Finite-temperature magnetization transport of the one-dimensional anisotropicHeisenberg model

Simon Jesenko1 and Marko Znidaric2, 1

1Physics Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia2Instituto de Ciencias Fısicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Cuernavaca, Mexico

We study finite-temperature magnetization transport in a one-dimensional anisotropic Heisenbergmodel, focusing in particular on the gapped phase. Using numerical simulations by two differentmethods, a propagation of localized wavepackets and a study of nonequilibrium steady states of amaster equation in a linear-response regime, we conclude that the transport at finite temperatures isdiffusive. With decreasing temperature the diffusion constant increases, possibly exponentially fast.This means that at low temperatures the transition from ballistic to asymptotic diffusive behaviorhappens at very long times. We also study dynamics of initial domain wall like states, showing thaton the attainable time scales they remain localized.

PACS numbers: 05.60.Gg, 75.10.Pq, 05.30.-d, 75.40.Gb, 72.10-d

I. INTRODUCTION

Derivation of macroscopic transport laws ab initiofrom microscopic laws of motion is still one of the hot top-ics in modern mathematical physics. The main questionusually investigated is what type of transport emergesfrom microscopic laws, the two extreme cases beingballistic or diffusive transport. Yet, such classificationseems elusive, especially in the field of strongly correlatedquantum systems. To nevertheless explain the emer-gence of macroscopic transport laws, phenomenologicalapproaches, viable under certain assumptions, are oftenused. One such approach is based on the well-knownkinetic theory of gases,1 devised by Boltzmann, wheremacroscopic transport laws emerge due to (quasi)particlescattering. Also routinely used is linear-response theory,which gives a direct method of calculating transport coef-ficients using variants of Green-Kubo formulas,2 assum-ing local quasiequilibrium. Our approach here is differ-ent. Starting from the equations of motion (Schrodingerequation or master equation) we use extensive numeri-cal simulations to study transport in the one-dimensionalHeisenberg model.

Low-dimensional spin models have been studied fromthe very beginning of quantum mechanics. The Heisen-berg model, suggested3 by W. Heisenberg in 1928, wasinitially proposed to explain a high phase transition tem-perature in ferromagnets that could not be accounted forby any other known direct interaction. Interaction be-tween nearest neighbor atoms, described by the Heisen-berg model, the so-called exchange interaction, is an ef-fective one and comes about due to the Pauli exclusionprinciple. Another important source of motivation tostudy such simple one-dimensional (1D) models, in par-ticular antiferromagnetic ones, comes due to the factthat they represent simplest models of strongly corre-lated electronic systems, much studied in past decades.In addition, one-dimensional spin systems are realized inreal so-called spin-chain materials.4,5 Experiments haveshown, see e.g. Ref. 6, that 1D spin chains found in

such materials, for instance the isotropic Heisenberg one,have a pronounced effect on transport properties, givingadditional boost to theoretical studies. A great deal ofresearch was devoted to the transport properties of theanisotropic Heisenberg model (XXZ model). Although itis one of the simplest 1D spin models, being even solvableby the Bethe ansatz,7 there are still many open questionsconcerning its transport properties, including whetherfinite-temperature spin transport is ballistic or diffusive.Classification of transport regimes was the main motiva-tion for our work.

Let us briefly review known facts about transport inthe 1D Heisenberg model; for more extensive reviews seeRefs. 5, 8, and 9. As forementioned, one of the standardapproaches for studying transport properties of quantumsystems is linear-response theory. Ballistic and diffusivetransport can be distinguished via an observation of theDrude weight, the prefactor of a δ function at zero fre-quency in the frequency-dependent transport coefficient.Nonzero Drude weight signals ballistic transport in thelinear-response regime. The question of energy trans-port in the XXZ model is simple: energy current is aconserved quantity10,17 and therefore energy transportis ballistic. For the dependence of the thermal Drudeweight on parameters, see Ref. 11 and references therein.

In the present work, we shall focus on magnetization(spin) transport, which is much less understood, withonly few rigorous results. It has been shown that thespin Drude weight is nonzero (i.e., magnetization trans-port is ballistic) at zero temperature12 in the gaplessphase for ∆ ≤ 1 as well as at infinite temperature13

for ∆ < 1, where ∆ is the anisotropy. It is reasonableto expect, and also supported by quantum Monte Carlocalculations,14,15 that transport is ballistic also at finitetemperatures. On general grounds, a lot of attentionhas been devoted to the connection between integrabil-ity and the nature of transport22 being either ballistic ordiffusive. A recent solvable diffusive model23 shows thatsolvability does not necessarily imply ballistic transport.

While the spin transport in the gapless phase is rel-

arX

iv:1

105.

6340

v3 [

cond

-mat

.str

-el]

29

Nov

201

1

2

atively well understood, the behavior at the isotropicpoint ∆ = 1 and in the gapped phase ∆ > 1 is hotlydebated. The main difficulty is that numerically it isvery hard to access behavior in the thermodynamic limit,while there are only few analytical approaches. A no-table one is in terms of Mazur’s inequality16, which canbe used to bound the Drude weight away from zero ifa conserved quantity exists that has a nonzero overlapwith the magnetization current.17 Unfortunately, in thehalf-filled case (zero total magnetization) and ∆ > 1of interest here, no such quantity is known. Numeri-cal methods like exact diagonalization18–20 or the Lanc-zos method21 are all limited to small systems of few10 spins, making thermodynamic extrapolation difficult.A relatively recent method is a time-dependent density-matrix renormalization-group (tDMRG) procedure thatenables simulation of 1D nearest-neighbor systems of sev-eral 100 spins. It has been used successfully to study thespreading of wavepackets in the XXZ model.24 Particu-larly useful is its master equation variant, where one hasa genuine nonequilibrium setting, enabling one to studyalso far from equilibrium situations. It has been usedto show a diffusive transport in the gapped phase at in-finite temperature,25,26 which has been also confirmedusing correlation functions27 and the projector operatormethod.28 Analytical studies of the master equation de-scribing nonequilibrium XXZ model in the gapped phasefrequently have difficulties. One problem is that pertur-bative treatments often have zero convergence radius inthe thermodynamic limit, for instance, a perturbative se-ries in the coupling to the reservoirs13 for ∆ ≥ 1 or a per-turbative series26 in ∆, or they have a finite convergenceradius but are difficult to obtain in the thermodynamiclimit, as is the case for large ∆ in the gapped phase.26

Perturbative studies in 1/∆ suggest that the diffusionconstant decreases as ∆ increases.26,29

Because most spin-chain materials realize the isotropicHeisenberg model, the point ∆ = 1 is of particular inter-est. It is also the most controversial one. AnalyticalBethe ansatz calculations give contradictory results, in-dicating zero31 or a nonzero Drude weight,32 with theproblem being how to properly account for all statesimportant at a nonzero temperature. Quantum MonteCarlo calculations,14,15 bosonization,33 and exact diag-onalization5,20,34 predict a nonzero Drude weight at fi-nite temperatures for ∆ = 1. Based on bosonization35

and numerically calculated current autocorrelation func-tion using a tDMRG method, a zero (or small) Drudeweight at nonzero temperature is advocated in Refs. 36and 37, whose results are also supported by quantumMonte Carlo calculation in Ref. 30. A recent result,26 onthe other hand predicts anomalous magnetization trans-port at infinite temperature and ∆ = 1, with the diffusionconstant diverging as ∼

√L with the system size.

An interesting future possibility to study 1D stronglycorrelated systems is via controlled experiments with coldatoms. Experimental quantum optical techniques haveadvanced to the point where it is possible to realize such

models in a controlled environment of optical latices orion traps. An advantage of such an approach is thatone can choose the values of system’s parameters at will.First realizations of exchange interaction or of simple spinsystems have already been achieved.38

The main goal of the present paper is to study themagnetization transport at finite temperatures in thegapped phase of the anisotropic spin-1/2 Heisenbergmodel. Two numerical approaches, both based on thetDMRG method, will be used: one is based on observa-tion of time evolution of magnetization profiles for initialnonequilibrium pure states, while the second one is basedon studying the magnetization current in the nonequilib-rium steady state of an open quantum system describedby a quantum master equation. By the first method,we could, in principle, discriminate between the ballis-tic or diffusive behavior by comparing the evolution ofexpectation values of magnetization (z-spin componentat each chain site) to that expected from macroscopictransport laws, provided we would be able to simulatevery long chains for a very long time. Unfortunately,this is not the case and the results for pure state evolu-tion are rather inconclusive, showing a mixture of ballis-tic and diffusive characteristics. In the master equationapproach though, performed at higher energy densities,one can give a quantitative prediction about the trans-port by studying the scaling of the magnetization cur-rent with the system size at a fixed driving. The twomethods work best in the complementary temperatureregimes. The one for pure states is best at low tem-peratures, where a state only locally deviates from theground state and its entanglement is small, while themaster equation simulation with density matrices worksbest at high temperatures where the operator-space en-tanglement of a density matrix is small. Both methodshave been used before to study the magnetization trans-port in the XXZ model, pure-state method in Ref. 24 andmaster equation in Ref. 25, however not in the temper-ature regime considered in the present paper. We alsopoint out that with a pure-state evolution at very lowtemperatures one is not able to access the asymptotictransport regime with present computers, so some carehas to be taken making statements about the transport.

The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sec. IIthe Heisenberg XXZ model is defined and the tDMRGmethod for evolution of pure and mixed states is brieflydescribed. In Sec. III, main results concerning transportproperties are presented, with the analysis of the evolu-tion of pure initial Gaussian-shaped states in Sec. III B,and the results from the master equation setting inSec. III C. In Sec. IV the results of the evolution of do-main wall-states are presented.

3

II. MODEL AND METHODS

A. Model

A one-dimensional Heisenberg XXZ model is definedby the Hamiltonian

H = J

L−1∑l=1

[1

2(S+

l S−l+1 + H.c.) + ∆Sz

l Szl+1

], (1)

with spin-1/2 operators Sxl , Sy

l , Szl for l-th position on

chain, and S±l = Sxl ± iSy

l is spin raising/lowering oper-ator. The spin chain is composed of L spins. Couplingstrength will be fixed at J = 1, and open boundary con-ditions will be used. ∆ is the only remaining parameterand determines the anisotropy of the model.

The above model, written in the spin language, canbe transformed to a model of spinless fermions using theJordan-Wigner transformation,44 resulting in a Hamilto-nian

H = J

L−1∑l=1

[1

2(c†l cl+1 + H.c.) + ∆(nl −

1

2)(nl+1 −

1

2)

],

(2)

where cl, c†l are standard fermionic annihilation/creation

operators, while nl = c†l cl. Magnetization (spin) trans-port in a spin chain given by Eq. (1) is thus equivalentto a transport of particles in Eq. (2). Expectation valueof Sz

l is directly linked to fermionic particle density asnl = Sz

l + 1/2. Both descriptions can therefore be used

interchangeably. Total magnetization M =∑L

l=1 〈Szl 〉

is conserved quantity in the XXZ model; in fermionicpicture, it corresponds to the conservation of the total

number of particles, n =∑L

l=1 nl.

B. Methods

We have used two closely related variants of thetime-dependent density-matrix renormalization-group(tDMRG) method: one for the evolution of pure quan-tum states and another for the evolution of a densitymatrix describing a system coupled to reservoirs. Bothmethods are based on writing expansion coefficients ofa state in terms of products of matrices, the so-calledmatrix product state (MPS) ansatz for pure states andmatrix product operator (MPO) ansatz for density ma-trices. In the following, we will only briefly overview thetDMRG method. For a more complete presentation seeoriginal references.45

For the determination of a profile evolution from agiven initial state, a time-dependent Schrodinger equa-tion has to be solved,

i∂

∂t|ψ〉 = H |ψ〉 . (3)

State vector |ψ〉, spanned by the tensor product of localHilbert spaces for each site, can be written as

|ψ〉 =∑s

cs |s〉 , (4)

where s enumerates all basis vectors of the Hilbert spaces = (s1, . . . , sL) with sl ∈ {0, 1} for the spin-down/upstates. The dimension of Hilbert space for the spin chainof length L is 2L. Solving the Schrodinger equation usingexact diagonalization is thus possible only for very smallsystems. However, it turns out that often not the wholeHilbert space is relevant for the solution and much largersystems can be solved by a clever choice of basis vectors,for instance, as is done in the tDMRG method. In MPSformulation, expansion coefficients cs are expressed astraces of product of L matrices Asl

l , l = 1, . . . , L, ofdimension K ×K,

cs = tr(As11 · · ·Asl

L ). (5)

Time evolution of the system is therefore described bytime-dependent matrices Asl

l (t), which can be efficientlycalculated if the propagator U(t) = exp (−iHt) can befactorized into a product of unitaries that act only on twonearest-neighbor sites of a chain. This can be approxi-mately done for short time-step propagation U(τ) usingSuzuki-Trotter expansion. The system Hamiltonian isseparated into two parts, H = H1 +H2, where all termsgrouped inside each H1 and H2 mutually commute. Gen-eral Suzuki-Trotter expansion can be written46 as U(τ) =∏

k exp(−iαkH1τ) exp(−iβkH2τ) + O(τp+1), where theorder p depends on the actual scheme used. The O(τp+1)contribution gives rise to Suzuki-Trotter error, which canbe reduced by either using expansions of higher order(having larger p) or reducing the step size τ . After eachtime step, the MPS form of the state has to be restoredusing the SVD algorithm. In the process the matricesAsl

l are enlarged and to prevent an exponential growthof their dimension they must be truncated back to dimen-sion K. This produces a truncation error εtrunc which de-pends on the entanglement of the state being described.A cumulative truncation error due to truncations at eachtime step can serve as a very rough estimate of the pre-cision. A more robust method to check accuracy thoughis to simply increase K and check that the results donot change. By using imaginary time step τ → iτ , thetDMRG method can also be used for obtaining a groundstate of a given Hamiltonian.

The tDMRG method for evolution of pure-states canbe extended to the evolution of mixed states by intro-ducing a 4L-dimensional Hilbert space of operators, witharbitrary operator given by

|ρ〉 =∑s

cs |σs〉 , (6)

where σs = σs11 · · ·σsL

L , s = (s1, . . . , sL), and sl ∈{0, 1, 2, 3}, with σ0 = 1, σ1 = σx, σ2 = σy, σ3 = σz,

4

while lower indices denote a site along a chain. Follow-ing the reasoning of the MPS formulation for pure stateevolution, coefficients cs can be written in a MPO form,analogous to the MPS ansatz in Eq. (5), with sl enumer-ating the basis of single-site density operators. The timeevolution of density matrix ρ is governed by the Lind-blad equation, with a formal solution ρ(t) = exp(Lt)ρ(0),

where L is a Liouvillian superoperator. Thus the propa-gator for time step τ can be again factorized as a prod-uct of local propagators using Suzuki-Trotter expansion,providing an efficient numerical scheme for the time evo-lution of a density operator. Because L also containsdissipative terms due to a coupling with reservoirs, somecare must be taken to ensure that one has a Schmidt-decomposed form of MPO at each step. Details of ourimplementation can be found in the appendix of Ref. 47.

In the simulations of pure states, the Suzuki-Trotterexpansion of second order was used (p = 2), mostly withthe time step of size τ = 0.05. The dimensions of thedecomposition K were chosen such that the truncationerror on each time step during the evolution did not ex-ceed εtrunc = 10−4 (required dimensions of decompositionK were of the order of ∼ 100). For master-equation sim-ulations a fourth-order method with a time step τ = 0.05has been used. The results were also verified by repeat-ing simulations at somewhat higher decomposition sizesK and smaller time steps, showing no deviation in re-sults.

III. TRANSPORT PROPERTIES

The main goal is to study magnetization transport inthe Heisenberg model at low energies, particularly for∆ > 1, where magnetization transport looks diffusive atan infinite temperature.25–27 We shall use two methods,one will be spreading of localized packets and the otherthe dependence of the spin current on the system size inthe stationary nonequilibrium state of a chain coupled todifferent reservoirs at chain ends. It is useful to have a“thermometer” with which we will be able to determinethe temperature to which respective simulations corre-spond. In the thermodynamic limit of stationary statesof a master equation under weak driving the state is in alocal quasiequilibrium and the temperature is a well de-fined concept. In the wavepacket simulations though, inwhich packets are initially far from equilibrium, we pre-fer to speak about energy density instead, as there is nolocal quasi-equilibrium and the temperature is not welldefined. Another important scale in the gapped regimeof ∆ > 1 is the size of the energy gap between the groundand the first excited state.

In this section, we shall therefore first establish the val-ues of the ground-state energy, the gap, and the relationbetween temperature and the energy density for the XXZHeisenberg model, in particular for ∆ = 1.5 used later.Next, we shall present the results for the wave-packetsimulations, followed by master-equation results.

A. Ground state energy, the gap, and thetemperature

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

ET

T

T≈0.74

T≈0.58

T≈0.17

FIG. 1. Dependence of the canonical energy density ET (9)on the temperature for the anisotropic Heisenberg model,∆ = 1.5, and open boundary conditions. Curves are forL = 8, 16, 32, 64, bottom to top, while horizontal lines de-note the average energy densities of Gaussian packets we useto study transport (note that all are much higher than thegap).

In order to be able to estimate where in the en-ergy spectrum our initial states are, we have calculatedthe ground-state energy of the anisotropic Heisenbergmodel,39 the size of the gap, and for both quantities alsofinite-size corrections. Using numerically exact diagonal-ization for small sizes and an imaginary-time tDMRGfor longer chains (up to L = 64), we have determinedby fitting that for anisotropy ∆ = 1.5 and open bound-ary conditions the energy density h0 in the ground-state(which is always from the sector with M = 0) is

h0 =〈H〉L− 1

≈ −0.5234− 0.29

L− 1. (7)

Here 〈H〉 is the expectation value in the ground stateof H. Finite-size correction to the asymptotic energydensity is therefore of the order O(1/L). At L = 200,used in our simulations, the ground-state energy den-sity is h0 ≈ −0.5247. Interesting to note is thatfor periodic boundary conditions finite size correctionis smaller, namely, the ground-state energy density ishPBC

0 ≈ −0.5234−0.89/L2. The gap between the groundstate and the first excited state (within the same symme-try class) is for ∆ = 1.5 and open boundary conditions

E1 − E0 ≈ 0.068 +7

L. (8)

For a chain of length L = 200 the gap is E1−E0 ≈ 0.102.As we shall see, the energies of our initial conditions willalways be significantly above the ground state gap. At

5

the energy scale below the gap, transport is trivially insu-lating and we are not interested in this regime. We havealso calculated the relation between the thermodynamictemperature and the energy density ET in a canonicalstate,

ET =tr(ρTH)

L− 1, ρT =

exp (−H/T )

tr exp (−H/T ). (9)

Results are in Fig. 1. Such relation can be used as a“thermometer”40: for a given local energy density El,one can determine to what thermodynamic temperaturethis corresponds by equating El = ET and solving forthe temperature T . One should be aware though thatthe validity of the canonical distribution is by no meansgranted for integrable systems. In fact, for specially cho-sen local reservoirs within the Lindblad master equation,deviations from the canonical distribution can be signifi-cant for integrable systems;40 for discussion of open sys-tems with general nonlocal coupling to reservoirs, see,e.g., Ref. 41.

B. Localized packets

One way to study transport is to initiate a spin chainin an initial state that is nonequilibrium with respect tothe Hamitonian generating time evolution only in a smalllocalized region. In other words, one prepares a localizedinitial packet and then studies how such a packet spreadsin time. To obtain a state that is out of equilibriumonly in a small region of space, we put the chain into aspatially inhomogeneous external magnetic field Bl anduse the ground state of such a system as an initial statefor our evolution.

1. Preparation of initial states

To prepare the initial state we take the Hamiltonian

H0 = H +

L∑l=1

Szl Bl, (10)

where H is the XXZ model Hamiltonian from Eq. (1).For such Hamiltonian, the ground state |ψ0〉 was obtainedusing imaginary-time tDMRG method. At time t = 0the magnetic field is then removed and the initial stateevolves according to H. The actual spatial dependenceof Bl must be chosen in such way that time evolution ofmagnetization enables us to distinguish between ballisticand diffusive behavior. Its detailed form will be givenfurther on a per-case basis.

Fermionic nature of the antiferromagnetic ground stateof the XXZ model leads to Friedel oscillations in mag-netization profile 〈Sz

l 〉 which get more pronounced wheneither effective interaction between fermions (∆) or mag-netic disturbance for obtaining initial state gets larger.

Friedel oscillations have a characteristic wavelength of2π/(2kF ), where kF = π/2. As intensity of these oscilla-tions can blur the effective magnetization profile, simpleaveraging over two neighboring sites was used in the ma-jority of calculations, Sz

l = (〈Szl−1〉+ 〈Sz

l 〉)/2, similar toRef. 24. The same averaging was also used for the energydensity profiles El = (〈El−1〉+ 〈El〉)/2, where the energydensity operator is El = 1

2 (S+l S−l+1 + H.c.) + ∆Sz

l Szl+1.

Spatial dependence of the initial external magneticfield for the Gaussian-shaped initial profiles is given by

Bl = Be− [l−(L+1)/2]2

2σ2B −B0, (11)

where B determines the intensity of an initial distur-bance, σB its width and B0 an overall offset of magneticfield that is used to adjust the total magnetization M ofspin chain.

2. Evolution of magnetization profiles

Instead of focusing on the growth of the packet’s vari-ance with time, as for instance in Ref. 24, we focus onthe evolution of the whole magnetization profile.52 Thereason is that, in the variance one can get spurious effectsas we shall discuss at the end of this subsection in III B 4.In this section, we always take ∆ = 1.5. We first pick amoderate B = 2, packet width σB = 5 and a compen-sating magnetic field B0 = −0.18, resulting in an initialstate with M = 0. In Fig. 2, we show a density plotshowing local magnetization along the chain for times upto t = 50. At few time slices, we also show magnetizationprofiles. Two similar plots are also shown for the energydensity. The energy E = 〈ψ0|H|ψ0〉 of the initial state|ψ0〉 is about 1.8 above the energy of the ground state,which is much more than the value of the gap that isE1 − E0 ≈ 0.1. The average energy density of our stateis h = E/(L − 1) = −0.516. In equilibrium, this wouldcorrespond to the canonical expectation at the temper-ature T ≈ 0.17; see also Fig. 1. Note that we do notmake any claim that the state is in or is close to beingin local equilibrium, in which case one could use a localtemperature. From the profile plots we can see that thetwo bumps, moving away symmetrically from the origin,spread ballistically. In the density plots these are visibleas ballistic jets. The speed of the wave front is almost thesame for the energy and magnetization spreading. Basedon these results one would be tempted to conclude thatthe transport is ballistic. However, one should be awarethat the statement about transport is an asymptotic one,that is, for long times. In relatively small chains avail-able (L = 200) it could well happen that we have notyet reached this asymptotic regime. In fact, looking atthe magnetization profiles one can see that there is somenontrivial dynamics going on in the region between thebumps, and that the bumps change shape and heightwith time. Also, one can argue on general ground thatthe short-time dynamics for generic models is always bal-

6

−0.050.000.050.100.150.200.250.30

Sz l

0 50 100 150 200l

0

10

20

30

40

50

t

-0.05-0.030.000.030.050.070.100.120.15

(a.i)

(a.ii)

−0.5

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

El

0 50 100 150 200l

0

10

20

30

40

50

t

-0.54-0.51-0.48-0.45-0.42-0.39-0.36-0.33-0.30

(b.i)

(b.ii)

FIG. 2. (Color online) Time evolution of the initial Gaus-sian packet obtained with B = 2, σB = 5 and B0 = −0.18(M = 0) for a chain with L = 200 spins and ∆ = 1.5. Sub-figures (a.i) and (a.ii) show the evolution of local magnetiza-tion, and subfigures (b.i) and (b.ii) the evolution of the en-ergy density. In the gray-coded density plots (a.ii) and (b.ii)horizontal dashed lines denote times t = 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50at which cross-sections are shown on the subfigures (a.i) and(b.i). Two slanted lines in the spin density plot (a.ii) indi-cate ballistic spreading of the magnetization with the speedv ≈ 1.53. Two dotted slanted lines in energy density plot(b.ii) indicate ballistic energy spreading with vE ≈ 1.55. Bothv and vE were determined by fitting the peaks of spin and en-ergy profiles at various times. Two dotted horizontal lines inthe plot of energy density profiles (b.ii) are the average en-ergy density h ≈ −0.516 of the initial state and of the groundstate h0 ≈ −0.525. In subfigure (a.i) the dotted line, over-lying t = 50 cross-section, indicates spin profile calculatedwith MPS decomposition size K = 125, demonstrating neg-ligible deviations from the spin profile calculated at K = 90(underlying bold line) even at longest simulation times.

listic. For an explicitly solvable quantum model, where atransition from a ballistic spreading at short times to adiffusive at large times can be shown, see Ref. 48. We willin fact see that master-equation simulations, presentedlater, indeed support such a scenario. They also indicatethat the transition time to asymptotic diffusive behav-

ior might be very large for the small-energy wavepacketsshown in Fig. 2.

−0.2−0.1

0.00.10.20.30.40.5

Sz l

0 50 100 150 200l

0

10

20

30

40

50

t

-0.080.000.080.160.240.320.400.48

(a.i)

(a.ii)

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

El

0 50 100 150 200l

0

10

20

30

40

50

t

-0.52-0.48-0.44-0.40-0.36-0.32-0.28

(b.i)

(b.ii)

FIG. 3. (Color online) Time evolution of the initial Gaus-sian packet obtained with B = 5 and σB = 10, L = 200,∆ = 1.5. Subfigures (a.i) and (a.ii) show the evolution of lo-cal magnetization, and subfigures (b.i) and (b.ii) the evolutionof the energy density. In density plots (a.ii) and (b.ii) horizon-tal dashed lines denote times t = 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 at whichcross-sections are shown on the subfigures (a.i) and (b.i). Twoslanted lines in the subfigure (a.ii) indicate ballistic spread-ing of the magnetization with the speed v ≈ 0.77, determinedby fitting to the wavefront reaching Sl = 0.05. Two dottedslanted lines in subfigure (b.ii) denote speed of energy spread-ing vE ≈ 1.55 as determined in Fig. 2, while solid slanted linesindicate speed of spin profile wavefronts from subfigure (a.ii).Two horizontal lines in the plot of energy density profiles arethe average energy density of the initial state h ≈ −0.406 andof the ground state h0 ≈ −0.525.

To nevertheless be able to better assess the natureof transport also in packet-spreading simulations, we goto higher energies. There is strong numerical supportthat the spin transport at an infinite temperature isdiffusive.25–27 The ballistic spreading of jets at low en-ergies, seen in Fig. 2, should therefore weaken, for in-stance, slow down, or even entirely disappear, if thetransition time to diffusive behavior gets short enough

7

at higher energies. To verify this hypothesis we havesimulated packets at higher energies by simply increas-ing the amplitude B and the width σB of the initialmagnetic field. Note that in this way we also producestates that are more strongly nonequilibrium, at leastfor short times. In Fig. 3 we used B = 5 and σ = 10(B0 = −0.86) to prepare the initial state in a sector withzero total magnetization. The energy density of suchan initial state is h = −0.406 and is therefore signifi-cantly above the ground state (≈ 240 times the gap).This energy density would in equilibrium correspond totemperature T ≈ 0.58. We can see from the results inFig. 3 that the wavepacket front still spreads ballistically.There is one important difference though compared tothe smaller-energy packet from Fig. 2: the speed of themagnetization front is smaller, while the speed of the en-ergy front is unchanged. Taking an even higher energypacket, obtained by B = 5 and σB = 15 (B0 = −1.21),the speed of the magnetization front decreases even more.Results for such a packet having an average energy den-sity h ≈ −0.352 (which would correspond to temperatureT ≈ 0.74) are in Fig. 4. From the spreading of packets athigher energies, several things can be concluded. First, inthe regime of times and distances studied there is still aballistic front in the magnetization that spreads at a con-stant speed. This speed decreases as one increases the en-ergy, as it should in order to accommodate for a diffusivebehavior at an infinite temperature. What happens withthe front at larger times, for which one would need largersystems, is hard to infer. For the packet with the energydensity h = −0.516 (Fig. 2), the speed is v ≈ 1.53, forthe packet with the average energy density h ≈ −0.406(Fig. 3), the speed is v ≈ 0.77, and for the packet withh ≈ −0.352 (Fig. 4), the speed is v ≈ 0.55. The sec-ond observation is that the speed of energy spreadingis different than the speed of magnetization spreading.The speed of the energy front is always approximatelyvE ≈ 1.55, which is incidentally also equal to the speedof magnetization spreading at low energies51. Note thatthe energy transport is ballistic in the Heisenberg modelbecause the energy current is a conserved quantity. Thethird observation, especially visible in the spreading ofthe energy density in Fig. 4, is that there is an energydispersion. The shape of the energy packet changes withtime. Parts with higher energy are “overtaken” by lower-energy excitations, visible as the stretching of the energy-density profile in front of the main peak.

All these simulations of the spreading of localized pack-ets of magnetization show signs of ballistic spreading, ei-ther in terms of ballistic jets, or ballistically propagatingwavefronts. One should be careful though about conclud-ing that the transport is also ballistic at large times andin the thermodynamic limit, as these features could ex-hibit a nontrivial long-time behavior. As mentioned be-fore, there could be a large time scale τdiff , so that only fortimes larger than τdiff transport starts to show purely dif-fusive character. One can in fact connect this time scalewith the diffusion constant D. Assuming for instance an

−0.2−0.1

0.00.10.20.30.40.5

Sz l

0 50 100 150 200l

0

10

20

30

40

50

t

-0.080.000.080.160.240.320.400.48

(a.i)

(a.ii)

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

El

0 50 100 150 200l

0

10

20

30

40

50

t

-0.52-0.48-0.44-0.40-0.36-0.32-0.28

(b.i)

(b.ii)

FIG. 4. (Color online) Time evolution of the initial Gaus-sian packet obtained with B = 5 and σB = 15, L = 200,∆ = 1.5. Subfigures (a.i) and (a.ii) show the evolution of lo-cal magnetization, and subfigures (b.i) and (b.ii) the evolutionof the energy density. In density plots (a.ii) and (b.ii) horizon-tal dashed lines denote times t = 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 at whichcross-sections are shown on the subfigures (a.i) and (b.i). Twoslanted lines in the subfigure (a.ii) indicate ballistic spread-ing of the magnetization with the speed v ≈ 0.55, determinedby fitting to the wavefront reaching Sl = 0.05. Two dottedslanted lines in subfigure (b.ii) denote speed of energy spread-ing vE ≈ 1.55 as determined in Fig. 2, while solid slanted linesindicate speed of spin profile wavefronts from subfigure (a.ii).Two horizontal lines in the plot of energy density profiles arethe average energy density of the initial state h ≈ −0.352 andof the ground state h0 ≈ −0.525.

exponential decay of the time-dependent spin current au-tocorrelation function, and taking into account that D isequal to the integral of the autocorrelation function, onesees that the autocorrelation function decay time scalesas ∝ D. Therefore, if one has a diffusive behavior with adiffusion constant D, this introduces a characteristic dif-fusive time scaling as τdiff ∼ D. If diffusion constant Dis very large (we shall see that this is likely the case), onecan have different behavior than the asymptotic diffusiveone for t� τdiff . Our simulations of wavepacket spread-

8

ing therefore cannot distinguish truly ballistic transportfrom a diffusive with a large diffusive constant. To distin-guish the two, one would have to look at the spreading ofvery wide and very shallow packets at long times, so thatlocal deviations from equilibrium are small. Because withtDMRG one is limited to chains of few 100 spins this limitcan not be attained with the present computational re-sources. To nevertheless be able to say something aboutthe spin transport in the anisotropic Heisenberg modelat low energies, we also performed tDMRG simulationsof transport in the master equation setting, where wecan simulate systems at higher energies and some of theabove mentioned problems do not appear.

Before doing that, we shall briefly present two interest-ing observations about the spreading of localized packetsthat are not directly related to transport. Readers inter-ested only in transport properties can skip the next twosubsections and jump directly to Sec. III C.

3. Short-time wavepacket pinch

As an interesting side-remark, not directly related toour study of spin transport, at short times two widerpackets in Figs. 3 and 4 undergo a pinch. Their centralpart first contracts at very short times, and only thenbegins to spread. This can be seen in more detail inFig. 5 which shows short-time behavior of magnetizationfor the packet from Fig. 4 obtained with B = 5 andσB = 15. For times smaller than ≈ 20 the central partof the packet shrinks while the shoulders expand.

0 50 100 150 200l

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Sz l

t = 0,4,8,12,16,20

FIG. 5. (Color online) Short-time pinch of the initial packetobtained with B = 5 and σB = 15 (same data as in Fig. 4).After releasing the external magnetic field, the top of thepacket first undergoes a contraction before it begins to spreadat later times.

4. Magnetization offset B0

In this subsection we would like to make few commentsabout the influence of total magnetization of the spin

−0.050.000.050.100.150.200.250.30

Sz l

0 50 100 150 200l

0

10

20

30

40

50

t

0.000.010.030.040.060.070.090.100.120.140.15

(a.i)

(a.ii)

−0.5

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

El

0 50 100 150 200l

0

10

20

30

40

50

t

-0.52-0.48-0.44-0.40-0.36-0.32-0.28

(b.i)

(b.ii)

FIG. 6. (Color online) Time evolution of the initial Gaus-sian packet obtained with B = 2 and σB = 5 without acompensating homogeneous magnetic field, B0 = 0, thus hav-ing nonzero z-spin component M = 2. Subfigures (a.i) and(a.ii) show the evolution of local magnetization, and subfig-ures (b.i) and (b.ii) the evolution of the energy density. Indensity plots (a.ii) and (b.ii) horizontal dashed lines denotetimes t = 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 at which cross sections are shownon the subfigures (a.i) and (b.i). Two slanted lines in the spin-density plot (a.ii) indicate ballistic spreading of the magne-tization with the speed v ≈ 1.55. Two dotted slanted linesin energy-density plot (b.ii) indicate ballistic energy spreadingwith vE ≈ 1.55. Both v and vE were determined by fitting thepeaks of spin and energy profiles at various times. Two dot-ted horizontal lines in the plot of energy-density profiles (b.i)are the average energy density of the initial state h ≈ −0.507and of the ground state h0 ≈ −0.525.

chain M on the evolution of spin profiles, specially onthe variance σ2(t) of the profile. As M is a conservedquantity of the XXZ model, it is determined by the ini-tial state, i.e., the values of the magnetic field B andB0 in Eq. (11). Remember that B0 is used to tune thevalue of the total magnetization while retaining approx-imately Gaussian shape of the initial magnetization pro-file. In the linear response, transport properties of theXXZ model are known to be related to the value of M .

9

0 10 20 30 40t

0

10

20

30

40

50

σ2−σ

2 0M = 0

M = 2

at2

FIG. 7. Time dependence of spin profile variance σ2(t) − σ20

for initial states obtained with B = 2, σB = 2 and totalmagnetization M = 0, and M = 2 (time evolution of cor-responding profiles is shown on Figs. 2 and 6). Dotted linerepresents function at2 fitted to the variance of M = 2 case,demonstrating ballistic growth. The M = 0 case on the otherhand does not have simple time dependence of variance onattainable time scales.

For states of nonzero magnetization, M 6= 0, ballistic be-havior was predicted on the basis of Mazur’s inequality asthe spin current operator has a nonzero overlap with theconserved quantities of XXZ Hamiltonian.17 For M = 0this overlap is zero and no conclusion can be made, thusleaving the possibility of a diffusive transport. We gen-erated initial states by two alternative choices of initialmagnetic-field parameters B and B0. In the first case, to-tal magnetization of the initial states was tuned to M = 0by using an appropriate compensating magnetic field B0.In the second case, initial states were generated withouta compensating magnetic field, B0 = 0, thus resulting ina nonzero (but small) total magnetization M 6= 0. Assystem size approaches thermodynamical limit L → ∞,there is no difference between the initial states generatedby the above alternative choices of B0 because B0 → 0.Yet, for the attainable system sizes L ∼ 200 used inthe numerical simulations, the details of the initial statepreparation can have an observable effect on the dynam-ics. In the following we define the variance of the spinprofile σ2(t) and summarize our observations about theinfluence of the initial state preparation on the varianceand overall evolution.

Time dependence of variance, defined in the fermionicpicture of the XXZ model as

σ2 =1

n

L∑l=1

(l − µ)2· 〈nl(t)〉 , µ =1

n

L∑l=1

l 〈nl(t)〉 , (12)

was extensively studied in Ref. 24. There, a ballisticspreading was established for ∆ ≤ 1, while for ∆ & 1.5and M = 0 a diffusive transport was advocated based onlinear growth of σ2 at intermediate times. For M 6= 0it was shown24 that one gets σ2 ∼ t2. Linear growth ofvariance in the case of diffusive transport follows from the

macroscopic diffusion law for magnetization transport,∂Sz(l)/∂t = −D∂2Sz(l)/∂l2. We were able to confirmthe ballistic growth of variance for ∆ < 1. For ∆ > 1, thesituation is more complex. Depending on the details ofthe preparation of the initial state, more complex dynam-ics emerges, which can result in a linear variance growthfor intermediate times52 (see Fig. 7 at t ≈ 10− 25). Theactual shape of the central magnetization packet thoughdoes not follow the behavior that is expected from themacroscopic diffusion equation as can be seen in Fig. 2.

While in the case of ∆ < 1 the details of the initialstate preparation do not have pronounced effects on theevolution (either by observing σ2(t) or the profile directly,both show a ballistic behavior), the effects are strongerin the case of ∆ > 1. For states with B0 = 0 (Fig. 6)the profile evolution as well as the time dependence ofthe variance (Fig. 7) seem purely ballistic, at least at at-tainable time scales. For the M = 0 states on the otherhand, while the profile evolution still contains ballisticfeatures (Fig. 2), the variance does not grow as σ2 ∝ t2

but instead has a nontrivial time dependence. While thisnonballistic growth of variance may be taken as a hint oftransition to a diffusive behavior, a detailed analysis ofspin profiles reveals that observed behavior can be at-tributed to the negative magnetization “bumps” on theouter edges of spreading disturbance as seen on Fig. 2 fortimes t > 30. As the value of the variance σ2(t) stronglydepends on the profile values further away from the mid-dle of the chain, such bumps have a strong impact on thevariance. The occurrence of the bumps in the profile canbe attributed to the emergence of a nonequilibrium mag-netization plateau in the central region of the chain, be-tween the packets traveling in opposite directions. Due tothe conservation of total magnetization M , this nonequi-librium plateau of magnetization is compensated by anopposite deviation of magnetization on the edge of dis-turbance. Variance of the profile therefore should not betaken as a sole criteria for the determination of transportregime. Thus we have focused mainly on the speed andthe behavior of spin-profile wave fronts, emerging fromthe central peak, as these appear to be less dependenton the details of the initial state preparation. Note thatwe avoid making any definitive statement about the na-ture of transport from the wave-packet evolution only.These simulations will serve us only as a guide to masterequation simulations that we present next.

C. Master equation setting

To induce a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) wecouple our spin chain to reservoirs. The coupling is de-scribed in an effective way via a set of Lindblad opera-tors acting on the first two and the last two spins. TheLindblad master equation describing the evolution of thedensity matrix is42,43

d

dtρ = i[ρ,H] + Ldis(ρ) = L(ρ), (13)

10

where the dissipative linear operator Ldis is expressed interms of Lindblad operators Lk,

Ldis(ρ) =∑k

([Lkρ, L

†k] + [Lk, ρL

†k]). (14)

To induce a NESS at a finite temperature we use Lind-blad operators that couple to the first and last twospins of the chain – the so-called two-spin bath. De-tails of the two-spin bath implementation can be foundin Refs. 25 and 47. There are therefore 16 Lindbladoperators Lk at each end. They are chosen in sucha way that they would induce a grandcanonical state∼ exp (−H/TL,R + µL,RM) on these two spins in the ab-sence of Hamiltonian evolution by H. Because in our casethe evolution by H is present it introduces some bound-ary resistance effects that also affect the efficiency of themethod. Due to these boundary effects it is rather dif-ficult to cool the chain to very low temperatures40. Weuse reservoirs with the same temperature TL at the leftand TR on the right end of the chain, while the chemicalpotential is µL = 0.1 at the left and µR = −0.1 at theright end. Because of this symmetric driving the averagemagnetization in the NESS is zero, as is also the en-ergy current. To calculate ρ(t), and therefore also NESSgiven by limt→∞ ρ(t), we use the tDMRG method witha matrix product operator ansatz. After long time ρ(t)converges to a stationary nonequilibrium state whose ex-pectation values then give us transport properties. Dueto boundary resistance the temperature in the bulk of thechain is not the same as the imposed temperature of the“reservoir” Lindblad operators. To determine the actualtemperature in the system in the nonequilibrium steadystate we use the expectation value of the energy den-sity as a “thermometer”,40 equating it to the canonicalone, and thereby determining the effective temperature,as described at the beginning of this section.

Because one has to simulate evolution of density oper-ators instead of pure states, open system formulation iscomputationally more demanding than pure-state sim-ulation. This typically means that somewhat smallerchains can be simulated. In addition, simulation at lowenergy (temperature) is more demanding because theoperator-space entanglement of the NESS increases withdecreasing temperature.49 For instance, at an infinitetemperature the NESS, being proportional to 1, is sepa-rable with no entanglement. Therefore, due to computa-tional constraints, we had to focus on somewhat higherenergies than in the wavepacket simulations.

Once we determine NESS for a given driving andlength L we calculate the expectation value of localmagnetization, obtaining the difference in magnetiza-tion between left and right ends ∆Sz, local spin cur-rent jl = (Sx

l Syl+1 − Sy

l Sxl+1) (which is independent of

l), and local energy density. Because the deviation fromthe equilibrium zero magnetization is small, around 0.1in high energy simulations and ≈ 0.01 at the lowest en-ergy, and the imposed temperature is the same at bothends, the energy density in the NESS is constant along

1

10

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

-0.0067 -0.047 -0.105 -0.227 -0.32

D

β=1/T

hT40 5.7 2.7 1.3 0.82

1

10

20 40 60

D

L

FIG. 8. Dependence of the diffusion constant obtained fromNESSs on the inverse temperature. Dashed line suggests anexponential dependence on the inverse temperature, D ≈0.5 exp (1.6β). On the top axis we also list temperatures andenergy densities corresponding to 5 NESSs. Inset: scaling offinite-size D with the chain length L. Horizontal lines indicatethe asymptotic D’s used in the main plot.

the chain. The effective temperature in the bulk of thechain is then determined by equating this energy den-sity to the canonical one (local chemical potential in theNESS is close to zero). The finite-size diffusion constantcan then be determined as D = (L− 1) · jl/∆Sz. Takinginto account definition of spin conductivity and of D cal-culated here,50 the spin conductivity κ can be obtainedfrom the diffusion constant simply as κ = β D (β = 1/T ).To ensure that the behavior is really diffusive and suchD does not depend on size L, we have calculated D forsizes up to L = 64. This data can be seen in the inset ofFig. 8. One can see that at high temperatures (T > 2,lower three chain lines in the inset) a good convergence ofD is obtained, signaling diffusive spin transport also at afinite temperature. At the lowest temperature T ≈ 0.82that we were able to simulate, convergence is less clear.From the data on D(T ) in Fig. 8, one can clearly see thatthe diffusion constant increases at lower energies, the in-crease being perhaps exponential in the inverse temper-ature β, as indicated by a dashed line. At low tempera-tures/energies the diffusion constant can get very large.If we dare to extrapolate this dependence to the energyof the packet simulated in Fig. 2, and we take the averagetemperature T ≈ 0.17 as a crude estimate, the diffusionconstant would be D ∼ 5000. This means that to reallyobserve a diffusive behavior in a wavepacket simulationone would have to simulate chain up to times of the or-der ∼ 5000, demanding also chains of a similar size. Weexpect that ballistic jet, visible at short times, will dis-appear after this long time scale. All these results meanthat with the tDMRG, being limited to few 100 spins,one probably cannot conclusively say whether the spintransport is diffusive or ballistic at such low energies.

11

With an open-system tDMRG version we have nev-ertheless obtained strong indications that at not toolow temperatures, T > 1, the anisotropic Heisenbergmodel is diffusive. The diffusion constant increases fastwith decreasing temperature. Another thing we know isthat at energy scales below the gap (E1 − E0 ≈ 0.1 at∆ = 1.5), the system is trivially insulating; therefore,D(T = 0) = 0. At low temperatures that are still muchabove the gap there are then basically two possibilities:either the system is ballistic, meaning that the diffusionconstant diverges at a finite temperature T , or the sys-tem is diffusive but with an exponentially large D. Wefind the latter scenario more plausible.

In any case, as one decreases ∆ toward 1, the gap dis-appears and therefore also an insulating state at T = 0.At ∆ = 1 the diffusion constant is therefore infinite atzero temperature (in agreement with a nonzero Drudeweight12), the transport therefore being either ballisticor anomalous. Recent results in Ref. 26 show that atan infinite temperature and ∆ = 1 it is anomalous (su-perdiffusive).

IV. DOMAIN WALL DYNAMICS

In the present section we will focus on particular initialstates whose time evolution is quite different from the oneof the Gaussian packets. These are states with a domain-wall-shaped initial magnetization profiles. Such statesare nongeneric and therefore do not influence our con-clusions about magnetization transport reached earlier.The purpose is just to point out that, due to symmetry,there are particular states with different behavior. Suchstates were investigated in the context of domain-walldynamics,62,63 relaxation dynamics,64 and domain-wallstability.54–56 For a gapless regime (∆ < 1), numericaland analytical results suggest ballistic spreading of theinitial domain-wall. Less is known about dynamics in amassive phase (∆ > 1). Time evolution of completelypolarized domain walls have been studied numerically inRef. 63 and analytically using semiclassical approxima-tion in Ref. 61. Here we extend analysis to low-energypartially polarized domain states.

We get domain-wall initial states as ground states ofthe Heiseneberg XXZ chain defined by Eqs. (1) and (10)in a step-shaped magnetic field given by

Bl = 2BΘ(L+ 1

2− l)−B, (15)

where Θ is Heaviside step function and B is the mag-nitude of an external magnetic field that polarizes spinson the left and right side of the chain in opposite direc-tions. In the limit B → ∞, ground state of the chain isgiven by the simple product state |↑ ... ↑↓ ... ↓〉, while itis more complicated for finite B. Nonetheless, the shapeof the spin profile 〈Sz

l 〉 retains approximately step-like

shape if we employ the nearest-neighbor averaging of Szl

to account for Friedel oscillations. The main question we

−0.15

−0.10

−0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

Sz l

0 50 100 150 200l

0

10

20

30

40

50

t

0.000.010.030.040.060.070.090.100.120.14

(a)

(b)

FIG. 9. (Color online) Evolution of spin profile of a partiallypolarized domain-wall-like initial state in a gapless regime,∆ = 0.5 and B = 0.5. In density plot (b), horizontal dashedlines denote times t = 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 at which cross-sections are shown on the subfigure (a). Density plot (b)

shows absolute value of spin profile |Szl |. Ballistic spreading

of the domain wall is clearly seen.

studied was whether the initial domain-wall stays local-ized or it decays with time. To access this we have deter-mined the domain-wall width w at time t as the distancebetween locations, positioned symmetrically around themiddle of the chain, where the value of magnetization Sz

lexceeds positive/negative offset value of magnetization±Mw equal to half of the maximal one.

For the gapless case ∆ < 1, the ballistic spreadingof the domain wall was obtained by directly observinglinearly increasing width of the domain wall (w ∼ t).Ballistic behavior of domain-wall states was observed in-dependently of the level of polarization, determined byinitial state polarization B. An example of profiles forB = 0.5, ∆ = 0.5 is shown in Fig. 9.

In the gapped regime ∆ > 1, the dynamics of the ini-tial domain wall is more complex. To determine whetherthe domain wall spreads diffusively or remains frozen dueto localization, we have observed time evolution of thedomain-wall width w(t) for different values of ∆ > 1 andfor various polarizations of initial states, determined byB. For all ∆, the initial state used has been the sameand was obtained as a ground state of Hamiltonian with∆ = 1. At t = 0 magnetic field B was turned off and ∆was quenched to the target value. We have observed thatfor all ∆ > 1, independently of the initial state polariza-tion B, the width of the domain wall w(t) grows untilit attains some maximal value wmax and then starts os-cillating around some final value wfinal (see Fig. 10 foran example of B = 0.5). Whether these oscillations aredamped out as the time progresses could not be deter-mined on the accessible time scales. It therefore appearsthat for ∆ > 1 the initial domain wall stays localized.The functional dependence of the domain-wall width onthe value of anisotropy ∆ was suggested in Refs. 55 and

12

−0.06

−0.04

−0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06Sz l

0 50 100 150 200l

0

10

20

30

40

50

t

0.000.010.010.020.020.030.040.040.050.05

(a)

(b)

FIG. 10. (Color online) Evolution of spin profile of a partiallypolarized domain-wall-like initial state in a gapped regime,∆ = 1.5 and B = 0.5. In density plot (b) horizontal dashedlines denote times t = 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 at which cross sec-tions are shown on the subfigure (a). Density plot (b) shows

absolute value of spin profile |Szl |. Here the spreading of

the domain wall stops and the domain wall starts to oscil-late around a stable shape (see, e.g., cross sections at timest = 40 and t = 50).

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

∆

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

wm

ax

FIG. 11. (Color online) Dependence of the maximal domain-wall width wmax on the anisotropy parameter ∆ for ∆ > 1and the initial state of a completely polarized domain wall.Solid line has the functional dependence of Eq. (16) with thebest fitting A = 1.12.

56 for the ferromagnetic 1D Heisenberg model, havingthe form

w =A

log(∆ +√

∆2 − 1), (16)

where A is dependent on the used definition of thedomain-wall width. See also related interface ground

states in the ferromagnetic Heisenberg system with kinkboundary terms in Ref. 65. Recently, localization of afully polarized domain wall in the quantum anisotropicHeisenberg spin chain (ferromagnetic and antiferromag-netic) has been observed57 in the context of negative dif-ferential conductivity and explained58 in terms of a one-magnon localization. See also recent work in Ref. 59. Wehave compared the measured maximal widths60 wmax tothe suggested scaling form, Eq. (16). Results reportedin Fig. 11 are found to be in good agreement for largeinitial domain-wall polarizations (B → ∞), especiallyaround ∆ ≈ 1, where domain-wall widths span multi-ple spin sites. At larger anisotropies the domain wallwidths are in a range of a few spins so wmax is stronglydependent on the details of the procedure for the do-main width determination (e.g. averaging of magnetiza-tion profile and choice of domain-wall boundaries Mw),so that the measured value of the domain width deviatesfrom the suggested scaling form. For weaker polariza-tions of initial states (B ∼ 1) the determination of thedomain-wall width wmax is more involved as transient ef-fects of the domain-wall dynamics get more pronounced.The functional dependence of wmax for B ∼ 1 was there-fore not compared to the scaling form of Eq. (16). How-ever, we have noticed that the domain wall stays localizedeven for weakly polarized initial states, at least up to thetimescales of t ∼ 100.

V. CONCLUSION

We have studied magnetization transport at finite tem-peratures in the one-dimensional anisotropic Heisenbergmodel. By a combination of wavepacket spreading andthe study of nonequilibrium steady states we reach aconclusion that the transport is diffusive in the gappedregime. By lowering the temperature the diffusion con-stant increases, perhaps exponentially so with the inversetemperature. A very large diffusion constant at low tem-peratures introduces a very long time and space scalethat governs the transition from a ballistic behavior atshort time to an asymptotic diffusive at long times. Usingexisting numerical techniques, that are limited to shorttimes and small system sizes, it is therefore very difficultto observe diffusive behavior at very low energies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank T. Prosen and P. Prelovsekfor discussions. Support by the Program P1-0044 andthe Grant J1-2208 of the Slovenian Research Agency, theproject 57334 by CONACyT, Mexico, and IN114310 byUNAM is acknowledged.

1 N. Pottier, Nonequilibrium Statistical Physics: Linear Irre-versible Processes (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009).

2 G. D. Mahan, Many-particle physics (Plenum Press, NewYork, 2000).

13

3 W. Heisenberg, Zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus,Z. Phys. 49, 619 (1928).

4 A. V. Sologubenko, T. Lorenz, H. R. Ott, and A. Freimuth,Thermal conductivity via magnetic excitations in spin-chain materials, J. Low Temp. Phys. 147, 387 (2007).

5 F. Heidrich-Meisner, A. Honecker, and W. Brenig,Transport in quasi one-dimensional spin-1/2 systems,Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 151, 135 (2007).

6 N. Hlubek, P. Ribeiro, R. Saint-Martin, A. Revcolevschi,G. Roth, G. Behr, G. Buchner, and C. Hess, Ballistic heattransport of quantum spin excitations as seen in CrCuO2,Phys. Rev. B 81, 020405(R) (2010).

7 H. Bethe, Zur Theorie der Metalle I. Eigenwerte undEigenfunktionen der linearen Atomkette, Z. Phys. A 71,205 (1931).

8 X. Zotos, Issues on the transport of one dimensional quan-tum systems, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. Supp. 74, 173 (2005).

9 F. Heidrich-Meisner, Transport properties of low-dimensional quantum spin systems, PhD thesis, TUBraunschweig (2005).

10 M. P. Grabowski and P. Mathieu, Structure of the conser-vation laws in quantum integrable spin chains with shortrange interactions, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 243, 299 (1995).

11 F. Heidrich-Meisner, A. Honecker, and W. Brenig, Ther-mal transport of the XXZ chain in a magnetic field,Phys. Rev. B, 71, 184415 (2005).

12 B. S. Shastry and B. Sutherland, Twisted boundary condi-tions and effective mass in Heisenberg-Ising and Hubbardrings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 243 (1990).

13 T. Prosen, Open XXZ spin chain: Nonequilibriumsteady state and a strict bound on ballistic transport,Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 217206 (2011).

14 J. V. Alvarez and C. Gros, Low-temperature transport inHeisenberg chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 077203 (2002).

15 D. Heidarian and S. Sorella, Finite Drude weight for one-dimensional low-temperature conductors, Phys. Rev. B 75,241104(R) (2007).

16 P. Mazur, Non-ergodicity of phase functions in certain sys-tems, Physica 43, 533 (1969).

17 X. Zotos, F. Naef, and P. Prelovsek, Transport and con-servation laws, Phys. Rev. B 55 11029 (1997).

18 X. Zotos and P. Prelovsek, Evidence for ideal insulating orconducting state in a one-dimensional integrable system,Phys. Rev. B 53, 983 (1996).

19 B. N. Narozhny, A. J. Millis, and N. Andrei, Transport inthe XXZ model, Phys. Rev. B 58, R2921 (1998).

20 F. Heidrich-Meisner, A. Honecker, D. C. Cabra, andW. Brenig, Zero-frequency transport properties of one-dimensional spin-1/2 systems, Phys. Rev. B 68, 134436(2003).

21 P. Prelovsek, S. El Shawish, X. Zotos, and M. Long,Anomalous scaling of conductivity in integrable fermionsystems, Phys. Rev. B 70, 205129 (2004).

22 H. Castella, X. Zotos, and P. Prelovsek, Integrability andideal conductance at finite temperatures, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 972 (1995).

23 M. Znidaric, Exact solution for a diffusive nonequilibriumsteady state of an open quantum chain, J. Stat. Mech.(2010) L05002; M. Znidaric, Solvable quantum nonequi-librium model exhibiting a phase transition and a matrixproduct representation, Phys. Rev. E 83, 011108 (2011).

24 S. Langer , F. Heidrich-Meisner, J. Gemmer, I. McCulloch,and U. Schollwock, Real-time study of diffusive and ballis-tic transport in spin-1/2 chains using the adaptive time-

dependent density matrix renormalization group method,Phys. Rev. B 79, 214409 (2009).

25 T. Prosen and M. Znidaric, Matrix product simulationof non-equilibrium steady states of quantum spin chains,J. Stat. Mech. (2009) P02035.

26 M. Znidaric, Spin transport in a one-dimensionalanisotropic Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,220601 (2011).

27 R. Steinigeweg and J. Gemmer, Density dynamics intranslationally invariant spin-1/2 chains at high tem-peratures: A current-autocorrelation approach to finitetime and length scales, Phys. Rev. B 80, 184402 (2009);R. Steinigeweg, H. Wichterich, and J. Gemmer, Densitydynamics from current auto-correlations at finite time- andlength-scales, Europhys. Lett. 88, 10004 (2009).

28 R. Steinigeweg and R. Schnalle, Projection operator ap-proach to spin diffusion in the anisotropic Heisenberg chainat high temperatures, Phys. Rev. E 82, 040103(R) (2010).

29 R. Steinigeweg, Decay of currents for strong interactions,Phys. Rev. E 84, 011136 (2011).

30 S. Grossjohann and W. Brenig, Hydrodynamic limit forthe spin dynamics of the Heisenberg chain from quantumMonte Carlo calculations, Phys. Rev. B 81, 012404 (2010).

31 X. Zotos, Finite temperature Drude weight of the one-dimensional spin-1/2 Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. Lett82, 1764 (1999).

32 J. Benz, T. Fukui, A. Klumper, and C. Scheeren, On thefinite temperature Drude weight of the anisotropic Heisen-berg chain, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. Supp. 74, 181 (2005).

33 S. Fujimoto and N. Kawakami, Drude weight at finite tem-peratures for some nonintegrable quantum systems in onedimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 197202 (2003).

34 S. Mukerjee and B. S. Shastry, Signatures of diffusionand ballistic transport in the stiffness, dynamical correla-tion functions, and statistics of one-dimensional systems,Phys. Rev. B 77, 245131 (2008).

35 S. Lukyanov, Low energy effective Hamiltonian for theXXZ spin chain, Nucl. Phys. B 522, 533 (1998).

36 J. Sirker, R. G. Pereira, and I. Affleck, Diffusion andballistic transport in one-dimensional quantum systems,Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 216602 (2009).

37 J. Sirker, R. G. Pereira, and I. Affleck, Conservation laws,integrability, and transport in one-dimensional quantumsystems, Phys. Rev. B 83, 035115 (2011).

38 S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, S. Folling, M. Feld, U. Schnor-rberger, A. M. Rey, A. Polkovnikov, E. A. Demler,M. D. Lukin, and I. Bloch, Time-resolved observation andcontrol of superexchange interactions with ultracold atomsin optical lattices, Science 319, 295 (2008); J. T. Barreiro,M. Muller, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, M. Chwalla,M. Hennrich, C. F. Roos, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, An open-system quantum simulator with trapped ions, Nature 470,486 (2011); J. Simon, W. S. Bakr, R. Ma, M. E. Tai,P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quantum simulation of an-tiferromagnetic spin chains in an optical lattice, Nature472, 307 (2011).

39 L. R. Walker, Antiferromagnetic linear chain, Phys. Rev.116, 1089 (1959).

40 M. Znidaric, T. Prosen, G. Benenti, G. Casati,and D. Rossini, Thermalization and ergodicity inone-dimensional many-body open quantum systems,Phys. Rev. E 81, 051135 (2010).

41 G. Schaller, Quantum equilibration under constraints andtransport balance, Phys. Rev. E 83, 031111 (2011).

14

42 V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan,Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level sys-tems, J. Math. Phys., 17, 821 (1976); G. Lindblad,On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups,Comm. Math. Phys., 48, 119 (1976).

43 H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of OpenQuantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford,2002).

44 P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Uber das PaulischeAquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys. 47, 631 (1928).

45 G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entan-gled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902(2003); F. Verstraete, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac,Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 207204 (2004); M. Zwolak and G. Vidal, Mixed-state dynamics in one-dimensional quantum lattice sys-tems: A time-dependent superoperator renormalization al-gorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207205 (2004); A. J. Daley,C. Kollath, U. Schollwock, and G. Vidal, Time-dependentdensity-matrix renormalization-group using adaptive effec-tive Hilbert spaces, J. Stat. Mech. (2004) P04005.

46 N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding Exponential ProductFormulas of Higher Orders, Lect. Notes Phys. 679, 37(2005).

47 M. Znidaric, Dephasing-induced diffusive transport in theanisotropic Heisenberg model, New J. Phys., 12, 043001(2010).

48 V. Eisler, Crossover between ballistic and diffusive trans-port: The quantum exclusion process, J. Stat. Mech.(2011) P06007.

49 M. Znidaric, T. Prosen, and I. Pizorn, Complexity of ther-mal states in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. A 78,022103 (2008).

50 M. Znidaric, Quantum transport in 1d systems via a mas-ter equation approach: numerics and an exact solution,Pramana J. Phys. 77, 781 (2011).

51 The speed of the energy wavefront vE ≈ 1.5, as well as thespeed of the spin wavefront at low energy, is close to theLuttinger liquid speed u of low energy excitations at theisotropic point of the Heisenberg model, u = π/2. For de-tails on Luttinger liquid treatment of the Heisenberg XXZmodel see Ref. 53.

52 The calculated variance σ(t) for our data agrees with theone reported in Ref. 24.

53 T. Giamarchi, Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2004).

54 S. Yuan , H. De Raedt, and S. Miyashita, Domain-walldynamics near a quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B 75,184305 (2007).

55 I. G. Gochev, Spin complexes in a bounded chain,JETP Lett. 26, 127 (1977).

56 I. G. Gochev, Contribution to the theory of plane domainwalls in a ferromagnet, Sov. Phys. JETP 58, 115 (1983).

57 G. Benenti , G. Casati, T. Prosen, and D. Rossini, Negativedifferential conductivity in far-from-equilibrium quantumspin chains, Europhys. Lett. 85, 37001 (2009).

58 G. Benenti, G. Casati, T. Prosen, D. Rossini, andM. Znidaric, Charge and spin transport in strongly cor-related one-dimensional quantum systems driven far fromequilibrium, Phys. Rev. B 80, 035110 (2009).

59 M. Haque, Self-similar spectral structures and edge-lockinghierarchy in open-boundary spin chains, Phys. Rev. A 82,012108 (2010).

60 Maximal width of the domain wall during time evolution ofthe initial state is compared to the scaling limit because thefinal width wfinal requires much longer simulation times,which are not accessible for the cases of ∆ ≈ 1. The use ofmaximal domain wall widths can be justified by observa-tion that (in the cases studied) the functional dependenceof maximal widths on anisotropy ∆ is similar to functionaldependence of final widths wmax ∼ wfinal.

61 J. Lancaster and A. Mitra, Quantum quenches in an XXZspin chain from a spatially inhomogeneous initial state,Phys. Rev E 81, 061134 (2010).

62 T. Antal, Z. Racz, A. Rakos, and G. Schutz, Transportin the XX chain at zero temperature: Emergence of flatmagnetization profiles, Phys. Rev. E 59, 4912 (1999).

63 D. Gobert, C. Kollath, U. Schollwock, and G. Schutz,Real-time dynamics in spin-1/2 chains with adaptive time-dependent DMRG, Phys. Rev. E 71, 036102 (2005).

64 J. Mossel and J. Caux, Relaxation dynamics in the gappedXXZ spin-1/2 chain, New J. Phys. 12 055028 (2010).

65 F. C. Alcaraz, S. R. Salinas, and W. F. Wreszin-ski, Anisotropic Ferromagnetic Quantum Domains,Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 930–933 (1995); T. Michoel,B. Nachtergaele, and W. Spitzer, Transport of interfacestates in the Heisenberg chain, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41492001 (2008); B. Nachtergaele, W. Spitzer, and S. Starr,On the dynamics of interfaces in the ferromagnetic XXZchain under weak perturbations, in Contemporary Math-ematics, edited by Y. Karpeshina, G. Stolz, R. Weikard,and Y. Zeng (American Mathematical Society, 2003), Vol.327, p. 251.