6
$\begingroup$

I have in mind the transverse ising model and its (self-dual) generalizations, such as

$$H_{TI} = \sum_i \sigma^z_{i}\sigma^z_{i+1} + h \sigma^x_{i}$$ and $$H_{SDANNI} = \sum_i (\sigma^z_{i}\sigma^z_{i+1}+\Delta \sigma^z_{i}\sigma^z_{i+2}) + h( \sigma^x_{i}+\Delta \sigma^x_{i}\sigma^x_{i+1})$$

These models are self-dual under a Kramers-Wannier mapping, which is often used to show that $h=1$ is the location of the critical point. There are often some subtleties with this transformation to do with the tails of the mapping and the degeneracy of ground states.


At the critical point of $h=1$, does there exist a unitary $U$ implementing the duality such that $U H_{TI} U^\dagger = H_{TI}$ and $U H_{SDANNI} U^\dagger = H_{SDANNI}$?

My motivation to ask this is fairly vague. I keep feeling that these models have an extra symmetry at the critical point of $h=1$ relative to their $h\neq 1$ counterparts, and I suspect it is related to the fact that they are dual to themselves at the critical point. In particular, I want to implement this symmetry in exact diagonalization. My mind says that it's unlikely one can find a unitary operator (or even any linear operator) to implement Kramers-Wannier duality, but my heart hopes that it exists and it's known.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ A unitary fulfilling $UHU^\dagger=H$ would be the unity operator. I don't think that helps at all ^^. $\endgroup$
    – jan0155
    Commented Dec 10, 2021 at 14:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See arxiv.org/abs/1103.2776 (in particular sections 2.2 and 3.3 for relevant comments). Although note that we usually use group-like symmetries to Block-diagonalize a Hamiltonian into irrep blocks. But the KW-duality does not form a group, but something more general like a fusion category. So there might be subtleties in using such structures for ED. (In terminology of arxiv.org/abs/1802.04445, Invertible defect = group like symmetry, non-invertible defect = KW-like duality). $\endgroup$
    – Heidar
    Commented Dec 10, 2021 at 14:17

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

The self-duality of the TFI model can not be a unitary map, because it maps a Hamiltonian with spontaneous Ising symmetry breaking in the ground states ($h<1$) to one in the paramagnetic state with a unique ground state ($1/h>1$), and unitary maps ought to preserve degeneracy. In fact the same argument shows that it can not even be an invertible linear transformation.

Another way to see that KW duality is very different from a symmetry is to think about what happens in a closed system, with periodic boundary condition. You can show that the operator mapping, as written, only works in a sector of the Hilbert space with a given total $\mathbb{Z}_2$ charge. The total charge gets translated to the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ flux of the transformed model.

As Heidar mentioned in the comment, you can implement KW duality as an non-invertible defect line in the (1+1)d theory (most conveniently in the 2D classical Ising model, see https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.07185, or just thinking purely in terms of the CFT, as thoroughly discussed in https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.04445).

Now you may ask whether it is possible to write down the map explicitly in some way, at the level of states. I don't think anyone has done this and it would be interesting to try. There are two things you can do:

  1. Use Jordan-Wigner transformation to fermionize the TFI chain, into a chain of Majorana fermions. Then the KW duality becomes a lattice translation in the fermionic representation, which is a unitary symmetry. In principle you can write down how the translation acts on states.

  2. In general, it is possible sometimes to represent these dualities in 1+1d using a matrix product operator (MPO) (the general theory is laid out in https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08090, although in the context of 2D topological phase).

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the Kramers-Wannier MPO can be inferred from the following seminal paper from the Verstraete group about gauging and MPOs: arxiv.org/abs/1407.1025 More recently, with Nat, Ryan and Ashvin, we constructed the Kramers-Wannier MPO explicitly using controlled-Z gates and single-site projections or measurements (resp. Fig 1 and Fig 2 of arxiv:2112.01519 ) $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 13, 2021 at 22:43
  • $\begingroup$ @RubenVerresen Thanks, yes I saw your paper, but didn't make that connection. $\endgroup$
    – Meng Cheng
    Commented Dec 14, 2021 at 1:45
  • $\begingroup$ @RubenVerresen There is also an Ising category MPO written down in 1511.08090 by Verstraetians, directly using the fusion category data, which should somehow act as a KW MPO. $\endgroup$
    – Meng Cheng
    Commented Dec 14, 2021 at 1:48
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe it's worth mentioning that one can make the Kramers-Wannier duality (and its vast generalisations) unitary if one enlarges the Hilbert Space and include all twisted boundary conditions. KW duality permutes sectors around so the full spectrum is preserved, however it is not when restricting to a single boundary condition (such as periodic). We discuss it in arxiv.org/abs/2207.10712 (for example at the end of 3.5 or for Z2 spin chains around equation (5.16)). $\endgroup$
    – Heidar
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 19:22
2
$\begingroup$

I fully agree with what Meng Cheng has written about the impossibility for duality to be a unitary transformation in the case of periodic boundary conditions. Nevertheless, if one doesn't mind breaking translational and parity symmetries, it is possible to define duality as unitary transformation and find self-dual hamiltonian. Let $|s_1,\ldots,s_N\rangle$ are eigenvectors of $\hat{\sigma}_j^z$ operators. Id est $$ \hat{\sigma}_j^z |s_1,\ldots,s_N\rangle = s_j |s_1,\ldots,s_N\rangle. $$ Let's define operator $\hat{U}$ in the following way: $$ \hat{U}|s_1,\ldots,s_N\rangle = |t_1,\ldots,t_N\rangle, $$ where $t_j = s_{j-1}s_j$ for $j = 2,\ldots,N$ and $t_1 = s_1$. It is not hard to see that the following relations are valid $$ \hat{U}\ \hat{\sigma}_{j-1}^z\hat{\sigma}_j^z\ \hat{U}^\dagger = \hat{\sigma}_j^z,\quad j = 2,\ldots,N, $$ $$ \hat{U}\ \hat{\sigma}_{1}^z\ \hat{U}^\dagger = \hat{\sigma}_{1}^z, $$ $$ \hat{U}\hat{\sigma}_j^x\hat{U}^\dagger = \hat{\sigma}_j^x\hat{\sigma}_{j+1}^x,\quad j = 1,\ldots,N-1, $$ $$ \hat{U}\hat{\sigma}_N^x\hat{U}^\dagger = \hat{\sigma}_N^x. $$ Now, if $$ \hat{H} = \hat{\sigma}_1^z + \sum_{j=2}^N\hat{\sigma}_{j-1}^z\hat{\sigma}_j^z + \sum_{j=1}^N\hat{\sigma}_j^x, $$ then $$ \hat{U}\hat{H}\hat{U}^\dagger = \sum_{j=1}^N\hat{\sigma}_j^z + \sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\hat{\sigma}_j^x\hat{\sigma}_{j+1}^x + \hat{\sigma}_N^x. $$ Transformed hamiltonian is essentially the initial one up to the spin rotation and spatial reflection unitary transformations.

Update. There is no need to break parity symmetry. Hamiltonian $$ \hat{H}_2 = \sum_{j=2}^{N}\hat{\sigma}_{j-1}^z\hat{\sigma}_j^z + \sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\hat{\sigma}_j^x. $$ is self-dual. It is also invariant under $\hat{\sigma}_j^z \to -\hat{\sigma}_j^z$, $\hat{\sigma}_j^x \to \hat{\sigma}_j^x$ transformation.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ The unitary mapping is nice to see, and I'm going to dwell on this and see if I can get something out of it for a model with a phase transition. Do you know if the boundary field removes the transition, since it explicitly breaks Ising symmetry? $\endgroup$
    – user196574
    Commented Dec 10, 2021 at 22:19
  • $\begingroup$ Not just translation and parity, you would need to break Ising $Z_2$ as well (although seems only on the boundary), otherwise the ground state degeneracy can not match. $\endgroup$
    – Meng Cheng
    Commented Dec 10, 2021 at 23:17
  • $\begingroup$ @user196574 ground energy per spin in the thermodynamic limit, $e_0(h) = \lim_{N\to\infty} E_0(h, N)/N$, doesn't depend on boundary conditions. So the phase transition is still present for such hamiltonian, at least as a point of non-analyticity of $e_0$. $\endgroup$
    – Gec
    Commented Dec 11, 2021 at 6:18
  • $\begingroup$ @MengCheng In this model, Ising $Z_2$ symmetry and parity are the same. No? The first term in the $\hat{H}$ breaks symmetry under transformation $\hat{\sigma}_j^z \to -\hat{\sigma}_j^z$, $\hat{\sigma}_j^x \to \hat{\sigma}_j^x$. $\endgroup$
    – Gec
    Commented Dec 11, 2021 at 6:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Gec arxiv.org/abs/1910.10745 section 4.1 notes that a boundary symmetry breaking field generically can select one of several degenerate ground states, but this might actually be a good thing for diagnosing SSB. Regardless of what the answer is, I have been able to use your answer for a nonintegrable completely Ising-symmetric model on a ring in the $+1$ Ising symmetry sector at its critical point and can show the model still retains Wigner-Dyson statistics when accounting for this unusual duality symmetry, finally producing a counterexample to your question 472064 :)! Details to come! $\endgroup$
    – user196574
    Commented Dec 11, 2021 at 7:01

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.