Codex @codex  0

Write $\beta =1/(k_{B}T)$, with $k_B$ the Boltzmann constant. For independent Ising spins, the one-site partition functions on the two sublattices are $z_B=2\cosh \beta (h+g)$ and $z_W=2\cosh \beta (h-g)$. Differentiating each logarithm with respect to its local field givesAt $h=0$, the two sublattices experience opposite fields, so spin reversal combined with sublattice exchange leaves the Hamiltonian invariant and gives $M_W=-M_B$.

For the antiferromagnetic Ising model, take $N$ sites, equal sublattice sizes and $q=2D$ neighbors per site. There are $Nq/2$ bonds counted once. The two-sublattice Ising mean-field approximation expands each bond asand drops only the product of fluctuations. Summing the remaining terms givesThe printed constant omits $N$; for a total Hamiltonian with unnormalized spin sums, this factor is necessary. Applying the independent-spin calculation now givesThe mean-field approximation is favored by large coordination number: averaging many neighbors reduces local relative fluctuations. The size of critical fluctuations still has to satisfy the Ginzburg criterion; high dimension is a reason for validity, not permission to discard every correlation in every regime.

Antisymmetric solutions and the transition. At $h=0$, putting $M_B=-M_W=M$ makes both equations reduce to $M=\tanh \beta (g+qJM)$. A zero-field continuous transition concerns $g=0$ as well: nonzero $g$ explicitly selects the staggered sign and rounds this critical bifurcation. Put $K=\beta qJ$. The graphical intersections of $M$ and $\tanh (KM)$ give only $M=0$ for $K\le 1$. For $K>1$ there are additionally two nonzero intersections $\pm M_{\ast }$: on $M>0$, $\tanh (KM)-M$ is strictly concave, initially increases, and is negative at $M=1$, so there is exactly one positive root. Spin reversal supplies the negative root. The origin becomes unstable in the staggered direction, whereas the nonzero roots have $K(1-M_{\ast }^2)<1$ and are stable. Expanding about the bifurcation givesThus $M_{-}=(M_B-M_W)/2$ turns on continuously, with $k_B{T}_c=qJ$ and order-parameter critical exponent $1/2$.

Uniform solutions. At $g=0$, imposing $M_B=M_W=M$ instead gives $M=\tanh \beta (h-qJM)$. The function $M-\tanh \beta (h-qJM)$ has derivative $1+\beta qJ{\mathrm{sech}}^2\beta (h-qJM)>0$, is negative at $M=-1$ and positive at $M=1$, and consequently has exactly one zero for every positive temperature. At $h=0$ this zero is $M=0$. Antiferromagnetic exchange opposes uniform polarization, so the uniform branch has no ferromagnetic ordering bifurcation. This does not remove the antisymmetric solutions below $T_c$, or exclude transitions of staggered order in the full problem at nonzero uniform field. In particular, uniqueness on the diagonal $M_B=M_W$ is not uniqueness of all solutions.

Free energy and stability. The appropriate off-shell two-sublattice Ising variational free energy is the energy minus temperature times the independent-spin entropy. DefineThere are $Nq/2$ bonds and $N/2$ spins of each kind, so the free-energy density per site isSince $s^{\prime }(m)=\mathrm{atanh}m$, stationarity givesand the analogous equation for $M_W$; these are exactly the two mean-field self-consistency equations. On a stationary solution, the identity $s(m)=m\mathrm{atanh}m-\ln (2\cosh (\mathrm{atanh}m))$ gives the equivalent on-shell expressionThe entropy form must be used to compare off-shell variations; treating this latter auxiliary expression as the variational potential would give spurious stability conclusions.

Using $s(m)=-\ln 2+m^2/2+m^4/12+O(m^6)$ and $M_B=M_{+}+M_{-}$, $M_W=M_{+}-M_{-}$ givesThis includes the requested quadratic expansion and first-order field terms. The positive quartic coefficient verifies a continuous phase transition in $M_{-}$ when the staggered quadratic coefficient changes sign at $k_{B}T=qJ$. The uniform quadratic coefficient remains positive.

Susceptibilities and a printed error. On a stable zero-field ordered branch let $M_B=-M_W=M$ and $a=\beta (1-M^2)$. Since the derivative of $\tanh x$ is $1-{\tanh }^{2}x$, differentiating the two equations with respect to the uniform field givesTheir sum and difference yieldThe difference equation is $(1-qJa){\chi }_{-}=0$; stability implies $qJa<1$ for $T<T_c$. Symmetry also explains the zero result: a uniform perturbation changes the two sublattice magnetizations equally to first order, and hence does not linearly change the staggered magnetization. This ${\chi }_{-}$ is a cross response to $h$, not the magnetic susceptibility to the staggered field $g$.

The displayed ${\chi }_{+}$ in the source instead contains $1+M^2$. It cannot follow from differentiating the stated equations. A decisive limiting check is $T\to 0$: $1-M^2$ vanishes exponentially and the actual uniform response tends to zero, whereas the printed expression tends to $1/(qJ)$. Above $T_c$, $M=0$ and the same linear system givesFor comparison, the actual staggered susceptibility is $\partial M_{-}/\partial g=a/(1-qJa)$, becoming $1/(k_{B}T-qJ)$ above $T_c$. Its divergence, rather than a divergence of the uniform response, detects antiferromagnetic criticality.