Skip to content

Order–Disorder Duality and Ising Fermions

The two-dimensional Ising model contains a fermionic variable even though its microscopic spins are ordinary commuting numbers. The variable is a point-split product of an order field and a neighboring disorder field. Its sign under a full turn comes from order–disorder monodromy, and an elementary identity for one Ising bond gives it an exact first-order lattice propagation law.

This page derives that statement at lattice spacing a>0a>0. It does not yet take the relativistic continuum limit or write the continuum Majorana equation; those are the next lesson’s subjects. Keeping this boundary sharp lets us see exactly which fermionic properties follow from topology and which require a scaling limit.

Required background. Disorder lines, branch cuts, and defect operators proves path independence and the sign acquired when a disorder line crosses a spin insertion. Kramers–Wannier duality supplies the dual-coupling relation.

Helpful background. Ising graphical expansions derives the high-temperature and domain-wall sums used to interpret the dual correlators.

Kramers–Wannier exchange of order and disorder

Section titled “Kramers–Wannier exchange of order and disorder”

For the isotropic square-lattice model,

Z(K)={σ}exp ⁣(Kijσiσj),σi=±1.\begin{gathered} Z(K)=\sum_{\{\sigma\}} \exp\!\left(K\sum_{\langle ij\rangle}\sigma_i\sigma_j\right),\\ \sigma_i=\pm1. \end{gathered}

the dual coupling is defined by

e2K=tanhK,sinh2Ksinh2K=1.\begin{gathered} e^{-2K^*}=\tanh K,\\ \sinh 2K\,\sinh 2K^*=1. \end{gathered}

The high-temperature expansion is

Z(K)=2Ns(coshK)NbC:C=0(tanhK)C.Z(K)=2^{N_s}(\cosh K)^{N_b} \sum_{C:\,\partial C=0}(\tanh K)^{|C|}.

With spin insertions at xx and yy, the parity constraint is odd at those two sites and even everywhere else:

σxσyK=C:C=x+y(tanhK)CC:C=0(tanhK)C.\langle\sigma_x\sigma_y\rangle_K = {\displaystyle \sum_{C:\,\partial C=x+y}(\tanh K)^{|C|} \over \displaystyle \sum_{C:\,\partial C=0}(\tanh K)^{|C|}}.

The numerator contains an open high-temperature graph from xx to yy, together with any number of closed components. Under duality, the same weight becomes

(tanhK)C=e2KC,(\tanh K)^{|C|}=e^{-2K^*|C|},

the low-temperature weight of a domain-wall defect in the dual model. Its endpoints are dual disorder insertions. Conversely, a disorder correlator at KK becomes a spin correlator at KK^*.

An open high-temperature graph mapped by Kramers–Wannier duality to a dual disorder seam

Kramers–Wannier duality identifies the original graph weight tanhK\tanh K with the dual domain-wall weight e2Ke^{-2K^*}. It therefore exchanges spin endpoints and disorder endpoints.

There is a normalization subtlety. With Kadanoff and Ceva’s symmetric partition-function normalization, the exchange can be written exactly as

σxσyK=μxμyK.\langle\sigma_x\sigma_y\rangle_K =\langle\mu_{x^*}\mu_{y^*}\rangle_{K^*}.

With the direct ratio ZΓ/ZZ_\Gamma/Z used on the previous page, a coupling-dependent local factor may multiply the right-hand side. It changes amplitudes but not the exchange of phases, monodromy, or scaling dimensions. We will use

σσKμμK\langle\sigma\sigma\rangle_K \longleftrightarrow \langle\mu\mu\rangle_{K^*}

when that local normalization is irrelevant.

The self-dual coupling obeys Kc=KcK_c=K_c^*, so

sinh2Kc=1,cosh2Kc=2,Kc=12log(1+2).\begin{gathered} \sinh 2K_c=1, \qquad \cosh 2K_c=\sqrt2,\\ K_c={1\over2}\log(1+\sqrt2). \end{gathered}

On the square lattice this self-dual point is the critical point. Duality then exchanges the critical order and disorder fields, forcing equal scaling dimensions. Their value, Δσ=Δμ=1/8\Delta_\sigma=\Delta_\mu=1/8, is additional exact critical data, not a consequence of self-duality alone.

A mixed correlator needs a choice of disorder cuts. Introduce the abbreviations

Oσ=j=1nσxj,Oμ=b=12mμ(pb).\begin{aligned} \mathcal O_\sigma&=\prod_{j=1}^n\sigma_{x_j},\\ \mathcal O_\mu&=\prod_{b=1}^{2m}\mu(p_b^*). \end{aligned}

If Γ\Gamma' is obtained by sweeping Γ\Gamma across a region RR, the previous lesson proved

OσOμΓ=(1)NR×OσOμΓ,\begin{aligned} \left\langle\mathcal O_\sigma\mathcal O_\mu\right\rangle_{\Gamma'} &=(-1)^{N_R}\\ &\quad\times \left\langle\mathcal O_\sigma\mathcal O_\mu\right\rangle_\Gamma, \end{aligned}

where NRN_R counts spin insertions in RR modulo 22. Hence analytic continuation of one order field around one disorder endpoint gives

σ(e2πiz)μ(0)=σ(z)μ(0).\boxed{ \sigma(e^{2\pi i}z)\mu(0) =-\sigma(z)\mu(0). }

This is the monodromy of a square root. It does not mean that the microscopic numbers σi\sigma_i and μp\mu_{p^*} literally anticommute. Rather, mixed correlators live on a double cover of the configuration space of insertion points.

The same distinction matters when two order–disorder composites are exchanged. With cuts transported continuously, the exchange path has one order–cut crossing and the analytically continued correlator changes sign. An operator anticommutation relation can be built from this rule after an ordering and cut convention is chosen, but the primary lattice statement is the sign of the continued correlator.

Exchange paths for two order–disorder composites and the single cut crossing that changes the correlator sign

Exchanging two point-split composites while transporting their cuts produces one order–disorder crossing. The analytically continued amplitude is therefore the negative of the original amplitude.

Let xx be an original-lattice site and let the four neighboring dual sites be x+eax+e_a, with

e1=a2(1,1),e2=a2(1,1),e3=a2(1,1),e4=a2(1,1).\begin{aligned} e_1&={a\over2}(1,1), & e_2&={a\over2}(-1,1),\\ e_3&={a\over2}(-1,-1), & e_4&={a\over2}(1,-1). \end{aligned}

Indices are cyclic in the geometry, ea+4=eae_{a+4}=e_a, but a cut convention must also be transported. Define the point-split fields

χa(x)=σxμx+ea,a=1,2,3,4.\chi_a(x)=\sigma_x\mu_{x+e_a}, \qquad a=1,2,3,4.

Each χa\chi_a sits at a corner between a primal site and a dual site. The label aa is a local frame direction, not an internal flavor.

One primal Ising spin paired with disorder insertions at its four neighboring dual sites

The corner field χa(x)=σxμx+ea\chi_a(x)=\sigma_x\mu_{x+e_a} remembers the direction eae_a of the point splitting and the way its disorder cut leaves the insertion.

Advance aa through four quarter-turns while transporting the cut. The disorder endpoint returns to the same dual site, but it has gone once around σx\sigma_x. The cut therefore crosses the order insertion once, and

χa+4(x)=χa(x).\boxed{ \chi_{a+4}(x)=-\chi_a(x). }

This corrects the tempting but wrong scalar rule χa+4=χa\chi_{a+4}=\chi_a. If a Euclidean rotation by angle α\alpha acts on a spin-ss component by eisαe^{is\alpha}, then a full turn gives

e2πis=1,e^{2\pi i s}=-1,

so s12+Zs\in\frac12+\mathbb Z. The corner field is spinorial because its local frame is antiperiodic.

Choose the corner angles θa=argea\theta_a=\arg e_a. The real antiperiodic components can be projected onto definite quarter-turn harmonics,

us(x)=14a=14eisθaχa(x),s=±12, ±32.\begin{gathered} u_s(x)={1\over4}\sum_{a=1}^4 e^{-is\theta_a}\chi_a(x),\\ s=\pm{1\over2},\ \pm{3\over2}. \end{gathered}

Equivalent formulations attach half-angle phases directly to the corners. Such phase conventions change the appearance of the difference equations but not their spectrum or the 2π2\pi sign.

Move the disorder endpoint from x+eax+e_a to x+ea+1x+e_{a+1}. The dual step crosses the original-lattice bond from xx to

x+δa,δa=ea+ea+1.x+\delta_a, \qquad \delta_a=e_a+e_{a+1}.

Explicitly,

δ1=a(0,1),δ2=a(1,0),δ3=a(0,1),δ4=a(1,0).\begin{aligned} \delta_1&=a(0,1), & \delta_2&=a(-1,0),\\ \delta_3&=a(0,-1), & \delta_4&=a(1,0). \end{aligned}

Choose the local cuts so that the configuration on the left differs from the one after the move by the crossed-bond factor

e2Kσxσx+δa=cosh2K(sinh2K)σxσx+δa.e^{-2K\sigma_x\sigma_{x+\delta_a}} =\cosh 2K-(\sinh 2K) \sigma_x\sigma_{x+\delta_a}.

Multiply by the spin already present in χa\chi_a. Since σx2=1\sigma_x^2=1,

σxe2Kσxσx+δa=cosh2Kσxsinh2Kσx+δa.\begin{aligned} &\sigma_x e^{-2K\sigma_x\sigma_{x+\delta_a}}\\ &\qquad=\cosh 2K\,\sigma_x -\sinh 2K\,\sigma_{x+\delta_a}. \end{aligned}

The disorder endpoint after the move is x+ea+1x+e_{a+1}. Relative to the neighboring spin site,

x+ea+1=(x+δa)+ea+2,x+e_{a+1} =(x+\delta_a)+e_{a+2},

because ea+1δa=ea=ea+2e_{a+1}-\delta_a=-e_a=e_{a+2}. Thus the two terms are exactly the corner fields χa+1(x)\chi_{a+1}(x) and χa+2(x+δa)\chi_{a+2}(x+\delta_a). With all other insertions and cuts held fixed consistently,

χa(x)=cosh2Kχa+1(x)sinh2Kχa+2(x+δa).\boxed{ \begin{aligned} \chi_a(x) &=\cosh 2K\,\chi_{a+1}(x)\\ &\quad-\sinh 2K\,\chi_{a+2}(x+\delta_a). \end{aligned} }

Here aZa\in\mathbb Z, with the antiperiodic extension χa+4=χa\chi_{a+4}=-\chi_a.

A local move of a disorder endpoint across one Ising bond and the resulting relation among three corner fields

For a=1a=1, moving the dual endpoint from e1e_1 to e2e_2 crosses the north bond δ1=e1+e2\delta_1=e_1+e_2. The elementary bond identity transfers the spin from xx to x+δ1x+\delta_1, producing the three-term propagation law.

This is a first-order difference equation because a single local move relates neighboring spinor components and neighboring sites. It is the manuscript’s “discrete Dirac equation.” No continuum approximation has been made.

The antiperiodicity diagonalizes the internal quarter-turn. For a slowly varying mode, write

χa(x)=eiqau(x).\chi_a(x)=e^{iqa}u(x).

The condition χa+4=χa\chi_{a+4}=-\chi_a requires

e4iq=1,q{π4,π4,3π4,3π4}(mod2π).\begin{gathered} e^{4iq}=-1,\\ q\in\left\{ {\pi\over4},-{\pi\over4}, {3\pi\over4},-{3\pi\over4} \right\}\pmod{2\pi}. \end{gathered}

Because one increment of aa is a physical rotation by π/2\pi/2, these four phases correspond to spins

s=2qπ{12,12,32,32}pmod4.s={2q\over\pi} \in\left\{ {1\over2},-{1\over2},{3\over2},-{3\over2}\right\}pmod4.

First ignore spatial variation, so u(x+δa)=u(x)u(x+\delta_a)=u(x). The propagation equation becomes

D(q,K)u=0,D(q,K)u=0,

with

D(q,K)=1cosh(2K)eiq+sinh(2K)e2iq.\begin{aligned} D(q,K) &=1-\cosh(2K)e^{iq}\\ &\quad+\sinh(2K)e^{2iq}. \end{aligned}

For q=±π/4q=\pm\pi/4, this kernel vanishes precisely at

cosh2K=2,sinh2K=1,\cosh 2K=\sqrt2, \qquad \sinh 2K=1,

which is the self-dual coupling KcK_c. The q=±3π/4q=\pm3\pi/4 pair remains nonzero there. Thus the critical lattice equation singles out the spin-±12\pm\frac12 sector.

The four antiperiodic angular modes of the corner field and the two spin-one-half modes whose kernel vanishes at criticality

Antiperiodicity allows four quarter-turn harmonics. At KcK_c, D(q,Kc)=0D(q,K_c)=0 for q=±π/4q=\pm\pi/4, the spin-±12\pm\frac12 pair, while the spin-±32\pm\frac32 pair stays noncritical.

Restoring the slow spatial variation expands

u(x+δa)=u(x)+δaiiu(x)+O(a2).u(x+\delta_a) =u(x)+\delta_a^i\partial_i u(x)+O(a^2).

The zeroth-order term vanishes in the critical spin-12\frac12 sector, leaving a first-order derivative operator. Away from KcK_c, the nonzero zeroth-order remainder becomes a mass term. Deriving the resulting two-dimensional Majorana equation, including its rotation representation and continuum normalization, belongs to the next lesson.

It is useful to separate three claims:

  1. Exact topology: order–disorder continuation around one endpoint gives 1-1.
  2. Exact lattice dynamics: the bond identity gives the three-term propagation relation.
  3. Continuum identification: the long-wavelength spin-±12\pm\frac12 modes become the two components of a Majorana field.

The first two have been proved here at finite lattice spacing. The third requires the scaling-limit analysis that follows. In particular, the microscopic spins have not been turned into Grassmann numbers; fermionic statistics are encoded in the cut-dependent operator algebra and its analytic continuation.

Dropping the cut data. The product σxμx+ea\sigma_x\mu_{x+e_a} is not specified by its two endpoints alone. Its sign depends on how the disorder cut is continued.

Using χa+4=χa\chi_{a+4}=\chi_a. Returning the endpoint geometrically is not the same as transporting the cut around the spin. The correct continuation is antiperiodic.

Calling any four-point linear relation discrete holomorphicity. The exact statement here is the propagation equation derived from one bond. Discrete holomorphic or s-holomorphic formulations require specified projections and phase conventions.

Claiming a continuum Majorana equation too early. The critical kernel identifies spin-12\frac12 zero modes, but spatial Taylor expansion and field normalization are still needed.

Starting from e2K=tanhKe^{-2K^*}=\tanh K, derive

sinh2Ksinh2K=1\sinh 2K\,\sinh 2K^*=1

and solve for Kc=KcK_c=K_c^*.

Solution

Let x=e2K=tanhKx=e^{-2K^*}=\tanh K. Then

sinh2K=x1x2=1tanh2K2tanhK=1sinh2K.\begin{aligned} \sinh 2K^* &={x^{-1}-x\over2}\\ &={1-\tanh^2K\over2\tanh K}\\ &={1\over\sinh 2K}. \end{aligned}

At self-duality, sinh22Kc=1\sinh^2 2K_c=1. Since Kc>0K_c>0,

sinh2Kc=1,e2Kc=1+2,\sinh 2K_c=1, \qquad e^{2K_c}=1+\sqrt2,

and therefore

Kc=12log(1+2).K_c={1\over2}\log(1+\sqrt2).

Exercise 2: why a full turn gives a minus sign

Section titled “Exercise 2: why a full turn gives a minus sign”

Transport x+eax+e_a through ea+1,ea+2,ea+3,ea+4=eae_{a+1},e_{a+2},e_{a+3},e_{a+4}=e_a while keeping σx\sigma_x fixed. Use the disorder-line deformation rule to show χa+4(x)=χa(x)\chi_{a+4}(x)=-\chi_a(x).

Solution

The four local moves carry the disorder endpoint once around the order insertion. The initial and final endpoints agree, but the transported cut differs from the initial cut by a small closed loop surrounding xx. Removing that loop requires flipping the spin in its interior. Since the correlator contains one σx\sigma_x, the variable change contributes 1-1. Hence χa+4=χa\chi_{a+4}=-\chi_a.

Exercise 3: derive the propagation law for a=1a=1

Section titled “Exercise 3: derive the propagation law for a=1a=1a=1”

Take e1=a2(1,1)e_1=\frac a2(1,1) and e2=a2(1,1)e_2=\frac a2(-1,1). Show that moving the dual endpoint from x+e1x+e_1 to x+e2x+e_2 crosses the bond from xx to x+a(0,1)x+a(0,1), and derive

χ1(x)=cosh2Kχ2(x)sinh2Kχ3(x+ay^).\begin{aligned} \chi_1(x) &=\cosh 2K\,\chi_2(x)\\ &\quad-\sinh 2K\,\chi_3(x+a\hat y). \end{aligned}
Solution

The dual step crosses the north bond, so δ1=e1+e2=ay^\delta_1=e_1+e_2=a\hat y. Its weight ratio is

e2Kσxσx+ay^=cosh2Ksinh2Kσxσx+ay^.e^{-2K\sigma_x\sigma_{x+a\hat y}} =\cosh2K-\sinh2K\,\sigma_x\sigma_{x+a\hat y}.

Multiplying by σx\sigma_x gives a first term with spin at xx and a second with spin at x+ay^x+a\hat y. After the move, the disorder endpoint is x+e2x+e_2. Relative to x+ay^x+a\hat y, it lies at

x+e2(x+ay^)=a2(1,1)=e3.x+e_2-(x+a\hat y) =-{a\over2}(1,1)=e_3.

The two terms are therefore χ2(x)\chi_2(x) and χ3(x+ay^)\chi_3(x+a\hat y), with the stated coefficients.

Solve e4iq=1e^{4iq}=-1 and convert each qq into Euclidean spin s=2q/πs=2q/\pi. Why are there exactly four modes modulo 2π2\pi?

Solution

The solutions are

q=π4+nπ2,n=0,1,2,3,q={\pi\over4}+{n\pi\over2}, \qquad n=0,1,2,3,

modulo 2π2\pi. They may be represented as q=±π/4,±3π/4q=\pm\pi/4,\pm3\pi/4. Since a unit change of aa is a rotation by π/2\pi/2, eiq=eisπ/2e^{iq}=e^{is\pi/2} and s=2q/πs=2q/\pi. This gives s=±1/2,±3/2s=\pm1/2,\pm3/2 modulo 44. Four corner components give four independent Fourier modes.

Evaluate

D(q,K)=1cosh(2K)eiq+sinh(2K)e2iqD(q,K)=1-\cosh(2K)e^{iq}+\sinh(2K)e^{2iq}

for q=±π/4q=\pm\pi/4 and show that D=0D=0 requires sinh2K=1\sinh 2K=1. Check that q=±3π/4q=\pm3\pi/4 are not zero modes at that coupling.

Solution

For q=π/4q=\pi/4,

D=1cosh2K2(1+i)+isinh2K.D=1-{\cosh2K\over\sqrt2}(1+i)+i\sinh2K.

The real part vanishes when cosh2K=2\cosh2K=\sqrt2. The imaginary part then vanishes when sinh2K=1\sinh2K=1. These conditions are compatible because cosh2xsinh2x=1\cosh^2x-\sinh^2x=1. The q=π/4q=-\pi/4 equation is the complex conjugate.

At q=3π/4q=3\pi/4 and K=KcK=K_c,

D=1(1+i)i=22i0,D=1-(-1+i)-i=2-2i\ne0,

while the q=3π/4q=-3\pi/4 value is its complex conjugate. Thus only the spin-±1/2\pm1/2 pair is critical.

  • D. Chelkak and S. Smirnov, “Universality in the 2D Ising Model and Conformal Invariance of Fermionic Observables,” Inventiones Mathematicae 189, 515–580 (2012), doi:10.1007/s00222-011-0371-2.
  • L. P. Kadanoff and H. Ceva, “Determination of an Operator Algebra for the Two-Dimensional Ising Model,” Physical Review B 3, 3918–3939 (1971), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.3.3918.
  • B. Kaufman, “Crystal Statistics. II. Partition Function Evaluated by Spinor Analysis,” Physical Review 76, 1232–1243 (1949), doi:10.1103/PhysRev.76.1232.
  • H. A. Kramers and G. H. Wannier, “Statistics of the Two-Dimensional Ferromagnet. Part I,” Physical Review 60, 252–262 (1941), doi:10.1103/PhysRev.60.252.
  • P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. Sénéchal, Conformal Field Theory. Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics. Springer, 1997, Chapters 4 and 12.
  • B. M. McCoy and T. T. Wu, The Two-Dimensional Ising Model. Harvard University Press, 1973.
  • T. D. Schultz, D. C. Mattis, and E. H. Lieb, “Two-Dimensional Ising Model as a Soluble Problem of Many Fermions,” Reviews of Modern Physics 36, 856–871 (1964), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.36.856.