8.

2 Exact High-Spin Ground States 427

You may find it perplexing that the theorem holds for arbitrarily
small U > 0: it seems to suggest a discontinuity at U = 0 since it is
conventional wisdom that the non-interacting band has a singlet ground
state. The explanation is that IAI # IBI implies that the singlet is only
one of the U = 0 ground states and that there is a vast number of other
ground states, with a total’spin up to S = llAl - JB1)/2. Instead of
an abstract argument, think of our example of the CuOz lattice where
[A\= L / 3 and IBI = 2 L / 3 . (Problem 4.4). The single-particle spectrum
consists of three bands, including a dispersionless branch at E = 0. Half-
filling of the lattice implies that this band is also half-filled, which means
that the spins of L / 3 electrons can be arbitrarily chosen. Thus the state
with S = L / 6 , S” = L / 6 is also one of the ground states. Switching on
an infinitesimal U selects the S = L/6 state as the unique ground state.
We may rationalize this result by invoking the exchange hole effect: the
interaction energy is minimized for parallel spins and for a flat band,
this is the only consideration’ since there is no kinetic energy to gain.
Generally, Lieb’s ferrimagnetism has to do with a dispersionless part
of the spectrum at E = 0; if the interaction competes with a vanishing
kinetic energy, it necessarily wins.

It should be appreciated that though we could find qualitative argu-

ments to illuminate the result both for small U and large U , it is very
far from being obvious that the entire range 0 < U < 00 can be covered
by a single exact statement. We also stress that it is only at large U s
that we can ascribe a conventional ferrimagnetic nature (with antipar-
allel nearest-neighbour correlations) to the large-spin ground state. At
intermediate U ,we have no similar argument for an antiferromagnetic
nearest-neighbour exchange, but Lieb’s theorem continues to be valid.
The intermediate4 ground state is likely to have an interesting struc-
ture which we will perhaps want to associate with the partially polarized
state of certain itinerant ferromagnets.

‘Our reasoning does not constitute a proof since it neglects the effect of interaction
on electrons inhabiting the dispersive part of the spectrum. The rigorous proof uses
completely different arguments [243].