Classification of Gapped Symmetric Phases in 1D Spin Systems

Xie Chen,1 Zheng-Cheng Gu,2 and Xiao-Gang Wen1, 3 1Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 2Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA 3Institute for Advanced Study, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, P. R. China Quantum many-body systems divide into a variety of phases with very different physical prop- erties. The question of what kind of phases exist and how to identify them seems hard especially for strongly interacting systems. Here we make an attempt to answer this question for gapped in- teracting quantum spin systems whose ground states are short-range correlated. Based on the local unitary equivalence relation between short-range correlated states in the same phase, we classify possible quantum phases for 1D matrix product states, which represent well the class of 1D gapped ground states. We find that in the absence of any symmetry all states are equivalent to trivial product states, which means that there is no topological order in 1D. However, if certain symmetry is required, many phases exist with different symmetry protected topological orders. The symmetric local unitary equivalence relation also allows us to obtain some simple results for quantum phases in higher dimensions when some symmetries are present.

PACS numbers:

I. INTRODUCTION In this paper, we will apply the approach used in Ref.8,17 to 1D strongly correlated systems. We will com- For a long time, we believed that Landau symmetry- bine the local unitary transformation with the symmetry breaking theory1,2 describes all possible orders in materi- properties of matrix product states, and try to obtain a als, and all possible (continuous) phase transitions. How- complete classification of all gapped phases in 1D quan- ever, in last twenty years, it has become more and more tum spin systems with certain simple symmetries. We clear that Landau symmetry-breaking theory does not find that describe all possible orders. For example, different frac- 3,4 (a) if there is no symmetry (including translation sym- tional quantum Hall (FQH) states all have the same metry), all gapped 1D spin systems belong to the symmetry. Thus it is impossible to use symmetry break- same phase. ing to characterize different FQH states. If Landau symmetry breaking theory is not enough, (b) for 1D non-translation invariant (NTI) spin sys- then what should we use to describe those new states tems with ONLY an on-site symmetry described by of matter? It turns out that we need to develop a to- a group G, all the phases of gapped systems that tally new theory, to described the new types of orders – do not break the symmetry are classified by the topological/quantum order5,6 – that appear in the FQH equivalence classes in the second cohomology group states and the spin liquid states. H2(G, C) of the group G, provided that the physical In Ref.7, a systematic understanding of a large class of states on each site form a linear representation of topological orders in strongly correlated bosonic systems the group G. without symmetry has been developed based on string- (Note that the equivalence classes in H2(G, C) classify net condensations. In Ref.8, the string-net classification the types of projective representations of G over the field of topological orders was generalized, based on local uni- C of complex numbers. AppendixC gives a brief intro- tary (LU) transformations. In Ref.6,9,10, topological duction on projective representation and the second co- orders with symmetry are studied using projective sym- homology group.) In certain cases where G has infinitely metry group and tensor network renormalization. But many 1D representations, for example when G = U(1), so far, we still do not have a complete classification of further classification according to different 1D represen- topological orders for interacting systems. arXiv:1008.3745v2 [cond-mat.str-el] 5 Sep 2010 tations exist. Recently, for non-interacting gapped fermion systems But quantum states are defined only up to global with certain symmetries, a complete classification of change of phases, therefore the symmetry operations of topological phases has been developed based on the K- group G only needs to be represented by operators u(g) theory.11,12 A generalization of the free fermion result to which satisfy interacting cases has been obtained for 1D systems.13

iθ(g1,g2) For 1D bosonic systems, Ref. 14 studied quantized u(g1)u(g2) = e u(g1g2) (1) Berry phases for spin rotation symmetric systems. Ref. 15 studied the entanglement spectrum and the sym- for any group element g1 and g2. Such operators form a metry properties of matrix product states. Using those projective representation of group G. When we consider tools, they obtained some interesting results which are this general case, we find that the classification result special cases of the situation considered here. remains the same as with linear representations, that is, 2

(c) for 1D non-translation invariant (NTI) spin sys- gapped TI phases:18–20 the spin-0 trivial phase and the tems with ONLY an on-site symmetry described by Haldane phase21, while translation invariant SO(3) sym- a group G, all the phases of gapped systems that metric half-integer spin chain must either be gapless or do not break the symmetry are classified by the have degeneracy in ground space due to broken discrete equivalence classes in the second cohomology group symmetries22,23. On the other hand, the SU(2) sym- H2(G, C) of the group G, provided that the physical metric spin chains where on-site degrees of freedom con- states on each site form a projective representation tain both integer-spin and half-integer-spin representa- of the group G. tions have only one gapped TI phase. We also show that the spin chain with only translation and parity symmetry In certain cases where G has infinitely many 1D repre- (defined as exchange of sites together with an on-site Z2 sentations, further classification according to different 1D operation) has four different gapped TI phases.18–20 representations exist. For systems with time reversal symmetry, we find Applying these general results to specific cases allows that NTI time reversal symmetric systems belong to two us to reach the following conclusions: First, result (a) phases while TI time reversal symmetric phases on in- means that there is no non-trivial topological order in 1D teger spin systems have two phases and those on half- systems without any symmetry; Using result (b), we find integer spin systems are either gapless or have degeneracy that NTI integer-spin chain with only on-site SO(3) spin in ground space. rotation symmetry can have two and only two different The paper is organized as follows: sectionII gives a de- phases that do not break the SO(3) symmetry. Result tailed definition of gapped quantum phases and explains (c) implies that NTI half-integer-spin chain with only on- how that gives rise to an equivalence relation between site SO(3) spin rotation symmetry (which is represented gapped ground states within the same phase; sectionIII projectively) also have two and only two gapped phase shows that short-range correlated matrix product states that does not break the SO(3) symmetry; We note the represents faithfully 1D gapped ground states and hence Z cyclic n group has no non-trivial projective representa- will be our object of study; sectionIV discusses the situ- Z tions, thus NTI spin chain with only on-site n symmetry ation where no symmetry is required and found no topo- can have one and only one gapped phase that does not logical order in 1D; sectionV gives the classification of Z break the n symmetry; The U(1) symmetry group has phases for 1D systems with certain symmetries, for ex- no non-trivial projective representation either, however, ample on-site symmetry and time reversal symmetry. It due to the special structure of the group of 1D represen- classifies phases in translational invariant systems, and tations of U(1), NTI spin chain with only on-site U(1) furthermore in systems where translational invariance is symmetry can have three and only three gapped phase present together with other symmetries such as on-site that does not break the U(1) symmetry. symmetry, parity symmetry and time reversal symmetry; We also considered systems with translation invari- sectionVI generalizes some simple 1D results to higher ance (TI) and correspondingly many results have been dimensions; finally in sectionVII we summarize our re- obtained. sults and conclude this paper. (a) if there is no other symmetry, all gapped TI systems belong to the same phase. (This has been discussed as the generic case in Ref. 17). II. DEFINITION OF QUANTUM PHASES

(b) for 1D spin systems with ONLY translation sym- To obtain the above stated results, we need to first metry and an on-site symmetry described by a briefly discuss the definition of quantum phases. A more group G, all the phases of gapped systems that do detailed discussion can be found in Ref.8. Quantum not break the two symmetries are labeled by the phase describes an equivalence relation between quantum equivalence classes in the second cohomology group systems. Systems we consider live on a n-dimensional 2 H (G, C) of the group G and different 1D repre- lattice and interactions are local (with finite range). A sentations α(G) of G, provided that the physical gapped quantum phase is usually defined as a class of states on each site form a linear representation of gapped Hamiltonians which can smoothly deform into the group G. each other without closing gap and hence without any singularity in the local properties of ground state. Such Similar to the NTI case, we should consider projective an equivalence relation between Hamiltonians can be representations of G at each site. However, we find that, reinterpreted as an equivalence relation between ground (c) there is no translation invariant gapped ground states, as discussed in Ref.8,17: Two gapped ground state symmetric under on-site symmetry of group G states belong to the same phase if and only if they are 51 which is represented projectively on the state space related by a local unitary (LU) transformation. As LU at each site. transformations can change local entanglement structure but not the global one, states in the same phase have In particular, we can show that the SO(3) spin ro- the same long range entanglement (LRE) and hence the tation symmetric integer spin chain has two different same topological order.5,24 States equivalent to product 3

g g states have only short range entanglement (SRE) and 2 2 SB−SRE 1 SB−SRE 2 hence trivial topological order. All the states with short SRE range entanglement belong to the same phase while states SY−SRE 1 SY−SRE 2 with long range entanglement can belong to the different SY−LRE 1 SY−LRE 2 SY−LRE 3 phases. These considerations lead to the phase diagram LRE 1 LRE 2 as illustrated in Fig.1(a), for the class of systems with- SB−LRE 1 SB−LRE 2 SB−LRE 3 out any symmetry requirement. (a) g (b) g A LU transformation U can either take the form of 1 1 finite time evolution with a local Hamiltonian

−i R 1 dg H˜ (g) FIG. 1: (Color online) (a) The possible phases for class U = T [e 0 ] (2) of Hamiltonians H(g1, g2) without any symmetry restric- tion. (b) The possible phases for class of Hamiltonians where T denotes time ordered integral and H˜ (g) is a sum Hsymm(g1, g2) with some symmetries. The shaded regions in of local Hermitian terms. Or U can take the form of a (a) and (b) represent the phases with short range entangle- constant depth quantum circuit ment.

Y (1) Y (R) U = U ... U (3) i1 iR i1 iR breaking theory suggest that states with the same sym- metry always belong to the same phase, which implies which is composed of R layers of unitaries and the U (k)’s ik that all phases with short range entanglement are de- within each layer k are local and commute with each scribed by symmetry breaking. However, this result other.8 These two forms of LU transformations are equiv- turns out to be not quite correct. States which do not alent to each other and we will mainly take the quantum break any symmetry can still belong to different phases circuit form for the discussion in this paper (the time evo- as well.6 We will refer to the order in symmetric short lution form is used for discussion of translation invariant range entanglement (SY-SRE) states as symmetry pro- systems). More generally, we will consider equivalence re- tected topological order 19. For example, in the presence lation between states defined on different Hilbert spaces of parity symmetry, the Haldane phase and the Sz = 0 and hence we allow a broader notion of unitarity (which is phase of spin-1 chain belong to two different phases even called generalized LU transformation in Ref.8 and corre- though both phases have short range entanglement and sponds to the disentanglers and isometries in MERA25). do not break the parity symmetry. Also, in the presence Each LU operation U (k) we consider in the quantum cir- of time-reversal symmetry, the topological insulators and ik cuit will act unitarily on the support space of the reduced the band insulators belong to two different phases. Again (k) † (k) both phases have short range entanglement. density matrix of the region with (Ui ) Ui = I of the k k For systems with long range entanglement, the phase original Hilbert space and U (k)(U (k))† = I of the sup- ik ik diagram similarly divides into symmetry breaking (SB- port space of reduced density matrix. While the total LRE) and symmetric (SY-LRE) phases. The charge Hilbert space might change under such an operation, the 4e superconducting states27 and the symmetric Z entanglement structure of the state remains intact and 2 states6,28are examples of the SB-LRE phases and the SY- hence the state remains in the same phase with the same LRE phases respectively. topological order. If the class of systems under consideration have further symmetry constraints, two Hamiltonians are in the same phase if they can be connected by a smooth path that III. 1D GAPPED SPIN SYSTEMS AND stays within this symmetric region. Correspondingly, the MATRIX PRODUCT STATES equivalence relation between gapped ground states of the same phase needs to be modified:8 If the class of sys- Having defined the universality classes of phases as the tems have certain symmetry, two gapped ground states equivalence classes of states under (symmetric) local uni- belong to the same phase if and only if they are related tary transformations, we would then like to know which by a LU transformation which does not break the sym- phases exist, or in other words, to classify all possible metry. Such an restricted equivalence relation leads to phases in strongly correlated systems. Some partial clas- a phase diagram with more structure, as shown in Fig. sifications have been discussed for strongly correlated sys- 1(b). First not all short range entangled states belong to tems through string-net states,7 and for free fermion sys- the same phase. short range entangled states with dif- tems with certain symmetries through K-theory.11,12 In ferent symmetry breaking will belong to different phases. this paper, we would like to consider 1D gapped strongly Those symmetry breaking phases with short range entan- correlated spin systems both with and without symme- glement (SB-SRE) are well described by Landau’s sym- try, and try to classify all such systems whose ground metry breaking theory1,26. state does not break any symmetry. (In other words, Can all phases with short range entanglement be de- the ground state has the same symmetry as the Hamil- scribed by symmetry breaking? Landau’s symmetry tonian.) 4

Completely classifying strongly correlated spin systems Local unitary operations on MPS can be applied seems to be a hard task as in general strongly interact- through manipulation of E[k]. Treat E[k] as a D2×D2 ma- ing quantum many-body systems are very hard to solve. trix with row index αγ and column index βχ. To apply However, the recent insight about describing 1D gapped a unitary operation on n consecutive sites, we combine ground states of spin systems with matrix product state the double tensor of the n sites together into formalism29,30 provides us with a handle to deal with this problem. A matrix product states (MPS) is expressed as E˜ = E[1]E[2]...E[n] (7)

X [1] [2] [N] |φi = Tr(A A ...A )|i i ...i i (4) and then decompose E˜ into a set of matrices A˜ ’s i1 i2 iN 1 2 N ˜i i1,i2,...,iN E˜ X ˜ ˜∗ αγ,βχ = A˜i,αβ × A˜i,γχ. (8) where ik = 1...d with d being the physical dimension of a ˜i spin at each site, A[k]’s are D ×D matrices on site k with ik D being the inner dimension of the MPS. It has been Note A˜˜ is determined up to a unitary transformation shown that matrix product states capture the essential i,αβ on ˜i. The index ˜i of A˜ , up to an unitary transforma- features of 1D gapped ground state, for example an en- ˜i,αβ 31 32,33 tion, can be viewed as the combination of i1, i2, ..., in, the tanglement area law and finite correlation length , [1] [2] [n] 34 indices of A , A , ... A . Going from original and provide an efficient description of such states . On i1,αβ i2,αβ in,αβ the other hand, generic matrix product states satisfying a indices i1, i2, ..., in to the effective index ˜i corresponds ˜ condition called ‘injectivity’ are all gapped ground states to applying a unitary operation on the n-block and A˜i of local Hamiltonians29,30. Therefore, studying this class describes the new state after operation. of MPS will enable us to give a full classification of 1D The unitary operation can be chosen so that local en- gapped spin systems. tanglement is maximally removed. E˜ contains all the in- Now the question of what phases exist in 1D gapped formation about the entanglement of the block with the spin systems can be restated as what equivalence classes rest of the system but not any detail of entanglement of matrix product states exist under LU transformations. structure within the block. Hence we can determine from Ref. 17 gave a specific way to apply such LU transforma- E˜ the optimal way of decomposition into A˜ which corre- tions, which realizes a renormalization group transforma- sponds to the unitary operation that maximally removes tion on MPS that removes local entanglement and takes local entanglement while preserving the global structure. the states to a simple fixed point form. A partial classi- To do so, think of E˜αγ,βχ as a matrix with row index fication of MPS is also given in Ref. 17. In the following αβ and column index γχ. It is easy to see that with we will use this procedure to classify gapped phases of such a recombination, E˜ is a positive matrix and can be 1D spin system, in particular the 1D systems with vari- diagonalized ous symmetries. We see that the possible phases in 1D strongly correlated systems depend on the symmetry of E˜ X ∗ αγ,βχ = λ˜iV˜i,αβV˜i,γδ, (9) the class of systems. ˜i First we will briefly review how the renormalization 17 group transformation is done. For the identification where we have kept only the non-zero eigenvalues λ˜i and ˜ and optimal removal of local entanglement, a particularly the corresponding eigenvectors V˜i,αβ. A is then given by useful mathematical construction is the double tensor E[k] = P A[k] × (A[k] )∗ of the MPS. E[k] uniquely p αγ,βχ i i,αβ i,γχ A˜˜ = λiV˜ , (10) determines the state up to a local change of basis on each i,αβ i,αβ site30,35, that is, if which are the matrices representing the new state. In retaining only the non-zero eigenvalues, we have reduced E[k] X [k] [k] ∗ X [k] [k] ∗ αγ,βχ = Ai,αβ × (Ai,γχ) = Bi,αβ × (Bi,γχ) the physical dimension within the block to only those i i necessary for describing the entanglement between this (5) block and the rest of the system. Local entanglement

[k] [k] within the block has been optimally removed. then Ai,αβ and Bi,αβ are related by a unitary transfor- Each renormalization step in the renormalization pro- mation U [k]: cedure hence works by grouping every n consecutive sites [k] X [k] [k] together and then applying the above transformation to Bi,αβ = Uij Aj,αβ. (6) map A[1], A[2],..., A[n] to A˜. So one renormalization step j maps the original matrices (A[k])(0) on each site to renor- ik [k] [k] malized matrices (A[k])(1) on each block. Repeating this Therefore, states described by Ai and Bi have exactly ik the same entanglement structure, which is faithfully cap- procedure for a finite number of times corresponds to tured in E[k]. A proof of this fact can be found in Ref. 35. applying a finite depth quantum circuit to the original For clarity, we present the proof in appendixA following state. If the matrices reaches a simple fixed point form the notation of this paper. (A[k])(∞) (up to local unitaries), we can determine from ik 5 it the universal properties of the phase which the original states with LU transformations and hence there is no state belongs to. topological order in 1D. Such a renormalization procedure hence provides a way Consider a generic system without any symmetry (in- to classify matrix product states under LU transforma- cluding translation symmetry) whose gapped ground tions by studying the fixed point (A[k])(∞) that a state [k] ik state is described as an MPS with matrices Ai that flows to. Two states are within the same phase if and vary from site to site. Ref. 30 gives a ‘canonical form’ only their corresponding fixed points states can be trans- E[k] for the matrices so that the double tensor αγ,βχ, when formed into each other by (symmetric) LU transforma- treated as a matrix with row index αγ and column index tions. In the following we will apply this method to study [k] [k] βχ, has a left eigenvector Λαγ = λα δαγ and correspond- short-range correlated matrix product states which faith- [k+1] [k+1] fully represent the class of 1D gapped ground states. ing right eigenvector Λβχ = λβ δβχ. Here λ’s are P 2 The short-range correlation is an extra constraint on positive numbers and α λα = 1. δαγ = 1 when α = γ 53 the set of matrix product states that we will consider. and δαγ = 0 otherwise. This eigenspace has the largest Not all matrix product states describe gapped ground eigenvalue in E[k]36 and is usually set to be 1. Note that states of 1D spin systems. In particular, 1D gapped the right eigenvector on site k is the same as the left ground states all have finite correlation length33 for equal eigenvector on site k + 1 and has norm 1, therefore when time correlators of any local operator, while matrix prod- multiplying the double tensors together, this one dimen- uct states can be long-range correlated. The finite corre- sional eigenspace will always be of eigenvalue 1. lation length puts an extra constraint on MPS that the There could be other eigenvectors of eigenvalue 1 in eigen-spectrum of E should have a non degenerate largest E[k]. However, this will lead to an infinite correlation eigenvalue (set to be 1) (see appendixB). 29,30 Therefore, length29,30 and hence not possible in 1D gapped state. we will assume this property of E in our following discus- Therefore, for short-range correlated MPS, E[k] must sion and corresponding MPS will be called short-range have a non-degenerate largest eigenvalue 1. When multi- correlated (SRC) MPS. plying the double tensors together, the remaining block This renormalization method is well suited for the of E[k] will decay exponentially with the number of sites. study of systems without translational invariance, which This consideration is essential for determining the fixed we will discuss in detail. We will also make an attempt to point of the renormalization procedure when applied to study translational invariant systems with this method. the MPS, as shown below. While the full translational symmetry is reduced to block Now we apply the renormalization procedure as dis- translational symmetry in the RG process, by studying cussed in the previous section to remove local entan- the resulting equivalence classes for different values of glement from a general SRC MPS. Take block size n. block size n, we expect to obtain a more complete classifi- The double tensor on the renormalized sites are given by E[K] (1) Q E[k] (0) cation of translational invariant 1D systems. Indeed, the ( ) = k∈K ( ) , where k’s are the n sites in classification result is further confirmed by using a trans- block K.(E, again, is treated as a D2 × D2 matrix with lational invariant LU transformation in the time evolu- row index αγ and column index βχ.) tion form to study equivalence between TI systems. After repeating the renormalization process a finite In the following sections, we will present our analysis number of times, (E[k])(R) will be arbitrarily close to a and results for different cases. First we will consider the fixed point form (E[k])(∞) with non-degenerate eigenvalue situation where no specific symmetry is required for the (∞) [k] [k+1] [K] [k] 1 and (E[k]) = Λ˜ Λ˜ , where Λ˜ = λ˜ δ and system. αγ,βχ αγ βχ αγ α αγ ˜ [k+1] ˜[k+1] Λβχ = λβ δβχ. Now we can decompose (E[k])(∞) into matrices to find IV. NO TOPOLOGICAL ORDER IN 1D the fixed point state. One set of matrices giving rise to this double tensor is given by When no symmetry is required for the class of system, q q we want to know what kind of long range entanglement [k] (∞) ˜[k] ˜[k+1] (A ) = λ δ l · λ r δ r (11) exists and hence classify topological orders in 1D gapped ilir ,αβ il i α i i β spin systems. We will show that il, ir = 1...D. Here we use a pair of indices (il, ir) to label All gapped 1D spin systems belong to the same the effective physical degrees of freedom on the renormal- [k] (∞) phase if there is no symmetry. ized site k, and (Ail,ir ) is a set of matrices that defines the fixed-point MPS. It is clear from the form of the ma- In other words, there is no topological order in 1D. This trices that at fixed point every site is composed of two is similar to the generic case discussed in Ref. 17. virtual spins of dimension D. Every virtual spin is in an To obtain such a result, we use the fact that gapped entangled pair with another virtual spin on the neighbor- 52 PD ˜[k+1] 1D spin states are described by short-range correlated ing site |EPk,k+1i = i=1 λi |i, ii and the full many- (SRC) matrix product states. Then one can show that body state is a product of these pairs. An illustration of all SRC matrix product states can be mapped to product this state is given in Fig.2(upper layer). 6

where θ(g1, g2) = 0 in a linear representation and θ(g1, g2) could take non-trivial value in a projective rep- resentation. A projective representation of a symme- try group is generally allowed in a quantum description of system because the factor eiθ(g1,g2) only changes the global phase of a quantum state but not any physically measurable quantity. Therefore, in our classification, we FIG. 2: (Color online) Disentangling fixed point state (upper will consider not only the case of linear representation, layer, product of entangled pairs) into direct product state (lower layer) with LU transformations. but also in general projective representations. The on-site symmetry is the only symmetry required for the class of system. In particular, we do not require Obviously we can further disentangle these pairs by ap- translational symmetry for the systems. However, for a plying one layer of local unitary transformations between simple definition of phase, we will assume certain uni- every neighboring sites and map the state to a product formness in the state, which we will define explicitly in state (Fig.2, lower layer). the following. We will classify possible phases for differ- Therefore, through these steps we have shown that all ent G when the ground state is invariant (up to a to- SRC matrix product states can be mapped to product tal phase) under such on-site symmetry operations and states with LU transformations and hence there is no is gapped (ie short-range correlated). Specifically, the topological order in 1D NTI system. ground state |φLi on L sites satisfies (0) (0) u (g) ⊗ ... ⊗ u (g)|φLi = αL(g)|φLi (13) V. SYMMETRY PROTECTED TOPOLOGICAL where |αL(g)| = 1 are g and L dependent phase factors. ORDER IN 1D

If the class of systems under consideration has certain 1. On-site Linear Symmetry symmetry, the equivalence classes of states are defined in terms of LU transformations that do not break the First, let us consider the simpler case where u(0)(g) symmetry. Therefore, when applying the renormalization form a linear representation of G. αL(g) is then a one- procedure, we should carefully keep track of the symme- dimensional linear representation of G. Now we will try try and make sure that the resulting state has the same to classify these symmetric ground states using symmet- symmetry at each step. Due to such a constrain on lo- ric LU transformations and we find that cal unitary equivalence, we will see that gapped ground states which do not break the symmetry of the system Consider 1D spin systems with ONLY an on- divide into different universality classes corresponding to site symmetry G which is realized linearly, all different symmetry protected topological orders. We will the gapped phases that do not break the symmetry first discuss the case of on-site symmetries in detail for are classified by H2(G, C), the second cohomology non-translational invariant (NTI) systems, i.e., the sys- group of G, if H2(G, C) is finite and G has a finite tem has only an on-site symmetry and no translation number of 1D representations. symmetry. Then we shall make an attempt to study translational invariant (TI) systems, with the possibility We will also discuss the case of U(1) group which has an of having on-site symmetry or parity symmetry. Lastly, infinite number of 1D representations. we shall consider the case of time reversal symmetry. We will again assume that all gapped states can be rep- resented as short range correlated matrix product states. We will use the renormalization flow used before17 to sim- A. On-site Symmetry plify the matrix product states and use the fixed-point matrix product states to characterize different equivalent A large class of systems are invariant under on-site classes of LU transformations, as two symmetric states symmetry transformations. For example, the Ising model belong to the same class if and only if their correspond- ing fixed-point states can be mapped to each other with is symmetric under the Z2 spin flip transformation and the Heisenberg model is symmetric under SO(3) spin ro- symmetric LU transformations. tation transformations. In this section, we will consider In order to compare different equivalent classes under the general case where the system is symmetric under symmetric LU transformations, it is important to keep u(0)(g) ⊗ ... ⊗ u(0)(g) with u(0)(g) being a unitary rep- track of the symmetry while doing renormalization. resentation of a symmetry group G on each site. The First, in the renormalization procedure we group n representation can be linear or projective. That is, for sites together into a new site. The on-site symmetry transformation becomesu ˜(0)(g) = (⊗u(0)(g))n, which is any g1, g2 ∈ G, again a linear representation of G. The next step in RG iθ(g1,g2) [k] u(g1)u(g2) = e u(g1g2) (12) transformation applies a unitary transformation w1 to 7

(R) the support space of new site k. This is actually itself our discussions. Specifically, we assume that α[k] (g) does composed of two steps. First we project onto the sup- (R) not depend on the site index k. Certainly, α (g) does port space of the new site, which is the combination of [k] n sites in the original chain. This is an allowed opera- not depend on k if the state has the translation sym- tion compatible with symmetry G as the reduced den- metry. If the 1D representations of G are discrete, then (0) for weak randomness that slightly break the translation sity matrix ρn is invariant underu ˜ (g), so the support (R) space form a linear representation for G. The projection symmetry, α[k] (g) still does not depend on k. So we can (0) (0) (R) ofu ˜ (g) onto the support space Pnu˜ (g)Pn hence re- drop the k index and consider α (g). mains a linear representation of G. In the next step, we Does different α(R)(g) label different symmetric [k] do some unitary transformation w1 within this support phases? First, the answer is no if the number of 1D rep- space which relabels different states in the space. The resentations of G is finite (as is the case for Zn, SO(3), symmetry property of the state should not change under etc). Because we can always choose block size n properly this relabeling. In order to keep track of the symmetry of so that α(R)(g) = 1 and the difference between symmet- the state, the symmetry operation needs to be redefined ric states due to α(R)(g) disappears. In the case of U(1) [k] (1) [k] (0) [k] † as (u ) (g) = w Pnu˜ (g)Pn(w ) . After this re- group, there are infinitely many different 1D represen- 1 1 imθ definition, the symmetry operations (u[k])(1)(g) on each tations e , labeled by integer m. For two states with R new site k form a new linear representation of G. positive m1, m2, we can always choose block size m2n , R By redefining (u[k])(i)(g) at each step of RG transfor- m1n respectively, so that the 1D representations be- mation, we keep track of the symmetry of the system. Fi- come the same. This is also true for negative m1, m2. nally at the fixed point (ie at a large RG step i = R), we But if m1, m2 take different sign (or one of them is 0), the 1D representations will always be different no matter obtain a state described by (A[k] )(R) which is again given ilir what blocking scheme we use. Therefore, U(1) symmet- by the fixed point form eqn. (11). To describe a state that ric states divide into three classes due to different 1D [k] (R) does not break the on-site symmetry, here (Ailir ) is in- representations that can be labeled by {+, 0, −}. After variant (up to a phase) under (u[k])(R)(g) on each site k. these considerations, we will ignore the 1D representa- Therefore16, tions α(R)(g) in the following discussion. We find that the entangled pairs |EP i of virtual X [k] [k] (R) −1 [k] k,k+1 uilir ,jljr (g)Ajljr = α[k] (g)N[k] (g)Ailir M[k](g) spins in the fixed point state are exactly invariant un- jljr der linear transformation u[k],r(g) ⊗ u[k+1],l(g). The left

N[k](g) = M[k−1](g) (14) virtual spin of each site forms a projective representa- tion of G corresponding to element ω in H2(G, C), while must be satisfied with some invertible matrix N[k](g) and the right virtual spin corresponds to element −ω. In M[k](g). Here k labels the coarse grained sites and we appendixE, we will show that fixed point states with (R) the same ω can be related by a symmetric LU transfor- have dropped the RG step label R (except in α[k] (g)). mation, while those with different ω cannot. Therefore, Each coarse grained site is a combination of nR original the phases of SRC MPS that are invariant under lin- lattice sites and α(R)(g) form a 1D (linear) representation [k] ear on-site symmetry of group G are classified by the of G. second cohomology group H2(G, C). (When G = U(1), Solving this equation we find the following results (see further division of classes due to different 1D representa- appendixD): tions of G exist. The equivalence classes are labeled by (a) N[k](g) and M[k](g) are projective representations of α ∈ {+, 0, −} and ω ∈ H2(U(1), C).) G (see eqn. (D7)). Projective representations of G be- long to different classes which form the second cohomol- 2 C ogy group H (G, ) of G. (For a brief introduction on 2. On-site Projective Symmetry projective representation, see appendixC). M[k](g) and 2 N[k](g) corresponds to the same element ω in H (G, C). [k] Due to the basic assumption of quantum mechanics (b) The linear symmetry operation u (g) must be of the that the global phase of a quantum state will not have (R) [k],l [k],r [k],l [k],r form α[k] (g)u (g) ⊗ u (g) where u and u are any effect on the physical properties of the system, it is projective representations of G and correspond to inverse necessary to consider not only the linear representation 2 C (R) of symmetry operations on the system, but also the pro- elements ω and −ω in H (G, ) respectively. α[k] (g) is jective representations. For example, on a half-integer a 1D (linear) representation of G. u[k],l and u[k],r act on spin, rotation by 2π is represented as −I, minus the iden- the two virtual spins separately (see eqn. (D13)). tity operator instead of I. Hence, the rotation symmetry Therefore, the fixed point state is formed by entangled SO(3) is represented projectively on half integer spins. In pairs |EPk,k+1i of virtual spins which are invariant, up (R) order to cover situations like this, we discuss in this sec- to a phase (due to the non-trivial α[k] (g)), under linear tion systems with on-site projective symmetry of group transformation u[k],r(g) ⊗ u[k+1],l(g). G. Now we use the uniformness of the state and simplify Again, we consider the case when the ground state does 8

(0) (0) not break the symmetry, i.e. u (g) ⊗ ... ⊗ u (g)|φLi = Representative states of the two phases are nearest- (0) αL(g)|φLi, where u (g) form a projective representation neighbor dimer states, but with dimer between sites 2i of group G corresponding to class ω. Assuming uniform- and 2i + 1 in the first phase and between sites 2i − 1 and ness of the state, we require that ω does not vary from 2i in the second phase. site to site. The projective representation of SO(3) on half-integer- But this can be reduced to the previous linear case. As spins form a linear representation of SU(2). If we think long as H2(G, C) is finite and ω has a finite order n, we of the linear representation of SO(3) on integer-spins as a can take block size n so that after blocking, the symmetry (unfaithful) linear representation of SU(2) and allow the operation on the renormalized siteu ˜(0)(g) = (⊗u(0)(g))n mixture of integer and half-integer spins on one site, then 2 corresponds to nω = ω0 in H (G, C). Therefore, the the two phases of SO(3) merge into one. Therefore, sys- state after one blocking step is symmetric under an on- tems with only on-site SU(2) symmetry (which implies site linear representation of group G and all the reasoning the mixture of integer and half-integer spins on each site) in the previous section applies. We find that the classi- belong to one phase as we can map integer-spin singlets fication with projective on-site symmetry is the same as into half-integer-spin singlets without breaking the SU(2) linear on-site symmetry. That is symmetry (see appendixE). Such a procedure breaks down if SO(3) symmetry is required for each site as the Consider 1D spin systems with ONLY an on- direct sum of a linear representation (on integer-spin) site symmetry G which is realized projectively, all and a projective representation (on half-integer-spin) is the gapped phases that do not break the symmetry no long a projective representation for SO(3). 2 C are classified by H (G, ), the second cohomology In this way, we have obtained a full classification of 2 C group of G, if H (G, ) is finite and G has a finite the phases of gapped NTI 1D spin systems with various number of 1D representations. on-site symmetry. The U(1) group does not have a non-trivial projective representation and will not introduce any complication here. B. Translation Invariance

We have discussed the gapped phases of 1D NTI sys- 3. Examples tems that have some on-site symmetries. In this section, we would like to discuss translation symmetric systems. Since G = Zn has no non-trivial projective representa- We will consider those translation symmetric systems tions, we find that whose ground states are gapped and translation invariant (TI).54 All 1D gapped systems with only on-site Zn sym- metry belong to the same phase. For spin systems with only spin rotation symmetry, 1. {ni}-block TI LU transformations and b-phases G = SO(3). SO(3) has two types of projective represen- tations described by H2(SO(3), C) = {0, 1}, correspond- To discuss the TI phases, we need to discuss the equiv- ing to integer and half-integer spin representations. We alence classes under TI LU transformations. However, it find that is hard to use quantum circuit to describe TI LU trans- formations. Thus, the quantum circuit formulation used For integer-spin systems, all 1D gapped systems in this paper is inconvenient to describe TI LU transfor- with only on-site SO(3) spin rotation symmetry mations. However, in this section, we will first try to use have two different phases. the quantum circuit formulation of LU transformations Such a result has some relation to a well known result37 to discuss the phases of TI gapped states. While we are for NTI spin-1 Heisenberg chain able to identify many different phases in this way, we can not rigorously prove the equivalence of states within each X H = JiSi · Si+1. (15) phase using the non-translational invariant circuit. In or- i der to establish this equivalence, we later apply the other The model undergoes an impurity driven second order formulation of local unitary transformation – a finite time phase transition from the Haldane phase21 to the random evolution with a local Hamiltonian(Eqn.2) where TI can 38,39 be preserved exactly and we confirm the classification singlet phase as the randomness in Ji increases. For half-integer-spin systems, SO(3) is represented result obtained with quantum circuits(see appendixG). projectively on each site, yet the classification is the same Let us consider the LU transformations represented by as the integer case. we find that quantum circuits which is formed by the unitary opera- th tors on blocks of ni sites in the i layer (see Fig.3). We For half-integer-spin systems, all 1D gapped states will call such LU transformations {ni}-block LU trans- with only on-site SO(3) spin rotation symmetry formations. If the unitary operators on different blocks have two different phases. in the same layer of the quantum circuit are the same, 9

resentation with site independent matrices. But how do U3 we know a TI gapped state can always be represented by a MPS with site independent matrices? A non-uniform U2 U2 MPS in eqn. (4) can represent a TI state if the matrices [k] Ai satisfy, for example, U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1

[k+1] −1 [k] Ai = M Ai M (16)

FIG. 3: A {ni}-block TI LU transformation described by a for an invertible matrix M. quantum circuit of three layers. Here n1 = 4, n2 = 3, n3 = 2. It is proven in Ref. 30 that every TI state does have th The unitary transformations Ui on different blocks in the i a TI MPS representation. Specifically, in the example layer are the same. considered above, we can transform the matrices so that they become site independent. Let us introduce

[k] −1 [k] we will call the LU transformations a {ni}-block TI LU ˜ Ai = N[k−1]Ai N[k]. (17) transformations. In this paper, we will try to use quantum circuit for- By construction, A[k] and A˜[k] will represent the same mulation of the LU transformations to discuss gapped i i MPS. We see that translation symmetric phases. One way to do so is to use the equivalent classes of the {n }-block TI LU trans- [k+1] [k+1] i A˜ = N −1A N formations to classify the gapped translation symmetric i [k] i [k+1] −1 −1 [k] phases. However, since the {ni}-block TI LU transforma- = N[k] M Ai MN[k+1] (18) tions are different from the TI LU transformations, the −1 −1 ˜[k] −1 equivalent classes of {ni}-block TI LU transformations = N[k] M N[k−1]Ai N[k] MN[k+1] are different from the equivalent classes of the TI LU transformations. But since the TI LU transformations We see that if we choose are special cases of {ni}-block TI LU transformations, −k each equivalent class of {ni}-block TI LU transforma- N[k] = M , (19) tions are formed by one or more equivalent classes of TI LU transformations. we will have Therefore, we can use the equivalent classes of {n }- i ˜[k+1] ˜[k] block TI LU transformations to describe the gapped TI Ai = Ai . (20) phases, since different equivalent classes of {ni}-block TI LU transformations always represent different TI quan- Hence reducing the original non-uniform representation tum phases. On the other hand, the equivalent classes of to a uniform one. We also like to remark that by “TI gapped state”, we {ni}-block TI LU transformations may not separate all gapped TI phases. Sometimes, a single equivalent class mean that there exists a TI gapped Hamiltonian HL on a lattice of L sites such that the TI gapped state is the of {ni}-block TI LU transformations may contain several different gapped TI phases. ground state of HL. We would like to stress that we do not need the above condition to be true for all values of L. To increase the resolution of the {ni}-block TI LU transformations, we would like to introduce the block We only require HL to be gapped for a sequence of lattice equivalent classes: two states belong to the same block sizes {Li} that limi→∞ Li = ∞. In this paper, when we discuss a system of size L, we always assume that equivalent classes, iff, for all values of ni, they can be L belongs to such a sequence {L }. This consideration mapped into each other through {ni}-block TI LU trans- i formations. is important if we want to include in our discussion, for Clearly, each block equivalent class might still contain example, boson systems with 1/2 particles per site which several different gapped TI phases. In this paper, we can only be defined for even system size L. will call a block equivalent class a block phase, or b- phase. It is possible that the block equivalent classes are the same as the universal classes that represent the 2. Gapped TI b-phases coincide with gapped TI phases gapped TI phases. In this case the gapped TI b-phases are the same as the gapped TI phases, and we can study In the above discussion, we see that for a large block the gapped TI phases through block equivalent classes. size, the related matrix [see (7)] E˜ = E[1]E[2]...E[n] is dom- In the following, we will first study the b-phases for 1D inated by its largest eigenvalue. For translation invari- strongly correlated systems with translation and some ant states, E[i] = E and E˜ = En. So the fixed-point E˜, other symmetries and then confirm that gapped TI b- and hence the gapped TI b-phase, is directly determined phases do coincide with gapped TI phases. by the largest eigenvalue and the corresponding left and To describe TI gapped states we will use TI MPS rep- right eigenvectors of E. 10

Since a gapped TI b-phase is directly determined by E by a TI MPS. Its fixed-point MPS also has an on-site on each site, we do not need to do any blocking transfor- projective unitary symmetryu ˜(g). For a proper choice of mation to understand the gapped TI b-phase. We can di- block size n, we can make u(g) andu ˜(g) to be the same rectly extract its fixed-point tensor from E. This suggests type of projective representation described by ωsym ∈ 2 that gapped TI b-phases coincide with gapped TI phases. H (G, C). For TI fixed-point MPS, we have ω[k] = ω[k−1] ˜ Indeed, we can directly deform E to the fixed-point E by since M[k](g) = M[k−1](g)(cf. appendixD). Thus ωsym = 2 changing other non-largest eigenvalues to zero. Such a 0, that is, the trivial element in H (G, C). So, if ωsym 6= procedure allows us to deform the matrix Ai,αβ of the 0, the 1D TI state cannot be short-range correlated. In initial MPS to the fixed-point matrix A˜i,αβ of the final other words MPS. Since the largest eigenvalue of E is not degenerate, the state remains short range correlated (and gapped) 1D spin systems with translation and an on-site during the deformation.29,30 (As we are writing up the projective symmetry are always gapless or have de- above arguments, we learned that a similar method is generate ground states that break the symmetries. used by Schuch et. al.47) Also the state does not break If the ground state of the 1D spin system does not break the translation symmetry (unlike the n-block transfor- the on-site symmetry and the translation symmetry, then mations) and other symmetries during the deformation. ground state is not short-range correlated and is gapless. This allows us to show that the gapped TI phases is char- If the ground state of the 1D spin system breaks the acterized by the largest eigenvalue and the correspond- on-site symmetry or the translation symmetry, then the ing left and right eigenvectors of E. Thus gapped TI ground state is degenerate. b-phases coincide with gapped TI phases. For details, As an application of the above result, we find that see appendixG. In the following, we will use the {ni}-block TI LU 1D half-integer-spin systems with translation and transformations to discuss various gapped TI phases of the SO(3) spin rotation symmetry are always gap- 1D systems. less or have degenerate ground states.

which agrees with the well known result of Ref. 22. 3. 1D systems with only translation symmetry To have a gapped TI 1D state with an on-site symme- try, the symmetry must act linearly (ie not projectively). In this case, we can show that the total phase factor of the state αL(g) breaks up into L 1D representations α(g) For 1D systems with only translation symmetry, (see appendixF) there is only one gapped TI phase. For 1D spin systems of L sites with translation Such a result generalizes the earlier result that for 1D sys- and an on-site symmetry G, a gapped state that do tems with no symmetry, there is only one gapped phase. not break the two symmetries must transform as To obtain the new result, we basically repeat what we (0) (0) L did in sectionIV. The only difference is that the matri- u (g) ⊗ ... ⊗ u (g)|φLi = [α(g)] |φLi (21) ces representing the state now are site independent and in sectionIV we use {ni}-block LU transformations to for all values of L that is large enough. reduce the 1D NTI MPS, while to derive the new result, (0) here we use {ni}-block TI LU transformations to reduce Here u (g) is the linear representation of G acting the 1D TI MPS. on the physical states in each site and α(g) is an one- dimensional linear representation of G. Let us apply the above result to a boson system with 4. 1D systems with translation and on-site unitary p/q bosons per site. Here the bosons number is conserved symmetries and there is an U(1) symmetry. Certainly, the system is well defined only when the number of sites L has a form Similarly, by repeating the discussions in sectionVA1 L = Jq (assuming p and q have no common factors). J L/q and sectionVA2 for {ni}-block TI LU transformations For such L, we find that αL(g) = α0(g) = α0(g) , on the 1D TI MPS, we can show that where α0(g) is the generating 1D representation of the U(1) symmetry group. So eqn. (21) is not satisfied for For a 1D spin system with translation and an some large L. Therefore, on-site projective symmetry u(g), the symmetric ground state cannot be short-range correlated, if a 1D state of conserved bosons with fractional the projective symmetry u(g) correspond to a non- bosons per site must be gapless, if the state does trivial elements in H2(G, C). not break the U(1) and the translation symmetry.

The reason is as follows. If a 1D state with translation In higher dimensions, the situation is very different. A symmetry is short-range correlated, it can be represented 2D state of conserved bosons with fractional bosons per 11 site can be gapped, and, at same time, does not break the 5. 1D systems with translation and parity symmetries U(1) and the translation symmetry. 2D fractional quan- tum Hall states of bosons on lattice provide examples for In this section, we will consider the case of parity sym- such kind of states. metry for translational invariant system. We define the Also, by repeating the discussions in sectionVA1 for parity operation P for a spin chain to be in general com- {n }-block TI LU transformations on the 1D TI MPS, i posed of two parts: P1, exchange of sites n and −n; P2, we can show that on-site unitary operation u(0) where (u(0))2 = I.55 Sim- For 1D spin systems with only translation and ilar to the previous discussion, P gets redefined as we renormalize the state until at fixed point P1 becomes the an on-site linear symmetry G, all the phases of (∞) exchange of renormalized sites and P2 becomes u on gapped states that do not break the two symmetries (∞) 2 are classified by a pair (ω, α) where ω ∈ H2(G, C) every site, (u ) = I. The fixed point matrices hence label different types of projective representations of satisfies(the ∞ label is dropped):

G and α label different 1D representations of G. X T −1 uilir ,jljr Ajljr = ±M Ailir M (23) Here α(g) is an 1D representation of G that appear in jljr eqn. (21). The symmetric LU transformations cannot change 1D representation α(g). So the different phases for some invertible matrix M, where we have used that are also distinguished by the 1D representations α of G. the 1D representation of parity is either (1, 1) or (1, −1). We label the two 1D representations with α(P ) = ±1. Here are a few concrete examples: If we choose the −1 T iθ T T symmetry group to be G = Z , we find Here M satisfies M M = e . But M = (M ) = n e2iθM, therefore, eiθ = ±1 and correspondingly M is For 1D spin systems with only translation and on- either symmetric M = M T or antisymmetric M = −M T . site Zn symmetry, there are n phases for gapped We will label this sign factor as β(P ) = ±1. states that do not break the two symmetries. Solving this equation gives that u = α(P )v(ul ⊗ ur), where v is the exchange operation of two virtual spins l r l r l r l T This is because Zn has no projective representations and i and i and u ,u act on i ,i respectively. (u ) = has n different 1D representations. As an example, con- β(P )ul and (ur)T = β(P )ur. It can then be shown that sider the following model each entangled pair |EPk,k+1i must be symmetric un- r l X der parity operations and satisfies uk ⊗ uk+1|EPk+1,ki = H = [−hσz − σx σyσz ], (22) i i−1 i i+1 α(P )|EPk,k+1i. There are hence four different symmet- i ric phases corresponding to α(P ) = ±1 and β(P ) = ±1. where σx,y,z are the Pauli matrices. The model has a By enlarging the local Hilbert space, we can show sim- z Z2 symmetry generated by σ . The two different Z2 ilarly as before that fixed points within each class can symmetric phases correspond the h → ∞ phase and the be mapped from one to the other with the {ni}-block TI h → −∞ phase of the model. LU transformation preserving the parity symmetry. On If we choose the symmetry group to be G = SO(3), we the other hand, fixed points in different classes can not find be connected without breaking the symmetries. There- fore, under the {ni}-block TI LU transformation, there For 1D integer-spin systems with only translation are four block classes with parity symmetry and hence and SO(3) spin rotation symmetry, there are two four parity symmetric TI phases: phases for gapped states that do not break the two symmetries. For 1D spin systems with only translation and parity symmetry, there are four phases for gapped This is because SO(3) has only one 1D representation 2 states that do not break the two symmetries. and H (SO(3), C) = Z2. Such a result agrees with the 40 well known result that the AKLT state of spin-1 chain As an example, consider the following model and the direct product state with spin-0 on each site rep- X resent two different SO(3) symmetric TI phases. The H = [−BSz + S · S ], (24) AKLT state (and the related Haldane phase21) has gap- i i i+1 i less boundary spin-1/2 states41–43 and non-trivial string 44,45 orders, which indicate that the AKLT state is really where Si are the spin-1 operators. The model has a par- different from the spin-0 product state. Actually, the full ity symmetry. The B = 0 phase and the B → +∞ phase symmetry of SO(3) can be relaxed to only the dihedral of the model correspond to two of the four phases dis- 21 group D2(Z2 × Z2) of rotation by π around x, y and z cussed above. The B = 0 state is in the same phase axis. As explained in appendixC, D2 has one non-trivial as the AKLT state. In the fixed-point state for such projective representation, to which the AKLT state corre- a phase, |EPk,k+1i = | ↑↓i − | ↓↑i. The parity trans- sponds. AKLT is different from the spin-0 product state formation exchange the first and the second spin, and as long as on-site D2 symmetry is preserved. This is induces a minus sign: P : |EPk,k+1i → −|EPk,k+1i. consistent with the result in Ref. 20,45. The B → +∞ state is the Sz = 1 state. Its entangled 12

+ + + + + + + First, a state |φi is called time reversal invariant if (a) T ⊗T...⊗T |φi = β|φi, where |β| = 1. But for anti-unitary T , the global phase β is arbitrary and in particular we can +− + − + − + 0 √ 0 0 (b) redefine |φ i = β|φi, such that T ⊗ T... ⊗ T |φ i = |φ i. Therefore, in the following discussion, we will assume −+ −+ − + − WLOG that β = 1. (c) Now let us consider system without translational in- variance. T 2 = I or −I does not make a difference here − − − − − − − as we can take block size 2 so that on the renormalized (d) site, T 2 is always equal to I. Using argument similar to the case of on-site unitary symmetry, we can keep track and redefine symmetry operations as we do renormaliza- FIG. 4: (Color online) Representative states of the four par- tion. Finally, at the fixed point we have a state described ity symmetric phases, each corresponding to (a) α(P ) = 1, [k] (∞) by matrices (Ailir ) which is invariant under time re- β(P ) = 1 (b) α(P ) = −1, β(P ) = 1 (c) α(P ) = −1, versal operation (T [k])(∞) = (u[k])(∞)K, that is, β(P ) = −1 (d) α(P ) = 1, β(P ) = −1. + stands for a parity X [k] [k] [k] even entangled pair (e.g. |00i + |11i), − stands for a parity u (A )∗ = N −1A M odd entangled pair (e.g. |01i − |10i). Each site contains four ilir ,jljr jljr [k] ilir [k] l r virtual spins. j j N[k] = M[k−1] (25) where the fixed-point label ∞ has been omitted. Solving pairs are |EP i = | ↑↑i which do not change sign k,k+1 this equation we find, under the parity transformation. Thus the stability of (a)M M ∗ = eiθI. As M is invertible, eiθ = ±1. the Haldane/AKLT state is also protected by the parity [k] [k] [k] [k] [k],l [k],r [k],l [k],l ∗ symmetry.18–20 (b)u = u ⊗ u . where u (u ) = ±I and [k],r [k],r ∗ To understand why there are four parity symmetric u (u ) = ±I. Therefore, each entangled pair is phases instead of two (parity even/parity odd), we give time reversal invariant four representative states in Fig.4, one for each phase. (u[k],r ⊗ u[k+1],l)K|EP i = |EP i (26) Connected pair of black dots denotes an entangled pair. k,k+1 k,k+1 + stands for a parity even pair, for example |00i + |11i, Similar to previous sections, we can show that uu∗ = and − stands for a parity odd pair, for example |01i−|10i. I and uu∗ = −I correspond to two equivalence classes Each rectangle corresponds to one site, with four virtual and two time reversal invariant fixed point states can be spins on each site. The four states are all translational mapped into each other if and only if they belong to the invariant. If the parity operation is defined to be ex- same class. Therefore, our classification result for time change of sites together with exchange of virtual spins 1 reversal symmetry is and 4, 2 and 3 on each site, then states (a) and (d) are parity even while (b) and (c) are parity odd. But (a) and For 1D gapped spin systems with ONLY time re- (d) (or (b) and (c)) are different parity even (odd) states versal symmetry, there are two phases that do not and cannot be mapped to each other through local uni- break the symmetry. tary transformations without breaking parity symmetry. Written in the matrix product representation, the matri- If the system has additional translation symmetry, we ces of the four states will transform with α(P ) = ±1 and can similarly classify the TI phases and find that β(P ) = ±1 respectively. Therefore, the parity even/odd For 1D systems with only translation and time phase breaks into two smaller phases and there are in all reversal symmetry T , there are two gapped phases four phases for parity symmetric systems. that do not break the two symmetries, if on each site the time reversal transformation satisfies T 2 = I. C. Time Reversal Symmetry 1D integer-spin systems are examples of this case. The Haldane/AKLT state and the spin 0 product state are Time reversal, unlike other symmetries, is represented representatives of the two phases respectively15,19,20. We by antiunitary operator T , which is equivalent to the also have complex conjugate operator K followed by a unitary op- erator U. T has two projective representations: one on 1D systems with translation and time reversal integer spins with T 2 = I and the other on half-integer symmetry are always gapless or have degenerate spins with T 2 = −I. The classification of gapped 1D ground states, if on each site the time reversal time reversal invariant phases follows closely the cases transformation satisfies T 2 = −I. discusses before. In this section, we will highlight the differences and give our conclusion. 1D half-integer-spin systems are examples of such case. 13

f g e h j m1 m 2 i k t l q (a) (b) m4 s m 3 r

FIG. 5: Tensor-network – a graphic representation of the tensor-product wave function (27) on a 2D square lattice. The indices on the links are summed over. (c) (d)

VI. GENERALIZATION TO HIGHER FIG. 6: (Color online) (ω1 = 0, 1; ω2 = 0, 1) label four dis- DIMENSIONS tinct states in integer spin systems with translation and spin rotation symmetries: (a) (ω1, ω2) = (0, 0), (b) (ω1, ω2) = In the last few sections, we classified symmetry pro- (0, 1), (c) (ω1, ω2) = (1, 0), (d) (ω1, ω2) = (1, 1). The open dots represent 0-spins. The solid dots represent 1/2-spins. tected topological orders in one dimension, using (sym- Two solid dots connected by a line represent a spin-singlet metric) LU transformations. Can we use (symmetric) LU formed by two 1/2-spins. The state in (a) has an spin-0 spin transformations to classify (symmetry protected) topo- on each site. The state in (b,c) has two spin-1/2 spins on logical orders in higher dimensions? each site (or 4 states per site that form spin 0+1 representa- In higher dimensions, the situation is much more com- tion of SO(3)). The state in (d) has four spin-1/2 spins on plicated. First, infinitely many kinds of non-trivial topo- each site (or 16 states per site that form spin 0+0+1+1+1+2 logical orders exist for class of systems without any representation of SO(3)). symmetries.7,48 A partial classification is given in Ref.8 for such a case in 2D. In the presence of symmetry, the phase diagram is even more complicated. Ref. 49 stud- If the tensor A satisfy ied 2D topological orders protected by time reversal and m X A = α(g) u 0 (g)× (28) point group symmetry. So far, we do not have a detailed lrud mm 0 0 0 0 understanding of topological phases in the presence of l r u d −1 −1 m0 symmetry. (M (g))ll0 Mr0r(g)(N (g))dd0 Nu0u(g)Al0r0u0d0 , However, using similar arguments as that used for 1D for some invertible matrices M(g) and N(g), then the systems, we can obtain some simple partial results for many-body wave function Ψ({m }) is symmetric under higher dimensions. For example, we have i the on-site symmetry transformation g in the on-site symmetry group G. Here α(g) is a one dimensional rep- For d-dimensional spin systems with only transla- resentation of G, the D by D matrices M(g) form a pro- tion and an on-site symmetry G which is realized 2 jective representation represented by ω1 ∈ H (G, C), and linearly, the object (α, ω1, ω2, ..., ωd) label distinct the D by D matrices N(g) form a projective representa- gapped quantum phases that do not break the two 2 tion represented by ω2 ∈ H (G, C). Since symmetric LU symmetries. Here α labels the different 1D repre- transformation cannot change (α, ω , ω ), thus (α, ω , ω ) 2 C 1 2 1 2 sentations of G and ωi ∈ H (G, ) label the dif- label distinct quantum phases. ferent types of projective representations of G. In fact (α, ω1, ω2) are all measurable, so they indeed label distinct quantum phases. On a torus of size Lx × Let us illustrate the above result in 2D by considering a Ly, the symmetric many-body wave function Ψ({mi}) tensor network state (TNS) on a square lattice, where the transforms as the 1D representation αLxLy (g) under the physical states living on each vertex i are labeled by mi. on-site symmetry transformation g. If G has only a finite A translation invariant TNS is defined by the following number of 1D representations, we can always choose Lx LxLy expression for the many-body wave function Ψ({mi}): and Ly such that α (g) = α(g). On a cylinder of size Lx × Ly with open bound- X m1 m2 m3 m4 Ψ({mi}) = Aejif AjhkgAlqrkAtlsi ··· (27) ary in the x-direction, the states on one boundary will ijkl··· form a projective representation which is represented 2 by Lyω1 ∈ H (G, C). Similarly, if the open bound- mi Here Aijkl is a complex tensor with one physical index ary in the y-direction, the states on one boundary will mi and four inner indices i, j, k, l. The physical index form a projective representation which is represented by 2 runs over the number of physical states d on each vertex, Lxω2 ∈ H (G, C). If we choose Lx and Ly properly (for and the inner indices runs over D values. The TNS can example to make Lxω2 = ω2 and Lyω1 = ω1), we can be represented graphically as in Fig.5. detect both ω1 and ω2. 14

Symmetry No. or Label of Different Phases Example System None 1 On-site Z or SU(2): 1 phase On-site Linear Symmetry of Group G ω ∈ H2(G, C) (*) n On-site SO(3) or D2 on integer spin: 2 phases On-site SO(3) or D on On-site Projective Symmetry of Group G ω ∈ H2(G, C) 2 half-integer spin: 2 phases Time Reversal(TR) 2 Translational Invariance(TI) 1 TI+On-site TI+On-site Z : n phases ω ∈ H2(G, C) and α(G) n Linear Symmetry of Group G TI+On-site SO(3) on integer spin: 2 phases TI+ On-site TI+On-site SO(3) or D on 0 2 Projective Symmetry of Group G half-integer spin: no gapped phase TI+Parity 4 2 if T 2 = I TI+TR on integer spin: 2 phases TI+TR 0 if T 2 = −I TI+TR on half-integer spin: no gapped phase

TABLE I: Summary of classification result for 1D gapped spin system with symmetric ground states. TI stands for translational invariance. TR stands for time reversal symmetry. H2(G, C) is the second cohomology group of group G over complex number C. α(G) is a 1D representation of G. (*): this result applies when α(G) form a finite group, when G = U(1), further classification according to different α(U(1)) exist.

A system with integer on-site spins gives us an ex- Results similar to ours on the classification of ample with G = SO(3), if the system has translation integer/half-integer 1D spin chains with SO(3) symme- and spin rotation symmetry. For G = SO(3) there is no try have been obtained independently by Alexei Kitaev non-trivial 1D representations. So we can drop the con- recently.50 sideration of α. Also G = SO(3) has two types of pro- jective representations: H2(SO(3), C) = {0, 1}, where We would like to thank A. Kitaev, J. I. Cirac, F. Ver- ω = 0 is the trivial projective representation which cor- straete, G. Vidal, G.-M. Zhang, A. W.W. Ludwig and respond to linear representations of SO(3) (on integer H. Katsura for some very helpful discussions. XGW is spins) and ω = 1 is the non-trivial projective repre- supported by NSF Grant No. DMR-1005541. ZCG is sentation which corresponds to half-integer spins. Thus supported in part by the NSF Grant No. NSFPHY05- 51164. (ω1 = 0, 1; ω2 = 0, 1) label four distinct states in 2D (see Fig.6).

VII. CONCLUSION

Using the (symmetric) Local Unitary equivalence rela- Appendix A: Local Unitary Transformation on tion between gapped ground states in the same phase and Matrix Product State and Invariance of Double Tensor the matrix product representation of 1D states, we clas- sify possible quantum phases for strongly interacting 1D spin system with certain symmetry when ground state of In this section we present the proof for the theorem the system does not break the symmetry. Our result is that: Two sets of matrices Ai,αβ and Bj,αβ, where i,j summarized in tableI. label different matrices and αβ are the row and column Many well known results are rederived using a quite indices of the matrices, give rise to the same double ten- different approach, for example the existence of Hal- E P ∗ P ∗ 21 sor αγ,βχ = i Ai,αβ × Ai,γχ = j Bj,αβ × Bj,γχ, if dane phase and the gaplessness of spin 1/2 Heisenberg and only if they are related by a unitary transformation model22. Those results are also greatly generalized to P Bi,αβ = j UijAj,αβ. The dimension M of i and the new situations, for example to the case of time reversal dimension N of j can be different. The M × N matrix symmetry and D2 symmetry. We find that the projective † † U is in general called unitary if U U = UU = IL, the representations play a very important role in understand- identity matrix in L dimensional space where L ≤ M and ing and formulating those generalized results. L ≤ N. The complete proof of this theorem can be found In higher dimensions, things are more complicated. in Ref. 35, where this property is discussed in terms of Nevertheless, similar considerations allow us to obtain ‘the unitary degree of freedom in the operator sum rep- some interesting examples of symmetry protected topo- resentation of quantum channels’. Here we re-present logical orders. A complete classification of higher dimen- this proof following the notation and terminology of the sion phases, however, requires at least a full understand- current paper for simplicity of understanding. ing of topological orders, an element that is absent in the 1D phase diagram. First we prove the ‘if’ part of the theorem. Suppose 15

P that Bi,αβ = jUijAj,αβ, then Appendix B: Degeneracy of Largest Eigenvalue of Double Tensor and Correlation Length of Matrix EB X ∗ Product State αγ,βχ = Bi,αβ × Bi,γχ (A1) i X X X ∗ ∗ In sectionIII, we cited the property of matrix prod- = Uij Aj ,αβ × U A 1 1 ij2 j2,γχ uct state that the finite correlation length of the state is i j1 j2 closely related to the non-degeneracy of the largest eigen- X X = U U † A × A∗ value of the double tensor, as discussed in Ref. 29,30. In ij1 j2i j1,αβ j2,γχ j1,j2 i this section, we give a brief illustration of why this is so. X ∗ A For simplicity of notation, we focus on the translational = Aj ,αβ × A = E 1 j1,γχ αγ,βχ invariant case first. Generalization to matrix product j1 states without translational invariance is straightforward and similar conclusions can be reached. Therefore the two double tensors are the same. This For a matrix product state |φi described by matrices proves the first part of the theorem. A with double tensor E = P A × A∗ , On the other hand, suppose that the two double ten- i,αβ αγ,βχ i i,αβ i,γχ define E[O] = P O A × A∗ for arbitrary sors are the same EA = EB = E . Reorder αγ,βχ ij ij i,αβ j,γχ αγ,βχ αγ,βχ αγ,βχ operator O . Follow the previous convention and treat the indices of E and treat it as a matrix with row indices ij E and E[O] as matrices with row index αγ and column αβ and column indices γχ. We will denote the double index βχ. The norm of the wavefunction is given by tensor after this reordering as Eˆ . It is easy to see αβ,γχ hφ|φi = Tr(EN ), where N is total length of the chain. Eˆ that is a positive semi-definite matrix, as WLOG, we can set the largest eigenvalue of E to be 1 and hence the norm goes to a finite value (dimension of the X ∗ Eˆ vαβ αβ,γχvγχ (A2) eigenspace) as N goes to infinity. The expectation value αβ,γχ of any local operator O is hOi = Tr(EN−1E[O])/Tr(EN ) X X X = ( v∗ B ) × ( B∗ v ) ≥ 0 and the correlation between two operators O1 and O2 αβ i,αβ i,γχ γχ becomes i αβ γχ hO1O2i − hO1ihO2i = N−L−2 L N for any vector vαβ Tr(E E[O1]E E[O2])/Tr(E )− (B1) ˆ N−1 N−1 2 N Diagonalize E into Tr(E E[O1])Tr(E E[O2])/Tr (E ) X Eˆ = λ e × e∗ (A3) The physical constraints on the expectation value and αβ,γχ k k,αβ k,γχ correlation functions of local operators require that the k double tensor E has certain properties. First, put E √ E with λ ≥ 0. Define vectorse ˜ = λ e , so that into its Jordan normal form and decompose it as = k k,αβ k k,αβ P λP + R , where P is the diagonal part and R Eˆ = P e˜ × e˜∗ .e ˜ form a complete or- λ λ λ λ λ αβ,γχ k k,αβ k,γχ k,αβ the Nilpotent part. But for the largest eigenvalue 1, thogonal set and hence we can expand Ai,αβ and Bi,αβ R1 must be 0 as otherwise for large system size N in terms of them. N−1 N N hOi = Tr(E E[O])/Tr(E ) ∼ Tr((P1 + R1) E[O]) will X be unbounded for any E[O] that satisfies Tr(R E[O]) 6= 0. A = P e˜ (A4) 1 i,αβ ik k,αβ The physical requirement that any local operator has k bounded norm requires that R must be 0. X 1 Bi,αβ = Qike˜k,αβ Next we will show that the dimension of P1 k is closely related to the correlation length of the state. At large system size N, the correla- tor hO O i − hO ihO i = Tr(P E[O ](P λP + Then 1 2 1 2 1 1 λ λ L 2 Rλ) E[O2])/Tr(P1) − Tr(P1E[O1])Tr(P1E[O2])/Tr (P1). X Eˆ = A × A∗ (A5) When L is large, we keep only the first or- αβ,γχ i,αβ i,γχ P L der term in ( λ λPλ + Rλ) and the cor- i E E X X ∗ ∗ relator goes to Tr(P1 [O1]P1 [O2])/Tr(P1) − = Pik P e˜k ,αβ × e˜ 2 1 ik2 1 k2,γχ Tr(P1E[O1])Tr(P1E[O2])/Tr (P1). If P1 is k1k2 i one dimensional, the two terms both become hv1|E[O1]|v1ihv1|E[O2]|v1i and cancel each other for any P ∗ But we know that Eˆαβ,γχ = e˜k,αβ × e˜ . Therefore, P L k k,γχ O1,O2 and the second order term in ( λ λPλ + Rλ) P P P ∗ = δ and P is a unitary matrix. L i ik1 ik2 k1k2 dominates which decays as λ . For λ < 1, the cor- Similarly we can show that Q is a unitary matrix. relator goes to zero exponentially and the matrix Therefore Ai,αβ and Bj,αβ is related by a unitary trans- product state as finite correlation length. On the † formation Uij where U = PQ . We have thus proved other hand, if P1 is more than one dimensional, the both part of the theorem. first order term has a finite contribution indepen- 16

P E E dent of L i,jhvi| [O1]|vjihvj| [O2]|vii/Tr(P1) − an Abelian group, which is called the second cohomology 2 group of G and denoted as H2(G, C). The identity ele- hvi|E[O1]|viihvj|E[O2]|vji/Tr (P1), where vi, vj are ment ω of the group is the class that contains the linear eigenbasis for P1. Therefore, degeneracy of the largest 0 eigenvalue of the double tensor implies non-decaying representation of the group. correlation. To describe quantum states with finite Here are some simple examples: correlation length, the double tensor must have a largest (a) cyclic groups Zn do not have non-trivial projective 2 C eigenvalue which is non-degenerate. representation. Hence for G = Zn, H (G, ) contains If the system is not translational invariant and E[k] only the identity element. vary from site to site, we cannot diagonalize all the (b) a simple group with non-trivial projective represen- double tensors at the same time. However, as shown tation is the Abelian dihedral group D2 = Z2 × Z2. For in the ‘canonical form’ of Ref. 30, there is a largest the four elements of the group (0/1, 0/1), consider repre- E[k] 1 0 eigenspace of (with eigenvalue 1) such that the right sentation with Pauli matrices g(0, 0) = , g(0, 1) = eigenvector on site k is the same as the left eigenvector 0 1 on site k + 1. Therefore, when multiplied together this 0 1 1 0  0 −i , g(1, 0) = , g(1, 1) = . It can be eigenspace will always have eigenvalue 1. There could be 1 0 0 −1 i 0 other eigenspaces with eigenvalue 1 and matching eigen- check that this gives a non-trivial projective representa- vectors from site to site. However, then we can show tion of D2. 2 similar to the TI case that this leads to an infinite corre- (c) when G = SO(3), H (G, C) = Z2. The two elements lation length. On the other hand, other eigenspaces could correspond to integer and half-integer representations of have eigenvalues smaller than 1 or they have mis-matched SO(3) respectively. eigenvectors. If this is the case, all other eigenspaces de- (d) when G = U(1), H2(G, C) is trivial: H2(U(1), C) = i mθ cay exponentially with the number of sites multiplied to- Z1. We note that {e } form a representation of gether which gives rise to a finite correlation length. We U(1) = {e i θ} when m is an integer. But {e i mθ} will will say that E[k] has a non-degenerate largest eigenvalue form a projective representation of U(1) when m is not an 1 for this case in general. integer. But under the equivalence relation (C3), {e i mθ} correspond to the trivial projective representation, if we choose β(g) = e− i mθ. Note that β(g) can be a discon- Appendix C: Projective Representation tinuous function over the group manifold.

Operators u(g) form a projective representation of symmetry group G if Appendix D: Solving symmetry condition for fixed point

u(g1)u(g2) = ω(g1, g2)u(g1g2), g1, g2 ∈ G. (C1) In this section, we explicitly solve the symmetry condi- C Here ω(g1, g2)in , the factor system of the projective tion eqn. (14). The goal is to 1. classify possible symme- representation, satisfies try operations at fixed point and 2. find the correspond- ing symmetric fixed point state. For simplicity, we drop ω(g2, g3)ω(g1, g2g3) = ω(g1, g2)ω(g1g2, g3), (C2) the site index [k] and rewrite eqn. (14) as for all g1, g2, g3 ∈ G. If ω(g1, g2) = 1, this reduces to the X uilir ,jljr (g) −1 usual linear representation of G. A l r = N (g)A l r M(g) (D1) α(R)(g) j j i i A different choice of pre-factor for the representation jljr matrices u0(g) = β(g)u(g) will lead to a different factor 0 where u(g) is a projective or linear unitary representation system ω (g1, g2): of G, the matrix A l r is given by its matrix elements q i i β(g1g2) l p r l 0 A l r = λ l δ l · λ r δir β with i , α = 1, ..., Dl, ω (g1, g2) = ω(g1, g2). (C3) i i ,αβ i i α i β(g1)β(g2) r i , β = 1, ..., Dr, and M(g),N(g) are sets of invertible u(g) 0 We regard u (g) and u(g) that differ only by a pre-factor matrices labeled by g. Since α(R)(g) is also a projective or as equivalent projective representations and the corre- linear unitary representation of G, we can absorb α(R)(g) 0 sponding factor systems ω (g1, g2) and ω(g1, g2) as be- into u(g) and rewrite eqn. (D1) as longing to the same class ω. X −1 Suppose that we have one projective representation uilir ,jljr (g)Ajljr = N (g)Ailir M(g) (D2) u1(g) with factor system ω1(g1, g2) of class ω1 and an- jljr other u2(g) with factor system ω2(g1, g2) of class ω2, ob- viously u1(g)⊗u2(g) is a projective presentation with fac- We note that matrix elements Ailir ,αβ is non-zero only l r tor group ω1(g1, g2)ω2(g1, g2). The corresponding class ω when α = i , β = i and the full set of {Ailir } form can be written as a sum ω1 + ω2. Under such an addi- a complete basis in the space of Dl × Dr dimensional tion rule, the equivalence classes of factor systems form matrices. 17

M(g),N(g) do not necessarily form a representation Since the set of matrices {Ailir } form a complete basis of G. But the fixed point form of the matrices requires in the space of Dl × Dr dimensional matrices, we find that M(g),N(g) be a projective representation, as on ˜ −1 ˜ the one hand uilir ,jljr (g) = (N )jl,il (g)Mir ,jr (g). (D12) X Putting back the factor of α(R)(g), we find that uilir ,jljr (g1g2)Ajljr (D3) jljr (R) −1 u l r l r (g) = α (g)(N˜ ) l l (g)M˜ r r (g). (D13) X i i ,j j j ,i i ,j = ωsym(g1, g2)uilir ,klkr (g1)uklkr ,jljr (g2)Ajljr jljr klkr X −1 Appendix E: Equivalence Between Symmetric Fixed = ωsym(g1, g2)uilir ,klkr (g1)N (g2)Aklkr M(g2) Point States klkr −1 −1 =ωsym(g1, g2)N (g2)N (g1)Ailir M(g1)M(g2) From the solution in sectionD, we know that the fixed point state symmetric under linear on-site symmetry of group G takes the form and on the other hand |φi(∞) = |EP i|EP i...|EP i... (E1) X 1,2 2,3 k,k+1 uilir ,jljr (g1g2)Ajljr (D4) where |EP i is an entangled pair between the right jljr k,k+1 −1 virtual qubit on site k and the left virtual qubit on site =N (g1g2)Ailir M(g1g2) k + 1(see Fig.2 upper layer). Each entangled pair is invariant under a linear symmetry transformation of the Therefore form u[k],r(g) ⊗ u[k+1],l(g) −1 −1 ωsym(g1, g2)N (g2)N (g1)Ailir M(g1)M(g2) [k],r [k+1],l u (g) ⊗ u (g)|EPk,k+1i = |EPk,k+1i (E2) −1 = N (g1g2)Ailir M(g1g2) (D5) But u[k],r(g) or u[k+1],l(g) alone might not form a linear l r for all i i . However, the set of matrices {Ailir } form representation of G. They could in general be a projec- [k],r a complete basis in the space of Dl × Dr dimensional tive representation of G. If u (g) is a projective rep- matrices. Therefore, resentation corresponding to class ω in H2(G, C), then u[k+1],l must correspond to class −ω. ω does not vary −1 −1 ωsym(g1, g2)N (g2)N (g1) ⊗ M(g1)M(g2) from site to site and labels a particular symmetric fixed −1 point state. = N (g1g2) ⊗ M(g1g2), (D6) Now we will show that symmetric fixed point states and N(g) and M(g) form two projective representations with the same ω can be connected through symmetric LU transformations and hence belong to the same phase N(gh) = ωN (g, h)N(g)N(h), while those with different ω cannot and belong to differ-

M(gh) = ωM (g, h)M(g)M(h), (D7) ent phases. First, suppose that two symmetric fixed point states with |ωN (g1, g2)| = |ωM (g1, g2)| = 1 and |φ1i and |φ2i are related with the same ω, i.e.

[k],r [k+1],l ωM (g1, g2) u1 (g) ⊗ u1 (g)|EPk,k+1i1 = |EPk,k+1i1 (E3) ωsym(g1, g2) = (D8) ωN (g1, g2) [k],r [k+1],l u2 (g) ⊗ u2 (g)|EPk,k+1i2 = |EPk,k+1i2 Let us rewrite eqn. (D2) as where |EPk,k+1i1(2) is an entangled pair of virtual spins [k],r [k+1],l [k],r X −1 on Hilbert space H ⊗ H . u (g) is a projec- N(g)( uilir ,jljr (g)Ajljr )M (g) = Ailir (D9) 1(2) 1(2) 1(2) [k],r l r j j tive representation of G corresponding to ω on H1(2) and [k+1],l We note that u1(2) (g) a projective representation corresponding to −ω on H[k+1],l. X ˜ −1 ˜ −1 1(2) N(g)( (N )jl,il Mir ,jr Ajljr )M (g) = Ailir (D10) We can think of |EPk,k+1i1 and |EPk,k+1i2 as liv- l r j j [k],r [k],r ing together in a joint Hilbert space (H1 ⊕ H2 ) ⊗ ˜ ˜ [k+1],l [k+1],l where the matrices M and N are given by (H1 ⊕ H2 ). The symmetry representation on this joint Hilbert space can be defined as q l p r λ λα β u[k],r(g) ⊗ u[k+1],l(g) (E4) M˜ αβ = Mαβ , N˜αβ = Nαβ . (D11) q r p l λ λα [k],r [k],r [k+1],l [k+1],l β =(u1 (g) ⊕ u2 (g)) ⊗ (u1 (g) ⊕ u2 (g)) 18

in the region that correspond to −ω1. We can continue this argument until finally some degree of freedom in the region corresponding to −ω1 connect with the left virtual spin on the site to the right of the region corresponding to ω1 and form a singlet. In Fig.7, we illustrate one possible structure of singlets after operation U. White dots correspond to ω0, the 2 FIG. 7: (Color online) Fixed point state related to projective identity element in H (G, C), black dots correspond to representation of class ω before (upper) and after (lower) a ω1 and gray dots correspond to −ω1. local unitary operation on the shaded region that does not Therefore, we can see that no matter what the sym- break the symmetry. White dots correspond to ω0, the iden- metric LU operation might be on |φ1i, singlet entangled 2 C tity element in H (G, ), black dots correspond to ω and gray pairs related to ω1 must connect head to tail and cover dots correspond to −ω. the whole length of the chain. In other words, we can not shrink a chain of singlet entangled pairs related to

[k],r [k],r [k+1],l [k+1],l non-trivial ω1 continuously to a point or change it to ω2 As u1 (g) and u2 (g) (also u1 (g) and u2 (g)) by acting on it locally and without breaking the symme- both correspond to ω (−ω), their direct sum try. Hence fixed point states with different ω cannot be [k],r [k+1],l u (g)(u (g)) is also a projective representation related to each other with symmetric LU transformation corresponding to ω(−ω). Therefore, we have a linear and hence belong to different classes. representation of G on each site k, u[k],l(g) ⊗ u[k],r(g) and both |EPk,k+1i1 and |EPk,k+1i2 are symmetric un- [k],r [k+1],l der u (g) ⊗ u (g). Appendix F: A proof of eqn. (21) Now we can perform a LU transformation on the joint Hilbert space and rotate continuously between A gapped TI state can be represented by a uniform |EPk,k+1i1 and |EPk,k+1i2. That is, MPS. After R steps of {ni}-block RG transformation, (R) θ θ we obtain a MPS described by matrices (Ailir ) which U(θ) = cos( )I − i sin( )(|aihb| + |biha|) (E5) is given by eqn. (11). To describe a state that does 2 2 (R) not break the on-site linear symmetry, here (Ailir ) (R) where |ai = |EPk,k+1i1, |bi = |EPk,k+1i2 and θ goes is invariant (up to a phase) under u (g) on each site. 16 from 0 to π. By doing this locally to each pair, we can Therefore , map |φ1i to |φ2i (and vice verse) with LU transforma- X (R) −1 tions without breaking the on-site symmetry of group G. uilir ,jljr (g)Ajljr = α (g)M (g)Ailir M(g) (F1) Therefore, |φ1i and |φ2i belong to the same phase if they jljr are related with the same ω. On the other hand, if |φ1i and |φ2i are related to ω1 must be satisfied with some invertible matrix M(g). Here (R) and ω2 respectively, we will show that they cannot be we have dropped the RG step label R (except in α (g)). QR connected by any LU transformation that does not break Each coarse grained site is a combination of i=1 ni orig- the symmetry. inal lattice sites and α(R)(g) form a 1D representation of Suppose that ω1 is non-trivial, we start with |φ1i G. and apply a local unitary operation U to a finite region QR So if the number of sites has a form L = Q i=1 ni, (shaded in Fig.7). |φ1i is composed of invariant singlets then αL(g) in eqn. (13) will have a form of symmetry group G. If U does not break the symmetry, (R) Q the resulting state should still be composed of singlets. αL(g) = [α (g)] (F2) The singlet pairs outside of the shaded region are not 0 changed while those overlapping with the shaded region QR 0 for any value of Q. Now let us choose Q = i=1 ni where can take any possible structure after the operation U. 0 QR QR 0 i=1 ni and i=1 ni have no common factors. The to- No matter what the change is, the right virtual spin 0 QR QR 0 on the site to the left of the region corresponding to ω1 tal system size becomes L = i=1 ni i=1 ni. We can 0 0 should form a singlet with some degrees of freedom in perform, instead, a R step of {ni}-block RG transfor- 0 the region. As the singlet is invariant under a linear rep- mation, which leads to a 1D representation α(R )(g). We resentation of G, these degrees of freedom in the region find that αL(g) in eqn. (13) will have a form must form a projective representation of G corresponding (R0) Q0 to −ω1. These degrees of freedom could live on one site αL(g) = [α (g)] (F3) or distribute over several sites. However, the sites only 0 support linear representations. Therefore, there must be where Q0 = L/ QR n0 = QR n . Thus some remaining degrees of freedom on the same sites that i=1 i i=1 i correspond to ω1. These remaining degrees of freedom QR0 0 0 QR (R) n (R ) ni must form singlets again with other degrees of freedoms αL(g) = [α (g)] i=1 i = [α (g)] i=1 . (F4) 19

0 QR QR 0 Since i=1 ni and i=1 ni have no common factors, there Ai(t) vary continuously with time and reach the fixed must exist a 1D representation α(g) of G, such that point form at t = T (up to local change of basis). The state represented |φ(t)i hence also changes smoothly with 0 (R) QR n (R0) QR n0 α (g) = [α(g)] i=1 i , α (g) = [α(g)] i=1 i . t and has a finite correlation length as all eigenvalues of (F5) E(t) expect for 1 are diminishing with t. Therefore, E(t) represents a smooth path in TI SRC MPS that connects Now eqn. (F2) becomes any state to a fixed point state(up to local change of ba- sis). QR Q ni L αL(g) = [α(g)] i=1 = [α(g)] (F6) How do we know that no phase transition happens along the path? This is because for every state |φ(t)i, we which gives us eqn. (21). can find a parent Hamiltonian which changes smoothly with t and has the state as a unique gapped ground state.47 Following the construction in Ref. 29,30, we Appendix G: Equivalence between gapped TI choose a sufficiently large but finite l and set the par- b-phases and gapped TI phases P ent Hamiltonian to be H(t) = − k h(t)k,k+l, where h(t)k,k+l is the projection onto the support space of the We have been using the quantum circuit formulation reduced density matrix on site k to k + l at time t. Note to study TI systems and classify b-phases. As the quan- that this Hamiltonian is translation invariant. For large tum circuit explicitly breaks translational symmetry, it enough l, h(t)k,k+l will always be D ×D dimensional. As is possible that each b-phase contains several different TI the state changes continuously, its reduced density matri- phases. (On the other hand, states in different b-phases ces of site k to k+l changes smoothly. Because the dimen- must belong to different TI phases.) In this section, we sion of the space does not change, h(t)k,k+l also changes will show that each b-phase actually corresponds to a smoothly with time. Moreover, it can be shown that single TI phase by establishing a TI LU transformation H(t) is always gapped as the second largest eigenvalue of between states in the same b-phase. We will use the time E(t) never approaches 129,30. Therefore, by evolving the evolution formulation of LU transformation (2) and find Hamiltonian adiabatically from t = 0 to t = T , we obtain a smooth path of gapped TI Hamiltonian whose adiabatic a local unitary transformation46 connecting any state to evolution connects two states within the same b-phase. the fixed point form, and in particular without breaking First, as an example, we consider the case of TI only the translation symmetry. and show that there is only one gapped TI phase. Each Because any TI fixed point state can be disentangled TI SRC MPS is described(up to local change of basis) into product state in a TI way, we find that all TI 1D by a double tensor E which has a non-degenerate largest gapped ground states are in the same phase, if no other eigenvalue 1. E can be written as symmetries are required. If the system is TI and has on-site symmetry, we need E E0 E0 E0 αγ,βχ = αγ,βχ + αγ,βχ = Λαγ Λβχ + αγ,βχ (G1) to maintain the on-site symmetry while doing the smooth deformation. A TI SRC MPS which is symmetric under where Λ is the eigenvector of eigenvalue 1 and E0 is of 30 on-site symmetry of group G is described by matrices eigenvalue less than 1. In the ‘canonical form’ ,Λαγ = 0 which satisfy λαδαγ , λα > 0. Obviously, E is a valid double tensor and represents a state in fixed point form. We can smoothly X −1 change E to E0 by turning down the E0 term to 0 from uij(g)Aj = α(g)M (g)AiM(g) (G3) t = 0 to t = T as j t for some invertible projective representation M(g). The E(t) = E0 + (1 − )E0 (G2) T double tensor E hence satisfies Every E(t) represents a TI SRC MPS state. To see this, E X −1 ∗ −1 ∗ E αγ,βχ = Mαα0 Mββ0 (M )γγ0 Mχχ0 α0γ0,β0χ0 note that if we recombine the indices αβ as row index α0β0γ0χ0 and γχ as column index and denote the new matrix as (G4) Eˆ, then both Eˆ and Eˆ0 are positive semidefinite matrices. ˆ But then every E(t) is also positive semidefinite, as for where the group element label g has been omitted. Being any vector |vi the non-degenerate one-dimensional eigenspace of E, E0 must be invariant under the same transformation, and so t Eˆ Eˆ0 Eˆ0 0 hv| (t)|vi = hv| |vi + (1 − T )hv| |vi does E . Therefore we have t Eˆ t Eˆ0 = (1 − T )hv| |vi + T hv| |vi > 0 0 X −1 ∗ −1 ∗ 0 E = M 0 M 0 (M ) 0 M 0 E 0 0 0 0 E αγ,βχ αα ββ γγ χχ α γ ,β χ (t) is hence a valid double tensor and the state repre- α0β0γ0χ0 sented can be determined by decomposing E(t) back into 0 X −1 ∗ −1 ∗ 0 E = M 0 M 0 (M ) 0 M 0 E 0 0 0 0 matrices Ai(t). Such a decomposition is not unique but αγ,βχ αα ββ γγ χχ α γ ,β χ WLOG, we can fix the decomposition scheme, so that α0β0γ0χ0 20

Now we smoothly change the double tensor as in Eqn.G2. Such a smooth path in symmetric state space cor- Evidently, the symmetry condition Eqn.G4 is satisfied for responds to a smooth path in symmetric Hamiltonian all t. space. Construct parent Hamiltonian as discussed previ- Decompose E(t) back to matrices Ai(t) so that the rep- ously. Because the state is symmetric under on-site u(g), resented state |φ(t)i changes smoothly with time. De- the support space on site k to k +l must then form a rep- l note the symmetry transformed double tensor as EM(g). resentation space for (⊗u(g)) . Therefore, it is easy to see As EM(g)(t) = E(t), there must exist a unitary operator that the parent Hamiltonian, being a summation of pro- u˜(g)(t), such that jections onto such spaces, is also symmetry under on-site u(g). Moreover, the Hamiltonian remains gapped and TI. X −1 u˜ij(g)(t)Aj(t) = M (g)Ai(t)M(g) (G5) In this way, we have found a smooth path of symmetric, j in particular TI, Hamiltonian whose adiabatic evolution connects any symmetric state labeled by α(g) and ω to whereu ˜(g)(t) is a linear representation of G. Redefine the corresponding fixed point state(up to a local change u(g)(t) =u ˜(g)(t) × α(g), then of basis) and hence establishing the symmetric TI LU equivalence between them. X −1 uij(g)(t)Aj(t) = α(g)M (g)Ai(t)M(g) (G6) As we show in appendixE that fixed point states with j the same α(g) and ω can be related by symmetric local unitary transformations to each other, we now complete As Ai(t) is chosen to be continuous with time, from the the proof that for 1D spin systems with only translation above equation we can see that u(g)(t) is also continu- and an on-site linear symmetry G, all gapped phases that ous in time. On the other hand, u(g)(t) form a linear do not break the two symmetries are classified by a pair representation of G. For all the cases we are interested (ω, α) where ω ∈ H2(G, C) label different types of projec- in, the linear representations of G are discrete. There- tive representations of G and α label different 1D repre- fore, as u(g)(t) evolves smoothly with time, it cannot sentations of G. change from one representation to another but only from Similarly, if the system has translation and parity sym- one equivalent form to another which differ by a unitary metry, we can establish the equivalence between states † conjugation. That is, u(g)(t) = V (t)u(g)V (t), with a labeled by the same α(P ) and β(P ) in a translational continuous V (t). We can incorporate V (t) into the ma- invariant way (see the discussion below (23)). The pro- ˜ P † trices Ai(t) and define Ai(t) = j Vij(t)Aj(t), so that cedure is totally analogous to the on-site symmetry case, A˜i(t) is symmetric under u(g) for all t. In the follow- with the only difference that the symmetry condition for ing discussion, we will assume that such a redefinition the matrices and double tensors become is made and the symmetry operation of the system will P T −1 always be u(g) ⊗ ... ⊗ u(g). Therefore, the continuous j uijAj = ±M AiM E P −1 ∗ −1 ∗ E evolution of E(t) from t = 0 to t = T corresponds to βχ,αγ = α0β0γ0χ0 Mαα0 Mββ0 (M )γγ0 Mχχ0 α0γ0,β0χ0 a continuous evolution of short range correlated states |φ(t)i which is always symmetric under the same on-site We find that for 1D spin systems with only translation symmetry u(g), with the same phase factor (α(g))L and and parity symmetry, there are four gapped phases that related to the same projective representation ω. do not break the two symmetries.

1 L. D. Landau, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion 11, 26 (1937). arXiv:0912.2157. 2 L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifschitz, Statistical Physics - 13 L. Fidkowski and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. B 81, 134509 Course of Theoretical Physics Vol 5 (Pergamon, London, (2010) 1958). 14 T. Hirano, H. Katsura, and Y. Hatsugai,Phys. Rev. B 77, 3 D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. 094431 (2008). Lett. 48, 1559 (1982). 15 F. Pollmann, E. Berg, A. M. Turner and M. Oshikawa, 4 R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983). Phys. Rev. B 81, 064439 (2010). 5 X.-G. Wen, Advances in Physics 44, 405 (1995). 16 D. Perez-Garcia, M. M. Wolf, M. Sanz, F. Verstraete and 6 X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 65, 165113 (2002). J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 167202 (2008). 7 M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 71, 045110 (2005). 17 F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and M. M. 8 X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen (2010), Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 140601 (2005). arXiv:1004.3835. 18 E. Berg, E. G. D. Torre, T. Giamarchi, and E. Altman, 9 S.-P. Kou, M. Levin, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 78, Phys. Rev. B 77, 245119 (2008). 155134 (2008), arXiv:0803.2300. 19 Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 80, 155131 (2009), 10 Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 80, 155131, (2009), arXiv:0903.1069. arXiv:0903.1069. 20 F. Pollmann, E. Berg, A. M. Turner, and M. Oshikawa 11 A. Kitaev (2009), arXiv:0901.2686. (2009), arXiv:0909.4059. 12 S. Ryu, A. Schnyder, A. Furusaki, and A. Ludwig, (2009), 21 F. D. M. Haldane, Physics Letters A 93, 464 (1983). 21

22 E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 16, 43 T.-K. Ng, Phys. Rev. B 50, 555 (1994). 407 (1961). 44 M. den Nijs and K. Rommelse, Phys. Rev. B 40, 4709 23 T. Hirano, H. Katsura, Y. Hatsugai, Phys. Rev. B 78, (1989). 054431 (2008). 45 T. Kennedy and H. Tasaki, Phys. Rev. B 45, 304 (1992). 24 X.-G. Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems 46 M. B. Hastings, X.-G. Wen, Phys.Rev. B 72 045141 (2005). – From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and 47 N. Schuch, D. P´erez-Garc´ıa and J. I. Cirac, talk given Electrons (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2004). on ‘International Workshop on Density Matrix Renor- 25 G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 220405 (2007); G. Vidal, malization Group and Other Advances on Numerical (2009), arXiv:0912.1651. Renormalization Group Methods’, Beijing, China, 2010 26 V. L. Ginzburg and L. D. Landau, Zh. Ekaper. Teoret. Fiz. (http://physics.ruc.edu.cn/meeting/20090915/3109.pdf). 20, 1064 (1950). 48 X.-G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 4, 239 (1990). 27 W.-H. Ko, P. A. Lee, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 79, 49 H. Yao and S. A. Kivelson (2010), arXiv:1008.1065. 214502 (2009), arXiv:0804.1359. 50 Informal seminar at Microsoft Research, Station Q and 28 S.-P. Kou and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 80, 224406 (2009), personal communication. arXiv:0907.4537. 51 While it might seems insufficient to discuss equivalence 29 M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner, Commun. between Hamiltonians completely in terms of equivalence Math. Phys. 144, 443 (1992). between ground states, as a local unitary transformation 30 D. P´erez-Garc´ıa,F. Verstraete, M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, mapping |φ1i to |φ2i might not map the corresponding 0 Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 401 (2007). Hamiltonian H1 to H2, but instead to some H2. However, 31 0 M. B. Hastings, J. Stat. Mech. p. P08024 (2007). as H2 and H2 are both gapped and have the same ground 32 M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 140402 (2004). states, their equivalence is obvious. 33 M. B. Hastings and T. Koma, Commun. Math. Phys. 265, 52 A state is a gapped state if there exist a Hamiltonian H 781 (2006). such that the state is the non-degenerate gapped ground 34 N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, state of H. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030504 (2008). 53 The convention chosen here is different from Ref. 30, but 35 M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum computation and equivalent up to an invertible transformation on the ma- quantum information (Cambridge University Press, Cam- [k] trices Ai . bridge, 2000). 54 In general, a state which does not break the translational 36 D. E. Evans and E. Hoegh-Krohn, J. London Math. Soc. symmetry of the system is invariant under translation up 17, 345 (1978). to a phase. That is, the state carries a finite momentum. 37 R. A. Hyman and K. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1783 However, we will restrict ourselves only to the case where (1997). the ground state has zero momentum and we will say the 38 S. K. Ma, C. Dasgupta, and C. K. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. states are translational invariant instead of translational 43, 1434 (1979). symmetric. 39 55 (0) D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 50, 3799 (1994). The Z2 operation u is necessary in the definition of par- 40 I. Affleck, T. Kennedy, E. H. Lieb, and H. Tasaki, Phys. ity if we want to consider for example, fixed point state Rev. Lett. 59, 799 (1987). with |EP i = |00i + |11i be to parity symmetric. The state 41 M. Hagiwara, K. Katsumata, I. Affleck, B. I. Halperin, and is not invariant after exchange of sites, and only maps back J. P. Renard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 3181 (1990). to itself if in addition the two virtual spins on each site are 42 S. H. Glarum, S. Geschwind, K. M. Lee, M. L. Kaplan, also exchanged. and J. Michel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1614 (1991).