---
author:
- 'Shin-ichi <span>Endoh</span>, Fumitaka <span>Matsubara</span> and Takayuki <span>Shirakura</span>$^{1}$'
title: ' Stiffness of the Heisenberg Spin-Glass Model at Zero- and Finite-Temperatures in Three Dimensions '
---

\#1

Introduction
============

Spin-glasses have attracted great challenge for computational physics. It has been believed that the spin-glass (SG) phase transition occurs in three dimensions (3d) for the Ising model  @rf:1 [@rf:2; @rf:3] but not for the XY and Heisenberg models. @rf:4 [@rf:5; @rf:6; @rf:7] However, numerical studies during the last decade have revealed that the SG phase might be more stable than what were previously believed. For example, in the isotropic Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yoshida (RKKY) model, it was suggested that the SG phase transition takes place at a finite temperature. @rf:8 [@rf:9] It was also suggested that, for the Ising model, the SG phase might be realized at low temperatures even in two dimensions (2d). @rf:10 [@rf:11; @rf:12; @rf:13] For the XY and Heisenberg SG models, Kawamura and coworkers took notice of the chirality described by three neighboring spins, and suggested that, in 3d, a chiral glass phase transition occurs at a finite temperature without the conventional SG order. @rf:14 [@rf:15; @rf:16; @rf:17; @rf:18] The basis of their suggestion is the stiffness of the system at zero temperature. @rf:14 [@rf:15] They estimated ${\theta}_c > 0$ and ${\theta}_s < 0$ from the lattice size dependences of the chiral and the spin domain-wall energies, where ${\theta}_c$ and ${\theta}_s$ are the stiffness exponent of the chiralities and that of the spins, respectively. Recently, however, the ambiguity was pointed out for calculating the domain-wall energy. @rf:12 [@rf:13; @rf:19] In particular, Kosterlitz and Akino (KA)  @rf:19 calculated the spin domain-wall energy of the XY SG model using a different method and found that ${\theta}_s > 0$, contrary to Kawamura and coworker's suggestion. @rf:14 If KA's result is true, the question arises for the Heisenberg model whether the SG phase transition occurs at a finite temperature.

The purpose of the present paper is to examine the stability of the SG phase in the Heisenberg model. We consider the stiffness of the model at zero temperature ($T=0$) and finite temperatures ($T \ne 0$) calculating the excess energy and the excess free-energy, respectively, which are gained by rotating or reversing all the spins on one surface of the lattice. We find that the excess energy and the excess free-energy at low temperatures increase with the lattice size $L$. These results strongly suggest the occurrence of the SG phase at low temperatures. We estimate the transition temperature of $T_{\rm SG} \sim 0.19J$ from the lattice size dependence of the excess free-energy for various temperatures. In section 2, after pointing out the ambiguity of the defect energy method conventionally used to estimate the domain-wall energy, we propose a method for considering the stiffness of the system. In section 3, we calculate the excess energy and discuss the stability of the SG phase at $T=0$. In section 4, we calculate the excess free-energy at $T \ne 0$ using the Monte Carlo twist method. @rf:20 Section 5 is devoted to the conclusions. Preliminary results of the present work were reported in Ref. 21.

Model and Method
================

We start with the model described by the Hamiltonian $${\cal H}=-\sum_{<ij>} J_{ij}{\ve{S}}_i \cdot {\ve{S}}_j$$ where ${\ve{S}}_i$ is a Heisenberg spin with $|{\ve{S}}_i|=1$ and the sum $<ij>$ runs over all nearest neighbor pairs. The coupling constant $J_{ij}$ takes $+J$ or $-J$ with the same probability $1/2$.

Let us briefly describe the defect energy method conventionally used so far. The method originates from an application of the renormalization-group concept. @rf:1 [@rf:4; @rf:5] That is, one evaluates an effective coupling $\tilde{J}_{\rm eff}$ between block spins generated by renormalization. To estimate $\tilde{J}_{\rm eff}$, one considers the domain-wall energy $\Delta{E}$, which is usually defined as the difference in the ground state energy between two systems, A and B, with the same bond distribution but with different boundary conditions. For the system A, a periodic boundary condition is applied in every direction, and for the system B, an antiperiodic boundary condition is applied in one direction and the periodic boundary conditions in the other directions. However, the meaning of the domain-wall energy is not clear, because some domain-wall will arise in the system A and some different domain-wall will arise in the system B. Then, one might merely examine the difference in the energy between those domain-walls. It is also not clear whether the domain-wall energy $\Delta{E}$ really provides the effective coupling $\tilde{J}_{\rm eff}$ between the block spins.

Then, apart from the renormalization-group concept, we consider the stability of the spin configuration of the system itself. The strategy of our study is as follows. We prepare a cubic lattice of $L \times L \times (L+1)$ with an open boundary condition in one direction (z-direction) and the periodic boundary conditions in the other directions. That is, the lattice has two surfaces ${\Omega}_1$ and ${\Omega}_{L+1}$. First we determine the ground state spin configuration of the lattice. Hereafter, the ground state spin configurations on ${\Omega}_1$ and ${\Omega}_{L+1}$ are denoted as $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(1)}\}$ and $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$, respectively. In this spin configuration, any distortion (domain-wall) will be removed, because the lattice has free surfaces ${\Omega}_1$ and ${\Omega}_{L+1}$. Then we add a distortion inside the system in the manner that $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(1)}\}$ are fixed and $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ are changed under the condition that the relative angles between the spins are fixed. The ground state energy of this system is always higher than that of the system before changing $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$. This excess energy is the net one added inside the system, because the surface energy of ${\Omega}_{L+1}$, which is given as the sum of the exchange energies between the spins on ${\Omega}_{L+1}$, is conserved. We consider the stability of the system on the basis of this excess energy. One might think that the fixing of the relative spin directions on ${\Omega}_1$ and ${\Omega}_{L+1}$ overestimates the stability of the spin configuration. We think, however, that this restriction is not serious for discussing the stability, because the increase of the excess energy to infinity for $L \to \infty$ means nothing but the existence of a strong correlation between the spin configurations on ${\Omega}_1$ and ${\Omega}_{L+1}$. In fact, the same method was successfully applied to the Ising SG model in 2d. @rf:12 [@rf:13]

The Stiffness at ${\bf T=0}$
============================

In this section, we consider the stiffness of the system at $T=0$ calculating two kinds of excess energies. One is the excess energy which is gained by rotating $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ and the other is the excess energy which is gained by reversing $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$. We think that it is sufficient to examine these two excess energies for considering the stiffness, because we can change $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ into any direction by combining the rotation and the reversal.

First we consider the stiffness of the system when we rotate $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$. The spins $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ are rotated around a common axis by the same angle $\phi$. Here we note that effective rotating angles of the spins on ${\Omega}_{L+1}$ are not the same, because $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ have different directions even in the ground state. That is, the spin parallel to the axis does not rotate, whereas the spin perpendicular to the axis rotates by the angle $\phi$. Then, as a measure of the rotating angle, we introduce the averaged rotation angle $\omega$ defined by $$\cos\omega=\frac{1}{L^2}\sum_{i}{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}
             \cdot{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}(\phi),$$ where $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}(\phi)\}$ is the set of the spins on ${\Omega}_{L+1}$ after the rotation. Hereafter, we call the system with the surface spin configurations $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(1)}\}$ and $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ the reference system and that with the surface spin configurations $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(1)}\}$ and $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}(\phi)\}$ the rotated system. An important point is that there is an upper bound of $\omega$ which can be reached by this rotation. If $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ are randomly distributed, then the maximum value ${\omega}_{\rm max}$ for $L \to \infty$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
  \omega_{\rm max} &=& \lim_{L \to \infty} \cos^{-1} \Bigl(\sum_{i}
                       {{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)} \cdot
                       {{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}(\pi) \Bigl) \nonumber \\
                   &=& \cos^{-1} \Bigl(\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}d\phi
                       \int_0^{\pi}(\cos^2\theta-\sin^2\theta)\sin\theta
                       d\theta \Bigl) \nonumber \\
                   &=& \cos^{-1}\Bigl(-\frac{1}{3}\Bigl)~\sim~0.6\pi.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it will be sufficient for us to consider the stiffness for $\omega \le {\omega}_{\rm max}$, because we consider the stiffness for $L \to \infty$. In fact, the maximum value of $\omega$ decreases as the number of the spins on ${\Omega}_{L+1}$ is increased (see Fig. \[fig:1\]).

The excess energy $\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)$ due to the rotation may be given as $$\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)=E_{\rm rot}(\omega)-E_G,$$ where $E_G$ and $E_{\rm rot}(\omega)$ are the ground state energy of the reference system and the lowest energy of the rotated system with $\omega$, respectively. If $\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)$ for $\omega \le {\omega}_{\rm max}$ increases with the lattice size $L$, the ground state spin configuration will be stable. Otherwise, the spin configuration is unstable. This concept is, of course, justified in the ferromagnetic Heisenberg model in $d$-dimensions, that is, $\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)=\frac{1}{2}J{\omega}^2L^{\theta}$, where $\theta~(=d-2)$ is the stiffness exponent.

In this calculation, it is not easy to obtain the correct value of $E_{\rm rot}(\omega)$, because there are infinite rotating axes which give the same angle $\omega$. Here we estimate $E_{\rm rot}(\omega)$ as follows. For each $\omega$, we prepare $N_r(=200)$ rotating axes and calculate the minimum energy for each of those axes. The energy $E_{\rm rot}(\omega)$ is approximated by the lowest value of those minimum energies. Of course, $E_{\rm rot}(\omega)$ is not the correct one but an upper bound of it, because $N_r$ is finite. In fact, $E_{\rm rot}(\omega)$ for $N_r/2$ is slightly larger than that presented here (see Fig. \[fig:2\]). However, we think $\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)$ obtained here gives qualitatively correct $\omega$- and $L$- dependences, because the data for $N_r$ and those for $N_r/2$ yield almost the same values of exponents $\alpha$ and ${\theta}_{\rm rot}$ defined below.

The lattice sizes studied here are $L=3 \sim 8$ and, for each $L$, the sample averages are taken over about 1000 independent bond realizations. In the calculation of $E_G$ and $E_{\rm rot}(\omega)$, we prepare about 1000 initial spin configurations, which is obtained by annealing the system down to $T=0.1J$ from a higher temperature, and apply the spin-quench algorithm. @rf:4 [@rf:5]

In Fig. \[fig:1\], we present the results of the $\omega$-dependence of $[\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)]$ for various sizes of $L$, where $[\cdot\cdot\cdot]$ means the sample average. We find that for $\omega \le {\omega}_{\rm max}$ $[\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)]$ increases with $L$, implying that the ground state is stable against the rotation. To confirm this view, in Fig. \[fig:2\], we plot $[\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)]$ as functions of $L$ for various $\omega$ in a log-log form. All the data for each $\omega$ lie on a straight line with almost the same slope 0.8, that is, $[\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)] \propto L^{{\theta}_{\rm rot}}$ with ${\theta}_{\rm rot}=0.8 \pm 0.1$ for $\omega \le {\omega}_{\rm max}$. We also examine the $\omega$-dependence of the coefficient and find that the data for $\omega \le {\omega}_{\rm max}$ fit the relation $$[\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)] \sim A{\omega}^{\alpha}
                                     L^{{\theta}_{\rm rot}},$$ with $\alpha \sim 1.9$, ${\theta}_{\rm rot} \sim 0.8$, and $A \sim 0.14J$. This finding is illustrated by the scaling plot in Fig. \[fig:3\].

This result is quite interesting, because it suggests that the SG phase is realized at low temperatures. A surprising point is that the values of $\alpha$ and ${\theta}_{\rm rot}$ are close to those of $\alpha = 2$ and $\theta = 1$ of the ferromagnetic Heisenberg model in 3d, which implies that the response of the spin configuration of the SG model against the rotation is analogous to that of the ferromagnetic model. In fact, we found that the rotated angles of the spins gradually increase from layer to layer, reminicent of the spin-wave excitation. @rf:21 We note, however, that the coefficient of $A \sim 0.14J$ is much smaller than that of $A=0.5J$ in the ferromagnetic model.

Next we consider the stiffness of the system when we reverse $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$. Hereafter, we call the system with the surface spin configurations $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(1)}\}$ and $\{-{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ the reversed system. The excess energy $\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}$ due to the reversal may also be given as $$\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}=E_{\rm rev}-E_G,$$ where $E_{\rm rev}$ is the ground state energy of the reversed system. It should be noted here that $\{-{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ is never realized by any rotation of $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$. @rf:15 Thus $\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}$ will give a different view on the stability of the system. The sample averages are taken over about 4000 $(L=3 \sim 6)$ and 2000 $(L=7,8)$ independent bond realizations. The result of the $L$-dependence of $[\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}]$ is presented in Fig. \[fig:4\]. We also find that $[\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}]$ increases with $L$, suggesting that the ground state is stable against the reversal. However, it is difficult to estimate the value of the stiffness exponent ${\theta}_{\rm rev}$ for the reversal, because the slope of the curve gradually increases with $L$. Here, we tentatively estimate it as ${\theta}_{\rm rev} = 0.4 \pm 0.1$ from the data for $L=6,7,8$. It should be emphasized that this value might not be the one for $L \to \infty$ but a lower bound of it.

These results of the stiffness for both the rotation and the reversal strongly suggest the occurrence of the SG phase transition at a finite temperature. It is noted, however, the estimated value of ${\theta}_{\rm rev} \sim 0.4$ is considerably smaller than that of ${\theta}_{\rm rot} \sim 0.8$. There is a speculation that ${\theta}_{\rm rot}$ could not be larger than ${\theta}_{\rm rev}$. @rf:22 Could ${\theta}_{\rm rev}$ be equal to ${\theta}_{\rm rot}$ for $L \to \infty$ ? In fact, the result of $[\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}]$ shown in Fig. \[fig:4\] implies the increase of ${\theta}_{\rm rev}$ with $L$. To examine this possibility, we also calculate the defect energies $[\Delta{E}_{\rm def}]$ of the system using replica boundary conditions, @rf:23 where $\Delta{E}_{\rm def}=E_R-E_G$. That is, we prepare two replicas with the same bond distribution and two surfaces $S_1$ and $S_2$. The surfaces $S_1$ of the two replicas are connected with each other by the ferromagnetic bond of $(J,J,J)$, where $(J,J,J)$ is the set of the connected bonds in the three spin components. We calculate the ground state energy $E_G$ of the system under the condition that the other surfaces $S_2$ are also connected by $(J,J,J)$. Then we calculate $E_R$ under two different boundary conditions for the surfaces $S_2$. In the case A, they are connected by the antiferromagnetic bond of $(-J,-J,-J)$, which may correspond to the reversal of $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ in the present model. In the case B, they are connected by an asymmetric bond of $(-J,-J,J)$, which may correspond to the rotation around the z-axis by $\phi = \pi$. These results are presented in Fig. \[fig:5\]. We find that, the defect energies in both cases increase with $L$ and their slopes seem to approach as $L$ is increased. However, further studies are necessary to examine the possibility of ${\theta}_{\rm rev} = {\theta}_{\rm rot}$ for $L \to \infty$. Anyway, all the results of the stiffness examined here suggest the occurrence of the SG phase at low temperatures.

The Stiffness at ${\bf T \ne 0}$
================================

In this section, we consider the stiffness of the system at $T \ne 0$ to estimate the SG phase transition temperature $T_{\rm SG}$. We examine two kinds of excess free-energies which correspond to the excess energies $\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)$ and $\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}$ examined in ${\S}$ 3. First we prepare the reference system in which the spin configurations $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(1)}\}$ and $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ on ${\Omega}_1$ and ${\Omega}_{L+1}$ are fixed to those of the ground state. Then we calculate the excess free-energies $\Delta{F}_{\rm rot}(T)$ and $\Delta{F}_{\rm rev}(T)$ which are gained by rotating and reversing $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$, respectively. Here, we consider $\Delta{F}_{\rm rot}(T)$ when $\{{{\ve{S}}_i}^{(L+1)}\}$ is rotated around a fixed axis (the z-axis) by $\pi/2$, because it is not easy to find the rotating axis which gives the minimum free-energy of the rotated system. We calculate $\Delta{F}_{\rm rot}(T)$ and $\Delta{F}_{\rm rev}(T)$ using the Monte Carlo twist method proposed by Ueno. @rf:20 These excess free-energies are defined as $$\Delta{F}_{\rm rot,rev}(T)=F_{\rm rot,rev}(T)-F_G(T),$$ where $F_G(T)$ is the free-energy of the reference system, and $F_{\rm rot}(T)$ and $F_{\rm rev}(T)$ are the free-energies of the rotated and reversed systems, respectively. We may rewrite eq.(4.1) as $$\Delta{F}_{\rm rot,rev}(T)=\Delta{E}_{\rm rot,rev}(T)
                             -T\Delta{S}_{\rm rot,rev}(T),$$ where $\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(T)$ and $\Delta{S}_{\rm rot}(T)$ are the differences in the internal-energy and the entropy between the reference system and the rotated system, respectively, and $\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}(T)$ and $\Delta{S}_{\rm rev}(T)$ are those between the reference system and the reversed system. Here $\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(T)$ and $\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}(T)$ are obtained by using the conventional Monte Carlo method. On the other hand, $\Delta{S}_{\rm rot}(T)$ and $\Delta{S}_{\rm rev}(T)$ are obtained by means of the numerical integration of $\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(T)$ and $\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}(T)$ from a high temperature, that is, $$\Delta{S}_{\rm rot,rev}(T)=\int_{T_0}^{T}
                              \frac{d\Delta{E}_{\rm rot,rev}(T^{'})}{T^{'}},$$ where $T_0$ is a temperature high enough to satisfy $\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(T_0)=0$ and $\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}(T_0)=0$.

The lattice sizes studied here are $L=4 \sim 10$ and, for each $L$, the sample averages are taken over about 2000 independent bond realizations. The starting temperatures are $T_0/J = 3.0~(L=4)$, $T_0/J = 2.1~(L=5)$, $T_0/J = 1.7~(L=6)$, $T_0/J = 1.5~(L=7)$, $T_0/J = 1.3~(L=8)$, $T_0/J = 1.1~(L=9)$ and $T_0/J = 1.0~(L=10)$. We use a gradual-cooling method and take $4 \sim 5 \times 10^4$ MCS for the calculation of $\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(T)$ and $\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}(T)$.

In Figs. \[fig:6\] and  \[fig:7\], we show the temperature dependences of $[\Delta{F}_{\rm rot}(T)]$ and $[\Delta{F}_{\rm rev}(T)]$, respectively. The data for $T=0$ obtained by using the method in ${\S}$ 3 are also plotted in these figures. We find that, at high temperatures $[\Delta{F}_{\rm rot}(T)]$ and $[\Delta{F}_{\rm rev}(T)]$ decrease with increasing $L$, whereas at low temperatures they increase with $L$. These results suggest that the SG phase will be realized at low temperatures. Usually, one estimates the phase transition temperature from the crossing temperature of the free-energies for various lattice sizes $L$. In the present model, however, we could not use this method directly, because the crossing temperature $T_L$ for the lattice sizes $L$ and $L+1$ shifts systematically to the low temperature side with increasing $L$. Then, we tentatively assume that $T_L$'s for $[\Delta{F}_{\rm rot}(T)]$ and $[\Delta{F}_{\rm rev}(T)]$ decrease linearly with $1/L$, and plot them as functions of $1/L$, which are shown in Fig. \[fig:8\]. In fact, $T_L$ for each of the cases seems to lie on a straight line. Using the least-squares method, we estimate $T_{\infty}/J = 0.192 \pm 0.015$ for the rotation and $T_{\infty}/J = 0.188 \pm 0.015$ for the reversal. A remarkable point is that these values of $T_L$ for $L \to \infty$ are almost the same. Therefore we may conclude that, if the SG phase transition really occurs, the transition temperature should be $T_{\rm SG} \sim 0.19J$.

Conclusions
===========

We have examined the stiffness of the Heisenberg SG model in 3d at both $T=0$ and $T \ne 0$, using a method which concerns with the stability of the spin configuration of the system itself. We calculated the excess energies $[\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)]$ and $[\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}]$ at $T=0$ which are gained by rotating all the spins on one surface of the lattice and reversing them, respectively, and found that both $[\Delta{E}_{\rm rot}(\omega)]$ and $[\Delta{E}_{\rm rev}]$ increase with the lattice size $L$. This result strongly suggests the occurrence of the SG phase transition at $T_{\rm SG} \ne 0$. Then, we calculated the excess free-energies $[\Delta{F}_{\rm rot}(T)]$ and $[\Delta{F}_{\rm rev}(T)]$ at $T \ne 0$ to estimate the transition temperature. We found that each of these free-energies increases with $L$ at low temperatures, whereas it decreases with increasing $L$ at high temperatures. From these results, we estimated the SG phase transition temperature as $T_{\rm SG} \sim 0.19J$. Recently we also performed the Monte Carlo simulation and found an evidence of the SG phase transition at almost the same temperature of $T_{\rm SG} \sim 0.18J$. @rf:24 Hence we believe that the SG phase is really realized in this model and the transition temperature to this phase is $T_{\rm SG}/J = 0.19 \pm 0.02$. However, further studies are required to confirm our view. We hope that the present work stimulates other works on vector spin glasses.

Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================

The authors would like to thank Professor K. Sasaki, Dr. T. Nakamura, Professor H. Takayama, Professor Y. Ueno, and Dr. Y. Ozeki for their useful discussions. Numerical calculation was mainly performed on SX-4 at the supercomputer center, Tohoku University.

<span>999</span> A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore: J. Phys. C <span>**17**</span> (1984) L463. R. N. Bhatt and A. P. Young: Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**54**</span> (1985) 924. A. T. Ogielski and I. Morgenstern: Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**54**</span> (1985) 928. J. R. Banavar and M. Cieplak: Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**48**</span> (1982) 832. W. L. McMillan: Phys. Rev. B <span>**31**</span> (1985) 342. J. A. Olive, A. P. Young and D. Sherrington: Phys. Rev. B <span>**34**</span> (1986) 6341. F. Matsubara, T. Iyota and S. Inawashiro: Phys. Pev. Lett. <span>**67**</span> (1991) 1458. F. Matsubara and M. Iguchi: Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**68**</span> (1992) 3781. M. Iguchi, F. Matsubara, T. Iyota, T. Shirakura and S. Inawashiro: Phys. Rev. B <span>**47**</span> (1993) 2648. T. Shirakura and F. Matsubara: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. <span>**65**</span> (1996) 3138. T. Shirakura and F. Matsubara: Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**79**</span> (1997) 2887. F. Matsubara, T. Shirakura and M. Shiomi: Phys. Rev. B <span>**58**</span> (1998) R11821. M. Shiomi, F. Matsubara and T. Shirakura: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. <span>**69**</span> (2000) 2798. H. Kawamura and M. Tanemura: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. <span>**60**</span> (1991) 608. H. Kawamura: Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**68**</span> (1992) 3785. H. Kawamura: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. <span>**64**</span> (1995) 26. H. Kawamura: Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**80**</span> (1998) 5421. K. Hukushima and H. Kawamura: Phys. Rev. E <span>**61**</span> (2000) R1008. J. M. Kosterlitz and N. Akino: Phys. Rev. Lett <span>**82**</span> (1999) 4094. H. Shioda and Y. Ueno: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. <span>**62**</span> (1993) 970. F. Matsubara, S. Endoh and T. Shirakura: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. <span>**69**</span> (2000) 1927. H. Kawamura: private communication. He insists that ${\theta}_{\rm rot}$ could not be larger than ${\theta}_{\rm rev}$, because any rotation can be made from two sebsequent reversals. Y. Ozeki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. <span>**62**</span> (1993) 2641. F. Matsubara, T. Shirakura and S. Endoh: to be published.

{'source': 'arXiv_out/cond-mat0104021_extract_mypaper'}