Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
If symmetries are imposed, phases without symmetry breaking (i.e., with unique ground states)
are classified by the cohomology classes of the symmetry group, this is, the equivalence classes of
its projective representations, a result first derived in [X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys.
Rev. B 83, 035107 (2011); arXiv:1008.3745]. For phases with symmetry breaking (i.e., degenerate
ground states), we find that the symmetry consists of two parts, one of which acts by permuting
the ground states, while the other acts on individual ground states, and phases are labelled by
both the permutation action of the former and the cohomology class of the latter. Using Projected
Entangled Pair States (PEPS), we subsequently extend our framework to the classification of two-
dimensional phases in the neighborhood of a number of important cases, in particular systems with
unique ground states, degenerate ground states with a local order parameter, and topological order.
We also show that in two dimensions, imposing symmetries does not constrain the phase diagram
in the same way it does in one dimension. As a central tool, we introduce the isometric form, a
normal form for MPS and PEPS which is a renormalization fixed point. Transforming a state to its
isometric form does not change the phase, and thus, we can focus on to the classification of isometric
forms.
try group G g) on the Hamiltonian leads to a more erally, that symmetry constraints on two- and higher-
rich phase diagram. It can be understood from the way dimensional systems must arise from a different mecha-
in which the symmetry acts on the virtual level of the nism than in one dimension.
MPS, Ug = Vg Vg , where the Vg are projective repre- As a main tool for our proofs, we introduce a new stan-
sentations of G. In particular, different phases under a dard form for MPS and PEPS which we call the isometric
symmetry are labelled by the different equivalence classes form. Isometric forms are renormalization fixed points
of projective representations Vg of the symmetry group which capture the relevant features of the quantum state
G,10 which are in one-to-one correspondence to the ele- under consideration, both for MPS and for the relevant
ments of its second cohomology group H2 (G, U(1)) (this classes of PEPS. Parent Hamiltonians of MPS can be
has been previously studied in Ref. 11). transformed into their isometric form along a gapped
For one-dimensional gapped systems with degenerate path, which provides a way to renormalize the system
ground states, we find that in the absence of symme- without actually blocking sites. This reduces the classi-
tries, all systems with the same ground state degeneracy fication of quantum phases to the classification of phases
can be transformed into another along a gapped adia- for isometric MPS/PEPS and their parent Hamiltonians,
batic path. In order to make these degeneracies stable which is considerably easier to carry out due to its addi-
against perturbations, symmetries need to be imposed tional structure.
on the Hamiltonian. We find that any such symmetry
decomposes into two parts, Pg and Wh . Here, Pg acts
by permuting the symmetry broken ground states of the C. Structure of the paper
system. To describe Wh , choose a reference ground
state, and let H G be the subgroup for which Ph acts
The paper is structured as follows: In Section II, we
trivially on the reference state: Then, Wh (h H) is
prove the results for the one-dimensional case: We start
a unitary symmetry of the reference state, which again
by introducing MPS (Sec. II A) and parent Hamilto-
acts on the virtual level as Wh = Vh Vh , with Vh a pro-
nians (Sec. II B), and define phases without and with
jective representation of H. Together, Pg and Wh form
symmetries (Sec. II C). We then introduce the isomet-
an induced representation. The different phases of the
ric form and show that the problem of classifying phases
system are then labelled both by the permutation action
can be reduced to classifying isometric forms (Sec. II D).
Pg of Ug on the symmetry broken ground states (or alter-
Subsequently, we first classify 1D phases without sym-
natively by the subgroup H G for which Ph leaves the
metries (Sec. II E), then phases of systems with unique
reference state invariant), and by the equivalence classes
ground states under symmetries (Sec. II F), and fi-
of projective representations Vh of H.
nally phases of symmetry broken systems under symme-
Our classification of phases is robust with respect to tries (Sec. II G).
the definition of the gap: Two systems which are within
In Section III, we discuss the 2D scenario. We start
the same phase can be connected by a path of Hamilto-
by introducing PEPS (Sec. III A) and characterize the
nians which is gapped even in the thermodynamic limit;
region in which we can prove a gap (Sec. III B). We then
conversely, along any path interpolating between systems
classify PEPS without symmetries (Sec. III C) and show
in different phases the gap closes already for any (large
that symmetries dont have an effect comparable to one
enough) finite chain. On the other hand, we demonstrate
dimension (Sec. III D).
that the classification of phases is very sensitive to the
Section IV contains discussions of various topics which
way in which the symmetry constraints are imposed, and
have been omitted from the preceding sections. Most im-
we present various alternative definitions, some of which
portantly, in Sec. IV B and C, we discuss various ways
yield more fine-grained classifications, while others result
in which phases, in particular in the presence of symme-
in the same classification as without symmetries. In par-
tries, can be defined, and the way in which this affects
ticular, we also find that phases under symmetries are
the classification of phases, and in Sec. IV D we provide
not stable under taking multiple copies, and thus should
examples illustrating our classification.
not be regarded a resource in the quantum information
sense.
Parts of our results can be generalized to two dimen-
sions (2D), with the limitation that we can only prove II. RESULTS IN ONE DIMENSION
gaps of parent Hamiltonians associated with PEPS in
restricted regions. These regions include systems with In this section, we will derive the classification of
unique ground states and with local symmetry breaking phases for one-dimensional systems both with unique and
as well as topological models. We show that within those with degenerate ground states, and both in the absence
regions, these models label different quantum phases, and the presence of symmetries. We will start by giv-
with the product state, Ising Hamiltonians, and Kitaevs ing the necessary definitionswe will introduce Matrix
double models12 as their representatives. We also find Product States and their parent Hamiltonians, and define
that in these regions, imposing symmetries on the Hamil- what we mean by phases both without and with symme-
tonian does not alter the phase diagram, and, more gen- tries. Then, we will state and prove the classification
3
boundary conditions). Then, we say that H0 and H1 are to be robust, i.e., an open set in the space of allowed
in the same phase if and only if there exists a finite k such Hamiltonians: For every Hamiltonian
that after blocking k sites, H0 and H1 are two-local,
N
N
X X
Hp = hp (i, i + 1) , p = 0, 1 , H= h(i, i + 1)
i=1
i=1
and there exists a translational invariant path there should be an > 0 such that
N
X
H = h (i, i + 1) , 01, N h
X i
i=1 H= h(i, i + 1) + k(i, i + 1)
i=1
with two-local h such that
i) h0 = h=0 , h1 = h=1
ii) kh kop 1 is in the same phase for any bounded-strength k(i, i + 1)
which obeys the required symmetries.
iii) h is a continuous function of
We are not going to rigorously address robustness
iv) H has a spectral gap above the ground state mani- of phases in the present paper; however, it should be
fold which is bounded below by some constant > 0 pointed out that, in the absence of symmetries, Hamil-
which is independent of N and . tonians with degenerate MPS ground states do not sat-
In other words, two Hamiltonians are in the same phase isfy this property: In its standard form, the different
if they can be connected by a local, bounded-strength, ground states of a non-injective MPS are locally sup-
continuous, and gapped path. ported on linearly independent subspaces, and we can
Note that this definition applies both to Hamiltonians use a translational invariant local perturbation k(i) to
with unique and with degenerate ground states. change the energy of any of the ground states propor-
tionally to N , thereby closing the gap for a N 1/.
On the other hand, in the presence of a symmetry which
2. Phases with symmetries
permutes the different ground states (such a symmetry
always exists), those perturbations are forbidden, and
Let Hp (p = 0, 1) be a Hamiltonian acting on HpN , the phase becomes stable. (A rigorous stability proof for
Hp = Cdp , and let Ugp be a linear unitary representation MPS phases would make use of the stability condition
of some group G g on Hp . We then say that Ug is for frustration-free Hamiltonians proven in Ref. 15 and
a symmetry of Hp if [Hp , (Ugp )N ] = 0 for all g G; its generalization to symmetry-broken phases analogous
note that Ugp is only defined up to a one-dimensional to the one discussed in Ref. 16: The condition is trivially
p
representation of G, Ugp eig Ugp . Then, we say that satisfied by the renormalization fixed points of MPS,17
H0 and H1 are in the same phase under the symmetry and using the exponential convergence of MPS to their
G if there exists a phase gauge for Ug0 and Ug1 and a fixed point,17 the validity of the stability condition, and
representation U = Ug0 Ug1 Ugpath of G on a Hilbert thus the stability of MPS phases, follows.)
space H = H0 H1 Hpath , and an interpolating path H Therefore, when classifying phases of systems with de-
on H with the properties given in the preceding section, generate ground states, one should keep in mind that in
such that [H , UgN ] = 0, and where H0 and H1 are order to make this a robust definition, a symmetry which
supported on H0 and H1 , respectively. protects the degeneracy is required.
There are a few points to note about this definition:
First, we allow for an arbitrary representation of the sym-
metry group along the path; we will discuss in Sec. IV C
why this is not a restriction. Second, we impose that 4. Restriction to parent Hamiltonians
H0 and H1 are supported on orthogonal Hilbert spaces:
This allows us to compare e.g. the spin-1 AKLT state We want to classify the quantum phases of gapped
with the spin-0 state under SO(3) symmetry, but we will Hamiltonians which have exact MPS ground states (or,
impose this even if the two representations are the same; in the case of degeneracies, the same ground state sub-
we will discuss how to circumvent this in Sec. IV C. Note space as the corresponding parent Hamiltonian). For-
that, just as without symmetries, this definition should tunately, with our definition of phases it is sufficient to
be understood after an appropriate blocking of sites. classify the phases for parent Hamiltonians themselves:
Given any two gapped Hamiltonians H and H which
have the same ground state subspace, the interpolating
3. Robust definition of phases path H + (1 )H has all desired properties, and in
particular it is gapped. Note that this also shows that
In addition to the properties listed in the definition of all parent Hamiltonians for a given MPS are interchange-
phases in Sec. II C 1 above, one usually requires a phase able.
5
FIG. 2. Construction of the interpolating path for MPS and FIG. 3. Isometric form of an MPS. a) The MPS projector P
parent Hamiltonians. Instead of interpolating between the can be decomposed into a positive map Q and an isometric
MPS |0 i and |1 i directly (dotted line), we first show how map W . b) By removing Q, one obtains the isometric form W
to interpolate each of the two states towards a standard from of the MPS. c) Interpolation to the isometric form is possible
|p i, the isometric form, and then construct an interpolating by letting Q = Q + (1 )11.
path between the isometric forms. Note that using the parent
Hamiltonian formalism, any such path in the space of MPS
yields a path in the space of Hamiltonians right away. define an interpolating path |[P ]i, P = Q W , with
Q = Q + (1 )11 , 10;
D. The isometric form note that the path can be seen as a stochastic deforma-
tion |[P ]i = QN
|[P0 ]i, cf. Fig. 3. Throughout the
1. Reduction to a standard form path, the MPS stays in standard form, and in the non-
injective case, the blocking pattern which is encoded in
the structure of ker P stays unchanged.
Given two MPS |[Pp ]i, p = 0, 1, together with their Let us now see that |[P]i |[P1 ]i and its isometric
nearest-neighbor parent Hamiltonians Hp , we want to see form |[W ]i |[P0 ]i are in the same phase.
whether H0 and H1 are in the same phase, i.e., whether P To this
end, consider the parent Hamiltonian H0 = h0 (i, i + 1)
we can construct a gapped interpolating path. We will do of the isometric MPS |[P0 ]i, with h0 a projector. Let
so by interpolating between P0 and P1 along a path P ,
2
in such a way that it yields a path H in the space of par- = Q1 ,
ent Hamiltonians which satisfies the necessary continuity
and gappedness requirements. and define the -deformed Hamiltonian
In order to facilitate this task, we will proceed in two X
H := h (i, i + 1) , with h := h0 0 .
steps, as illustrated in Fig. 2: In a first step, we will
introduce a standard form for each MPSthe isometric Since h0 |[P0 ]i = 0, it follows that h |[P ]i = 0 (and in
formwhich is always in the same phase as the MPS fact, the kernel of h is always equal to the support of the
itself. This will reduce the task of classifying phases to two-site reduced state), i.e., H is a parent Hamiltonian
the classification of phases for isometric MPS, which we of |[P ]i. Note that the family H of Hamiltonians is
will pursue subsequently. continuous in by construction.
It remains to show that the path H is uniformly
gapped, i.e., there is a > 0 which lower bounds the
2. The isometric form gap of H uniformly in and the systems size N : This
establishes that the |[P ]i are all in the same phase.
Let us now introduce the isometric form of an MPS. The derivation is based on a result of Nachtergaele6 (ex-
tending the results of Ref. 1 for the injective case), where
The isometric form captures the essential entanglement
and long-range properties of the state and forms a fixed a lower bound (uniform in N ) on the gap of parent Hamil-
tonians is derived, and can be found in Appendix A. The
point of a renormalization procedure,17 and every MPS
can be brought into its isometric form by stochastic local central point is that the bound on the gap depends on
the correlation length and the gap of H restricted to
operations.18 Most importantly, as we will show there
exists a gapped path in the space of parent Hamiltonians sites, and since both depend smoothly on , and 0
which interpolates between any MPS and its isometric as 0, a uniform lower bound on the gap follows; for
form. the non-injective case, one additionally needs that the
overlap of different ground states goes to zero as 0.
Given an MPS |[P]i, decompose
hD = 11 |D ihD | (4)
This is, for any g G the matrices Q2 and Ug are di- Let us now consider the case of of non-injective MPS,
agonal in a joint basis, and therefore [Q, Ug ] = 0, and i.e., systems with degenerate ground states? First, con-
it follows that both the interpolating path |[P ]i = sider the casePwith block sizes D := dim H = 1, i.e.,
QN
|[P0 ]i and its parent Hamiltonian H are invari- P PGHZ = |ih, | (up to a rotation of the phys-
ant under Ug . ical system): This describes an A-fold degenerate GHZ
state with commuting Hamiltonian terms
X
E. Phase diagram without symmetries h = 11 |, ih, | . (6)
The preceding discussion show thats in order to classify For D 6= 1, we have that (again up to local rotations)
quantum phases (both without and with symmetries),
it is sufficient to consider isometric MPS and their par- X
P= |ih, | 11D2 ,
ent Hamiltonians. In the following, we will carry out
this classification for the scenario where no symmetries
are imposed. We will find that without symmetries, the where 11D2 acts on H in (1). This describes a state
phase of the system only depends on the ground state de- X
generacy, as any two systems with the same ground state |, . . . , i |D iN (7)
degeneracy are in the same phase (and clearly the ground
state degeneracy cannot be changed without closing the
gap). (cf. Fig. 5), i.e., a GHZ state with additional local en-
tanglement between adjacent sites, where the amount of
local entanglement D can depend on the value of the
1. Unique ground state GHZ state. [Since the D can be different, the correct
interpretation of (7) is |D1 iN |DA iN , with
the |i labelling the direct sum components locally.] The
Let us start with the injective case where the Hamilto-
corresponding Hamiltonian is a sum of the GHZ Hamil-
nian has a unique ground state. In that case, the isom-
tonian (6) and terms
etry W is a unitary. We can now continuously undo
the rotation W this clearly is a smooth gapped path X
|ih| (11 |D ihD |) ,
and does not change the phase. This yields the state
|[P = 11]i = |D iN , consisting of maximally entan-
gled pairs of dimension D between adjacent sites which which are responsible for the local entanglement. This
can only differ in their bond dimension D, cf. Fig. 4. The Hamiltonian commutes with the GHZ part (this can be
7
(cf. Ref. 11), with |[P ]i is continuous in , and since |[P ]i is a poly-
nomial in P , it follows that P can be chosen to be a
Ugpath = (Vg0 Vg1 ) (Vg1 Vg0 ) continuous function of as well.
Let us now study how the virtual representation of the
(this is where equality of the cohomology classes is re- symmetry is affected by a continuous change P+d =
quired, since only then Ugpath forms a linear representa- P + dP. Let us first consider the case where P and
tion). dP are supported on the same virtual space, i.e., the
bond dimension does not change, and let us restrict the
discussion to the relevant space. The representation of
3. Separation of phases the symmetry on the virtual level becomes?
1
As we have seen, MPS for which Vg in Eq. (9) is in the Zg Zg = P+d Ug P+d ,
same cohomology class fall into the same phase. Let us
now show that conversely, states with different cohomol- where Zg Zg () is invertible, and Zg = (Zg1 )T ,
ogy classes fall into different phases. We will prove this cf. Eq. (8). Since both P+d and its inverse change con-
again in the framework of MPS, i.e., we will show that tinuously, one can find a gauge such that this also holds
there cannot be a smooth MPS path connecting two such for Zg .
states. Note that it is clear that the interpolation given It remains to see that a continuous change of the repre-
above cannot work, as now Vg0 Vg1 does not form a sentation Zg does not change its cohomology class; note
representation any more. that the choice of gauge for P+d , Eq. (8), leads to a
The idea of the impossibility proof is to consider a transformation Zg Y Zg Y 1 which does not affect the
chain of arbitrary length N and show that along any cohomology class. Let us first assume that Zg Zg ()
well-behaved path H , P needs to change continuously, is differentiable, and let
which results in a continuous change in the way the sym-
metry acts on the virtual system. In turn, such a contin- Zg = Ug + Ug d , (13)
uous change cannot change the cohomology class. While
this argument is based on the fact that the chain is finite and Ug Uh = ei(g,h) Ugh . Then, we can start from
(as the continuity bounds depend on N ), it works for ar-
bitrary system size N ; also, our argument implies that in Zg Zh = ei[(g,h)+ (g,h)d] Zgh
order to interpolate between two systems with different
cohomology classes, i.e., in different phases, the gap of (note that smoothness of Zg implies smoothness of
the Hamiltonian will have to close for a finite chain, and exp[i(g, h)] = tr[Zg Zh ]/tr[Zgh ] ) and substitute (13).
not only in the thermodynamic limit. (This can be un- Collecting all first-order terms in d, we find that
derstood from the fact that along an MPS path, the vir-
tual representation of the symmetry is well defined even Ug Uh + Ug Uh = ei(g,h) Ugh
+ i (g, h)ei(g,h) Ugh .
for finite chains, so that it cannot change without closing
the gap. While we believe that cohomology classes la- Left multiplication with Uh1 Ug1 = ei(g,h) Ugh
1
yields
bel gapped phases beyond MPS, this will likely not hold
exactly for finite chains, thus leaving the possibility of a Uh1 Uh + Uh1 Ug1 Ug Uh = Ugh
1
Ugh + i (g, h) 11 ,
higher order phase transition when interpolating beyond
MPS.) We will now proceed by fixing some along the and by taking the trace and using its cyclicity in the
path and show the continuity in an environment + d. second term, we obtain
Fix some , with corresponding ground state |[P ]i
of H , where P is w.l.o.g. in its standard form where (g, h) = i(g + h gh ) (14)
Ug P = P (Vg Vg ) with Vg unitary. Now consider
with g = tr[Ug1 Ug ]: This proves that differentiable
H+d with d 1 small, and expand its ground state
changes of Zg can never change the cohomology class
as
of .
p
|[P+d ]i = 1 2 |[P ]i + | i In case Zg Zg () is continuous but not differentiable,
we can use a smoothing argument: For any , we can find
with h |[P ]i = 0. With H+d = H + dH, a differentiable Zg (, ) such that kZg (, ) Zg ()k ,
and define , (g, h) via
0 = h[P+d ]|H+d |[P+d ]i
1
ei, (g,h) = tr[Zg (, )Zh (, )Zgh (, )] .
= 2 h |H | i + h[P+d ]|dH|[P+d ]i (12)
2 kdHk , This , (g, h) (and in particular its real part) varies
again according to (14) for any and thus does not change
where is the spectral gap of H . Since = |[P ]i its cohomology class, and since it is O()-close to (g, h),
|[P+d ]i and dH 0 as d 0, this shows that the same holds for the cohomology class of Zg ().
9
In order to complete our proof, we also need to consider note that Pg can be thought of as composed of permuta-
the case where P+d is supported on a larger space than tions Pga acting on irreducible subsets, and (16) can be
P . (The converse can be excluded by choosing d suffi- rewritten as a direct sum over irreducible subsets,
ciently small.) This can be done by considering the sym- M M
metry on the smaller space, and is done in Appendix C. Ug = Pga Vha Vha . (17)
Together, this continuity argument shows that we cannot a a
change the cohomology class of the symmetry Ug on the
virtual level along a smooth gapped path H and thus In the following, we will describe the structure of the
completes the classification of phases with unique ground symmetry for one irreducible subset a; in fact, degen-
states in the presence of symmetries. eracies corresponding to different subsets a are not of
particular interest, as they are not protected by the sym-
metry (which acts trivially between them) and are thus
G. Phases under symmetries: Systems with not stable under perturbations of the Hamiltonian. For
symmetry breaking a single irreducible subset a, the symmetry
M
Having discussed systems with unique ground states, Pga Vha Vha (18)
we will now turn our attention to systems with symmetry a
the projective representation Vha has the same cohomol- will make use of a continuity argument. The argument
ogy class. (In different words, we claim that two systems will go in two parts: On the one hand, continuity implies
are in the same phase if Ug permutes the symmetry bro- that each of the symmetry broken ground states changes
ken ground states in the same way, and if the effective continuously, and thus the permutation action Pg of Ug
action of the symmetry on each symmetry broken ground stays the same. The effective action Vha Vha (modulo
state satisfies the same condition as in the injective case.) permutation) of the symmetry on each of the symmetry
Note that having the same Pg allows us to even meaning- broken ground states, on the other hand, can be classified
fully compare the Vha as the subgroups H can be chosen by reducing the problem to the injective case.
equal. Also note that since the permutation is effectively
encoded in the subgroup H, we can rephrase the above Let us first show that the symmetry broken ground
classification by saying that a phase is characterized by states change continuously. Let | i := |[P ]i be the
the choice of a subgroup H together with one of its co- (orthogonal) symmetry broken ground states of H , with
homology classes. P := P |H the restriction of P to H (this describes
an injective MPS). For small changes d, we can again
PAsx ax simple example, P the Ising Hamiltonians Hx =
i i+1 and Hz = iz i+1
z
are in different phases (as in Sec. II F 3) use continuity and gappedness of H to
if the Z2 symmetry ( x )N is imposed: While Hz can show that the ground state subspaces of H and H+d =
break the symmetry, Hx can not and thus belongs to a H + dH are close to each other, i.e., there exist ground
different phase. states |
+d i of H+d such that
3. Equality of phases
| i |
+d i O (dH) ,
the joint symmetry is given by i.e., the P , and thus the symmetry broken ground states
M M | i, change continuously. Since Pg describes the permu-
Pga (Vha Wha ) (Vha Wha ) , tation action of the physical symmetry Ug on the symme-
a a try broken ground states, which is a discrete representa-
tion, it follows that Pg is independent of , i.e., it cannot
where Vha and Wha denote the projective representations be changed along a gapped path H .
for the two systems (as in the injective case, it can be
thought of being embedded in the physical symmetry by In a second step, we can now break the problem down
blocking two sites). Again, the Hamiltonian along the to the injective scenario. To this end, do the following for
path is the sum of the GHZ Hamiltonian and projectors each irreducible block of Pg : Fix the 0 used to define the
of the form 11 | ()ih ()| which couple to the GHZ subgroup H and its representation Vha , restrict the phys-
degree of freedom; the resulting Hamiltonian is commut- ical symmetry Ug to g H, and consider the injective
ing and therefore gapped throughout the path. ground state |[P0 ]i and the correspondingly restricted
parent Hamiltonian (this can be done by adding local
projectors restricting the system to the subspace given
4. Separation of phases by 0 ). Since Ug , g H, leaves |[P ]i invariant up to a
phase, it is a symmetry of the restricted parent Hamilto-
Let us now show that two phases which differ in ei- nian; it acts on the virtual level as Vha Vha . The results
ther the permutation representation Pg or the cohomol- for the injective case now imply that it is impossible to
ogy classes of the Vha cannot be transformed into each change the cohomology class of Vha , thus completing the
other along a gapped path. As in the injective case, we proof.
11
III. TWO DIMENSIONS thus exhibit some form of topological order;19 in partic-
ular, for Vg and Wg the regular representation of G, the
A. Projected Entangled Pair States isometric form of these PEPS describes Kitaevs double
model of the underlying group.12 All these three classes
1. Definition have parent Hamiltonians at the isometric point which
are commuting and thus gapped.
Projected Entangled Pair States (PEPS) form the
natural generalization of Matrix Product States to two B. Gap in two dimensions
dimensions:2 For P : (CD )4 Cd , the PEPS |[P]i is
obtained by placing maximally entangled pairs |D i on
1. Gap in the thermodynamic limit
the links of a 2D lattice and applying P as in Fig. 6. As
with MPS, PEPS can be redefined by blocking, which al-
lows to obtain standard forms for P, discussed later on. The major difference to the case of 1D systems is that
Parent Hamiltonians for PEPS are constructed (as in 1D) it is much more difficult to assess whether the parent
as sums of local terms which have the space supporting Hamiltonian is gapped in the thermodynamic limit, and
the 2 2 site reduced state as their kernel. examples which become gapless at some finite deforma-
tion 0 < crit < 1 of the isometric form exist. For in-
stance, the coherent state corresponding to the classical
2. Cases of interest Ising model20 on a hexagonal lattice at the critical tem-
perature has critical correlations and is thus gapless,21
As in 1D, each PEPS has an isometric form to which it while it is injective and therefore its isometric form is
can be continuously deformed, yielding a continuous path gapped. In fact, this example illustrates that a smooth
of -deformed Hamiltonians along which the ground state change in P can even lead to a non-local change in the
degeneracy is preserved. There are three classes of PEPS PEPS |[P ]i.
which are of special interest. Fortunately, it turns out that in some environment of
First, the injective case, where P is injective, commuting Hamiltonians (and in particular in some envi-
and |[P]i is the unique ground state of its parent ronment of the three classes introduced above), a spectral
P
Hamiltonian.8 gap can be proven. To this end, let H = hi , hi 11
Second, the block-diagonal case, where (ker P) = with ground state energy min (H) = 0, where the condi-
LA tion
=1 H , with H = span{|i, j, k, li : 1 < i, j, k, l
}; this corresponds again to GHZ-type states and hi hj + hj hi 18 (1 )(hi + hj ) (21)
Hamiltonians with A-fold degenerate ground states.
These systems are closely related to the 1D non-injective holds for some > 0 (here, each hi acts on 2 2 plaque-
casethey exhibit breaking of some local symmetry, and ttes on a square lattice); in particular, this is the case for
the ground state subspace is spanned by |[P|H ]i. commuting Hamiltonians. Then,
Third, the case where the isometric form of P is X X X
H 2 = h2i + hi hj + hi hj H , (22)
X |{z} |{z}
i <ij>
P= Vg Vg Wg Wg (20) hi 0
g
(where the second and third sum run over overlapping
(the ordering of the systems is topdownleftright), with and non-overlapping hi , hj , respectively), which implies
Vg and Wg unitary representations of a finite group G that H has a spectral gap between 0 and , cf. Ref. 1.
containing all irreps of G at least once; this scenario As we show in detail in Appendix E, condition (21)
corresponds to systems where the ground state degen- is robust with respect to -deformations of the Hamilto-
eracy depends on the topology of the system, and which nian. In particular, for any PEPS |[P]i with commut-
ing parent Hamiltonian (such as the three cases presented
above), it still holds for the parent of QN |[P]i as long
as min (Q)/max (Q) ' 0.967. Thus, while considering
the isometric cases does not allow us to classify all Hamil-
tonians as in 1D, we can still do so for a non-trivial subset
in the space of Hamiltonians.
gether with the results of the previous subsection, this where = ( 0 01 ): The term hz enforces the even-parity
will provide us with a classification of quantum phases in subspace |00i + |11i, while hx () takes care that the
some environment of these cases. relative weight within this subspace is |00i+2 |11i, which
allows to smoothly interpolate between |00i and |00i +
|11i within the set of commuting Hamiltonians.
1. Systems with unique or GHZ-type ground state Together, this proves that for a given group G, all
PEPS of the form (20), with representations Vg and Wg
As in one dimension, any injective isometric P can be which contain all irreducible representations of G, yield
locally rotated to the scenario where P = 11, this is, it PEPS which are in the same phase. On the other hand,
consists of maximally entangled pairs between adjacent it is not clear whether the converse holds: Given two fi-
sites. This entanglement can again be removed along a nite groups G, H with corresponding representations Vg ,
commuting path h , Eq. (5), as in one dimension. This Wg and Vh , Wh , for which Eq. (20) yields the same (or
implies that any injective PEPS and its parent Hamilto- a locally equivalent) map Pwhich means that the two
nian which is sufficiently close to being isometric is in the models are in the same phaseis it true that the two
same phase as the product state. groups are equal? While we cannot answer this question,
The case with block-diagonal P, such as for GHZ-like let us remark that since both models can be connected
states, is also in complete analogy to one dimension: Up by a gapped path, one can use quasi-adiabatic continu-
to a rotation, it is equivalent to the A-fold degenerate ation9,22 to show that their excitations need to have the
GHZ state with additional maximally entangled pairs same braiding statistics; this is, the representations of
between adjacent sites, whose bond dimension D can their doubles need to be isomorphic as braided tensor
again couple to the (classical) value of the GHZ state. categories. Note that in Ref. 23, the map P is used to
This local entanglement can again be removed along a map doubles to equivalent string-net models.
commuting path, as in one dimension, and we find that
all block-diagonal PEPS which are close enough to being
isometric can be transformed into the Afold degenerate 3. More types of local entanglement
GHZ state along a gapped adiabatic path.
Let us remark that while we have characterized the
equivalence classes of isometric PEPS for the three afore-
2. Systems with topological order mentioned classes, this characterization is not complete,
even beyond the difficulty of proving a gap: There are
What about the topological case of Eq. (20)? Of PEPS which can be transformed to those cases by local
course, additional local entanglement |D i can be present unitaries or low-depth local circuits, yet P has a differ-
independently of the topological part of the state, which ent structure. The reason is that unlike in 1D, local en-
corresponds to replacing Vg by Vg 11 (and correspond- tanglement need not be bipartite. E.g., one could add
ingly for Wg ), and this entanglement can be manipulated four-partite GHZ states around plaquettes: while this
and removed along a commuting path. is certainly locally equivalent to the original state, it will
However, it turns out that the bond dimension D of the change the kernel of P, since only bipartite maximally en-
local entanglement can couple to the topological part of tangled states can be described by a mapping P P 11.
the state even though there is no local symmetry break- Thus, the previous classification can be extended to a
ing. In particular, the bond dimension D can couple to much larger class of isometric tensors, by including all
the irreps R (g) of Vg and Wg , i.e., we can change the symmetries of ker P which can arise due to adding local
multiplicity D of individual irreps R (g), entanglement.
M M
R (g) R (g) 11D .
D. Symmetries in two dimensions
that in the following we only show how to construct con- different representations of a PEPS with local symmetry
tinuous paths of PEPS; in order to turn this into a clas- breaking, i.e., GHZ-type states. It follows that for any
sification of phases under symmetries, we need to restrict such PEPS, a symmetry can be understood at the virtual
to the regions characterized in Sec. III B where we can level as
prove a gap. Yet, the following arguments show that the MM
reasoning used for one-dimensional systems with symme- Ug = Pg Vha Vha Wha Wha .
tries will not apply in two dimensions, and a more refined a a
framework might be needed.
where again the Pg permutes the sectors, the a are min-
imal subsets invariant under Pg , and the Vha and Wha ,
1. Systems with unique ground states together with Pg , form an induced projective representa-
tion.
Let us start by studying the injective case. There, The permutation action Pg of the symmetry is invari-
it has be shown24 that any two maps P and P which ant under blocking. Thus, we can apply the same type of
describe the same PEPS are related via a gauge trans- continuity argument as in 1D to show that different per-
formation mutations Pg label different phases. (Since this argument
proves that there cannot be a gapped path of Hamiltoni-
P = P(ei Y Y Z Z ) , (23) ans on any finite chain connecting systems with different
Pg , it holds independently of whether we can prove a
with Y = (Y 1 )T . This implies that any unitary invari- gap on the Hamiltonian along the path, as long as the
ance of |[P]i can be understood as a symmetry initial and final systems are gapped.) On the other hand,
the projective representations behave under blocking just
Ug = P 1 Ug P = Vg Vg Wg Wg as in the injective case: They map to tensor products of
themselves, and thus, we can choose a blocking such that
acting on the on the virtual system, with Vg and Wg the Vha and Wha are all in the trivial cohomology class. If
projective unitary representations. moreover the Pg are equal, we can construct an interpo-
While this is in complete analogy to the one- lating path of PEPS just as in one dimension.
dimensional case, there is an essential difference: The
representation of the symmetry on the virtual level is
not invariant under blocking sites. By blocking k IV. DISCUSSION
sites, we obtain a new PEPS projector with symmetries
Vg = Vgk and Wg = Wg , respectively. However, tak- In this section, we discuss various aspects which have
ing tensor products changes the cohomology class, and been omitted in the previous sections.
in particular, for any finite-dimensional representation
Vg there exists a finite k such that Vgk is in the trivial
cohomology class. This is, by blocking a finite number of A. Matrix Product States
sites, any two PEPS |[P0 ]i and |[P1 ]i can be brought
into a form where the symmetry on the virtual level is
1. Injectivity and translational invariance
represented by Vg0 , Wg0 , and Vg1 , Wg1 which are all in the
trivial cohomology class.
At this point, we can proceed as in the 1D case In order to obtain injectivity, it is necessary to block
and construct an interpolating path which preserves the sites (say, k sites per block). Thus, the notion of locality
symmetry using non-maximally entangled states |()i changes: For instance, a two-local path of parent Hamil-
[Eq. (10)], now with joint symmetry tonians is 2k-local on the unblocked system. Also, along
such a path we can maintain translational invariance only
(Vg0 Vg1 ) (Vg0 Vg1 ) (Wg0 Wg1 ) (Wg0 Wg1 ) . under translations by k sites, i.e., on the blocked system.
However, the number of sites which need to be blocked
Note that the whole construction can be understood as to obtain injectivity is fairly small, namely O(log D) for
the sequential application of two one-dimensional inter- typical cases25 and O(D4 ) in the worst case.26 In partic-
polations (since at the isometric point the horizontal and ular, this is much more favorable than what is obtained
vertical directions decouple) and thus, all arguments con- using renormalization methods,11 where in addition to
cerning technical points such as the embedding in the injectivity one has to go to block sizes beyond the corre-
physical space can be directly transferred. lation length.
It should be noted that several of our arguments apply
without blocking, thus strictly preserving translational
2. Systems with local symmetry breaking invariance. In particular, the way in which symmetries
act on the virtual level is the same without blocking, and
The results of Ref. 24 for the relation of two maps P the impossibility proofs for interpolating paths also ap-
and P , Eq. (23), can be readily generalized to relate ply equally. On the other hand, it is not clear whether
14
given such a faithful representation Ug , we have that compare blocks of different lengths for the two systems:
U (g) = tr Ug = |tr[Vg ]|2 0 (with Vg Vg the vir- E.g., for U(1) any two continuous representations ein0
tual realization of Ug ), which implies that any represen- and ein1 of U(1) can be made equal by blocking |n1 |
tation Wg is contained as a subrepresentation in UgN and |n0 | sites, respectively, as long as the signs of n0 and
for N large enough.P(For finite groups, this follows as n1 are equal. Therefore, in that case the phases are ad-
1 N
the multiplicity |G| g U (g) W (g) is dominated by ditionally labelled by the signs of the 1D representations;
W (1) since |U (g)| is maximal for g = 1, cf. Ref. 27; this case has been considered in Ref. 11.
for Lie groups, this argument needs to be combined with To give an example where one might want to fix the
a continuity argument, cf. Ref. 28). Thus, starting from phase relation between Ug0 and Ug1 , consider the two prod-
the symmetry representation Ug0 or Ug1 , we can effectively uct states |0000 i and |0101 i under U (1) symme-
obtain any representation needed for the interpolating try: Both Ug0 and Ug1 arise as subblocks of R R
path by blocking N sites, proving equivalence of the two [with R = exp(iZ/2) the original U(1) representation],
definitions. which suggests to fix the phase relation and in turn sepa-
rates the two phases; note that this can be seen as a way
to reinforce translational invariance.
2. Definition with only one symmetry representation
and (0, 1) with a zrotation by . There are two equiva- The first three are isomorphic to Z2 , which has only triv-
lence classes of projective representations, corresponding ial projective representations, and thus, each of them la-
to the integer and half-integer representations of SO(3). bels one phase; since Htriv also has only trivial represen-
In particular, the one-dimensional spin-0 representation tations, it corresponds to a fourth phase with symme-
1e = 1x = 1y = 1z = 1 belongs to the trivial class, try breaking. The number of symmetry broken ground
and the two-dimensional spin- 12 representation 2x = X, states is |D2 /H|, i.e., the first three cases have two-fold
2y = Y , and 2z = Z (with X, Y , Z the Pauli matri- degenerate ground states, and the last case a four-fold
ces) belongs to the non-trivial class. For the following degenerate one.
examples, we will always consider systems with physical Let us start with Hz . A representant of that phase is
spin S = 1; we label the basis elements by their Sz spin a GHZ-type state of the form
component, | 1i, |0i, and |1i, and denote the physical
|GHZz i = | + 1, . . . , +1i + | 1, . . . , 1i ,
representation of the symmetry group by
which can be written as an MPS with D = 2 and
Rx = exp[iSx ] = | 1ih+1| |0ih0| | + 1ih1| ,
Rz = exp[iSz ] = | 1ih1| + |0ih0| | + 1ih+1| , PGHZz = | + 1ih0, 0| + | 1ih1, 1| ,
Ry = exp[iSy ] = + | 1ih+1| |0ih0| + | + 1ih1| . where the basis elements |0i and |1i correspond to two
symmetry broken sectors. The action of the symmetry
For systems with unique ground states, there are two on the virtual level is
possible phases. One contains the trivial state |0, . . . , 0i,
which can be trivially written as an MPS with bond di- Rx PGHZz = PGHZz [|0, 0ih1, 1| + |1, 1ih0, 0|]
mension D = 1, and Rz PGHZz = PGHZz [|0, 0ih0, 0| + |1, 1ih1, 1|]
Ptriv = |0i ; and correspondingly for Ry ; i.e., while Rz acts within the
symmetry broken sectors, Rx (and Ry ) acts by permuting
clearly, applying any physical transformation Rw (w = the different sectors. The corresponding Hamiltonian is
x, y, z) to the physical spin translates to applying the one- the GHZ Hamiltonian
dimensional representation 1 1 on the virtual system. X
The corresponding Hamiltonian is HGHZz = |+1, +1ih+1, +1|+|1, 1ih1, 1| i,i+1 .
X i
Htriv = |0ih0| + const . (24) The same type of ground state and Hamiltonian is found
i
for the subgroups Hx and Hy with correspondingly inter-
The second phase with unique ground state is illustrated changed roles (i.e., Rx and Ry , respectively, do not per-
by the AKLT state,30 which can be written as an MPS mute the ground states). Note that these three phases
with D = 2, and a projector are indeed distinct in the presence of D2 symmetry, as
there is no way how to smoothly change the element of
PAKLT = S=1 (11 iY ) , the symmetry group which does not permute the sym-
metry broken sectors. (This is related to the fact that
with S=1 the projector onto the S = 1 subspace, and D2 /H is discrete, i.e., we are breaking a discrete symme-
iY = 1 0 1
0 . Since we have that Rx = S=1 X XS=1 ,
try; note that breaking of continuous symmetries does
and correspondingly for y and z, it follows that the sym- not fit the MPS framework since this would correspond
metry operations are represented on the virtual level as to an infinite number of blocks in the MPS and would
Rx P = P(X X), Ry P = P(Y Y ), and Rz P = require gapless Hamiltonians.)
P(Z Z), which is a non-trivial projective representation Finally, choosing Htriv = {e} gives a phase which fully
of SO(3). The corresponding Hamiltonian is the AKLT breaks the D2 symmetry. A representative of this phase
Hamiltonian can be constructed by blocking two sites, with the four
X basis states
HAKLT = S~i S
~i+1 + 1 (S
~i S
~i+1 )2 + const .
3
i
|1i = | + 1i| + xi , |2i = | + 1i| xi ,
|3i = | 1i| + xi , |4i = | 1i| xi ,
In order to classify all phases with symmetry breaking,
we need to consider all proper subgroups of D2 . There where | xi are the Sx eigenstates with eigenvalues 1,
are four of them:
| xi | 1i 2|0i + | + 1i .
Hx = {e, x}
We have that
Hz = {e, z}
Hy = {e, y} and Rx | xi = | xi , Rz | 1i = | 1i ,
Htriv = {e} Rx | 1i = | 1i , Rz | xi = | xi .
18
It follows that all Rw Rw (w = x, y, z) act as permuta- on the virtual indices with the projective spin- 21 repre-
tions on the basis {|1i, |2i, |3i, |4i}: sentation of the rotation group; it follows that the AKLT
state is in the non-trivial equivalence class under SO(3)
(Rx Rx ) : |1i |3i ; |2i |4i ; symmetry. The trivial spin-1 state, on the other hand,
(Rz Rz ) : |1i |2i ; |3i |4i ; is obtained by placing singlets between pairs of spin-1
sites [i.e., between sites (1, 2), (3, 4), etc.]. After blocking
(Ry Ry ) : |1i |4i ; |2i |3i . these pairs, we obtain a product state with the spin-0
state at each site, which is an MPS with D = 1 and the
Thus, the GHZ type state trivial projector
4
X
|GHZ4 i = |k, . . . , ki , Ptriv = |S = 0i . (26)
k=1
which is an MPS with D = 4 and Thus, the rotation group Rn () acts with the trivial rep-
resentation on the virtual indices, and the trivial state is
4
X thus in a different phase than the AKLT chain.
PGHZ4 = |kihk, k| ,
It should be noted that while D2 is a subgroup of
k=1
SO(3), this does not imply that SO(3) exhibits all phases
breaks all symmetries of D2 , and represents yet another of D2 indeed, the symmetry broken phases are miss-
distinct phase with symmetry D2 = Z2 Z2 ; the corre- ing. The reason is that while for any subgroup H D2 ,
sponding Hamiltonian is D2 /H is finite, this is not true for SO(3). Since however
SO(3)/H labels the symmetry broken ground states, this
4
XhX i corresponds to breaking a continuous symmetry, which
HGHZ4 = |k, kihk, k|j,j+1 , leads to gapless phases and cannot be described in the
j k=1 framework of Matrix Product States.
where the label j refers to the blocked sites. Let us now turn our attention towards SU(2) sym-
metry, and explicitly construct an interpolating path
between the isometric projectors for the AKLT state,
2. Phases under SO(3) and SU(2) symmetry Eq. (25), and the trivial state, Eq. (26). Note that the
difference is that now for both PAKLT and Ptriv , the sym-
Let us now consider symmetry under rotational invari- metry action on the virtual level is a linear representation
ance, imposed either as SO(3) or as SU(2) symmetry. We of SU(2) (namely the spin- 12 and the spin-0 representa-
will find that under SO(3) symmetry, there are two pos- tion, respectively). We can now provide an interpolating
sible phases, represented by the spin-1 AKLT state and path | i = |()iN , with
the trivial spin-0 state, respectively; on the other hand,
we will show that if we impose SU(2) symmetry, there |()i = |0, 0i + (1 )(|1, 1i + |2, 2i) ,
is only a single phase, as the AKLT state can be trans-
formed into the trivial state keeping SU(2) symmetry.
where |0 i corresponds to the isometric form (25) of the
Let us start with SO(3) symmetry. In order to compare
AKLT state, and |1 i to the isometric from (26) of the
the AKLT state to the trivial spin-0 state, we need a rep-
trivial state. Furthermore, for U SU(2), the whole
resentation of SO(3) which contains both the spin-1 and
path is invariant under the on-site symmetry
spin-0 representation; we will denote the representation
as
(1 U ) (1 U ) = 1 (U U ) (U U ) (27)
Rn () = exp[i n S] 1 .
While we could start with such a symmetry representa- which contains the symmetries 1 and U U of the trivial
tion right away, let us discuss how to obtain the same set- and the AKLT state as subsymmetries; this proves that
ting from a spin-1 chain by blocking: Blocking two spin-1 under SU(2) symmetry, the AKLT state and the trivial
sites gives a system with total spin 1 1 = 2 1 0, con- state are in the same phase. Note that the symmetry (27)
taining both a spin-1 and spin-0 subspace. It is straight- is only a representation of SU(2), but not of SO(3), as
forward to check that after blocking two sites and apply- integer and half-integer spin representations belong to in-
ing a rotation 1 iY , the isometric form of the AKLT equivalent classes of projective representations of SO(3);
state is also, we cannot obtain this symmetry by starting only
from the spin-0 and spin-1 representation of SU(2), as
PAKLT = 11 , (25) they are not faithful representations. Note that this in-
terpolating path can already be ruled out by imposing
where the identity is on the two virtual spins with repre- a parity constraint on the total number of half-integer
sentation 21 12 = 1 0. The physical rotation Rn acts representations, by e.g. associating them to fermions.
19
injective case), where it is shown that any parent Hamil- Appendix B: Standard form for injective MPS
tonian is gapped, and a lower bound on the gap (uniform under symmetries
in N ) is given.
In the following, we will use the results of Ref. 6 In this section, we discuss how Ug symmetry of an
to derive a uniform lower bound on the gap for all injective MPS is represented on the virtual level. To
H
P , 1 0. Let the MPS matrices [Ai ()]kl := start with, it has been shown? that any two tensors P
k,l hi|P |k, li|kihl| (cf. Sec. IV A 2); in theLnormal form, and P which (up to a phase) represent the same MPS
the Ai () have a block structure Ai () = A i (). Let
can be related by a gauge transformation
P
E () := A
i i () Ai (), and let |spec E ()| = P = P(ei V V ) .
{1 () > 2 () > 0} be the ordered absolute
value of the spectrum of E () (not counting duplicates). Given an MPS |[P ]i with Ug invariant parent Hamilto-
Then, 2 ()/1 () < 1, and since the spectrum is contin- nian (where Ug is a linear or projective representation),
uous in [0; 1], and the degeneracy of 1 is A,6 the ex- it follows that |[P]i is invariant under Ug up to a phase
istence of a uniform upper bound 1 > >
2 ()/1 () and thus, the action of Ug on |[P]i can be understood
follows. For 6= , let on the virtual level as
Ug P = P(eig Vg Vg ) , (B1)
[A (); X][A (); Y ]
p, () = sup
, or
X,Y |[A (); X]i
|[A (); Y ]i
P Ug := P 1 Ug P = (eig Vg Vg ) ;
where |[C; X]i := i1 ,...,ip tr[Ci1 . . . Cip X]|i1 , . . . , ip i;
i.e., p, () is the maximal overlap of the p-site re- note that Ug forms again a representation. From this, it
follows that the Vg form a projective representation, and
duced states of the MPS described by the blocks A ()
P in turn that g forms a 1D representation of G. This
and A (). With S () := { i tr[A i ()X]|ii|X}, and
O(X , Y) the maximal overlap between normalized vec- shows that Ug , and thus Ug , is a linear representation of
tors in the subspaces X and Y, we have that p, () Gsystems with MPS ground states without symmetry
breaking cannot be invariant under projective represen-
O(S ()p , S ()p ) O(S (), S ())p . Moreover,
tations. (Strictly speaking, we only find that g is in the
since S (0) S (0), and S () = Q S (0), we have
same cohomology class as a linear representation, but in
that
order to compare two systems, we need the same gauge
for 0g and 1g , so we choose them to be linear represen-
|hv|Q2 |wi|
O(S (), S ()) sup tations.)
hv|wi=0 kQ |vikkQ |wik Under blocking, the physical symmetry Ug in (B1) is
s mapped to Ugk , restricted to the range of the blocked
|M12 |2
= sup , map P k |D i(k1) . Vg remains unchanged under block-
hv|wi=0 M11 M22 ing; this suggests that it is suitable as a characteristic
of a quantum phase (which we expect to be stable un-
where M = Q2 , = |0ihv| + |1ihw|, is some 2 2 der blocking). The 1D representation eig , on the other
submatrix of Q2 . For M > 0, hand, changes under blocking to eikg . In particular,
if the 1D representation is finite, it can be removed by
blocking, while this is not possible for continuous repre-
|M12 |2 min (M ) min (Q2 ) sentations such as of U(1).
1 1
M11 M22 max (M ) max (Q2 ) However, our definition of quantum phases allows us
1 min (Q2 ) =: < 1 , to fully remove the 1D representation eig in (B1) even if
it is continuous, using the phase degree of freedom which
we included in our definition. Consider first the scenario
and we find that p, () p . Thus, there exists a p
where we are free to choose the phase degree of freedom
s.th.
for the initial and final system independently. Then, we
can choose to replace Ug by eig Ug , which will make the
4(A 1)p X 1 + D2 p
K p () := p
+ D2 p 2 p < 1/ 2 , phase in (B1) vanish. Second, consider the case where
1 2(A 1)
1 D the two physical symmetries are equal, Ug0 = Ug1 =: Ug .
Then, we can choose the phase gauge such that the 1D
and as Nachtergaele shows,6 12 2p ()(1 2K p ())2 is representation for one system vanishes,
a lower bound on the spectral gap of H . Here, 2p () is Ug0 = Vg0 Vg0 .
the gap of H , restricted to 2p sites, which has a uniform
lower bound as the restricted Hamiltonian is continuous On the other hand, since Ug0 = Ug1 , we have that
in . This proves that H has a uniform spectral gap for 1
0 1. eig Vg1 Vg1 = Vg0 Vg0
21
1
which also implies that eig = 1 [e.g., by looking at any i.e., the upper left block of Ug (which corresponds to
non-zero matrix element (i, i) (j, j)]. Finally, if Ug0 and the virtual subspace used by P ) forms a representa-
Ug1 only share a subblock, this means that Vg0 = Xg0 Yg0 tion to first order in d. The part corresponding to each
s.th. Xg0 Xg0 yields that subblock, and similary for Vg1 , of the two bonds thus forms a projective representation
1 which changes smoothly in , and which therefore cannot
which again shows that eig = 1. change its cohomology class. Since the cohomology class
has to be the same for all subblocks, this completes the
proof.
Appendix C: Continuity of cohomology class where
subspace changes
(This can be derived using the Schur complement to ex- (g, h G) implies for the algebraic structure of Pg , Vg ,
1
press P+d and can be readily checked by left multipli- and eig . (We can always achieve a linear representation
cation with P+d .) It follows that the upper left block by blocking; also note that the following argument can
of Kg Kh is be generalized to projective representations.) First, since
Pg is the only part of (D1) which is not block diagonal,
(11 + X)Qg Qh X Rg Rh + O(d 2 ) , it follows that the Pg form a linear representation of G.
22
(Linearity follows since the entries of Pg are 0 and 1). using that g () = k h k1 () = k h (0 ) = .
Let us define If we now substitute back
Wg := eig Vg Vg . (D3) 0
Wh0 = eih Vh0 Vh0
Then, using (D1) the representation structure (D2) is [Eq. (D3)] in
equivalent to the relation
Wg0 Wh0 = Wgh
0
, g, h H
Wgh () Wh = Wgh
(D4)
[Eq. (D4)], we find that Vh0 forms a projective represen-
for the Wg , where the permutations h are defined 0
via Hh () = Ph (H ) and thus form a representation, tation of H, and eih a linear representation of H.
g h = gh . Thus, we can write
Let us now show that (D4) implies that the Ug can be K Ug K = Ug Dg
understood as an induced representation; the following
proof is due to S. Beigi.36 Fix some 0 , and let with
M
H := {h : h G, h (0 ) = 0 } . Ug = Pg Vh0 Vh0 (D8)
Then, (D4) implies that Wh0
is a linear representation
2
hi 2,B hj +hj 2,B hi + 81 a 1 ij + 8(b 1) (hi ,C + 2
,A hj )
2 2 1
b
hi ,B hj + hj ,B hi + 8 1 ij + 8( 1) (hi 11C + 11A hj )
= hi hj + hj hi + hi (b 1)11 hi + hj (b 1)11 hj + hi hj + hj hi + 18 (1 ij )(hi + hj )
(hi + hj ) (hi + hj ) 0 .
By multiplying this with ,A ,B ,C from both suming a square lattice, the lower bound on the spectral
sides, we obtain a lower bound of type (E1) for the - gap provided by (E2) is
deformed Hamiltonian,
1
M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner, Commun. (2011), arXiv:1008.3745.
12
Math. Phys. 144, 443 (1992). A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. 303, 2 (2003), quant-ph/9707021.
2 13
F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, (2004), cond-mat/0407066. F. Verstraete, D. Porras, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.
3
F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B 73, 094423 93, 227205 (2004), cond-mat/0404706.
14
(2006), cond-mat/0505140. X. Chen, Z. Gu, and X. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 82, 155138
4
M. Hastings, J. Stat. Mech. , P08024 (2007), (2010), arXiv:1004.3835.
15
arXiv:0705.2024. S. Michalakis and J. Pytel, (2011), arXiv:1109.1588.
5 16
M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. B 76, 035114 (2007), S. Bravyi and M. B. Hastings, (2010), arXiv:1001.4363.
17
cond-mat/0701055. F. Verstraete, J. Cirac, J. Latorre, E. Rico, and M. Wolf,
6
B. Nachtergaele, Commun. Math. Phys. 175, 565 (1996). Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 140601 (2005), quant-ph/0410227.
7 18
D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, C. H. Bennett, S. Popescu, D. Rohrlich, J. A. Smolin,
Quant. Inf. Comput. 7, 401 (2007), quant-ph/0608197. and A. V. Thapliyal, Phys. Rev. A 63, 012307 (2000),
8
D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, quant-ph/9908073.
19
Quantum Inf.Comp. 8, 0650 (2008), arXiv:0707.2260. N. Schuch, I. Cirac, and D. Perez-Garca, Annals of
9
M. B. Hastings and X. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 72, 045141 Physics 325, 2153 (2010), arXiv:1001.3807.
20
(2005), cond-mat/0503554. F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, D. Perez-Garcia, and J. I. Cirac,
10
F. Pollmann, A. M. Turner, E. Berg, and M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 220601 (2006), quant-ph/0601075.
21
Phys. Rev. B 81, 064439 (2010), arXiv:0910.1811. M. B. Hastings and T. Koma, Commun. Math. Phys. 265,
11
X. Chen, Z. Gu, and X. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 83, 035107 781 (2006), math-ph/0507008.
24
22 28
S. Bachmann, S. Michalakis, B. Nachtergaele, and R. Sims, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/58633.
29
(2011), arXiv:1102.0842. F. Pollmann, E. Berg, A. M. Turner, and M. Oshikawa,
23
O. Buerschaper and M. Aguado, Phys. Rev. B 80, 155136 (2009), arXiv.org:0909.4059.
30
(2009), arXiv:0907.2670. A. Affleck, T. Kennedy, E. H. Lieb, and H. Tasaki, Com-
24
D. Perez-Garcia, M. Sanz, C. E. Gonzalez-Guillen, M. M. mun. Math. Phys. 115, 477 (1988).
31
Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, New J. Phys. 12, 025010 (2010), R. Dijkgraaf and E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. 129,
arXiv.org:0908.1674. 393 (1990).
25 32
D. Perez-Garca, M. Sanz, A. Cadarso, M. Wolf, and A. Kitaev, private communication.
33
J. Cirac, in preparation . L. Fidkowski and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. B 83, 075103
26
M. Sanz, D. Perez-Garcia, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, (2010), arXiv:1008.4138.
34
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 56, 4668 (2009), arXiv:0909.5347. Z. Gu, Z. Wang, and X. Wen, (2010), arXiv:1010.1517.
27 35
W. Fulton and J. Harris, Representation theory: a first M. Sanz, M. M. Wolf, D. Perez-Garcia, and J. I. Cirac,
course (Springer, 1991). Phys. Rev. A 79, 042308 (2009), arXiv:0901.2223.
36
S. Beigi, private communication.