1561

Progress of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 66, No.5, November 1981

Ising Replicated System of ±J Model

Yasuhiro KASAl, Ayao OKI]I and !tiro SYOZI

Department of Applied Physics
Osaka University, Suita, Osaka 565

(Received April 30, 1981)

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

The n·replicated system described by the Ising spin with the random exchange interactions
± J is separated into two sub· systems, namely, the spin· dependent part and the spin· independent
part. It is pointed out that although for n < 1 the entropy and specific heat contributed from the
spin·dependent part are negative, those of the whole system are always positive. It is shown
that from the spin· dependent part the Mattis type phase essentially described by an asymptotic
Potts model appears at finite n and vanishes for n~O (the quenched limit).

§l. Introduction
Since Edwards and Anderson I) introduced the replica method into the in-
vestigation of the random magnetic mixture in the quenched state. a lot of works
with the use of the replica method 2HO ) have been done.
For the dilute system,5),7),I1),18) the replica method can be applied successfully.
For the system with competing interactions, on the contrary, some draw-backs 29 )
were pointed out, for example, by Thouless, Anderson and Palmer,3) in connection
with the negative entropy at the spin glass phase for the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick
modeL 2) Aharony8) estimated the effective interaction of the replicated system
(the ± ] model) at the ground state. He concluded that the order parameter of
the Mattis type 22 ) (the Edwards-Anderson order parameter) exists at the ground
state even for the quenched limit (n->O) and that the obtained state is frustra-
tionless. On the other hand, De Dominicis and Stephen lO ) pointed out that the
replicated system includes a frustration effect at the quenched limit if the limiting
procedure is taken as n->O and then T->O. Using the high temperature expan-
sion theory, Rapapore 3) indicated that there is no phase transition to the spin
24
glass for the ±] modeL By the Monte Carlo calculation, Bray, Moore and Reed )
showed that the Edwards-Anderson order parameter does not exist for the
frustrated system. With the recursive transfer matrix approach, Binder,
Kinzel, Sarbach and Stauffer l5 ) also conjectured that the spin glass phase does not
appear for the ±] modeL
Sherrington and Kirkpatrick's result 2) and Aharony's one 8 ) done by the
replica method seem to conflict with others 15 ),23),24) done by computational meth-
ods. Above discrepancy is harmful 13 ),15),25) for the deterministic statement, since
there exists no reason for the replica method to have fundamental errors. One of
1562 Y. Kasai, A. Okiji and 1. Syozi

the main purposes of this paper is to clarify a basic structure of the spin glass
state with the use of the replica method within the framework of the ±] model.
In a previous paper,20) the present authors proposed an analytic continuation of
Suzuki's real replica method 6) which is applied on the Syozi model. 19) The
asymptotic expression of the replicated system at the ground state was shown to
be equivalent to the 2n~1-state Potts model like Aharony's result. B) The expres-
sion of the effective interaction, however, is different from that of Aharony.19) It
can be considered that the essential behavior of the cooperative part in the
replicated system is described by this asymptotic Potts model. Using the asy-
mptotic Potts model, we can estimate the upper bound of the transition tempera-

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

ture for the Mattis phase as a function of n. It is interesting to show that this
transition temperature for n->O (the quenched limit) tends to zero. From that,
we can conclude that in the quenched limit the frustration effect is included in the
state obtained by the replica method.
For the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model,2).29) we cannot state anything de-
finitely, since the effective interaction has the long range character. It is plau-
sible that there appears the ordered phase in the system with the competing
interactions of long range. The phenomenological theories 6).16).17) and other mean
field type theories26)~30) which predict the existence of the spin glass phase are
understandable by the consideration that the mean field approximation makes
the interaction long range.
In §2, we write down the real replica method briefly and in §3 confirm the
validity of the method for the linear chain. In §4, we show the Mattis type of the
spin ordering at the ground state and introduce the asymptotic Potts model. In
§5, we point out the correspondence of the spin-dependent sub-system to the
asymptotic Potts model. In §6, we give the summary and discussion.

§2. The replicated system

In a previous report,20) we proposed an analytic continuation of the real

replica method 6) for the ±] model. Here, we mention the result of it briefly.
We specify a ±]-bond distribution on an Ising lattice by 8. The Hamiltonian He
and the partition function Zo are given as

(jij(8)=] or - j) (2'1)

Ze= ~ e-!3H" (2'2)

{Si~±ll

where <ij> denotes a neighboring spin pair (or a bond), Si the i-th Ising spin
variable and (]= l/kT. The grand partition function En for the n-replica
method is given as
 Ising Replicated System oj ±J Model 1563

(2·3)

where
=

l
exp[k~oKknrk~ l)]= xexp[Lnr1 ( l)]+exp[ - Lnr1 ( l)],
_ (2·4)

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

exp[2 Kk]= II {x exp[Lnrl( m)]+exp[ - Lnrl( m)]}nrm(k) ,
n
m=O

=
o+t)n-l(I_t)I= "i.:,nrk(l)t k (2·5)
k~O

and
=
"i.:, nrl(k)nrk (m)=2 n
k~O
o ,m,
1 (2·6)

Here, L = (3J, B denotes the number of the total bonds, x the fugacity, b( e) the
number of the ferromagnetic bond ( + j), mo( == n - "i.:,~~l mr), ml, "', mr, "', mM
mean the number of replicas contributed from the spin configurations Go, Gl, ''',
Gr, "', G M (where a spin configuration and the spin configuration obtained by
reversing all the spins of it are treated as the same) and <L denotes the number
of replicas where the pairs of spins on the i- and j-sites are anti parallel. It is to
be noted that the infinite series of the above expressions do not obey the absolute
convergence generally. It is necessary to introduce a concept of the quasi-
convergence like the Holder sum in this stage. The expression (2·3) for En is
specified 20 ) by Go in which spin pairs are all parallel. Thus the grand partition
function En can be expressed concretely by the partition function for the interact-
ing many-spin system with the homogeneous interactions {Kk}. The expression
(2·3) also shows the factorization of the replicated system into the spin inde-
pendent part, exp[B Ko] and the spin dependent part (the cooperative part),
ZM (Kl, ... ). In the following, we treat mainly the simple lattices like the linear
chain, square, cubic, etc., which could have Neel's antiferromagnetic ordering.

§3. The confirmation of the method

In the preceding section, the grand partition function En is shown formally by

the polynomial expression (2·3). To confirm the validity of the expression, we
perform the calculation for the linear chain (see Fig. 1). For an arbitrary bond
distribution e, the partition function Ze is independent of e and is given as
1564 Y. Kasai, A. Okiji and 1. Syozi

Jo
..
2
J,
3
J2
----- . .J.
J.- 2
N-2 N-1
B -,

Fig. 1. The linear chain and the exchange interaction h(j or - n, B= N-1.
(3' 1)

where N denotes the total number of sites. From the definition En in (2'3), we
can directly calculate it as
B
En=~BCt(2N coshBL)nxl=( 2N coshBL)n(1+x)B. (3'2)

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

1=0

In the following, we can also obtain the same result with the use of the polynomial
expression. To calculate the polynomial expression, we have to write down a
spin configuration Gr explicitly. The number r can be expressed by the diadic
system:

(3'3)

°
where rj = or 1. The j-th spin pair in Gr is defined as parallel if rj = and °
antiparallel if rj = 1. Thus the r-th configuration Gr is determined uniquely by
the number r itself:
r=O,l,"',M,

(3'4)
The number <L (== U in the expression (2'3) can be expressed simply as

where rj denotes the j-th diadic figure for the running index r. The grand
partition function En of the replicated system can be expressed as
= =
En=2n~ ... ~
ml=O mM =0

= =
=2n~ ... ~ (3'6)
ml=O mM=o

where the summation ~{Lj=±L} is carried out over the possible combination of L j
=+L or -L (j=O,"',B-1) and o(L) gives 1 for L=L and for L=-L. °
With the use of (3'6), En can be written as
 Ising Replicated System of ±J Model 1565

B-1
=Zn ~ ITexp[Lm]x 8(Lj)
{Lj=±L}j=O
= = n! M B-1
X ~ ... ~
nM mr! exp[~ mT{ ~ (-ZLrj)}]

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

ml=O mM =0 T=O T=O
T=O
B-1 M B-1
=Zn ~ ITexp[Ln]x8(Lj)(~ ITexp[-ZLjrj])n. (3· 7)
{Lj=±L}j=O T=O j=O

Since for the linear chain all the possible configurations r = 0, ... , M can be
°
obtained as the diadic expression by taking rj = or 1 independently for each j,
En can be rewritten as
B-1 B-1
En=Zn ~ IT exp[Lm]x 8(Lj){ IT ~ exp[-ZLrj]}n
{Lj=±L} j=O j=O Tj=O.l

B-1 B-1
=Zn ~ IT exp[Ln]x 8(Lj){ IT (I +exp[ -ZL])}n
{Lj=±L} j=O j=O
B-1 B-1
= Zn ~ IT X 8 (Lj){ IT (exp[L]+exp[ - L])}n
{Lj=±L} j=O j=O
B-1
=Zn ~ ITx 8(Lj)(ZcoshL)Bn
{Lj=±L} j=O

= Zn(z cosh L)Bn( 1 + X)B . (3·S)

Accordingly,
En=Z(B+l)n(coshL)Bn(I+x)B, (3·9)
which agrees exactly with (3· Z).

§4. The ground state

In this section, we investigate the ground state of the n·replicated system for
x=l(p=l/Z, see Appendix A). For the integer n replicated system,19) an al-
lowed spin configuration at the ground state is composed of the same spin
configurations for all the n replicas. The bond distribution can be determined
frustrationlessly by the allowed spin configuration, i.e., a J-bond and a ( - f)-bond
are assigned by a parallel spin pair and an antiparallel spin pair, respectively. It
is shown that the spin configuration at the ground state can be described in a
similar way even for the noninteger n replicated system in the following. At first
1566 Y. Kasai, A. Okiji and I. Syozi

we consider the term ~o in En contributed only from the configuration Go m

which mr=O for y= 1, 2, ... , M and mo= n:
~o=2n IT {enL+e- nL }. (4'1)
<ij>

For L-HXJ, the asymptotic expression ~o is given as

~o/2n --> e nBL . (4·2)
Next we consider the partial sum ~r in En contributed only from Gr and Go:
n_ n!

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

00

~r/2 - m~o mr!(n-mr)! JJ>{exp[Lnrl£UJ+exp[-Lnrl£U]}· (4'3)

If one denotes the number of antiparallel spin pairs in Gr as Br, Eq. (4'3) can be
rewritten as

(4'4)
For L-->oo, the asymptotic expression of ~r is given as

=2e nBL , ( n>O) (4'5)

which is the result independent of the configuration. Clearly, as the asymptotic
expression (4' 3) includes the contribution from ~o, the net contribution for mr ~ 1
(r=t=O) is e nBL . The grand partition function En is expected to be expressed
asymptotically as
(4'6)
This result agrees with the asymptotic expression of (3' 2) in the case x = 1 and is
considered to be correct regardless of the lattice structure, since the derivation
does not reflect the lattice structure. Note that the result (4·6) is a simple
extension of the case of the integer n replicated system. Eventually, the ground
state of the n-replicated system shows the spin order of Mattis type as pointed
oue 9 ) for the integer n replicated system.
In the following, we mention briefly about the asymptotic expression of the
effective interactions {Kd at the ground state (see Ref. 20)). For 0< n~ 2,
(L-->oo), k=O, 1, 2, ... (4'7)

and K2k+l'S are ineffective as a whole. If we replace K2k by Z-<n-l)nL for the
 Ising Replicated System of ±J Model 1567

replicated system, after the analogy of the integer n replicated system the
effective Hamiltonian Hp is expressed as
Hp=-n]L:{o(O,
<0>
I )+o(n,
<0>
I)},
<0>
(4'8)

which means the 2n -I-state Potts model 20 ) with the interaction nf- It is con-
sidered that the thermodynamic property of the replicated system can essentially
be described by this asymptotic Potts model. Because, the asymptotic expres-
sion of the effective interaction Kk is obtained by neglecting the term
exp[ - Llnrl( m)l] compared to exp[Llnrl( m)l] in the formula (2'4)_ The neglected

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

term may be ineffective to make up the low temperature phase, the Mattis phase.
We refer to this point in the last section. Furthermore, the asymptotic Potts
model exhibits an anomalous thermodynamic behavior, namely, the negative
specific heat for n < 1. We examine this problem in the next section.

§5. The sub-systems

It is shown that in (2' 3) the partition function of the replicated system is

separated naturally into the spin independent part exp[BKo] and the spin depen-
dent part ZM(KI, K2, .. -). Since the thermodynamic Quantities for both parts can
be calculated independently, the replicated system is considered to be composed
of two sub-systems specified by Ko and ZM.
We calculate the internal energy V and the specific heat C of the total
replicated system for the linear chain at x=l(p=1/2) using (3'9) of En:
V/B= - B-Io In En/o/3= - n] tanh L ,

(/3= l/kT) (5'1)

On the other hand, for the Ko sub-system the internal energy Vo and the specific
heat Co can be calculated using (2'4) as
Vo/B = - B- 1 0 In exp[BKo]/o/3
=
= - ]2- n L: nCm( n-2m)tanh{L( n-2m)},
m=O

=
Co/B = k/3 2 P2- n L: nCm( n - 2m)2 /cosh 2 {L( n - 2m)} -= Co( n)/B , (5' 2)
m=O

where Co( 1) = C. Since this series expression of Co converges sufficiently rapid,

we can calculate it directly; the first ten terms are sufficient for the five significant
figures for the temperature region shown in Fig. 2.
The specific heat CM for the ZM sub-system is obtained from C and Co as
(5'3)
1568 y. Kasai, A. Okiji and 1. Syozi

1
eM
0.5 n=2

2 3
c'
n=0.8
0.5

n=2 -1
2 3 C'
-1.5

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

-2
Fig. 2. The specific heat Co( n) vs r'( "" kT/J) Fig. 3. The specific heat CM( n) vs r' for the
for the Ko sub-system (independent of the ZM sub-system on the linear chain, CM'" CM
lattice structure), Co'" Co/(knp B). /(knpB).

which is shown in Fig. 3. For n = 1, CM = 0; this result is exact and independent

of the lattice structure. For n < 1, CM has the negative peak of which height
increases as n decreases. The state number 2n for each site of the ZM sub-system,
decreases 20 ) into 2n - 1 by the property of symmetry as to the ferromagnetic and
antiferromagnetic interactions. The effective state number for the replicated
system is smaller than unity for n < 1. The negativity of specific heat is caused
from the smallness of the state number 2n - 1 in comparison with unity. Then the
entropy is negative and the ordinary maximum principle of the entropy must be
replaced by the minimum principle. Therefore it is considered that the negativi-
ty of the entropy and specific heat never means the instability of the replicated
system but a different criterion of the thermodynamics for the smaller-than-unity
freedom system.
Note that the specific heat is for the constant fugacity, x = 1. This type of
specific heat is of course different from that for the constant concentration, p = 1/2.
Nevertheless, the difference is not considered to be essential for the negativity of
the specific heat through the above discussion.
In order to compare the ZM sub-system with the asymptotic Potts model, we
show the partition function ZF' and the specific heat CF'for the asymptotic Potts
model on the linear chain:
ZF'={e nL +(2 n - 1 -l)}B,

Cp/B= kfFn 2Pe nJ (2 n - 1 -l)/( e n1 +2n-l_l)2=== CI'( n)/B , (5·4)

which is shown in Fig. 4. Thus it is shown that ZM sub-system can essentially be
described by the asymptotic Potts model. Finally, we intend to emphasize that
the specific heat for the replicated system (n > 0) is positive. The positive
specific heat of the Ko sub-system which is irrelevant of the Mattis spin ordering
 Ising Replicated System of ±J Model 1569

2 3 C'

Fig. 4. The specific heat Cr( n) vs L -I for the

asymptotic Potts model on the linear chain,
Cr= Cr/(kn]'B).

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

always overcomes the negative specific heat of the ZM sub-system. If we neglect
the Ko sub-system as in the case of mean field theory,17) it is natural that the
negative entropy and the negative specific heat appear for n < 1.

§6. Discussion

In the preceding sections, it is shown that the asymptotic Potts model (0 < n
~ 2) represents the essential property of the spin dependent part ZM of the
replicated system and that the correspondence of the ZM sub-system to the Potts
model is regardless of the lattice structure.
Here, we estimate the transition temperature T M of the Mattis phase from the
asymptotic Potts model for the square lattice as an example. The transition
paine!) Ke of the 2n - I -state Potts model with the interaction K defined by (4' 7)
is given as
exp[2n-IKe]=1+~ . (6'1)

The transition point L.M -I( = kTM/J) of the Mattis phase is obtained as
n n
2n IKe (6'2)

This value of L.M - I is compared with the exact value of LM - I obtained for the
Table I.

n LM -I(exact) LM- 1

0 0 0
0.7593 1.442
2 1.3084 2.269
3 1.5186 2.730
00 2.2691 2.885
1570 Y Kasai, A. Okiji and 1. Syozi

c'
3

2
, Fig. 5. The n·dependence of the Mattis
I .... "' ...
: ,,/'
transition point L,,'( = kTM/J) and the upper
/"C(
/ : Mattis Phase bound L,,' estimated from the asymptotic
o/
o 4 n 5 Potts model.

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

integer n replicated system l9 ) (see Table I and Fig. 5). The ·value of EM -I is
considered to be the upper bound of LM -I. To obtain LM -\ we propose a modified
transformation(see Eq. (2·4» for O~ n~2,

exp[2 n - 1 K). (6·3)

The derivation of this transformation (n = 1 and 2) is given in Appendix B. If we •

set K=Kc, we can obtain the transition point LM as the solution of (6·3). By
neglecting e- nL (or L->oo) in (6·3), we can obtain the transition point LMdefined
in (6·2). Accordingly, we obtain

(6·4)

where
(6·5)
The relation (6·4) means that the upper bound is obtained by the asymptotic
procedure (neglecting e- nL term). Further the consideration about the upper
bound of the transition temperature is expected to be valid for all other two-
dimensionallattices 32 ).33) and even for the three-dimensional lattice. There exists
formally the transition temperature for the case n = l( p = 1/2) which is the Syozi
model. l9 ) It is noted, however, that from the discussion given in §5, the coopera-
tive phenomena described by the ZM sub-system vanishes perfectly at n = 1, i.e.,
the amplitude of the cooperative part vanishes at n = 1. Further for n < 1, the
exponent of the specific heat for the asymptotic Potts model is predicted 34 ) as the
cusp type, that is, as n changes from 1 to 0, the exponent changes from - 2/3 to
-1.5645···. In this case the cusp must be downwards because the specific heat of
the ZM sub-system is negative.
Since the transition point Kc in (6·2) is expected to be finite for the 1/2-state
Potts model, the upper bound of the transition temperature, EM -\ always tends to
zero for n -> O. This is the important result obtained in this paper, that is, the
ordered phase characterized by the Edwards-Anderson order parameter, the
 Ising Replicated System of ±J Model 1571

Mattis phase, collapses in the Quenched system of the ± J model. Furthermore,

it can be said that the states with arbitrary values of the order parameter
degenerate at the ground state, that is, the point (n = 0, T = 0) on the n- T plane
shows the indeterminate singularity dependent on the approaching path. For
example, if we approach through n = 0 path (the Quenched limie O», the order
parameter takes the value O. This may correspond to Bray et al.'s result. 15 ),24)
The zero-value of the order parameter stated here means that the spin ordering
frozen by the interaction loses the long range character even in the sense of
Edwards-Anderson. Namely, the frustration effect overcomes the tendency to
make up the ordered phase. These circumstances are expected to be the same

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

for the three-dimensional lattice as well.
Appendix A
- - The Correspondence x = 1 and p = 1/2--
In order to prove the above correspondence, we introduce two expressions of
En (see Ref. 20»:
(A-I)
The signs ± correspond to nrk( l)± which obey
~

(1±t)n-l(l=t=t)l= "r.nrk(l)±tk . (nrk(lk=~nrk(l) in this text) (A -2)

k~O

The effective interactions {Kk ±} are defined as

~

exp[2n Kk +] = II {x exp[Lnrl ( m)+] +exp[ - Lnrl ( m)+ ]nrm(k)+ ,

m=O
~

exp[( - I)k2nKk -]= II {x exp[Lnrl( m)-]+exp[ - Lnr1( m)_]}nrm(k)+ (A -3)

m=O
and the correlation Ck ± as
ck±=B-1a In Z/aKk± . (A -4)
By those notations, the concentration p of J-bond is given as

={x k~oB-l(a In Z/aKk +)(aKk + /ax)

x "r. B- 1( a In Z/aKk-)( aKk - /ax)

k~O

(A -5)
1572 Y Kasai, A. Okiji and I Syozi

Here, we set x = 1, then we obtain

Kk + = ( - 1) kKk - ,

+_ ~(o In
Ck - 1"20 oKI
Z)( oK
oK
k
1-
+
)_(
- -
l)k -
Ck. (A '6)

Thus
rn~Ck+~ nrm(k)+exp[Lnn(m)+]
k~O m~oexp[Lnrl( m)+]+exp[ - Lnn( m)+]
(A,?)
2-n~Ck+~ nrm(k)+exp[-Lnrl(m)+]

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

k~O m~oexp[Lnrl( m)+]+exp[ - Lnn( m)+]

Adding two expressions of (A,?)' we obtain

= = =
2p=r n ~ Ck + ~ nrm(k)+ =2- n ~ Ck +2 nOk,0= co= 1. (A '8)
k~O m~O k~O

Accordingly,
p= 1/2. (A'9)

Appendix B
- - The Mattis Transition Temperature for n = 1 - -

For x = 1, the effective interaction Kk is given as

=
exp[2 nKk]= IT {exp[Lnrl(m)]+exp[-Lnrl(m)]}nrm(k). (B'l)
m=D

Here, nrm(k) obeys the sum rule,20)

= =
~ nrm(k)= ~ nro(m)nrm(k)=2 noO,k. (B·2)
m=D m=O

For k*O (the spin dependent part),

=
~ nrm(k)=O. (B'3)
m=O

In fact, for n=3 (2 n- 1 =4, the 4-state Potts model)

exp(4K2)=( e 3L + e- 3L )/( e L+ e- L), (B'4)

which obeys (B·3). For n=2 (the 2-state Potts model),

exp(2K2) = (e 2L + e- 2L )/2 . (B'5)

For n = 1, it seems that there is no spin dependent part:

exp[Ko] = e L+ e- f , (B'6)
 Ising RePlicated System of ±J Model 1573

However, it is expected that the expression (B, 6) contains the apparent interac-
tion K' 0 of the spin dependent part in the spin space with zero degree of freedom
(the I-state Potts model). In consideration of the condition (B'3) and the forms
(B·4), (B'5) and (B'6), we can propose the following form for K'o:

(B·n
where m is an undeterminate constant. With the use of the asymptotic condition
(4· 7) for n = 1, K' 0 -> L, the constant m can be determined as m = 0:
(B'8)

Downloaded from http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 22, 2015

Thus from (6' 1) the critical point LM can be obtained by
cosh LM=2. (B.g)

References
1) S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. of Phys. F5 (1975), 965.
2) D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev. Letters 35 (1975), 1792.
3) D. J. Thouless, P. W. Anderson and R. G. Palmer, Phil. Mag. 35 (1975), 593.
4) J. H. Chen and T. C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. BI6 (1977), 2106.
5) M. J. Stephen and G. S. Grest, Phys. Rev. Letters 38 (1977), 567.
6) M. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 58 (1977), ll5l.
7) E. Domany, J. of Phys. Cll (1978), L337.
8) A. Aharony, J. of Phys. Cll (1978), L457.
9) M. R. Giri and M. J. Stephen, J. of Phys. Cll (1978), L54l.
10) C. De Dominicis and M. J. Stephen, J. of Phys. Cll (1978), L969.
11) H. Nishimori, J. of Phys. CI2 (1979), L64, L905.
12) E. Domany, ]. of Phys. CI2 (1979), Ll19.
13) A. Aharony and P. Pfeuty, J. of Phys. CI2 (1979), Ll25.
14) Y. Kasai and T. Takano, Prog. Theor. Phys. 62 (1979), 566.
15) K. Binder, W. Kinzel, S. Sarbach and D. Stauffer, Farady Discussion 69 (1980), 26l.
16) S. Sarbach, J. of Phys. CI3 (1980), 5033, 5059.
17) S. Nambu and S. Naya, Prog. Theor. Phys. 63 (1980), 1098.
S. Nambu, Prog. Theor. Phys. 63 (1980), 1474.
18) Y. Kasai, T. Takano and I. Syozi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 63 (1980), 1917.
19) Y. Kasai, A. Okiji and I. Syozi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 65 (1981), 140.
20) Y. Kasai, A. Okiji and 1. Syozi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 65 (1981), 1439.
21) G. Toulouse, Comm. Phys. 2 (1977), ll5.
22) D. C. Mattis, Phys. Letters 56A (1976), 42l.
23) D. C. Rapaport, J. of Phys. CIO (1977), L543.
24) A. J. Bray, M. A. Moore and P. Reed, ]. of Phys. Cll (1978), 1187.
25) c. D. Dominicis, "Systems with Quenched Random Impurities" in Lecture Note in Physics,
ed. C. P. Enz (Springer Verlag, Berlin 1979), vol. 104, p. 252.
26) F. Matsubara and M. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 55 (1976), 672.
27) S. Katsura, Prog. Theor. Phys. 55 (1976), 1049.
28) Y. Ueno and T. Oguchi, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 40 (1976), 1513.
29) S. Katsura, S. Inawashiro and S. Fujiki, Physica 99A (1979), 193.
30) K. Honda and H. Nakano, Prog. Theor. Phys. 65 (981), 83, 95.
31) R. B. Potts, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 48 (1952), 106.
32) D. Kim and R. I. Joseph, J. of Phys. C7 (1974), Ll67.
33) F. Y. Wu, J. of Phys. CI2 (1979), L645.
34) M. P. M. den Nijs, J. of Phys. A12 (]979), 1857.