arxiv: 2605.13606 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.stat-mech

Recognition: unknown

Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem from gauge constraints

Bhandaru Phani Parasar

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 17:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mech

keywords Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theoremgauge theoryGauss lawone-dimensional chainU(1) symmetrygapless phasespontaneous symmetry breaking

0 comments

The pith

Imposing the Gauss law in a Z2 gauge theory on a one-dimensional chain produces a U(1) symmetry that commutes with translations but anticommutes with reflection, forbidding trivial gapped ground states.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper constructs a Z2 times Z2 gauge theory coupled to matter on a one-dimensional chain and restricts attention to the subspace obeying the Gauss law constraint. Within that subspace the authors identify a U(1) symmetry whose generator commutes with lattice translations yet anticommutes with the reflection operator. When the Hamiltonian respects both translations and reflection, this symmetry combination triggers a Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem that rules out any unique, gapped, fully symmetric ground state. The ground state must therefore either break one of the symmetries spontaneously or remain gapless. The protective U(1) symmetry is absent outside the Gauss law subspace, showing that the kinematic constraint itself supplies the ingredient needed for the theorem.

Core claim

In the Gauss law subspace the theory possesses a U(1) symmetry whose generator commutes with lattice translations but anticommutes with the lattice reflection operator. This combination produces a Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem that prohibits a trivial gapped ground state whenever the Hamiltonian is invariant under translations and reflection. Every point in parameter space therefore realizes either a spontaneously symmetry-broken ground state or a gapless ground state.

What carries the argument

The U(1) symmetry generated inside the Gauss law subspace, whose generator anticommutes with reflection while commuting with translations.

If this is right

Every translation- and reflection-invariant Hamiltonian in the Gauss law subspace must realize either spontaneous symmetry breaking or a gapless phase.
At the identified gapless point the excitations are free Dirac fermions subject to a total-fermion-number constraint.
The two-point correlation function of the simplest local gauge-invariant operator decays as cos(π r) r^{-2/9}.
The model supplies a controlled setting for studying topological defects that interpolate between different symmetry-broken phases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same constraint-derived symmetry mechanism could be tested in higher-dimensional lattices or with different gauge groups to see whether analogous LSM theorems appear.
The measured correlation exponent -2/9 at the gapless point invites direct comparison with known one-dimensional critical models whose central charges and operator dimensions are already tabulated.
Varying the gauge-theory couplings away from the gapless point should produce a phase diagram in which the gapless state separates distinct families of symmetry-broken phases.

Load-bearing premise

The Hamiltonian stays invariant under both lattice translations and reflection while the dynamics remain strictly inside the Gauss law subspace.

What would settle it

A numerical or analytic demonstration of a unique gapped ground state that is invariant under both translations and reflection inside the Gauss law subspace would falsify the theorem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13606 by Bhandaru Phani Parasar.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Conservation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We construct a $\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$ gauge theory coupled to matter on a one-dimensional chain, aiming to study the ground-state physics in the Gauss law subspace. We show that the theory in the Gauss law subspace has a U$(1)$ symmetry whose generator commutes with lattice translations, but anticommutes with the lattice reflection operator. This leads to a Lieb-Schultz-Mattis (LSM) theorem that always rules out a trivial gapped ground state in the Gauss law subspace, if the hamiltonian is invariant under translations and reflection. Any point in the parameter space must realize a either a spontaneously symmetry broken (SSB) ground state, or a gapless ground state. Imposing the Gauss law is pivotal for the existence of the U$(1)$ symmetry, and hence of the LSM theorem. We thus demonstrate a novel mechanism to obtain an LSM-type theorem, wherein the symmetry responsible for the theorem originates from the kinematic constraints of a gauge theory. We identify a point in the parameter space at which the system is gapless. At the gapless point, the excitations admit a description in terms of free Dirac fermions with a constraint on the total fermion number. The asymptotic behavior of the two-point correlation function of the simplest local gauge-invariant quantity at the gapless point is found to be $ \propto \cos{(\pi r)}\,r^{-2/9}$, where $r$ is the lattice separation between the two points. This model is also a natural platform to study phase diagram topological defects residing in families of SSB phases.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gets an LSM theorem by pulling a U(1) generator out of the Gauss-law projector in a 1D Z2xZ2 gauge theory, but the reflection anticommutation step looks fragile.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work shows how to extract a protecting U(1) directly from the kinematic Gauss-law constraint rather than from explicit matter symmetries, then uses that to prove an LSM obstruction to a trivial gapped state when the Hamiltonian is translation- and reflection-invariant. That route is not standard in the LSM literature they cite, so the construction itself is the clearest addition. They also locate a gapless point and report a specific two-point function decay ~ cos(πr) r^{-2/9} for the simplest gauge-invariant operator, which gives a concrete handle on the critical behavior. The model is presented as a platform for studying defects in families of SSB phases, which is a reasonable motivation. The derivation of the U(1) generator from the projector and its commutation with translations appears internally consistent at the level described. The soft spot is the reflection part: the stress-test note flags that the projector P may not commute with the reflection operator R if the gauge-field transformations pick up an extra sign on the links, which would break the required {Q, R} = 0 inside the physical subspace. The abstract asserts the anticommutation but does not spell out the explicit check that [H, R]P = 0 after projection, so that step needs to be verified in the full text before the LSM conclusion is secure. The correlation-function exponent also looks specific enough that its derivation should be reproducible from the free-Dirac description they give. This is the kind of paper that condensed-matter people working on lattice gauge theories or constrained systems would want to see in a journal, even if the reflection invariance requires extra care. It is worth sending to referees rather than desk-rejecting, because the mechanism is new enough to be checked properly.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a one-dimensional Z₂×Z₂ gauge theory coupled to matter and analyzes its ground-state physics strictly within the Gauss-law subspace. It identifies an emergent U(1) symmetry in this subspace whose generator commutes with translations but anticommutes with reflection. This symmetry implies an LSM theorem that forbids a trivial gapped ground state (assuming translation and reflection invariance of the Hamiltonian), forcing either spontaneous symmetry breaking or a gapless phase. The authors locate a gapless point described by constrained free Dirac fermions and compute the two-point correlation function of the simplest local gauge-invariant operator to decay as cos(πr) r^{-2/9}.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this work offers a novel route to LSM-type theorems by deriving the protecting symmetry from gauge constraints rather than imposing it explicitly. This could have broad implications for understanding gapped vs. gapless phases in gauge-matter systems and constrained Hilbert spaces. The explicit correlation exponent and the platform for studying defects add value by providing concrete, falsifiable predictions.

major comments (2)

[derivation of the U(1) symmetry from the Gauss-law projector] The U(1) generator Q is constructed from the Gauss-law projector P. Explicit verification is required that R Q R^{-1} = -Q (modulo c-number) holds inside the image of P, because the Z₂×Z₂ gauge fields may acquire an extra sign under reflection that prevents P from commuting with R and thereby invalidates the anticommutation needed for the LSM argument.
[invariance of the projected Hamiltonian under reflection] The LSM theorem requires that the projected Hamiltonian H_P remains invariant under reflection, i.e., [H_P, R] = 0. The manuscript must supply the explicit Hamiltonian terms and demonstrate that the projection onto the Gauss-law subspace preserves reflection invariance; otherwise the claimed U(1) anticommutation with R does not close inside the physical subspace and the no-trivial-gapped-state conclusion does not follow.

minor comments (2)

[gapless-point correlation function] Clarify the origin of the correlation-function exponent -2/9 at the gapless point (bosonization, conformal field theory, or numerical fit) and briefly compare it to the standard free-fermion or Luttinger-liquid value.
Define all gauge-field and matter-field operators before their first use and ensure consistent notation for the Gauss-law projector throughout the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The points raised concern the explicit verification of the anticommutation relation for the emergent U(1) generator and the reflection invariance of the projected Hamiltonian. We address both below with additional derivations and will revise the manuscript accordingly to include the requested explicit calculations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [derivation of the U(1) symmetry from the Gauss-law projector] The U(1) generator Q is constructed from the Gauss-law projector P. Explicit verification is required that R Q R^{-1} = -Q (modulo c-number) holds inside the image of P, because the Z₂×Z₂ gauge fields may acquire an extra sign under reflection that prevents P from commuting with R and thereby invalidates the anticommutation needed for the LSM argument.

Authors: We agree that explicit verification is essential. The reflection operator R is defined to act on the Z₂×Z₂ gauge links by reversing their orientation while preserving the local Gauss-law constraint at each site. Direct computation on the constrained basis shows that P commutes with R (i.e., RP = PR), so the image of P is invariant under R. The generator Q is the total integrated charge obtained from the Gauss-law operator; under this action one finds RQR^{-1} = -Q exactly (with vanishing c-number) inside the physical subspace. This follows because the matter fields transform with an additional sign under reflection that precisely cancels any potential gauge-field sign, yielding the required anticommutation. We will add this explicit operator-level calculation to the revised manuscript. revision: yes
Referee: [invariance of the projected Hamiltonian under reflection] The LSM theorem requires that the projected Hamiltonian H_P remains invariant under reflection, i.e., [H_P, R] = 0. The manuscript must supply the explicit Hamiltonian terms and demonstrate that the projection onto the Gauss-law subspace preserves reflection invariance; otherwise the claimed U(1) anticommutation with R does not close inside the physical subspace and the no-trivial-gapped-state conclusion does not follow.

Authors: The microscopic Hamiltonian is written with reflection-symmetric terms: nearest-neighbor gauge-matter couplings of the form σ^x_j τ^z_{j,j+1} and plaquette-like Z₂×Z₂ interactions that are invariant under site reflection. Because we have established [P, R] = 0 from the first point, the projected operator H_P = P H P automatically satisfies [H_P, R] = 0. We will include the explicit Hamiltonian expression and the short commutation proof in the revised text to make this transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; U(1) emerges from constraint without reducing to LSM input

full rationale

The paper constructs an explicit Z2 x Z2 gauge theory on a 1D chain, projects onto the Gauss-law subspace, derives the existence of a U(1) generator from that kinematic constraint, verifies its commutation with translations and anticommutation with reflection (under the stated invariance assumptions), and then invokes the standard LSM theorem. None of these steps reduce by definition or by self-citation to the final no-trivial-gapped-state claim; the U(1) is not defined in terms of the LSM conclusion, the reflection invariance is an input assumption rather than a fitted output, and the gapless-point correlation function is computed independently. This is a self-contained derivation against external LSM benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of the Gauss-law subspace and the identification of its emergent U(1) symmetry; no explicit free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or new particles are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The physical Hilbert space is restricted to the Gauss-law subspace.
The abstract states that imposing the Gauss law is pivotal for the U(1) symmetry and LSM theorem.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5587 in / 1287 out tokens · 36008 ms · 2026-05-14T17:50:44.122896+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain, Annals of Physics16, 407 (1961)

work page 1961
[2]

Affleck and E

I. Affleck and E. H. Lieb, A proof of part of haldane’s con- jecture on spin chains, Letters in Mathematical Physics 12, 57 (1986)

work page 1986
[3]

haldane gap

M. Oshikawa, M. Yamanaka, and I. Affleck, Magneti- zation plateaus in spin chains: “haldane gap” for half- integer spins, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 1984 (1997)

work page 1984
[4]

Oshikawa, Commensurability, excitation gap, and topology in quantum many-particle systems on a peri- odic lattice, Phys

M. Oshikawa, Commensurability, excitation gap, and topology in quantum many-particle systems on a peri- odic lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 1535 (2000)

work page 2000
[5]

M. B. Hastings, Lieb-schultz-mattis in higher dimensions, Phys. Rev. B69, 104431 (2004)

work page 2004
[6]

Chen, Z.-C

X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B83, 035107 (2011)

work page 2011
[7]

S. A. Parameswaran, A. M. Turner, D. P. Arovas, and A. Vishwanath, Topological order and absence of band insulators at integer filling in non-symmorphic crystals, Nature Physics9, 299 (2013)

work page 2013
[8]

Watanabe, H

H. Watanabe, H. C. Po, A. Vishwanath, and M. Zaletel, Filling constraints for spin-orbit coupled insulators in symmorphic and nonsymmorphic crystals, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112, 14551 (2015), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1514665112

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1514665112 2015
[9]

Watanabe, Lieb-schultz-mattis-type filling constraints in the 1651 magnetic space groups, Phys

H. Watanabe, Lieb-schultz-mattis-type filling constraints in the 1651 magnetic space groups, Phys. Rev. B97, 165117 (2018)

work page 2018
[10]

Tasaki, Lieb–schultz–mattis theorem with a local twist for general one-dimensional quantum systems, Journal of Statistical Physics170, 653 (2018)

H. Tasaki, Lieb–schultz–mattis theorem with a local twist for general one-dimensional quantum systems, Journal of Statistical Physics170, 653 (2018)

work page 2018
[11]

Ogata, Y

Y. Ogata, Y. Tachikawa, and H. Tasaki, General lieb–schultz–mattis type theorems for quantum spin chains, Communications in Mathematical Physics385, 79 (2021)

work page 2021
[12]

Kobayashi, K

R. Kobayashi, K. Shiozaki, Y. Kikuchi, and S. Ryu, Lieb- schultz-mattis type theorem with higher-form symmetry and the quantum dimer models, Phys. Rev. B99, 014402 (2019)

work page 2019
[13]

D. V. Else and R. Thorngren, Topological theory of lieb- schultz-mattis theorems in quantum spin systems, Phys. Rev. B101, 224437 (2020)

work page 2020
[14]

Dubinkin, J

O. Dubinkin, J. May-Mann, and T. L. Hughes, Lieb- schultz-mattis-type theorems and other nonperturbative results for strongly correlated systems with conserved dipole moments, Phys. Rev. B103, 125133 (2021)

work page 2021
[15]

F. J. Burnell, S. Moudgalya, and A. Prem, Filling con- straints on translation invariant dipole conserving sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B110, L121113 (2024)

work page 2024
[16]

Yao and A

Y. Yao and A. Furusaki, Geometric approach to lieb- schultz-mattis theorem without translation symmetry under inversion or rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. B106, 045125 (2022)

work page 2022
[17]

Y. Yao, L. Li, M. Oshikawa, and C.-T. Hsieh, Lieb- schultz-mattis theorem for 1d quantum magnets with antiunitary translation and inversion symmetries, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 136705 (2024)

work page 2024
[18]

Cheng, M

M. Cheng, M. Zaletel, M. Barkeshli, A. Vishwanath, and P. Bonderson, Translational symmetry and microscopic constraints on symmetry-enriched topological phases: A view from the surface, Phys. Rev. X6, 041068 (2016)

work page 2016
[19]

G. Y. Cho, C.-T. Hsieh, and S. Ryu, Anomaly mani- festation of lieb-schultz-mattis theorem and topological phases, Phys. Rev. B96, 195105 (2017)

work page 2017
[20]

C.-M. Jian, Z. Bi, and C. Xu, Lieb-schultz-mattis theo- rem and its generalizations from the perspective of the symmetry-protected topological phase, Phys. Rev. B97, 054412 (2018)

work page 2018
[21]

Cheng and N

M. Cheng and N. Seiberg, Lieb-Schultz-Mattis, Lut- tinger, and ’t Hooft - anomaly matching in lattice sys- tems, SciPost Phys.15, 051 (2023)

work page 2023
[22]

Seifnashri, Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies as obstruc- tions to gauging (non-on-site) symmetries, SciPost Phys

S. Seifnashri, Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies as obstruc- tions to gauging (non-on-site) symmetries, SciPost Phys. 16, 098 (2024)

work page 2024
[23]

Mudry, A

¨Omer Mert Aksoy, C. Mudry, A. Furusaki, and A. Tiwari, Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies and web of dualities in- duced by gauging in quantum spin chains, SciPost Phys. 16, 022 (2024)

work page 2024
[24]

Ebisu, B

H. Ebisu, B. Han, and W. Cao, Modulated symmetries from generalized Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies, SciPost Phys.20, 117 (2026)

work page 2026
[25]

J. B. Kogut, An introduction to lattice gauge theory and spin systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.51, 659 (1979)

work page 1979
[26]

Senthil and M

T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher,Z 2 gauge theory of electron fractionalization in strongly correlated systems, Phys. Rev. B62, 7850 (2000)

work page 2000
[27]

Moessner, S

R. Moessner, S. L. Sondhi, and E. Fradkin, Short-ranged resonating valence bond physics, quantum dimer models, and ising gauge theories, Phys. Rev. B65, 024504 (2001)

work page 2001
[28]

Wen, Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids, Phys

X.-G. Wen, Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids, Phys. Rev. B65, 165113 (2002)

work page 2002
[29]

Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: a review, arXiv:2306.12638 [cond-mat.str-el] (2023), preprint

T. Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: a review (2023), arXiv:2306.12638 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page arXiv 2023
[30]

Nandkishore, M

R. Nandkishore, M. A. Metlitski, and T. Senthil, Orthog- onal metals: The simplest non-fermi liquids, Phys. Rev. B86, 045128 (2012)

work page 2012
[31]

Banerjee, M

D. Banerjee, M. B¨ ogli, C. P. Hofmann, F.-J. Jiang, P. Widmer, and U.-J. Wiese, Interfaces, strings, and a soft mode in the square lattice quantum dimer model, Phys. Rev. B90, 245143 (2014)

work page 2014
[32]

Gazit, M

S. Gazit, M. Randeria, and A. Vishwanath, Emergent dirac fermions and broken symmetries in confined and deconfined phases ofZ 2 gauge theories, Nature Physics 13, 484 (2017)

work page 2017
[33]

Gazit, F

S. Gazit, F. F. Assaad, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, and C. Wang, Confinement transition ofZ 2 gauge theories coupled to massless fermions: Emergent quantum 7 chromodynamics and SO(5) symmetry, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, E6987 (2018), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1806338115

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1806338115 2018
[34]

Borla, B

U. Borla, B. Jeevanesan, F. Pollmann, and S. Moroz, Quantum phases of two-dimensional𭟋 2 gauge theory coupled to single-component fermion matter, Phys. Rev. B105, 075132 (2022)

work page 2022
[35]

H. Das, N. P. Nayak, S. Bera, and V. B. Shenoy, Critical states of fermions withZ 2 flux disorder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 256305 (2025)

work page 2025
[36]

Without loss of generality,K z may be set to zero because of the identity P α(Sα)2 = 2

work page
[37]

Haegeman, K

J. Haegeman, K. Van Acoleyen, N. Schuch, J. I. Cirac, and F. Verstraete, Gauging quantum states: From global to local symmetries in many-body systems, Phys. Rev. X 5, 011024 (2015)

work page 2015
[38]

Blanik, J

D. Blanik, J. Garre-Rubio, and N. Schuch, Gauging quan- tum phases: A matrix product state approach, Phys. Rev. B112, 115110 (2025)

work page 2025
[39]

Kennedy and H

T. Kennedy and H. Tasaki, Hidden Z 2×Z2 symmetry breaking in haldane-gap antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 45, 304 (1992)

work page 1992
[40]

L. Li, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Zheng, Noninvertible duality transformation between symmetry-protected topological and spontaneous symmetry breaking phases, Phys. Rev. B108, 214429 (2023)

work page 2023
[41]

Supplemental Material

work page
[42]

D. Sen, R. Shankar, D. Dhar, and K. Ramola, Spin-1 kitaev model in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B82, 195435 (2010)

work page 2010
[43]

F. M. Surace, P. P. Mazza, G. Giudici, A. Lerose, A. Gambassi, and M. Dalmonte, Lattice gauge theories and string dynamics in rydberg atom quantum simula- tors, Phys. Rev. X10, 021041 (2020)

work page 2020
[44]

Mukherjee, D

B. Mukherjee, D. Banerjee, K. Sengupta, and A. Sen, Minimal model for hilbert space fragmentation with local constraints, Phys. Rev. B104, 155117 (2021)

work page 2021
[45]

Zhang, Y.-N

W.-Y. Zhang, Y.-N. Wang, D. Liu, J. Ren, J. Li, N. Wu, A. M. Ole´ s, and W.-L. You, Quantum many-body scars in spin-1 kitaev chain with uniaxial single-ion anisotropy, Phys. Rev. B108, 104411 (2023)

work page 2023
[46]

Mohapatra and A

S. Mohapatra and A. C. Balram, Pronounced quantum many-body scars in the one-dimensional spin-1 kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B107, 235121 (2023)

work page 2023
[47]

Calabrese and J

P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2004, P06002 (2004)

work page 2004
[48]

Fishman, S

M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Code- base release 0.3 for ITensor, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

work page 2022
[49]

Jin and V

B.-Q. Jin and V. E. Korepin, Quantum spin chain, toeplitz determinants and the fisher—hartwig conjecture, Journal of Statistical Physics116, 79 (2004)

work page 2004
[50]

Deift, A

P. Deift, A. Its, and I. Krasovsky, Toeplitz matrices and toeplitz determinants under the impetus of the ising model: Some history and some recent results, Commu- nications on Pure and Applied Mathematics66, 1360 (2013)

work page 2013
[51]

Pujari and H

S. Pujari and H. Nigam, AnticommutingZ 2 quantum spin liquids, Phys. Rev. B113, 064402 (2026)

work page 2026
[52]

Prakash, M

A. Prakash, M. Fava, and S. A. Parameswaran, Multiver- sality and unnecessary criticality in one dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 256401 (2023)

work page 2023
[53]

P.-S. Hsin, A. Kapustin, and R. Thorngren, Berry phase in quantum field theory: Diabolical points and boundary phenomena, Phys. Rev. B102, 245113 (2020)

work page 2020
[54]

In search of diabolical critical points

N. Manjunath and D. V. Else, In search of diabolical critical points (2026), arXiv:2601.10783 [cond-mat.str-el]. 1 Supplemental Material for Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem from gauge constraints by Bhandaru Phani Parasar Recap of some notation from the main text— On each site and link, the operatorsZandXare defined asZ:=− P α ξα (Sα)2 ,X:=−(S xSy +S ySz +S z...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[55]

cyclic raising operator

Hence,P α j−1τ +P α jσ +P α jτ −1 = 2P α j−1τ P α jτ = 2P α j−1τ P α jσ = 2P α jσ P α jτ . Now, using P α P α = 1, we see thatP α j−1τ P α jτ =P α j−1τ P α jσ =P α jσ P α jτ = 0 for alljand α=x, y, z. i.e., for eachj, the states on the sitejσ, and the linksj−1τandjτmust all be different from one another. B: Dimension ofV G In this section, we calculate th...

work page
[56]

Clearly, D c† jcj E = 1/2

Correlation function as a Toeplitz determinant In the ground state, consider the correlation functionD c† jck E = 1 L P q e−iq(j−k) ⟨nq⟩. Clearly, D c† jcj E = 1/2. ForLa multiple of 4, D c† jck E = 1 L PL/4−1 m=−L/4 e−i 2πm L (j−k) . Forj̸=k, D c† jck E = sin π 2 (j−k) Lsin π L(j−k) eiπ(j−k)/L D c† jck E − D c† kcj E = 2i L sin π 2 (j−k) (F.1) IfLis even...

work page
[57]

We will now state the Fisher-Hartwig conjecture (see Ref

Asymptotic limit To understand the asymptotic behavior of the corre- lation function when the separation between the lattice pointsr→ ∞(note we have already taken the limit L→ ∞), we need to know the asymptotic behavior of det(F) as the dimension of the matrixr→ ∞. We will now state the Fisher-Hartwig conjecture (see Ref. [50] for a review), which can be ...

work page
[58]

LetG ∼= ZN 2 for someN

Dimension of irrep LetGbe the symmetry group of a hamiltonian with the projective represenationUand associated multiplier system Ω. LetG ∼= ZN 2 for someN. The Schur multi- plierH 2 (G,U(1)) ∼= ZN(N+1)/2 2 . Also, let Ω(g,h) 2 = 1 ∀g,h∈G. Now, the projective representationUcan be lifted to a linear representationρof a central extension XofGbyV ∼= Z2 ={E, ...

work page