6.

Let $`H`$ be left noetherian, and assume that the conditions of Proposition 3.5 are satisfied. Then every $`H`$-finitely generated $`M{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ is a direct sum in $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ of a family of simple subobjects of $`M`$ that are finitely generated as $`H`$-modules. $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ is a semisimple category.

###### Corollary 3.7.

Let $`H`$ be left noetherian (in particular: finite dimensional), semisimple and cosemisimple. Then each $`M{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ is a direct sum in $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ of a family of simple subobjects of $`M`$ that are finitely generated as $`H`$-modules. Hence $`M{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ is semisimple and $`{}_{H}{}^{}_{}^{H}`$ is a semisimple category.


format: text

text:
# Spin-wave theory at constant order parameter

## I Introduction

For many years the magnetically ordered state of quantum Heisenberg magnets has been studied with the help of the spin-wave expansion.Keffer66  This expansion is usually implemented by expressing the components of the spin operator $`\widehat{𝑺}_i=(\widehat{S}_i^x,\widehat{S}_i^y,\widehat{S}_i^z)`$ at lattice site $`i`$ in terms of canonical boson operators $`\widehat{b}_i`$ and $`\widehat{b}_i^{}`$, using either the Holstein-Primakoff transformationHolstein40  or the Dyson-Maleev transformation.Dyson56 ; Maleev57  For example, the Dyson-Maleev transformation for a spin-$`S`$ ferromagnet is

$`\widehat{S}_i^+`$ $`=(2S)^{1/2}\left[1\widehat{b}_i^{}\widehat{b}_i/2S\right]\widehat{b}_i,`$ (1a)
$`\widehat{S}_i^{}`$ $`=(2S)^{1/2}\widehat{b}_i^{},`$ (1b)
$`\widehat{S}_i^z`$ $`=S\widehat{b}_i^{}\widehat{b}_i,`$ (1c)
where $`\widehat{S}_i^\pm =\widehat{S}_i^x\pm i\widehat{S}_i^y`$, and the number of bosons at a lattice site may not exceed $`2S`$ in order to faithfully represent the $`2S+1`$ eigenstates of $`\widehat{S}_i^z`$. If long-range magnetic order is present in the $`z`$ direction and the number of bosons is small compared to $`2S`$, the two-body bosonic interaction arising from the term in Eq. (1a) involving three bosonic operators can be treated within conventional many-body perturbation theory, controlled by the formal small parameter $`1/S`$. Due to the maximum-occupancy constraint the effective bosonic Hamiltonian implicitly contains projection operators that eliminate the unphysical part of the bosonic Hilbert space. Usually, these projection operators are simply ignored. For Heisenberg ferromagnets in three dimensions it was shown by DysonDyson56  that in the thermodynamic limit the low-temperature thermodynamics can indeed be obtained without taking into account the so-called kinematical interactions associated with these projection operators.

While in the 1960s and 1970s ordered magnets have been intensely studied, in recent years the center of attention has shifted to low-dimensional magnets without broken symmetries. In this case the conventional spin-wave approach described above is not applicable, because it relies on the existence of long-range magnetic order. Nevertheless, in many magnetic materials the elementary excitations still resemble the spin waves of an ordered magnet. For example, in two-dimensional quantum Heisenberg ferromagnetsKopietz89  and antiferromagnetsChakravarty89  at low but finite temperatures, where the order parameter correlation length $`\xi `$ is exponentially large, spin waves with wave vectors $`|𝒌|\xi ^1`$ are well-defined elementary excitations.Kopietz90  Other examples for systems where the low-energy physics is dominated by elementary excitations of the spin-wave type are Haldane-gap antiferromagnets (i.e. one-dimensional Heisenberg antiferromagnets with integer spin $`S`$) and one-dimensional Heisenberg ferromagnets with arbitrary spin.

To study the low-temperature properties of these systems, several methods have been proposed. The Schwinger-boson mean-field theory of Arovas and AuerbachArovas88  is perhaps aesthetically most appealing. However, going beyond the mean-field approximation within the Schwinger-boson approach has turned out to be quite difficult.Trumper97  At the mean-field level the modified spin-wave theory (MSWT) proposed by TakahashiTakahashi86  is an alternative to the Schwinger-boson approach. MSWT yields results that agree with the predictions of Schwinger-boson mean-field theory up to numerical prefactors. This is not surprising, because both approaches are in fact equivalent to a one-loop renormalization group calculation.Kopietz89 ; Chakravarty89  Recently, Takahashi’s MSWT has also been applied to more complex problems, such as frustratedPisanova01  or disordered magnets,Wan02  or magnetic molecular clusters.Yamamoto02  However, the MSWT has shortcomings: (i) it is very difficult to systematically calculate corrections due to interactions between spin waves within MSWT and (ii) the absence of long-range magnetic order is not obtained as a result, i.e., the magnetization is set to zero by hand; this leads to ambiguity in the choice of the constraint if the MSWT is applied to systems with more complicated magnetic order, such as ferrimagnets.Yamamoto98  In this work we shall show that these problems can be resolved within the conventional spin-wave approach simply by performing the calculation at constant order parameter.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we discuss the calculation of thermodynamic observables at constant order parameter. In Sec. III this approach is applied to the Heisenberg ferromagnet in $`D`$ $`=`$ $`1,2,3`$ dimensions within linear spin-wave theory. Hartree-Fock and two-loop corrections are obtained for the one-dimensional case in Sec. IV. The work is summarized in Sec. V.

## II Thermodynamics at constant order parameter

In this section we discuss the calculation of thermodynamic observables at constant order parameter. Although this approach is applicable to a variety of correlated systems with order parameter $`\widehat{M}`$ and corresponding conjugate field $`h`$, here we will focus on the spin-$`S`$ Heisenberg ferromagnet with zero-field Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{H}=J{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\widehat{𝑺}_i\widehat{𝑺}_j,`$ (2)
where the sum is over all nearest-neighbor pairs of a $`D`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice with $`N`$ sites, and $`J>0`$ is the exchange coupling. In this case the order parameter is simply the total magnetization, given by $`\widehat{M}=_{i=1}^N\widehat{S}_i^z`$, and $`h`$ is the homogeneous magnetic field (in suitable units). Applications to antiferromagnets or more complicated magnetic systems are straightforward.

Let us first recall some elementary thermodynamics. For fixed field $`h`$ and temperature $`T`$, thermodynamic observables can be obtained from the Helmholtz free energy (setting the Boltzmann constant to unity)

$`F(h)=T\mathrm{ln}\text{Tr}e^{(\widehat{H}h\widehat{M})/T},`$ (3)
where the dependence on $`T`$ is suppressed for brevity. Given $`F(h)`$, the magnetization is obtained as

$`M(h)={\displaystyle \frac{F(h)}{h}}.`$ (4)
Alternatively, we may choose to fix the magnetization and adjust the magnetic field appropriately. The corresponding thermodynamic potential is the Gibbs free energy $`G(M)`$, which is related to the Helmholtz free energy via a Legendre transformation,Negele88

$`G(M)`$ $`=h(M)M+F(h(M))`$
$`=T\mathrm{ln}\text{Tr}e^{[\widehat{H}h(M)(\widehat{M}M)]/T},`$ (5)
where the function $`h(M)`$ is obtained from Eq. (4). From $`G(M)`$ we obtain the equation of state in the form $`h=h(M)`$ via

$`h(M)={\displaystyle \frac{G(M)}{M}},`$ (6)
which shows that the equilibrium magnetization for vanishing field is an extremum of $`G(M)`$. If the system has a finite spontaneous magnetization $`M_0=lim_{h0^+}M(h)`$, then the generic expected behavior of $`G(M)`$ is, for $`MM_0`$,

$`G(M)=G(M_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{(MM_0)^2}{2\chi }}+O[(MM_0)^3],`$ (7)
while for $`|M|<M_0`$ the Gibbs free energy has the constant value $`G(M_0)`$; see, for example, Ref. Ma85, . Here

$`\chi ^1={\displaystyle \frac{h(M)}{M}}|_{M_0}={\displaystyle \frac{^2G(M)}{M^2}}|_{M_0}`$ (8)
is the inverse longitudinal order parameter susceptibility for vanishing external field. These expressions are also valid in the absence of spontaneous symmetry breaking, where $`M_0=0`$. Note that, in general, $`G(M)=G(M)`$, because the spectrum of $`\widehat{M}`$ is symmetric with respect to the origin.

The parameter $`h(M)`$ in Eq. (5) can be viewed as a Lagrange multiplier that enforces the condition of constant magnetization. The zero-temperature version of the method outlined above has been used previously by Georges and YedidiaGeorges91  to study spontaneous symmetry breaking in the ground state of the Hubbard model. Note that in the limit $`T0`$ Eq. (5) can be written asfootnotezero  $`G(M)=0|\widehat{G}(M)|0`$, where $`|0`$ is the ground state of the “free-energy operator” $`\widehat{G}(M)=\widehat{H}h(M)[\widehat{M}M]`$. As shown in Ref. Georges91, , the expansion at constant order parameter is advantageous for the calculation of corrections to the mean-field approximation. In the following section we show that for low-dimensional Heisenberg magnets without long-range order this method yields reasonable results even at the level of linear spin-wave theory; the leading fluctuation corrections in $`D=1`$ are then calculated in Sec. IV.

## III Linear spin waves at constant order parameter

We now calculate $`G(M)`$ within linear spin-wave theory, i.e., to leading order in $`1/S`$, assuming that the low-lying elementary excitations of the system are renormalized spin waves. In this approximation the square brackets in Eq. (1a) are simply replaced by unity, so that the Heisenberg Hamiltonian (2) becomes

$`\widehat{H}_0=DJNS^2+{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}ϵ_𝒌\widehat{b}_𝒌^{}\widehat{b}_𝒌,`$ (9)
where $`ϵ_𝒌=2DJS(1\gamma _𝒌)`$, with

$`\gamma _𝒌`$ $`=D^1{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{D}{}}}\mathrm{cos}(𝒌𝒂_\mu ).`$ (10)
For simplicity, we impose periodic boundary conditions on a hypercubic lattice with primitive lattice vectors $`𝒂_\mu `$ and lattice spacing $`a=|𝒂_\mu |`$. The momentum sum is over the first Brillouin zone and $`\widehat{b}_𝒌`$ is the lattice Fourier transform of $`\widehat{b}_i`$. The corresponding free energy is

$`F_0(h)=DJNS^2hNS+T{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[1e^{(ϵ_𝒌+h)/T}\right].`$ (11)
From Eq. (4) we then obtain the usual spin-wave result for the magnetization

$`M(h)=NS{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}[e^{(ϵ_𝒌+h)/T}1]^1.`$ (12)
### III.1 Three-dimensional ferromagnet

It is instructive to begin with linear spin-wave theory for the three-dimensional Heisenberg model. In the thermodynamic limit we obtain for the magnetization per site $`m=M/N`$ to leading order in $`t=T/JS`$ and $`v=h/T`$

$`m(h)=S{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (\frac{3}{2})}{8\pi ^{3/2}}}t^{3/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}t^{3/2}v^{1/2}+O(t^{5/2},t^{3/2}v),`$ (13)
where $`\zeta (z)`$ is the zeta function. Setting $`h=0`$ we recover the well-known Bloch $`T^{3/2}`$ law for the spontaneous magnetization per site, $`m_0=lim_{h0+}m(h)`$, in the ordered state of the Heisenberg ferromagnet. Taking the derivative of Eq. (13) with respect to $`h`$, we see that the susceptibility $`\chi =M/h`$ \[Eq. (8)\] diverges for $`h0`$ as $`h^{1/2}`$. This divergence of the uniform longitudinal susceptibility of a three-dimensional Heisenberg magnet in the ordered state is not widely appreciated, although it was noticed a long time agoHolstein40 ; Dyson56  and has been confirmed by renormalization group calculations for the classical Heisenberg ferromagnetBrezin73 ; Mazenko76  and perturbative calculations for the corresponding quantum model.Vaks68 ; Kalashnikov80  Due to this divergence, the Gibbs free energy $`G(M)`$ of the Heisenberg ferromagnet in $`D=3`$ does not have the generic form (7). Instead the linear spin-wave result for $`G(M)`$ is, for $`mm_0`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{G_0(M)}{NT}=\frac{3JS^2}{T}\frac{\zeta (\frac{5}{2})}{8\pi ^{3/2}}t^{3/2}+\frac{16\pi ^2}{3t^3}(mm_0)^3\hfill \\ \hfill +O[(mm_0)^4].\end{array}$$
(14)
From Eq. (13) we note that $`h^{1/2}(mm_0)`$, so that we cannot solve for $`h`$ as a function of $`m`$ unless $`m>m_0`$. In light of the above general discussion this is not surprising, because for $`|m|<m_0`$ the Gibbs free energy is constant.Ma85  The behavior of $`G_0(M)`$ as a function of $`M`$ is shown in Fig. 1.

The leading $`m`$ dependence of Eq. (14) is proportional to $`(mm_0)^3`$, which can be traced to the fact that the inverse susceptibility vanishes. By contrast, in $`D>4`$ the uniform longitudinal susceptibility of the Heisenberg ferromagnet is finite,Brezin73 ; Mazenko76  so that in this case the Gibbs free energy has indeed the generic form (7).

### III.2 One-dimensional ferromagnet

Let us consider now the one-dimensional case, where we know that the Heisenberg ferromagnet does not have any long-range order at any finite temperature $`T`$. In this case the linear spin-wave theory result for the magnetization per site is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m(h)}{S}}=1{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (\frac{1}{2})}{2S\sqrt{\pi }}}\sqrt{t}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2S}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{t}{v}}}+O(t,t^{3/2}v^{1/2}),`$ (15)
where again $`t=T/JS`$ and $`v=h/T`$. This expression predicts a divergent magnetization and susceptibility for $`h0`$. However, we can obtain a perfectly finite result for the susceptibility at constant magnetization \[Eq. (8)\]. Solving Eq. (15) for $`h`$ as a function of $`M=Nm`$ we obtain

$`h(M)={\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{4JS[Sm\frac{\zeta (\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\sqrt{t}]^2}}.`$ (16)
According to Eq. (8) this implies for the inverse susceptibility

$`\chi ^1={\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{2NJS[Sm\frac{\zeta (\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\sqrt{t}]^3}}.`$ (17)
Anticipating that in one dimension $`m=0`$, we obtain for the susceptibility per site at low temperatures

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{2JS^4}{T^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{S}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}\sqrt{t}+O(t)\right].`$ (18)
This expression agrees exactlyfootnotesus  with the prediction of the MSWT advanced by Takahashi,Takahashi86  who argued that Eq. (18) is indeed the correct asymptotic low-temperature behavior of the susceptibility for arbitrary $`S`$. For $`S=1/2`$ the nearest-neighbor Heisenberg chain is exactly solvable via Bethe ansatz,Takahashi85  so that in this case one can obtain an independent check of Eq. (18). Indeed, from a numerical analysis of the Bethe-ansatz integral equationsTakahashi85  TakahashiTakahashi86  found perfect agreement with Eq. (18) for $`S=1/2`$, which is remarkable because a priori linear spin-wave theory is only expected to be accurate in the ordered state and for large $`S`$. We shall further comment on this agreement below.

Within linear spin-wave theory, the Gibbs free energy per site is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{G_0(M)}{NT}=\frac{JS^2}{T}\frac{\zeta (\frac{3}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\sqrt{t}\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{NT}\left[h(0)|M|+\frac{M^2}{2\chi }+O(|M|^3)\right],\end{array}$$
(19)
where $`\chi `$ is given in Eq. (18) and

$`h(0)={\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{4JS^3}}+O(T^{5/2}),`$ (20)
see Eq. (16). In writing Eq. (19) we have used the fact that our spin-wave calculation yields $`G_0(M)`$ only for $`M0`$ and that the exact $`G(M)`$ is an even function of $`M`$. Note that $`G_0(M)`$ assumes a minimum at $`M=0`$, indicating the absence of long-range order. However, as shown in Fig. 2, linear spin-wave theory predicts an unphysical cusp in the Gibbs free energy at $`M=0`$.

The finite slope $`h(0)=G_0/M|_{M=0^+}`$ can be identified with the variational parameter $`\mu `$ introduced by Takahashi,Takahashi86  which in his calculation plays the role of a chemical potential for the Dyson-Maleev bosons, enforcing the condition of zero magnetization. On the other hand, it is physically clear that for $`T>0`$ any finite value of the external field will always be accompanied with a finite magnetization, so that an exact calculation of $`G(M)`$ should yield $`lim_{M0}h(M)=0`$. Therefore we expect that the exact Gibbs free energy in one dimension has the form given in Eq. (7). The cusp of the spin-wave result for the Gibbs free energy is related to the fact that in our simple spin-wave calculation we have ignored the kinematical interaction between the spin waves which arises from the maximum-occupancy constraint.Kollar02  Fortunately, this cusp is irrelevant for the calculation of the zero-field thermodynamics, which can be also obtained from the subtracted Gibbs free energy

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_0(M)=G_0(M)h(0)|M|,`$ (21)
see Fig. 2. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{G}_0(M)`$ has the generic behavior given in Eq. (7), with the susceptibility given by Eq. (18).

### III.3 Two-dimensional ferromagnet

For completeness we now discuss the case $`D=2`$, where the spontaneous magnetization of the Heisenberg ferromagnet is zero at any finite temperature $`T`$. The result of linear spin-wave theory for the magnetization is (with $`t=T/JS`$, $`v=h/T`$)

$`m(h)=S{\displaystyle \frac{t}{4\pi }}[\mathrm{ln}v+{\displaystyle \frac{v}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (2)}{8}}t+O(t^2,v^2)],`$ (22)
which again diverges for $`h0`$. The function $`h(m)`$ is obtained as

$`h(m)=Te^{4\pi (Sm)/t}[1+O(t)],`$ (23)
and the result for the susceptibility at $`m=0`$ is

$`\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{e^{4\pi S/t}}{4\pi JS}}[1+O(t)],`$ (24)
which diverges for $`T0`$. These expressions are analogous to Takahashi’s results.Takahashi86  Finally, the Gibbs free energy takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_0(M)}{NT}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (2)}{4\pi }}t+e^{4\pi S/t}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{4\pi }}|m|+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\right)+O(t,m^3),`$ (25)
i.e., with a minimum at $`m=0`$, again with an unphysical cusp; in this sense the situation is rather similar to that in $`D=1`$. Note, however, that in $`D=2`$ it is known that a two-loop calculation is necessary to obtain the correct low-temperature asymptotics of the susceptibility.Kopietz89  Although the exponential factor $`\chi \mathrm{exp}[4\pi JS^2/T]`$ is correctly reproduced by mean-field theory, the two-loop correction changes the power of $`T`$ in the prefactor of Eq. (24); the correct low-temperature behavior of the susceptibility of the quantum Heisenberg ferromagnet in two dimensions is $`\chi T^2\mathrm{exp}[4\pi JS^2/T]`$. This result is not modified if higher-order terms involving more than two loops are included.Kopietz89 ; Chakravarty89

## IV Beyond linear spin-wave theory

Because fluctuation effects are usually stronger in lower dimensions, we expect that in one dimension the corrections to the mean-field result (18) are even more important than in $`D=2`$. We now explicitly calculate the two-loop correction. Within the Dyson-Maleev formalism the dynamical spin-wave interactions are contained in the following two-body Hamiltonian:

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{H}_1=\frac{DJ}{N}\underset{𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{},𝒌_2,𝒌_1}{}\delta _K(𝒌_1^{}+𝒌_2^{}𝒌_2+𝒌_1)\hfill \\ \hfill \times V(𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{},𝒌_2,𝒌_1)\widehat{b}_{𝒌_1^{}}^{}\widehat{b}_{𝒌_2^{}}^{}\widehat{b}_{𝒌_2}\widehat{b}_{𝒌_1},\end{array}$$
(26)
where $`\delta _K(𝒌)`$ denotes momentum conservation modulo a reciprocal-lattice vector, and the symmetrized interaction vertex is

$$\begin{array}{c}V(𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{},𝒌_2,𝒌_1)=\frac{1}{4}[\gamma _{𝒌_1𝒌_1^{}}+\gamma _{𝒌_1𝒌_2^{}}\hfill \\ \hfill +\gamma _{𝒌_2𝒌_1^{}}+\gamma _{𝒌_2𝒌_2^{}}2\gamma _{𝒌_1^{}}2\gamma _{𝒌_2^{}}],\end{array}$$
(27)
with $`\gamma _𝒌`$ defined in Eq. (10). First let us estimate the effect of $`\widehat{H}_1`$ within the self-consistent Hartree-Fock approximation. We write our spin-wave Hamiltonian as $`(\widehat{H}_0+\delta \widehat{H}_1)+(\widehat{H}_1\delta \widehat{H}_1)`$ and choose the one-body Hamiltonian $`\delta \widehat{H}_1`$ such that the thermal expectation value of the residual interaction $`\widehat{H}_1\delta \widehat{H}_1`$ in the ensemble defined by the Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0+\delta \widehat{H}_1`$ vanishes. We obtain

$`\delta \widehat{H}_1={\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(𝒌)\widehat{b}_𝒌^{}\widehat{b}_𝒌{\displaystyle \frac{2DJ}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌,𝒌^{}}{}}V(𝒌,𝒌^{},𝒌^{},𝒌)n_𝒌n_𝒌^{},`$ (28)
where $`n_𝒌=[e^{(E_𝒌+h)/T}1]^1`$ is the thermal occupation of the Hartree-Fock magnon states with momentum $`𝒌`$, and the Hartree-Fock self-energy is given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(𝒌)={\displaystyle \frac{4DJ}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌^{}}{}}V(𝒌,𝒌^{},𝒌^{},𝒌)n_𝒌^{}.`$ (29)
After some standard manipulations we obtain for the Helmholtz free energy within self-consistent Hartree-Fock approximation

$$\begin{array}{c}F_1(h)=DJNS^2hNS+T\underset{𝒌}{}\mathrm{ln}\left[1e^{(E_𝒌+h)/T}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill +DJNS^2(1Z)^2.\end{array}$$
(30)
Here $`E_𝒌=Zϵ_𝒌`$, and the dimensionless renormalization factor $`Z`$ satisfies the self-consistency condition

$`Z=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{NS}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}(1\gamma _𝒌)n_𝒌.`$ (31)
The quantity $`ZS`$ corresponds to the second variational parameter $`S^{}`$ introduced by Takahashi.Takahashi86  Note that he gives a different sign for the last term in Eq. (30). In one dimension $`1Z=O(T^2)`$ at low temperatures,Takahashi86  so that for the calculation of the first two terms in low-temperature expansion of thermodynamic observables it is sufficient to set $`Z=1`$. We conclude that at the Hartree-Fock level the dynamical interaction between spin waves does not contribute to the low-temperature asymptotics in $`D=1`$. At this level of approximation our theory is equivalent to MSWT.

Within our approach it is now straightforward to study spin-wave interactions beyond the Hartree-Fock approximation. Therefore we simply expand the Helmholtz free energy $`F(h)`$ to higher order in the interaction and then perform a Legendre transformation to obtain the corresponding Gibbs free energy. We now calculate the first fluctuation correction to $`F(h)`$. The relevant Feynman diagram is shown in Fig. 3.

In this approximation the Helmholtz free energy is $`F_2(h)=F_1(h)+\delta F_2(h)`$, where $`F_1(h)`$ is given in Eq. (30) and

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta F_2(h)=2\left(\frac{DJ}{N}\right)^2\underset{𝒌,𝒌^{},𝒒}{}\frac{W(𝒌,𝒌^{},𝒒)}{E_𝒌+E_𝒌^{}E_{𝒌+𝒒}E_{𝒌^{}𝒒}}\hfill \\ \hfill \times [(1+n_𝒌)(1+n_𝒌^{})n_{𝒌+𝒒}n_{𝒌^{}𝒒}\\ \hfill n_𝒌n_𝒌^{}(1+n_{𝒌+𝒒})(1+n_{𝒌^{}𝒒})],\end{array}$$
(32)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}W(𝒌,𝒌^{},𝒒)=V(𝒌,𝒌^{},𝒌+𝒒,𝒌^{}𝒒)\hfill \\ \hfill \times V(𝒌+𝒒,𝒌^{}𝒒,𝒌,𝒌^{}).\end{array}$$
(33)
At low temperatures, we may replace the Dyson-Maleev vertex by its long-wavelength limit, which in $`D`$ dimensions is given by $`V(𝒌_1^{},𝒌_2^{},𝒌_2,𝒌_1)(𝒌_1𝒌_2)a^2/2D`$. For the rest of this work we shall explicitly set $`D=1`$. Then the leading behavior of $`\delta F_2(h)`$ for small $`t=T/JS`$ and small $`v=h/T`$ can be calculated analytically. We obtain for $`N\mathrm{}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F_2(h)}{TN}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{3/2}}{(2S)^2v^{1/2}}}+O(t^{3/2},t^{1/2}v).`$ (34)
The resulting equation of state is

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{m(h)}{S}=1\frac{\zeta (\frac{1}{2})}{2S\sqrt{\pi }}\sqrt{t}\frac{1}{2S}\sqrt{\frac{t}{v}}\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{16}\left[\frac{1}{2S}\sqrt{\frac{t}{v}}\right]^3+O(t,t^{3/2}v^{1/2}).\end{array}$$
(35)
Comparing this result with the corresponding expression obtained within linear spin-wave theory given in Eq. (15), we see that the two-loop correction gives rise to an additional term proportional to the third power of $`(2S)^1(t/v)^{1/2}`$. But linear spin-wave theory predicts that this parameter is actually close to unity, as is easily seen by setting $`m=0`$ in Eq. (15). Hence, the leading fluctuation correction to the Hartree-Fock theory is not controlled by a small parameter. Note that the extra power of $`S^1`$ that appears in the two-body part of the effective boson Hamiltonian is canceled by the singular $`h`$ dependence of the two-loop correction. If we nevertheless truncate the expansion at the two-loop order, we obtain from Eq. (35) for the leading low-temperature behavior of the susceptibility,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{N}}C_\chi {\displaystyle \frac{JS^4}{T^2}},`$ (36)
with $`C_\chi 1.96`$, which is slightly smaller than the linear spin-wave prediction $`C_\chi =2`$, and significantly smaller than the result $`C_\chi =3`$ obtained within Schwinger-boson mean-field theory.Arovas88  We suspect that corrections involving more loops will involve higher powers of the parameter $`(2S)^1(t/v)^{1/2}`$ in Eq. (36), which give rise to additional finite renormalizations of $`C_\chi `$. Hence, a numerically accurate expression for the low-temperature susceptibility of a one-dimensional Heisenberg ferromagnet cannot be obtained from a truncation of the $`1/S`$ spin-wave expansion at some finite order. Note that quantum Monte Carlo simulations for the $`S=1/2`$ nearest-neighbor Heisenberg chainKopietz89b  give $`C_\chi =1.58\pm 0.03`$, supporting the scenario described above. In light of these results it is puzzling that from the numerical analysis of the Bethe-ansatz integral equations for $`S=1/2`$ TakahashiTakahashi85 ; Takahashi86  obtained $`C_\chi =2`$. Possibly this is related to difficulties in extracting the true asymptotic low-temperature behavior of the susceptibility from the Bethe-ansatz integral equations.Takahashi86 ; Schlottmann85

Although at first sight our spin-wave expansion for the susceptibility appears to be controlled by the small parameter $`1/S`$, this parameter is renormalized by the infrared singularity of the two-loop correction to the mean-field result. This phenomenon is familiar from the weak-coupling calculation of the two-loop correction to the ground-state energy of the repulsive Hubbard model at constant staggered magnetization in one and two dimensions.Georges91 ; Kopietz93  Due to infrared singularities inherent in the loop integrals, those expansions are effectively in powers of the Hubbard interaction $`U`$ multiplied by a function of the order parameter; as a consequence the two-loop correction to the ground-state energy has the same order of magnitude as the Hartree-Fock term.

## V Conclusions

In summary, we have shown that conventional spin-wave expansion at constant order parameter is an alternative to Takahashi’s modified spin-wave theory, which nowadays is one of the most popular mean-field methods to study low-dimensional magnets without long-range order. Due to the conceptual simplicity of our method, we can systematically calculate corrections to the mean-field approximation using conventional diagrammatic methods. We have explicitly calculated the leading fluctuation correction to the mean-field result for the susceptibility of the ferromagnetic Heisenberg chain. We have found that in one dimension the predictions of MSWT are at most qualitatively correct, because fluctuation corrections are not controlled by a small parameter.

Furthermore, compared to MSWT the present approach has the conceptual advantage that the introduction of Lagrange multipliers by hand is not necessary, since their role is played by external fields instead. The difference between these approaches is best visible for systems with more complicated order parameters. For example, recent work on molecular magnetsYamamoto02  and ferrimagnetsYamamoto98  has shown that the formulation of MSWT for such sytems is difficult and that the proper choice of constraints is not clear a priori. On the other hand, spin-wave theory at constant order parameter naturally yields the absence of long-range order in low dimensions *as a result*; applications to antiferromagnets and ferrimagnets, with vanishing homogeneous and staggered magnetizations, are in progress.Kollar02

This work was supported by the DFG via Forschergruppe FOR 412, Project No. KO 1442/5-1.