alphaFeedback

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

Enforced Gaplessness by Combining Non-Anomalous Symmetries

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

Symmetry-enforced gaplessness is a phenomenon in which a quantum system is forced to be gapless due to its global symmetry. Previous works have mainly focused on anomalous symmetries. Another approach, using symmetry spans, which specify two embeddings of a common symmetry into two larger symmetries, was proposed by the authors. In this work, we show that a symmetry span can enforce gaplessness even when both larger symmetries are invertible and non-anomalous: each alone admits a trivially gapped phase, but because the embeddings differ by a twist associated with a symmetry-protected topological phase, the symmetry they generate admits no gapped phase with finitely many ground states. We present such a span of a finite group and U(1)2\mathrm{U}(1)^2 in 1+1 dimensions, with continuum realizations and a lattice Hamiltonian, with a finite-dimensional local Hilbert space and finitely many parameters, that is gapless in any region of its parameter space. We also discuss a 2+1-dimensional example and spans of only finite symmetries.

Introduction— Physical models in nature often show their nontrivial non-perturbative dynamics in their ground states, and usual methods such as perturbation analysis by renormalization group flow or mean-field analysis do not work well in such situations. Therefore it is important to develop a way of understanding the non-perturbative dynamics by using ultraviolet data of the system.

Global symmetry is one of characteristic properties of a physical system, and can constrain the non-perturbative dynamics of the system. For instance, an anomaly of a global symmetry constrains the infrared (IR) behavior through anomaly matching [1], requiring the system to be gapless, have degenerate ground states, or exhibit nontrivial topological order. Constraints on IR phases by anomaly matching for various types of symmetries, including higher-form or non-invertible symmetries, have been studied both in high-energy physics and condensed matter physics [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47].

Particular interest of IR scenario in this paper is enforced gaplessness, which is a situation where the system is necessarily gapless in the IR due to the global symmetry. Previous works on enforced gaplessness utilize anomalous continuous group symmetries and their lattice realizations [48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55]. Another approach by symmetry span is proposed by the authors in [56]. In both cases, enforced gaplessness relies on the existence of either an anomalous invertible symmetry (finite or continuous) or a non-invertible symmetry. Furthermore, most mechanisms of enforced gaplessness basically rely on continuous group symmetries, whose spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) leads to Nambu–Goldstone (NG) gapless modes [57, 58, 59].

In this paper, we provide some classes of simple examples of enforced gaplessness from symmetry spans. In particular, we provide two classes of symmetry spans that enforce gaplessness:

  1. Symmetry span by only non-anomalous invertible symmetries.

  1. Symmetry span by only finite symmetries; all of symmetry operators are built from finite numbers of symmetry operators.

The former class is understood almost by using the fundamental knowledge of group theory, and is the main subject of this letter. The latter class of the span generates non-invertible symmetry with infinitely many simple objects which may have not been studied in the literature. In both classes, what we can claim from symmetry spans is the absence of any gapped phase with finitely many ground states whose IR limit is described by a relativistic topological quantum field theory (TQFT) [60]. We also provide examples of continuum field theories realizing both classes of symmetry spans, and a lattice realization of the former class of symmetry spans. The lattice model has a finite-dimensional local Hilbert space and a local Hamiltonian with finitely many parameters. The model at a particular fine-tuned point was studied in [61] and known to be gapless. The symmetry span argument provides strong support for the claim that the ground states are gapless in any region of the parameter space.

Enforced gaplessness by symmetry spans— Here we briefly review the general mechanism of enforced gaplessness by symmetry spans [56]. Let C\mathcal{C}, D\mathcal{D}, and E\mathcal{E} denote categories of symmetries, which may be some higher tensor categories. For usual symmetries, one can think of them just as groups. An embedding of symmetry E\mathcal{E} into C\mathcal{C} is physically realized by a situation where symmetry operators of E\mathcal{E} are identified with parts of symmetry operators of C\mathcal{C}. Mathematically, this embedding is described by a functor iC:E→Ci_{\mathcal{C}}:\mathcal{E}\to\mathcal{C}, which is fully faithful and injective on objects. Then a symmetry span consists of two embeddings of a common symmetry E\mathcal{E} into two symmetries C\mathcal{C} and D\mathcal{D}:

E→iCCiD↓↓D→Sfaith(1)\begin{CD} \mathcal{E} @>{i_{\mathcal{C}}}>> \mathcal{C} \\ @V{i_{\mathcal{D}}}VV @VVV \\ \mathcal{D} @>>> \mathcal{S}^{\mathrm{faith}} \tag*{(1)} \end{CD}

Here, Sfaith\mathcal{S}^{\mathrm{faith}} is the full symmetry of the system generated by C\mathcal{C} and D\mathcal{D}. In particular, it contains both C\mathcal{C} and D\mathcal{D} as sub-categories.

To state the gaplessness criterion, let TQFT⁡(E)\operatorname{TQFT}(\mathcal{E}) denote the category of gapped theories (TQFTs) with E\mathcal{E} symmetry, and same for C\mathcal{C} and D\mathcal{D}. Roughly, an element of TQFT⁡(E)\operatorname{TQFT}(\mathcal{E}) consists of all compatible symmetry actions of E\mathcal{E} on collections of gapped ground states. Via the embedding functors iCi_{\mathcal{C}} and iDi_{\mathcal{D}}, every gapped theory with C\mathcal{C} or D\mathcal{D} symmetry restricts to a gapped theory with E\mathcal{E} symmetry, which allows us to define sub-categories of TQFT⁡(E)\operatorname{TQFT}(\mathcal{E}): the pullbacks iC∗TQFT⁡(C)i_{\mathcal{C}}^*\operatorname{TQFT}(\mathcal{C}) and iD∗TQFT⁡(D)i_{\mathcal{D}}^*\operatorname{TQFT}(\mathcal{D}). The definition of pullback categories is physically clear: just restrict the symmetry action of C\mathcal{C} or D\mathcal{D} to the sub-symmetry E\mathcal{E}. Since any gapped phase with the full symmetry Sfaith\mathcal{S}^{\mathrm{faith}} must simultaneously be a valid C\mathcal{C}-symmetric phase and a valid D\mathcal{D}-symmetric phase, it must lie in both pullback categories. Thus, a necessary condition for gapped phases to exist is:

iC∗TQFT⁡(C)∩iD∗TQFT⁡(D)≠{0}.(2)i_{\mathcal{C}}^*\operatorname{TQFT}(\mathcal{C}) \cap i_{\mathcal{D}}^*\operatorname{TQFT}(\mathcal{D}) \ne\{0\}. \tag*{(2)}

When the intersection is trivial, no gapped theory can realize both C\mathcal{C} and D\mathcal{D} symmetries, and the system is necessarily gapless—this is symmetry enforced gaplessness from a symmetry span.

We emphasize that [2] can be violated even when none of C\mathcal{C}, D\mathcal{D}, and E\mathcal{E} is anomalous. In such a case, non-anomalous pieces generate a total symmetry Sfaith\mathcal{S}^{\mathrm{faith}} that is as anomalous as a continuous symmetry with a perturbative anomaly: it admits no gapped phase with finitely many ground states, whether symmetric or spontaneously broken. Mathematically, Sfaith\mathcal{S}^{\mathrm{faith}} admits no module category with finitely many simple objects. In particular, Sfaith\mathcal{S}^{\mathrm{faith}} cannot be a fusion category, since its regular module category would give such a gapped phase [62].

Note that Sfaith\mathcal{S}^{\mathrm{faith}} is in general not finite; it can be infinite, or even continuous and infinite-dimensional, and we lack a satisfactory framework to describe such symmetries and their anomalies directly. The advantage of symmetry spans is that [2] involves only the embeddings iCi_{\mathcal{C}} and iDi_{\mathcal{D}}, so enforced gaplessness can be established without knowing Sfaith\mathcal{S}^{\mathrm{faith}} itself, let alone formulating its anomaly.

Enforced gaplessness by non-anomalous invertible symmetry— Consider a symmetry span of the form

K←H→G,(3)K \leftarrow H \rightarrow G, \tag*{(3)}

where HH and GG are finite groups and KK is a compact continuous group. Here we ask whether such a span can enforce gaplessness when all three symmetries are non-anomalous. Since GG and KK are non-anomalous, each admits a trivial symmetry-protected topological (SPT) phase. Under an ordinary subgroup restriction, both remain trivial as HH-SPT phases, so these phases appear to be compatible. However, an embedding of symmetries contains more information than an embedding of groups. In spacetime, symmetry operators can meet at junctions, and an embedding must specify how these junctions are identified as well as the operators themselves. This additional data allows an SPT twist, whose effect on a gapped phase is equivalent to stacking an HH-SPT phase after the ordinary subgroup restriction [56]. Thus, in d+1d+1 space-time dimensions, a general embedding from HH symmetry to GG symmetry is specified by a pair (ϕ,β)(\phi,\beta), where ϕ:H↪G\phi:H\hookrightarrow G is an embedding homomorphism of groups and β∈Hd+1(H,U(1))\beta\in H^{d+1}(H,\mathrm{U}(1)) is a cocycle specifying the SPT twist. This embedding induces a pullback map on the SPT phases:

i(ϕ,β)∗:Hd+1(G,U(1))⟶Hd+1(H,U(1)),i(ϕ,β)∗(α)=ϕ∗α⋅β,(4)\begin{aligned} i^*_{(\phi,\beta)}: H^{d+1}(G,\mathrm{U}(1)) &\longrightarrow H^{d+1}(H,\mathrm{U}(1)),\\ i^*_{(\phi,\beta)}(\alpha) &= \phi^*\alpha\cdot\beta, \tag*{(4)} \end{aligned}

which is not a group homomorphism but an affine map. Here and below, U(1)\mathrm{U}(1)-valued cochains are written multiplicatively, while classes in finite cohomology groups such as H2(Z3,U(1))=Z3H^2(\mathbb{Z}_3,\mathrm{U}(1))=\mathbb{Z}_3 are labeled additively.

For groups, without the twist Sfaith\mathcal{S}^{\mathrm{faith}} would naively be (a quotient of the amalgamated product G∗HKG *_H K; heuristically, the twist β\beta instead equips G∗HKG *_H K with some anomaly, which is invisible on GG and on KK.

Suppose that KK is connected and admits only the trivial SPT phase, and that its embedding is untwisted, so its pullback is the trivial HH-SPT phase. We choose the relative SPT twist β\beta so that no GG-SPT phase pulls back to this phase. In 1+11+1D, any compatible gapped phase must therefore spontaneously break at least one of the two symmetries. However, any gapped phase must preserve KK, and hence HH, since breaking KK would produce NG modes. Thus, the finite group GG has to be spontaneously broken to a proper subgroup containing HH. To see which SSB patterns are compatible with the symmetry span, we need the general classification of SSB patterns together with the SPT phases carried by the unbroken symmetries.

We leave the general classification to Appendix A of the End Matter, and here we illustrate it with an example of non-anomalous group symmetry G=Z3×S3G=\mathbb{Z}_3\times S_3 in 1+11+1D. A general gapped phase is a finite direct sum of indecomposable ones, in which GG permutes the ground states transitively, so it suffices to classify the latter. First, the SSB patterns G/LG/L of indecomposable phases are classified by subgroups L⊆GL\subseteq G up to conjugation. Let us write S3=⟨r,s∣r3=s2=1,rs=sr−1⟩S_3=\langle r,s\mid r^3=s^2=1,rs=sr^{-1}\rangle and Z3=⟨t∣t3=1⟩\mathbb{Z}_3=\langle t\mid t^3=1\rangle. For this group, representatives of the nine conjugacy classes of subgroups are

L=1,⟨s⟩≅Z2,⟨r⟩≅Z3,⟨t⟩≅Z3,⟨rt⟩≅Z3,⟨r,s⟩≅S3,⟨s⟩×⟨t⟩≅Z2×Z3,⟨r⟩×⟨t⟩≅Z32,G.(5)\begin{aligned} L&=1,\quad\langle s\rangle\cong\mathbb{Z}_2,\quad\langle r\rangle\cong\mathbb{Z}_3,\quad\langle t\rangle\cong\mathbb{Z}_3,\\ \langle rt\rangle&\cong\mathbb{Z}_3,\quad\langle r,s\rangle\cong S_3,\quad\langle s\rangle\times\langle t\rangle\cong\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_3,\\ \langle r\rangle\times\langle t\rangle&\cong\mathbb{Z}_3^2,\quad G. \tag*{(5)} \end{aligned}

The choice L=GL = G corresponds to no SSB. All choices except L=⟨r⟩×⟨t⟩L = \langle r\rangle\times\langle t\rangle have H2(L,U(1))=0H^2(L, \mathrm{U}(1)) = 0 and hence admit only the trivial SPT phase. In the following, we consider the case where L=⟨r⟩×⟨t⟩≅Z2L = \langle r\rangle\times\langle t\rangle\cong\mathbb{Z}_2. The two ground states of the SSB phase G⇝LG \rightsquigarrow L are labeled by

G/L={L,sL}≅Z2.(6)G/L = \{L, sL\} \cong\mathbb{Z}_2. \tag*{(6)}

The generators rr and tt preserve each ground state sector, while ss exchanges the two sectors. We note that the unbroken symmetry in the sector sLsL is actually sLs−1sLs^{-1} whereas it is isomorphic to LL.

For each ground state sector, the unbroken symmetry LL can carry an SPT phase labeled by an element of H2(L,U(1))≅Z3H^2(L, \mathrm{U}(1)) \cong\mathbb{Z}_3. However, the choice of SPT phase in the two sectors is not independent, because conjugation by ss exchanges the two sectors and acts on the SPT two-cocycles. Specifically, let cs(g)=sgs−1c_s(g) = sgs^{-1} (g∈Gg \in G) and ω∈H2(L,U(1))\omega\in H^2(L, \mathrm{U}(1)) be a two-cocycle representing an SPT phase in the LL sector. Then the SPT phase in the sLsL sector is represented by the two-cocycle cs∗ωc_s^*\omega, which is explicitly given by

cs∗ω(g1,g2)=ω(sg1s−1,sg2s−1)(g1,g2∈L).(7)c_s^*\omega(g_1,g_2) = \omega(sg_1s^{-1}, sg_2s^{-1}) \quad(g_1,g_2 \in L). \tag*{(7)}

Then one can check that cs∗c_s^* acts on k∈H2(L,U(1))≅Z3k \in H^2(L, \mathrm{U}(1)) \cong\mathbb{Z}_3 by k↦−kk \mapsto-k. Therefore, classification of SPT degrees over these two ground states is either (0,0)(0,0) or (1,2)(1,2).

Using the classification above, we can find a symmetry span that enforces gaplessness with only non-anomalous invertible symmetries in 1+11+1D, which is given by the following symmetry span:

U(1)2← Z3→βZ3×S3,(8)\mathrm{U}(1)^2 \xleftarrow{\ } \mathbb{Z}_3 \xrightarrow{\beta} \mathbb{Z}_3 \times S_3, \tag*{(8)}

where β∈H2(Z3,U(1))\beta\in H^2(\mathbb{Z}_3, \mathrm{U}(1)) is a nontrivial cocycle. To see that this span enforces gaplessness, we first note that preserving all symmetries is not allowed due to the nontrivial SPT twist β\beta. Further, the left embedding Z3↪U(1)2\mathbb{Z}_3 \hookrightarrow\mathrm{U}(1)^2 enforces the Z3\mathbb{Z}_3 symmetry to be unbroken, if gapped. Suppose that the right embedding shows an SSB pattern G⇝LG \rightsquigarrow L with L=Z3L = \mathbb{Z}_3. Then the pullback of the trivial U(1)2\mathrm{U}(1)^2 SPT phase is the trivial Z3\mathbb{Z}_3 SPT phase. On the other hand, the SPT phases over the unbroken symmetry LL coming from the right embedding are either both nontrivial or two inequivalent SPT phases, as explained above. Hence, the symmetry span (8) enforces gaplessness.

Let us give a continuum realization of this symmetry span using free compact bosons ϕi∼ϕi+2π\phi_i \sim\phi_i + 2\pi. We denote their integer momentum and winding charges by PiP_i and WiW_i, respectively. For (8), consider two decoupled compact bosons, with c=2c = 2, and take the U(1)2\mathrm{U}(1)^2 charges to be

Q1=P1+3W2,Q2=P2−3W1.(9)Q_1 = P_1 + 3W_2,\qquad Q_2 = P_2 - 3W_1. \tag*{(9)}

This continuous U(1)2\mathrm{U}(1)^2 symmetry is non-anomalous because the mixed anomalies between the shift and winding symmetries cancel each other. The shifts e2πiPi/3e^{2\pi iP_i/3} and the reflection ϕ2↦−ϕ2\phi_2 \mapsto-\phi_2 generate Z3×S3\mathbb{Z}_3 \times S_3. Since e2πiQi/3=e2πiPi/3e^{2\pi iQ_i/3} = e^{2\pi iP_i/3}, the two symmetries share the same Z32\mathbb{Z}_3^2 subgroup. The relative SPT class of the two embeddings is a generator β\beta of H2(Z32,U(1))H^2(\mathbb{Z}_3^2, \mathrm{U}(1)) [63]. In this realization, the reflection ϕ2↦−ϕ2\phi_2 \mapsto-\phi_2 maps the U(1)2\mathrm{U}(1)^2 symmetry to a different U(1)2\mathrm{U}(1)^2 with charges P1−3W2P_1 - 3W_2 and −P2−3W1-P_2 - 3W_1, and together they generate the full momentum and winding symmetry U(1)4\mathrm{U}(1)^4, whose mixed anomaly by itself forbids a gapped phase. This is a concrete instance of the anomalous total symmetry SfaithS^{\mathrm{faith}} discussed above. The span argument does not rely on it, and applies equally to the lattice model below, where the symmetries are expected to generate an infinite-dimensional, Onsager-like symmetry [61] that reduces to an anomalous finite-dimensional Lie group only in the IR.

We provide another example of a similar symmetry span enforcing gaplessness and its continuum realization in Supplemental Material, Sec. I. We also discuss symmetry spans in higher dimensions in Appendix C of the End Matter.

Lattice Model—Here we provide a lattice realization of the symmetry span (8) and a local gapless Hamiltonian with the symmetry span. Specifically, we realize an on-site U(1)2\mathrm{U}(1)^2 symmetry and implement the relative SPT twist by conjugating an on-site Z3×S3\mathbb{Z}_3 \times S_3 action with an SPT disentangler. Consider a one-dimensional quantum spin chain with a local Hilbert space Hj\mathcal{H}_j at each site jj. Here, we take the local Hilbert space as Hj≅(C3⊗C3)A⊗(C3⊗C3)B⊗C2\mathcal{H}_j \cong(\mathbb{C}_3 \otimes\mathbb{C}_3)_A \otimes(\mathbb{C}_3 \otimes\mathbb{C}_3)_B \otimes\mathbb{C}^2. To define the symmetry operators, we write the span as Z3A×Z3B→Z3A×S3→U(1)2\mathbb{Z}_3^A \times\mathbb{Z}_3^B \to\mathbb{Z}_3^A \times S_3 \to\mathrm{U}(1)^2. The Z3A×Z3B\mathbb{Z}_3^A \times\mathbb{Z}_3^B symmetry is generated by

UA:=∏jXj,A,UB:=∏jXj,B.(10)U_A := \prod_j X_{j,A},\qquad U_B := \prod_j X_{j,B}. \tag*{(10)}

Here we introduce the Z3\mathbb{Z}_3-clock operators (qutrits) Xj,μ,Zj,μX_{j,\mu}, Z_{j,\mu} (μ=A,B\mu= A,B) satisfying Zj,μXj,μ=ωXj,μZj,μZ_{j,\mu}X_{j,\mu} = \omega X_{j,\mu}Z_{j,\mu} and Xj,μ3=Zj,μ3=1X_{j,\mu}^3 = Z_{j,\mu}^3 = 1, where ω=e2πi/3\omega= e^{2\pi i/3}. Let us write {∣aj,bj⟩}\{|a_j,b_j\rangle\} for the basis states such that

Zj,A∣{aj,bj}⟩=ωaj∣{aj,bj}⟩,Z_{j,A}| \{a_j,b_j\}\rangle= \omega^{a_j}|\{a_j,b_j\}\rangle,
Zj,B∣{aj,bj}⟩=ωbj∣{aj,bj}⟩.(11)Z_{j,B}| \{a_j,b_j\}\rangle= \omega^{b_j}|\{a_j,b_j\}\rangle. \tag*{(11)}

To define symmetry operators for Z3A×S3\mathbb{Z}_3^A \times S_3, we consider the following operator:

Uσ:=∏jCj,Bσjx,(12)U_\sigma:= \prod_j C_{j,B}\sigma_j^x, \tag*{(12)}

where Cj,BC_{j,B} acts as Cj,B∣b⟩j,B=∣−b⟩j,BC_{j,B}|b\rangle_{j,B} = |-b\rangle_{j,B} in the Z3\mathbb{Z}_3-basis and σjx\sigma_j^x are Pauli-xx operators acting on C2\mathbb{C}^2 for the jj-th site. To implement an embedding Z3A×Z3B↪Z3A×S3\mathbb{Z}_3^A \times\mathbb{Z}_3^B \hookrightarrow\mathbb{Z}_3^A \times S_3 twisted by a two cocycle β∈H2(Z3A×Z3B,U(1))\beta\in H^2(\mathbb{Z}_3^A \times\mathbb{Z}_3^B,\mathrm{U}(1)), we use the disentangler VV for this SPT phase [64]. The action of VV in the clock basis is given by

V∣{aj,bj}⟩:=ω∑jbj(aj−aj+1)∣{aj,bj}⟩.(13)V|\{a_j,b_j\}\rangle:= \omega^{\sum_j b_j(a_j-a_{j+1})}|\{a_j,b_j\}\rangle. \tag*{(13)}

Here aj,bj∈Z3a_j,b_j \in\mathbb{Z}_3 label the eigenvalues ωaj,ωbj\omega^{a_j},\omega^{b_j} of Zj,A,Zj,BZ_{j,A},Z_{j,B}, respectively. This operator VV commutes with UAU_A and UBU_B. Then we define the Z3A×S3\mathbb{Z}_3^A \times S_3 symmetry generated by

UA,Ur:=UB,Us:=VUσV†=V2Uσ.(14)U_A,\quad U_r := U_B,\quad U_s := VU_\sigma V^\dagger= V^2U_\sigma. \tag*{(14)}

The U(1)2U(1)^2 symmetry is generated by two charges QA,QBQ_A,Q_B defined by

QA:=∑jqj,A,QB:=∑jqj,B,Q_A := \sum_j q_{j,A},\quad Q_B := \sum_j q_{j,B},
qj,μ:=1−∑k=1,2Xj,μk1−ω−k,μ=A,B.(15)q_{j,\mu} := 1-\sum_{k=1,2}\frac{X_{j,\mu}^k}{1-\omega^{-k}},\quad\mu=A,B. \tag*{(15)}

The local charges have eigenvalues 0,1,20,1,2, so e2πiQA/3=UAe^{2\pi iQ_A/3}=U_A and e2πiQB/3=UBe^{2\pi iQ_B/3}=U_B, realizing the fixed embedding of the common Z3A×Z3B\mathbb{Z}_3^A \times\mathbb{Z}_3^B subgroup.

Now we define a family of Hamiltonians with the symmetry span. We first introduce the following operators:

Tj(1)=Xj,B,Vj(1)=Zj−1,BXj,AZj,B†,T_j^{(1)}=X_{j,B},\qquad V_j^{(1)}=Z_{j-1,B}X_{j,A}Z_{j,B}^\dagger,
Tj(2)=Zj,AXj,B†Zj+1,A,Vj(2)=Xj,A.(16)T_j^{(2)}=Z_{j,A}X_{j,B}^\dagger Z_{j+1,A},\qquad V_j^{(2)}=X_{j,A}. \tag*{(16)}

Then we define the local Hamiltonian density hj:=∑α=1,2hj(α)h_j:=\sum_{\alpha=1,2}h_j^{(\alpha)} as

hj(α):=i1−ω−1[−Tj(α)+Tj−1(α)2−Vj(α)+(Tj(α)+Tj(α)†)Vj(α)+Vj(α)(Tj−1(α)+Tj−1(α)†)]+h.c.(17)h_j^{(\alpha)}:=\frac{i}{1-\omega^{-1}}\left[-\frac{T_j^{(\alpha)}+T_{j-1}^{(\alpha)}}{2}-V_j^{(\alpha)}+\left(T_j^{(\alpha)}+T_j^{(\alpha)\dagger}\right)V_j^{(\alpha)}+V_j^{(\alpha)}\left(T_{j-1}^{(\alpha)}+T_{j-1}^{(\alpha)\dagger}\right)\right]+\mathrm{h.c.} \tag*{(17)}

Using this local Hamiltonian density, a family of Hamiltonians with the symmetry span is given by:

H=Hσ+∑n≥2JnHn,(18)H=H_\sigma+\sum_{n\geq2}J_nH_n, \tag*{(18)}

where {Jn}n≥2\{J_n\}_{n\geq2} are real coupling constants, only finitely many of which are nonzero. Each term in the Hamiltonian is defined as

Hσ=−∑jσjx,(19)H_\sigma=-\sum_j\sigma_j^x, \tag*{(19)}
H2=∑jhj,B=∑jjhj,Hn+1=i[Hn,B].(20)H_2=\sum_jh_j,\qquad B=\sum_jjh_j,\qquad H_{n+1}=i[H_n,B]. \tag*{(20)}

We use this definition formally for the infinite chain, and for a sufficiently long finite periodic chain HnH_n is defined by periodizing the resulting local density. In this way, H3H_3 is given as H3=i∑j[hj,hj+1]H_3=i\sum_j[h_j,h_{j+1}]. See [61] for an explicit construction of the underlying clock-chain charges on finite periodic chains using the transfer matrix. With this prescription, each HnH_n, as well as HσH_\sigma, commutes with QAQ_A, QBQ_B, and UsU_s. Thus the Hamiltonian preserves the symmetry span for arbitrary values of the couplings.

To see the ground state of this Hamiltonian, let us consider the case where J2≠0J_2\ne0 and Jn=0J_n=0 for other nn. If one gauges the Z3A\mathbb{Z}_3^A symmetry, the Hamiltonian becomes two decoupled copies of the self-dual U(1)U(1)-invariant Z3\mathbb{Z}_3 clock model studied in [61], together with the gapped qubit sector described by HσH_\sigma. Each copy flows to a conformal field theory (CFT) with central charge c=3/2c=3/2 for J2>0J_2>0 and c=1c=1 for J2<0J_2<0. Since gauging a finite symmetry does not change the central charge, the original model flows to a CFT with c=3c=3 for J2>0J_2>0 and c=2c=2 for J2<0J_2<0. The ground state and infrared theory of this model for more general values of the couplings have not been systematically studied in the literature. However, the symmetry span argument excludes a gapped phase with finitely many ground states for any choice of the couplings.

Enforced gaplessness by finite symmetry— Consider a symmetry span of the form

C↔E↔D,(21)\mathcal{C}\leftrightarrow\mathcal{E}\leftrightarrow\mathcal{D}, \tag*{(21)}

where all symmetries are finite, namely some higher fusion categories. If all symmetries are group symmetries, then no symmetry span can enforce gaplessness, because the fully broken phases of the two groups can be consistently pulled back to a fully broken phase of the shared group, with no unbroken symmetry and no freedom to stack distinct SPT phases. Therefore, either of C\mathcal{C} or D\mathcal{D} has to be a non-invertible symmetry.

A simple example in 1+1D is

TY(Z2,+)↔VectZ2↔VectD10ω,(22)\mathrm{TY}(\mathbb{Z}_2,+)\leftrightarrow\mathrm{Vect}_{\mathbb{Z}_2}\leftrightarrow\mathrm{Vect}^{\omega}_{D_{10}}, \tag*{(22)}

TY(Z2,+)\mathrm{TY}(\mathbb{Z}_2,+) is the Ising fusion category with positive Frobenius–Schur indicator, and D10=⟨r,s∣r5=s2=1, srs=r−1⟩D_{10}=\langle r,s\mid r^5=s^2=1,\ srs=r^{-1}\rangle has order ten. The common Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 is generated by ss, and [ω][\omega] is an order-five anomaly class, non-trivial on ⟨r⟩\langle r\rangle and trivial on ⟨s⟩\langle s\rangle. Let NN count Z2\mathbb{Z}_2-fixed vacua and MM count exchanged pairs of vacua. The Ising side requires (N,M)=(k,k)(N,M)=(k,k) [56]. On the group side, the only anomaly-free stabilizers are 11 and the reflection subgroups, giving (N,M)=(0,5)(N,M)=(0,5) and (1,2)(1,2), respectively. Thus any finite direct sum has (N,M)=(m,2m+5n)(N,M)=(m,2m+5n), which only has a solution to the Ising constraint if m=n=0m=n=0. The gaplessness conclusion is independent of the Frobenius–Schur sign, since TY(Z2,−)\mathrm{TY}(\mathbb{Z}_2,-) imposes the same vacuum-counting constraint (N,M)=(k,k)(N,M)=(k,k).

A concrete example of a continuum theory realizing this symmetry span is given by a c=3c=3 torus CFT, obtained by gauging a Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 subgroup of the SU(2)12×U(1)12\mathrm{SU}(2)_{\frac{1}{2}}\times\mathrm{U}(1)_{12} Wess–Zumino–Witten model. This CFT is self-dual under gauging a non-anomalous Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 symmetry ss, up to TT-duality, so that the gauging interface becomes a non-invertible duality defect N\mathcal{N}. Then ss and N\mathcal{N} generate a TY(Z2)\mathrm{TY}(\mathbb{Z}_2) symmetry. The left-moving SU(2)\mathrm{SU}(2) symmetries of the parent theory survive the gauging, and an order-five rotation rr in them with srs−1=r−1srs^{-1}=r^{-1} generates, together with ss, a D10D_{10} symmetry. We can check that the $D_{10 symmetry has the anomaly [ω][\omega]. We provide the explicit construction of TY(Z2)\mathrm{TY}(\mathbb{Z}_2) symmetry and the D10D_{10} symmetry in Appendix B of the End Matter, with further details in Supplemental Material, Sec. II.

Though the above example uses anomalous symmetries TY(Z2,+)\mathrm{TY}(\mathbb{Z}_2,+) and VectD10ω\mathrm{Vect}^{\omega}_{D_{10}}, we also expect that one can find a symmetry span with only non-anomalous finite symmetries that enforces gaplessness. Indeed, OpenAI’s Chat-GPT (GPT-6 Astra) provided us with such an example together with a continuum CFT realization; we leave its detailed study for future work. Hence we omit the details of this example in this letter.

Conclusion— In this paper, we have shown that symmetry spans can enforce gaplessness using only non-anomalous invertible symmetries or only finite symmetries. The gapped phases allowed by the two symmetries are incompatible upon restriction to the shared symmetry, even when spontaneous symmetry breaking is allowed. We have also provided continuum realizations of both classes, together with a lattice realization of the former class. It would be interesting to construct lattice realizations of the spans involving only finite symmetries and of symmetry spans in higher dimensions, with finite-dimensional local Hilbert spaces in both cases.

Acknowledgments— We acknowledge substantial assistance from OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra in finding mathematical examples and constructing model realizations of the symmetry spans. We also used it in drafting and revising the manuscript.

T.A. is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25KJ1557. K.O. is supported by JST PRESTO Grant Number JPMJPR26A3, Japan, JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid No. 24K00522, and RIKEN ECL program. K.O. also acknowledges support by the Simons Foundation Grant #888984 (Simons Collaboration on Global Categorical Symmetries).

End Matter

Gapped phases with finite group symmetry in 1+1D

Here we describe the general classification of SSB phases of finite zero-form group symmetries GG in 1+11+1D, with anomaly ω∈H3(G,U(1))\omega\in H^3(G,\mathrm{U}(1)). In an allowed SSB pattern, the unbroken symmetry LL has to be anomaly-free and one has a trivialization of the anomaly:

δα=ω∣L,α∈C2(L,U(1)).(23)\delta\alpha=\omega|_L,\qquad\alpha\in C^2(L,\mathrm{U}(1)). \tag*{(23)}

Then an allowed SSB pattern is specified by a subgroup L⊂GL\subset G that trivializes the anomaly. Consider an indecomposable gapped phase, where the symmetry GG then acts transitively on the set of ground states. For a chosen reference ground state Φ\Phi with unbroken symmetry LL, we identify the vacuum set with the left coset space G/LG/L:

ΦgL:=g⋅Φ,k⋅ΦgL=ΦkgL(k∈G).(24)\Phi_{gL}:=g\cdot\Phi,\qquad k\cdot\Phi_{gL}=\Phi_{kgL}\quad(k\in G). \tag*{(24)}

There are ∣G∣/∣L∣|G|/|L| vacua, and the unbroken symmetry in the sector ΦgL\Phi_{gL} is Lg:=gLg−1L_g:=gLg^{-1}. The cochain α\alpha determines the anomaly trivialization in the reference ground state, while the ground state set and the permutation action of GG depend only on LL.

After specifying the unbroken symmetry, we also need to specify an SPT phase over the unbroken symmetry. For a chosen reference ground state, this freedom is described by multiplying α\alpha by a two-cocycle η∈Z2(L,U(1))\eta\in Z^2(L,\mathrm{U}(1)). The trivializations modulo coboundaries thus form an H2(L,U(1))H^2(L,\mathrm{U}(1))-torsor. The data in the other ground state sectors are fixed by the GG symmetry. Specifically, the anomaly trivialization αg∈C2(Lg,U(1))\alpha_g\in C^2(L_g,\mathrm{U}(1)) in the sector ΦgL\Phi_{gL} is given, up to a coboundary, by [65]

αg=(cg−1)∗(αΩg∣L),\alpha_g=(c_{g^{-1}})^*\left(\frac{\alpha}{\Omega_g|_L}\right),
Ωg(x,y)=ω(cg(x),cg(y),g)ω(g,x,y)ω(cg(x),g,y).(25)\Omega_g(x,y)=\frac{\omega(c_g(x),c_g(y),g)\omega(g,x,y)}{\omega(c_g(x),g,y)}. \tag*{(25)}

where cg(x)=gxg−1c_g(x)=gxg^{-1} [66]. The identity δΩg=ω/(cg∗ω)\delta\Omega_g=\omega/(c_g^*\omega) [65 Eq. (3.1)] ensures δαg=ω∣Lg\delta\alpha_g=\omega|_{L_g}.

The relative SPT class [η][\eta] is transported to (cg−1)∗[η]∈H2(Lg,U(1))(c_{g^{-1}})^*[\eta]\in H^2(L_g,\mathrm{U}(1)). In particular, when ω=1\omega=1, the sector ΦgL\Phi_{gL} carries the LgL_g SPT phase

[αg]=(cg−1)∗[α]∈H2(Lg,U(1)).(26)[\alpha_g]=(c_{g^{-1}})^*[\alpha]\in H^2(L_g,\mathrm{U}(1)). \tag*{(26)}

Thus the SPT phases in different sectors cannot be chosen independently; for non-anomalous abelian GG, they are all the same LL SPT phase.

The pairs (L,α)(L,\alpha) and (Lg,αg)(L_g,\alpha_g) describe the same gapped phase, with different choices of reference ground state. Furthermore, multiplying α\alpha by a coboundary leaves the phase unchanged. Therefore, for a fixed unbroken subgroup LL, the indecomposable gapped phases are classified by the orbit set [65 Theorem 1.1]:

{[α]∣δα=ω∣L}/(NG(L)/L).(27)\{[\alpha]\mid\delta\alpha=\omega|_L\}/(N_G(L)/L). \tag*{(27)}

Here [α][\alpha] is a trivialization modulo coboundaries, and NG(L)={g∈G∣gLg−1=L}N_G(L)=\{g\in G\mid gLg^{-1}=L\} is the normalizer of LL. The coset gLgL acts by [α]↦[αg][\alpha]\mapsto[\alpha_g] according to (A3). Elements of LL act trivially on these classes, so the action descends to NG(L)/LN_G(L)/L. General gapped phases are direct sums of the above indecomposable phases.

Torus CFT realization of the finite span

A gapless theory with the symmetry span (22) is realized by a c=3c=3 torus CFT, obtained by gauging a Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 subgroup of the SU(2)12×U(1)12\mathrm{SU}(2)_1^2\times\mathrm{U}(1)_{12} Wess–Zumino–Witten CFT. We describe the resulting torus by its metric G^\hat{G} and antisymmetric tensor B^\hat{B} [67]. For angular coordinates of period 2π2\pi, and integer momentum and winding charges M⃗,N⃗∈Z3\vec{M},\vec{N}\in\mathbb{Z}^3, the background is

E~=G^+B^=(211010001).(28)\widetilde{E}=\hat{G}+\hat{B}= \begin{pmatrix} 2&1&1\\ 0&1&0\\ 0&0&1 \end{pmatrix}. \tag*{(28)}

Here G^\hat{G} and B^\hat{B} are the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of E~\widetilde{E}. The change of charge basis and the first gauging are given in Supplemental Material, Sec. II.

To check that this theory has TY(Z2)\mathrm{TY}(\mathbb{Z}_2) symmetry, we consider a Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 symmetry given by

sVM^,N^=(−1)M^1VM^,N^.(29)sV_{\hat{M},\hat{N}}=(-1)^{\hat{M}_1}V_{\hat{M},\hat{N}}. \tag*{(29)}

The symmetry ss is a half-period shift of the first coordinate and is non-anomalous. Gauging ss keeps even M^1\hat{M}_1 and adds half-integer N^1\hat{N}_1 sectors. With D=diag⁡(1/2,1,1)D=\operatorname{diag}(1/2,1,1), the background in an integer charge basis is

E~=DE^D=(1/21/21/2010001).(30)\widetilde{E}=D\hat{E}D= \begin{pmatrix} 1/2&1/2&1/2\\ 0&1&0\\ 0&0&1 \end{pmatrix}. \tag*{(30)}

Denote the integer momentum and winding charges after this gauging by M⃗,N⃗\vec{M},\vec{N}. Now apply the factorized T-duality T1T_1 along the first coordinate [68, 69, 70], which exchanges M^1\hat{M}_1 and N^1\hat{N}_1 and leaves the other charges unchanged. On the background it acts by the O(3,3;Z)\mathrm{O}(3,3;\mathbb{Z}) transformation E↦(aE+b)(cE+d)−1E\mapsto(aE+b)(cE+d)^{-1} with a=d=diag⁡(0,1,1)a=d=\operatorname{diag}(0,1,1) and b=c=diag⁡(1,0,0)b=c=\operatorname{diag}(1,0,0) [67], which transforms the background to

T1(E~)=(2−1−1010001).(31)T_1(\widetilde{E})= \begin{pmatrix} 2&-1&-1\\ 0&1&0\\ 0&0&1 \end{pmatrix}. \tag*{(31)}

A subsequent inversion of the first coordinate, represented by S=diag⁡(−1,1,1)S=\operatorname{diag}(-1,1,1), gives STT1(E~)S=E^S^TT_1(\widetilde{E})S=\hat{E}. Since T-duality gives an equivalent CFT [71], the theory with background E^\hat{E} is self-dual under gauging ss. The combined identification sends (M^1,N^1)→(−N^1,−M^1)(\hat{M}_1,\hat{N}_1)\to(-\hat{N}_1,-\hat{M}_1), leaving the other charges unchanged. In particular, the quantum Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 symmetry (−1)N^1(-1)^{\hat{N}_1} of this second gauging is identified with ss.

The gauging interface therefore becomes a non-invertible duality defect N\mathcal{N}, with N2=1+s\mathcal{N}^{2}=1+s and sN=Ns=Ns\mathcal{N}=\mathcal{N}s=\mathcal{N}. Thus ss and N\mathcal{N} generate a TY(Z2\mathbb{Z}_{2}) symmetry.

We now construct a D10D_{10} symmetry sharing the same ss. We introduce the charges

Q1=M^2+N^1+N^2,Q2=M^3+N^1+N^3.(32)Q_{1}=\widehat{M}_{2}+\widehat{N}_{1}+\widehat{N}_{2},\qquad Q_{2}=\widehat{M}_{3}+\widehat{N}_{1}+\widehat{N}_{3}. \tag*{(32)}

In terms of the original momentum and winding charges m,nm,n, they are given by Qi=mi+niQ_{i}=m_{i}+n_{i} for i=1,2i=1,2. Thus Qi/2Q_{i}/2 is the Cartan charge of the left-moving SU(2) symmetry of the iith original SU(2)1_1 factor. Since these two SU(2) actions commute with the gauged Z2\mathbb{Z}_{2} symmetry, they remain symmetries after gauging. We first consider two operators r1,s1r_{1},s_{1} acting as

r1VM^,N^=e2πi5(Q1+Q2)VM^,N^,r_{1}V_{\widehat{M},\widehat{N}}=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{5}(Q_{1}+Q_{2})}V_{\widehat{M},\widehat{N}},
s1VM^,N^=(−1)M^1+M^2Q1+M^3Q2VM^′,N^′,s_{1}V_{\widehat{M},\widehat{N}}=(-1)^{\widehat{M}_{1}+\widehat{M}_{2}Q_{1}+\widehat{M}_{3}Q_{2}}V_{\widehat{M}^{\prime},\widehat{N}^{\prime}},
M^1′=M^1−Q1−Q2,N^1′=N^1,\widehat{M}_{1}^{\prime}=\widehat{M}_{1}-Q_{1}-Q_{2},\qquad\widehat{N}_{1}^{\prime}=\widehat{N}_{1},
M^2′=M^2−Q1,N^2′=N^2−Q1,\widehat{M}_{2}^{\prime}=\widehat{M}_{2}-Q_{1},\qquad\widehat{N}_{2}^{\prime}=\widehat{N}_{2}-Q_{1},
M^3′=M^3−Q2,N^3′=N^3−Q2.(33)\widehat{M}_{3}^{\prime}=\widehat{M}_{3}-Q_{2},\qquad\widehat{N}_{3}^{\prime}=\widehat{N}_{3}-Q_{2}. \tag*{(33)}

One can check that this action generates a D10D_{10} symmetry by verifying that it is invertible on the integer charge lattice, preserves h,hˉh,\bar{h} at fixed E^\widehat{E} and the vertex-operator OPE phases, and satisfies the group relations.

To relate s1s_{1} to the TY generator ss, we use rotations of the two original left-moving SU(2) factors, which survive the first gauging. With suitable phase conventions, we take UiU_{i} to be the rotation in the iith factor with fundamental-representation matrix uu, where

u=12(11−11),U=U1U2.(34)u=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\-1&1\end{pmatrix},\qquad U=U_{1}U_{2}. \tag*{(34)}

Here U1,U2U_{1},U_{2} act in different factors and commute. As exponentials of the zero modes of weight-(1, 0) currents, these rotations preserve both Virasoro algebras and the OPE [72]. Thus UU is an internal symmetry of the gauged CFT at fixed G^,B^\widehat{G},\widehat{B}. One can check on the vertex operators generating the charge lattice that U−1s1UU^{-1}s_{1}U acts by (−1)M^1(-1)^{\widehat{M}_{1}} without changing the charges. Since both actions preserve the OPE, their agreement on these generators implies s=U−1s1Us=U^{-1}s_{1}U. Let us define r:=U−1r1Ur:=U^{-1}r_{1}U, then the group relations of r1,s1r_{1},s_{1} imply r5=s2=1r^{5}=s^{2}=1, srs−1=r−1srs^{-1}=r^{-1}. Since UU and r1r_{1} are CFT symmetries, rr is also a CFT symmetry. Therefore, r,sr,s generate a D10D_{10} symmetry whose reflection is the TY generator ss in (B2).

Finally, we compute the anomaly of this D10D_{10} symmetry using the conjugate generators r1,s1r_{1},s_{1}. The phase of r1r_{1} in (B6) is determined by

Q1+Q2=M^2+M^3+2N^1+N^2+N^3.(35)Q_{1}+Q_{2}=\widehat{M}_{2}+\widehat{M}_{3}+2\widehat{N}_{1}+\widehat{N}_{2}+\widehat{N}_{3}. \tag*{(35)}

For an action of the form e2πi(⋯ )/5e^{2\pi i(\cdots)/5}, the Z5\mathbb{Z}_{5} anomaly is given by the sum of the products of the M^i\widehat{M}_{i} and N^i\widehat{N}_{i} coefficients, modulo five [73 Sec. 3.2]. The anomaly of r1r_{1} is therefore 0×2+1×1+1×1=2(mod5)0\times2+1\times1+1\times1=2\pmod{5}. Since s1s_{1} is conjugate to the non-anomalous half-period shift ss, its Z2\mathbb{Z}_{2} anomaly is trivial. These restrictions determine an order-five class in H3(D10,U(1))≅Z10H^{3}(D_{10},\mathrm{U}(1))\cong\mathbb{Z}_{10} [74 Theorem 5.3]. This gives the anomaly [ω][\omega] required in (22).

A symmetry span in 2+1D

Here we give an example of a symmetry span in 2+1D that enforces gaplessness even when intrinsic topological order is allowed, using only non-anomalous invertible symmetries. Consider a bosonic span

S3×Z32← i3 Z33→ j U(1)3,(36)S_{3}\times\mathbb{Z}_{3}^{2}\xleftarrow{\ i_{3}\ }\mathbb{Z}_{3}^{3}\xrightarrow{\ j\ }\mathrm{U}(1)^{3}, \tag*{(36)}

Here the first factor of Z33\mathbb{Z}_{3}^{3} embeds into the three-cycle subgroup of S3S_{3}, while the other two embed into the direct factors, and jj is the standard inclusion. β∈H3(Z33,U(1))\beta\in H^{3}(\mathbb{Z}_{3}^{3},\mathrm{U}(1)) is the type-III SPT class, whose topological response phase in 3D spacetime is β(A)=exp⁡(2πi3∫MAaAbAc)\beta(A)=\exp\left(\frac{2\pi i}{3}\int_{M}A_{a}A_{b}A_{c}\right), where Aa,Ab,AcA_{a},A_{b},A_{c} are Z3\mathbb{Z}_{3} backgrounds on a closed oriented three-manifold MM. Let us write H=Z33H=\mathbb{Z}_{3}^{3}, G=S3×Z32G=S_{3}\times\mathbb{Z}_{3}^{2}, and K=U(1)3K=\mathrm{U}(1)^{3}. Since we twist the embedding into GG by the type-III H-SPT, compatibility requires that the partition function ZZ satisfies

β(A) Z[i(A)]=Z[j(A)].(37)\beta(A)\,Z[i(A)]=Z[j(A)]. \tag*{(37)}

Let us show this requirement never holds for any gapped phase with finitely many ground states. To see this, we first note that the order-two reflection in S3S_{3} induces σ(a,b,c)=(−a,b,c)\sigma(a,b,c)=(-a,b,c) and sends β\beta to β−1\beta^{-1}. Since i(A)i(A) and i(σA)i(\sigma A) are gauge-equivalent GG backgrounds, the non-anomalous GG theory satisfies

Z[i(σA)]=Z[i(A)].(38)Z[i(\sigma A)]=Z[i(A)]. \tag*{(38)}

This is gauge invariance of the full theory, not an assumption that each vacuum preserves the reflection.

Now place the a,b,ca,b,c holonomies on the three separate cycles of T3T^{3}. Since H2(T3,Z)H^{2}(T^{3},\mathbb{Z}) has no torsion, the induced flat U(1) bundles are topologically trivial, so both U(1)3{}^{3} backgrounds admit globally defined flat connections. Since K=U(1)3K=\mathrm{U}(1)^{3} is connected, it cannot permute the finitely many vacua or any types of a finite TQFT. Although U(1) fractionalization may be nontrivial, its coupling depends on the first Chern classes, which vanish on these backgrounds. Moreover, the background Chern–Simons response of any U(1)3{}^{3}-SPT is also trivial on these globally defined flat connections. Consequently,

Z[j(A)]=Z[j(σA)]=D,D=dim⁡H(T2)>0.(39)Z[j(A)]=Z[j(\sigma A)]=D,\qquad D=\dim\mathcal{H}(T^{2})>0. \tag*{(39)}

Since β(A)=ω:=e2πi/3\beta(A)=\omega:=e^{2\pi i/3} and β(σA)=ω−1\beta(\sigma A)=\omega^{-1}, (C2) and (C3) would require ω−1D=ωD\omega^{-1}D=\omega D, but this is a contradiction. Allowing SSB and reducible QFTs does not evade this argument: DD is then a sum of positive state-space dimensions over all vacua. For example, if S3⇝Z3S_{3}\leadsto\mathbb{Z}_{3} gives two exchanged SET sectors ±\pm, their dimensions would have to satisfy ω−1D+=ωD−\omega^{-1}D_{+}=\omega D_{-} with D±>0D_{\pm}>0, which is also impossible. Continua of field theories realizing this span are presented in Sec. III of the Supplemental Material.

Supplemental Material

Invertible symmetry spans and their continuum realizations

Here we provide another example of a symmetry span that enforces gaplessness using only non-anomalous invertible symmetries, together with a continuum realization. The span is given by

U(1)3↔Z23→β′D8×Z2,(40)\mathrm{U}(1)^3 \leftrightarrow\mathbb{Z}_2^3 \xrightarrow{\beta'} D_8 \times\mathbb{Z}_2, \tag*{(40)}

where β′∈H2(Z23,U(1))\beta' \in\mathrm{H}^2(\mathbb{Z}_2^3,\mathrm{U}(1)) is a nontrivial SPT class specified below. We write G=D8×Z2G = D_8 \times\mathbb{Z}_2, where D8=⟨r,s∣r4=s2=1, srs=r−1⟩D_8 = \langle r,s \mid r^4 = s^2 = 1,\ srs = r^{-1}\rangle has order eight and zz generates the extra Z2\mathbb{Z}_2. The shared subgroup is H=⟨x,y,z⟩≅Z23H = \langle x,y,z\rangle\cong\mathbb{Z}_2^3, with x=sx=s and y=r2sy=r^2s.

Consider the SSB pattern G⇝LG \rightsquigarrow L with L=HL = H. We label the SPT classes in H2(L,U(1))≅Z23\mathrm{H}^2(L,\mathrm{U}(1)) \cong\mathbb{Z}_2^3 by (p,q,t)(p,q,t), with cocycle representatives

αp,q,t(xaybzc,xa′yb′zc′)=(−1)pab′+qac′+tbc′,(41)\alpha_{p,q,t}(x^a y^b z^c,x^{a'}y^{b'}z^{c'}) = (-1)^{pab'+qac'+tbc'}, \tag*{(41)}

where all exponents take values in Z2\mathbb{Z}_2. The three classes [α1,0,0][\alpha_{1,0,0}], [α0,1,0][\alpha_{0,1,0}], and [α0,0,1][\alpha_{0,0,1}] generate H2(L,U(1))\mathrm{H}^2(L,\mathrm{U}(1)). Conjugation by rr exchanges xx and yy and fixes zz, sending [αp,q,t][\alpha_{p,q,t}] to [αp,t,q][\alpha_{p,t,q}]. Thus, for an indecomposable gapped phase with unbroken subgroup LL, the SPT phases in the two ground state sectors are labeled by (p,q,t)(p,q,t) and (p,t,q)(p,t,q). There are therefore six indecomposable gapped phases with this unbroken subgroup: four corresponding to the fixed points with q=tq=t and two corresponding to the two-element orbits with q≠tq\ne t. We choose β′=[αp,q,t]\beta' = [\alpha_{p,q,t}] with q≠tq\ne t.

We now compare the pullbacks of gapped phases through the two embeddings. Because of the left embedding, the shared HH symmetry must be unbroken in any gapped phase, and the pullback from U(1)3\mathrm{U}(1)^3 gives only the trivial HH-SPT phase and its direct sums. Since HH must remain unbroken, GG is either spontaneously broken to HH, with L=HL=H, or remains unbroken, with L=GL=G. For L=HL=H, both ground state sectors would have to carry the HH-SPT class (β′)−1(\beta')^{-1} before the twist. This is impossible because rr exchanges the two ground state sectors but does not preserve the class (β′)−1(\beta')^{-1}. For L=GL=G, the restriction of a GG-SPT class to HH is invariant under conjugation by rr, so it cannot equal (β′)−1(\beta')^{-1} either. Thus no gapped phase is compatible with both embeddings, and the symmetry span enforces gaplessness.

We next construct a gapless theory realizing this span. Consider three decoupled compact bosons ϕi∼ϕi+2π\phi_i \sim\phi_i + 2\pi, with c=3c=3, and choose the first two radii to be equal. We denote their integer momentum and winding charges by PiP_i and WiW_i, respectively. The generators x,y,zx,y,z act as half-period shifts of ϕ1,ϕ2,ϕ3\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3, respectively. Together with the exchange of the first two bosons, these shifts generate D8×Z2D_8 \times\mathbb{Z}_2. We take the U(1)3\mathrm{U}(1)^3 charges to be

Q1=P1+2W3,Q2=P2,Q3=P3−2W1.(42)Q_1 = P_1 + 2W_3,\qquad Q_2 = P_2,\qquad Q_3 = P_3 - 2W_1. \tag*{(42)}

Since eiπQi=eiπPie^{i\pi Q_i}=e^{i\pi P_i}, the two symmetries share the same Z23\mathbb{Z}_2^3 subgroup. The relative SPT class of the two embeddings is β′=[α0,1,0]\beta'=[\alpha_{0,1,0}] [75]. The U(1)3\mathrm{U}(1)^3 symmetry is non-anomalous because the mixed anomalies between the shift and winding symmetries cancel each other. The D8×Z2D_8 \times\mathbb{Z}_2 symmetry acts geometrically and is also non-anomalous. In this realization, conjugation by rr maps the U(1)3\mathrm{U}(1)^3 symmetry to a different U(1)3\mathrm{U}(1)^3 with charges P2+2W3P_2+2W_3, P1P_1, and P3−2W2P_3-2W_2. These two U(1)3\mathrm{U}(1)^3 symmetries generate a U(1)5\mathrm{U}(1)^5 symmetry, whose mixed anomaly by itself forbids a gapped phase.

Details of the torus CFT realization

Here we give the charge-basis transformations and the gauging of the parent theory used in Appendix B of the End Matter.

Let us start with the SU(2)2×U(1)12\mathrm{SU}(2)_2 \times\mathrm{U}(1)_{12} Wess–Zumino–Witten CFT, realized by three compact bosons with radii (1,1,6)(1,1,\sqrt{6}) in units where the self-dual radius is one. We describe the torus by its metric and antisymmetric tensor [67]. For angular coordinates of period 2π2\pi, the background metric GG and the BB-field are

G=diag⁡(1,1,6),B=0.G = \operatorname{diag}(1,1,6),\qquad B=0.

Let m,n∈Z3m,n \in\mathbb{Z}^3 denote the integer momentum and winding charges of the vertex operators Vm,nV_{m,n}. The Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 symmetry to be gauged acts as

gVm,n=(−1)m1+n1+m2+n2+m3Vm,n.(43)gV_{m,n} = (-1)^{m_1+n_1+m_2+n_2+m_3}V_{m,n}. \tag*{(43)}

After changing the basis of the momentum–winding charge lattice to MiM_i and NiN_i defined by

M1=m1+m2+m3+n1+n2−2n3,N1=n3,M2=m1−n3,N2=n1−n3,M3=m2−n3,N3=n2−n3.(44)\begin{aligned} M_1 &= m_1 + m_2 + m_3 + n_1 + n_2 - 2n_3, & N_1 &= n_3,\\ M_2 &= m_1 - n_3, & N_2 &= n_1 - n_3,\\ M_3 &= m_2 - n_3, & N_3 &= n_2 - n_3. \tag*{(44)} \end{aligned}

then the Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 action is given by (−1)M1VM,N(-1)^{M_1}V_{M,N}. In this basis, the background matrix is

E′=G′+B′=(822010001).(45)E' = G' + B' = \begin{pmatrix} 8 & 2 & 2\\ 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}. \tag*{(45)}

Taking its symmetric and antisymmetric parts gives

G′=(811110101),B′=(011−100−100).(46)G' = \begin{pmatrix} 8 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 1 & 0\\ 1 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}, \qquad B' = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 1\\ -1 & 0 & 0\\ -1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}. \tag*{(46)}

Now gauge gg, which is a half-period shift in the new basis. The projection keeps states with even M1M_1, while the twisted sector adds half-integer N1N_1. We therefore introduce integer momentum and winding charges M^,N^∈Z3\widehat{M},\widehat{N}\in\mathbb{Z}^3 by M=D−1M^M=D^{-1}\widehat{M} and N=DN^N=D\widehat{N}, where D=diag⁡(1/2,1,1)D=\operatorname{diag}(1/2,1,1). In this charge basis, the background transforms as

G^=DG′D,B^=DB′D,E^=DE′D.(47)\widehat{G}=DG'D,\qquad \widehat{B}=DB'D,\qquad \widehat{E}=DE'D. \tag*{(47)}

which gives (B1).

Continuum realizations of the 2+1D symmetry span

Here we construct a family of continuum theories realizing the symmetry span (C1) in Appendix § 4 of the End Matter. We use the same notation H=Z3H=\mathbb{Z}_3, G=S3×Z3G=S_3\times\mathbb{Z}_3, and K=U(1)3K=\mathrm{U}(1)^3. Consider three compact scalar fields ϕi∼ϕi+2π\phi_i\sim\phi_i+2\pi, with i=a,b,ci=a,b,c, on a closed oriented three-dimensional spacetime manifold MM. The compact scalars are defined to be smooth circle-valued fields eiϕi:M→U(1)e^{i\phi_i}:M\to\mathrm{U}(1), and integrated including all winding sectors. Their Euclidean action is S=Skin+StopS=S_{\mathrm{kin}}+S_{\mathrm{top}} with

Stop=2πi×9∫Mdϕa2π∧dϕb2π∧dϕc2π.(48)S_{\mathrm{top}}=2\pi i\times9\int_M\frac{d\phi_a}{2\pi}\wedge\frac{d\phi_b}{2\pi}\wedge\frac{d\phi_c}{2\pi}. \tag*{(48)}

Note that this topological term takes values in 2πiZ2\pi i\mathbb{Z} on MM, and so it does not affect the dynamics of the theory. We take SkinS_{\mathrm{kin}} to be invariant under constant shifts and the reflection S:ϕa↦−ϕaS:\phi_a\mapsto-\phi_a. The KK symmetry acts by constant shifts of the three fields, and its subgroup HH is generated by gi:ϕi↦ϕi+2π/3g_i:\phi_i\mapsto\phi_i+2\pi/3. On a closed spatial surface Σ\Sigma, let Wabc∈R/ZW_{abc}\in\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} denote the surface holonomy, which is locally written as ∫Σdϕa2π∧dϕb2π∧dϕc2π\int_\Sigma\frac{d\phi_a}{2\pi}\wedge\frac{d\phi_b}{2\pi}\wedge\frac{d\phi_c}{2\pi}. Define the diagonal unitary VV and the reflection generator RR of GG by

V=e−2πi9Wabc,R=VSV−1.(49)V=e^{-2\pi i9W_{abc}},\qquad R=VSV^{-1}. \tag*{(49)}

Note that d(ϕa dϕb∧dϕc)=dϕa∧dϕb∧dϕcd(\phi_a\,d\phi_b\wedge d\phi_c)=d\phi_a\wedge d\phi_b\wedge d\phi_c locally. Then one can show that

e−Stop=V[ϕout]V[ϕin]−1(50)e^{-S_{\mathrm{top}}}=V[\phi_{\mathrm{out}}]V[\phi_{\mathrm{in}}]^{-1} \tag*{(50)}

on a Euclidean time slab Σ×[0,T]\Sigma\times[0,T], with initial and final field configurations ϕin\phi_{\mathrm{in}} and ϕout\phi_{\mathrm{out}}. This identity holds even if WabcW_{abc} is defined only modulo integers [76]. Put differently, let H^0\widehat{H}_0 and H^\widehat{H} be the Hamiltonians for SkinS_{\mathrm{kin}} and Skin+StopS_{\mathrm{kin}}+S_{\mathrm{top}}, respectively. The path integral with fixed initial and final fields gives a matrix element of the Euclidean evolution operator. Since VV is diagonal in this field basis, the endpoint phases imply

e−TH^=Ve−TH^0V−1,H^=VH^0V−1.(51)e^{-T\widehat{H}}=Ve^{-T\widehat{H}_0}V^{-1},\qquad \widehat{H}=V\widehat{H}_0V^{-1}. \tag*{(51)}

where the second equality follows by differentiating at T=0T=0. Thus the symmetry SS of H^0\widehat{H}_0 becomes the symmetry R=VSV−1R=VSV^{-1} of H^\widehat{H}. Since VV commutes with HH, the operators obey R2=1R^2=1, RgaR−1=ga−1Rg_aR^{-1}=g_a^{-1}, and [R,gb]=[R,gc]=0[R,g_b]=[R,g_c]=0. Thus R,ga,gb,gcR,g_a,g_b,g_c generate GG. On the other hand, the KK symmetry couples to ordinary background gauge fields.

To compare the two embeddings of HH, let Aa,Ab,AcA_a,A_b,A_c be Z3\mathbb{Z}_3 backgrounds on MM, as in Appendix § 4. First suppose that the induced U(1)3\mathrm{U}(1)^3 background admits globally defined flat connections AiA_i, with ∮γAi=2π3∮γAi\oint_\gamma A_i=\frac{2\pi}{3}\oint_\gamma A_i (mod 2π2\pi) for every closed curve γ\gamma. Then the covariant derivatives are Dϕi=dϕi−AiD\phi_i=d\phi_i-A_i, and one can see that the two couplings differ only by e−Stop[Dϕ]e^{-S_{\mathrm{top}}[D\phi]}. The field-dependent terms contribute integer multiples of 2πi2\pi i to the action, while the remaining background phase is β(A)\beta(A) defined in Appendix § 4. Therefore,

β(A)Z[i(A)]=Z[j(A)],(52)\beta(A)Z[i(A)]=Z[j(A)], \tag*{(52)}

which is the condition (C2), independently of the choice of invariant kinetic term. Note that, for a general background AiA_i, eiϕie^{i\phi_i} is a section of the associated circle bundle. Indeed, invariance of DϕiD\phi_i under Ai↦Ai+dλiA_i\mapsto A_i+d\lambda_i requires eiϕi↦eλieiϕie^{i\phi_i}\mapsto e^{\lambda_i}e^{i\phi_i}, which is the gluing law for a section on overlapping patches. If this bundle is topologically nontrivial, it has no global section. Both partition functions therefore vanish because there are no field configurations to integrate over. We first choose a relativistic kinetic term and then consider deformations that preserve the symmetry span (C1).

Relativistic Goldstone phase— We take

Skin=f22∑i∫Mdϕi∧∗dϕi,f2>0.(53)S_{\mathrm{kin}}=\frac{f^2}{2}\sum_i\int_M d\phi_i\wedge*d\phi_i,\qquad f^2>0. \tag*{(53)}

This theory has three relativistic Goldstone modes with dispersion ωk=∣k∣\omega_k=|\mathbf{k}| in units with velocity one. The continuous KK symmetry is spontaneously broken in the ground state in infinite volume. Indeed, a Gaussian calculation on R3\mathbb{R}^3 gives the large-distance behavior

⟨eiϕi(x)e−iϕi(0)⟩≃Ciexp⁡(14πf2∣x∣)⟶Ci>0,(54)\langle e^{i\phi_i(x)}e^{-i\phi_i(0)}\rangle\simeq C_i\exp\left(\frac{1}{4\pi f^2|x|}\right)\longrightarrow C_i>0, \tag*{(54)}

where CiC_i depends on the ultraviolet regularization and normalization of the vertex operators.

Deformations preserving the symmetry span— Starting from the relativistic theory (S14), we can vary the coefficients and add spatial derivative terms to obtain

Skin=∫dτ d2x∑i[χ2(∂τϕi)2+κ2(∇2ϕi)2+ρ2∣∇ϕi∣2+λ4∣∇ϕi∣4].(55)S_{\mathrm{kin}}=\int d\tau\,d^2x\sum_i\left[\frac{\chi}{2}(\partial_\tau\phi_i)^2+\frac{\kappa}{2}(\nabla^2\phi_i)^2+\frac{\rho}{2}|\nabla\phi_i|^2+\frac{\lambda}{4}|\nabla\phi_i|^4\right]. \tag*{(55)}

These terms preserve KK and SS. Keeping StopS_{\mathrm{top}} and VV fixed therefore preserves R=VSV−1R=VSV^{-1} and the same symmetry span, although Lorentz invariance is lost.

For χ,κ>0\chi,\kappa>0, the Gaussian Lifshitz point ρ=λ=0\rho=\lambda=0 has infinitely many degenerate ground states on a spatial torus, labeled by winding numbers: constant gradients satisfy ∇2ϕi=0\nabla^2\phi_i=0 and cost no energy [77]. With ρ\rho tuned so that the renormalized coefficient of ∣∇ϕi∣2|\nabla\phi_i|^2 vanishes, one-loop renormalization-group analyses find that a small positive λ\lambda is marginally irrelevant [78, 79]. The resulting flow approaches the Gaussian z=2z=2 fixed point with logarithmic corrections [78]. The entire family is consistent with the constraint imposed by the symmetry span. The span excludes gapped phases described by TQFTs with finitely many ground states, but does not fix the dynamical exponent or the ground-state degeneracy.

This family also has a mixed anomaly between KK and its exact U(1)3\mathrm{U}(1)^3 winding one-form symmetry, with normalized anomaly polynomial I5=(2π)−2∑i=a,b,cdAi∧dBiI_5=(2\pi)^{-2}\sum_{i=a,b,c}dA_i\wedge dB_i, where AiA_i and BiB_i are the respective one-form and two-form background gauge fields. This anomaly does not admit any symmetry-preserving TQFT [80, 81], and so gaplessness for these models actually follows from the mixed anomaly.

References

  1. [1]Gerard ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,” NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 135–157 (1980).DOI
  2. [2]Chong Wang and T. Senthil, “Interacting fermionic topological insulators/superconductors in three dimensions,” Phys. Rev. B 89, 195124 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.B 91, 239902 (2015)], arXiv:1401.1142 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  3. [3]Davide Gaiotto, Anton Kapustin, Nathan Seiberg, and Brian Willett, “Generalized Global Symmetries,” JHEP 02, 172 (2015), arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th].DOI
  4. [4]Chong Wang and T. Senthil, “Composite fermi liquids in the lowest Landau level,” Phys. Rev. B 94, 245107 (2016), arXiv:1604.06807 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  5. [5]Inti Sodemann, Itamar Kimchi, Chong Wang, and T. Senthil, “Composite fermion duality for half-filled multicomponent Landau Levels,” Phys. Rev. B 95, 085135 (2017), arXiv:1609.08616 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  6. [6]Davide Gaiotto, Anton Kapustin, Zohar Komargodski, and Nathan Seiberg, “Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature,” JHEP 05, 091 (2017), arXiv:1703.00501 [hep-th].DOI
  7. [7]Chong Wang, Adam Nahum, Max A. Metlitski, Cenke Xu, and T. Senthil, “Deconfined quantum critical points: symmetries and dualities,” Phys. Rev. X 7, 031051 (2017), arXiv:1703.02426 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  8. [8]Chi-Ming Chang, Ying-Hsuan Lin, Shu-Heng Shao, Yifan Wang, and Xi Yin, “Topological Defect Lines and Renormalization Group Flows in Two Dimensions,” JHEP 01, 026 (2019), arXiv:1802.04445 [hep-th].DOI
  9. [9]Clay Córdova and Kantaro Ohmori, “Anomaly Obstructions to Symmetry Preserving Gapped Phases,” (2019), arXiv:1910.04962 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/1910.04962
  10. [10]Ryan Thorngren and Yifan Wang, “Fusion category symmetry. Part I. Anomaly inflow and gapped phases,” JHEP 04, 132 (2024), arXiv:2110.02817 [hep-th].
  11. [11]Zohar Komargodski, Kantaro Ohmori, Konstantinos Roumpedakis, and Sahand Seifnashri, “Symmetries and strings of adjoint QCD₂,” JHEP 03, 103 (2021), arXiv:2008.07567 [hep-th].DOI
  12. [12]Yui Hayashi and Yuya Tanizaki, “Non-invertible self-duality defects of Cardy-Rabinovici model and mixed gravitational anomaly,” JHEP 08, 036 (2022), arXiv:2204.07440 [hep-th].DOI
  13. [13]Anuj Apte, Clay Córdova, and Ho Tat Lam, “Obstructions to gapped phases from noninvertible symmetries,” Phys. Rev. B 108, 045134 (2023), arXiv:2212.14605 [hep-th].DOI
  14. [14]Carolyn Zhang and Clay Córdova, “Anomalies of (1+1)-dimensional categorical symmetries,” Phys. Rev. B 110, 035155 (2024), arXiv:2304.01262 [cond-mat.str-el].arxiv.org/abs/2304.01262
  15. [15]Yichul Choi, Brandon C. Rayhaun, Yaman Sanghavi, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Remarks on boundaries, anomalies, and noninvertible symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 125005 (2023), arXiv:2305.09713 [hep-th].DOI
  16. [16]Clay Cordova, Po-Shen Hsin, and Carolyn Zhang, “Anomalies of non-invertible symmetries in (3+1)d,” Sci-Post Phys. 17, 131 (2024), arXiv:2308.11706 [hep-th].DOI
  17. [17]Andrea Antinucci, Francesco Benini, Christian Copetti, Giovanni Galati, and Giovanni Rizi, “Anomalies of non-invertible self-duality symmetries: fractionalization and gauging,” (2023), arXiv:2308.11707 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2308.11707
  18. [18]T. Daniel Brennan and Aiden Schaeckler, “Anomaly enforced gaplessness for background flux anomalies and symmetry fractionalization,” JHEP 05, 159 (2024), arXiv:2311.00093 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2311.00093
  19. [19]Pavel Putrov and Rajath Radhakrishnan, “Non-anomalous non-invertible symmetries in 1+1D from gapped boundaries of SymTFTs,” JHEP 03, 077 (2026), arXiv:2405.04619 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2405.04619
  20. [20]Andrea Antinucci, Christian Copetti, Yuhan Gai, and Sakura Schafer-Nameki, “Categorical Anomaly Matching,” (2025), arXiv:2508.00982 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2508.00982
  21. [21]Elliott H. Lieb, Theodore Schultz, and Daniel Mattis, “Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain,” Annals Phys. 16, 407–466 (1961).
  22. [22]Tohru Koma, “Spectral gaps of quantum hall sys- tems with interactions,” Journal of Statistical Physics 99, 313–381 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/9809228 [cond-mat.mes-hall].
  23. [23]Masaki Oshikawa, “Commensurability, Excitation Gap, and Topology in Quantum Many-Particle Systems on a Periodic Lattice,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1535 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/9911137.DOI
  24. [24]M. B. Hastings, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis in higher dimensions,” Phys. Rev. B 69, 104431 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0305505.DOI
  25. [25]M. B. Hastings, “Sufficient conditions for topological order in insulators,” Europhysics Letters 70, 824 (2005).DOI
  26. [26]Rahul Roy, “Space group symmetries and low lying excitations of many-body systems at integer fillings,” arXiv:1212.2944 [cond-mat.str-el].arxiv.org/abs/1212.2944
  27. [27]Shunsuke C. Furuya and Masaki Oshikawa, “Symmetry Protection of Critical Phases and a Global Anomaly in 1 + 1 Dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 021601 (2017), arXiv:1503.07292 [cond-mat.stat-mech].DOI
  28. [28]Haruki Watanabe, Hoi Chun Po, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Michael Zaletel, “Filling constraints for spin-orbit coupled insulators in symmorphic and nonsymmorphic crystals,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 14551–14556 (2015), arXiv:1505.04193 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  29. [29]Meng Cheng, Michael Zaletel, Maissam Barkeshli, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Parasa Bonderson, “Translational Symmetry and Microscopic Constraints on Symmetry-Enriched Topological Phases: A View from the Surface,” Phys. Rev. X 6, 041068 (2016), arXiv:1511.02263 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  30. [30]Gil Young Cho, Shinsei Ryu, and Chang-Tse Hsieh, “Anomaly Manifestation of Lieb-Schultz-Mattis Theorem and Topological Phases,” Phys. Rev. B 96, 195105 (2017), arXiv:1705.03892 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  31. [31]Yang Qi, Chen Fang, and Liang Fu, “Ground state degeneracy in quantum spin systems protected by crystal symmetries,” arXiv:1705.09190 [cond-mat.str-el].arxiv.org/abs/1705.09190
  32. [32]Sheng-Jie Huang, Hao Song, Yi-Ping Huang, and Michael Hermele, “Building crystalline topological phases from lower-dimensional states,” Physical Review B 96, 205106 (2017), arXiv:1705.09243 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  33. [33]Meng Cheng, “Fermionic Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorems and weak symmetry-protected phases,” Phys. Rev. B 99, 075143 (2019), arXiv:1804.10122 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  34. [34]Ryohei Kobayashi, Shin Shiozaki, Yuta Kikuchi, and Shinsei Ryu, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis type theorem with higher-form symmetry and the quantum dimer models,” Phys. Rev. B 99, 014402 (2019), arXiv:1805.05367 [cond-mat.stat-mech].DOI
  35. [35]Michael Levin, “Constraints on order and disorder parameters in quantum spin chains,” Commun. Math. Phys. 378, 1081–1106 (2020), arXiv:1903.09028 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  36. [36]Dominic V. Else and Ryan Thorngren, “Topological field theory of Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorems in quantum spin systems,” Phys. Rev. B 101, 224437 (2020), arXiv:1907.08204 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  37. [37]Yoshiko Okugawa, Yuji Tachikawa, and Hal Tasaki, “General Lieb-Schultz-Mattis Type Theorems for Quantum Spin Chains,” Commun. Math. Phys. 385, 79–99 (2021), arXiv:2004.06458 [math-ph].
  38. [38]Ömer M. Aksoy, Apoorv Tiwari, and Christopher Mudry, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis type theorems for Majorana models with discrete symmetries,” Phys. Rev. B 104, 075146 (2021), arXiv:2102.08389 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  39. [39]Meng Cheng and Nathan Seiberg, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis, Luttinger, and ’t Hooft - anomaly matching in lattice systems,” SciPost Phys. 15, 051 (2023), arXiv:2211.12543 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  40. [40]Nathan Seiberg and Shu-Heng Shao, “Majorana chain and Ising model - (non-invertible) translations, anomalies, and emanant symmetries,” SciPost Phys. 16, 064 (2024), arXiv:2307.02534 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  41. [41]Yuan Yao, Linhao Li, Masaki Oshikawa, and Chang-Tse Hsieh, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis Theorem for 1D Quantum Magnets with Antiinunitary Translation and Inversion Symmetries,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 136705 (2024), arXiv:2307.09843 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  42. [42]Ömer Mert Aksoy, Christopher Mudry, Akira Furusaki, and Apoorv Tiwari, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies and web of dualities induced by gauging in quantum spin chains,” SciPost Phys. 16, 022 (2024), arXiv:2308.00743 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  43. [43]Sahand Seifnashri, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies as obstructions to gauging (non-on-site) symmetries,” SciPost Phys. 16, 098 (2024), arXiv:2308.05151 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  44. [44]Anton Kapustin and Nikita Sopenko, “Anomalous Symmetries of Quantum Spin Chains and a Generalization of the Lieb-Schultz-Mattis Theorem,” Commun. Math. Phys. 406, 238 (2025), arXiv:2401.02533 [math-ph].arxiv.org/abs/2401.02533
  45. [45]Nathan Seiberg, Sahand Seifnashri, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Non-invertible symmetries and LSM-type constraints on a tensor product Hilbert space,” SciPost Phys. 16, 154 (2024), arXiv:2401.12281 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  46. [46]Ruizhi Liu, Jimin Yi, Shiyu Zhou, and Liujun Zou, “Entanglement area law and Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem in long-range interacting systems, and symmetry-enforced long-range entanglement,” Phys. Rev. B 112, 214408 (2025), arXiv:2405.14929 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  47. [47]Ruochen Ma, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem with long-range interactions,” Phys. Rev. B 110, 104412 (2024), arXiv:2405.14949 [cond-mat.str-el].arxiv.org/abs/2405.14949
  48. [48]Clay Córdoba and Kantaro Ohmori, “Anomaly Constraints on Gapped Phases with Discrete Chiral Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 025011 (2020), arXiv:1912.13069 [hep-th].DOI
  49. [49]Ryan Thorngren, “Topological quantum field theory, symmetry breaking, and finite gauge theory in 3+1D,” Phys. Rev. B 101, 245160 (2020), arXiv:2201.11938 [cond-mat.str-el].
  50. [50]Arkya Chatterjee, Salvatore D. Pace, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Quantized Axial Charge of Staggered Fermions and the Chiral Anomaly,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 021601 (2025), arXiv:2409.12220 [hep-th].DOI
  51. [51]Salvatore D. Pace, Arkya Chatterjee, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Lattice T-duality from non-invertible symmetries in quantum spin chains,” SciPost Phys. 18, 121 (2025), arXiv:2412.18606 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  52. [52]Po-Shen Hsin, Ryohei Kobayashi, and Carolyn Zhang, “Anomalies of coset non-invertible symmetries,” SciPost Phys. 20, 006 (2026), arXiv:2503.00105 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  53. [53]Salvatore D. Pace, Minho Luke Kim, Arkya Chatterjee, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Parity Anomaly from a Lieb-Schultz-Mattis Theorem: Exact Valley Symmetries on the Lattice,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 236501 (2025), arXiv:2505.04684 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  54. [54]Minho Luke Kim, Salvatore D. Pace, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Symmetry-enforced Fermi surfaces,” (2025), arXiv:2512.04150 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  55. [55]Elijah Lew-Smith, Salvatore D. Pace, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Infinite-Order Lattice Chiral Anomalies and CPT,” (2026), arXiv:2606.12510 [hep-th].
  56. [56]Takamasa Ando and Kantaro Ohmori, “Symmetry Spans and Enforced Gaplessness,” (2026), arXiv:2602.11696 [cond-mat.str-el].arxiv.org/abs/2602.11696
  57. [57]Yoichiro Nambu, “Quasi-Particles and Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. 117, 648–663 (1960).
  58. [58]J. Goldstone, “Field Theories with Superconductor Solutions,” Nuovo Cim. 19, 154–164 (1961).DOI
  59. [59]Jeffrey Goldstone, Abdus Salam, and Steven Weinberg, “Broken Symmetries,” Phys. Rev. 127, 965–970 (1962).
  60. [60]Thus precisely speaking, one cannot exclude the existence of gapped phases without a TQFT description, such as fracton phases, especially in dimensions higher than two. Nonetheless, in this paper we somewhat sloppily refer to the absence of TQFT phases as “gaplessness”.
  61. [61]Eric Vernier, Edward O’Brien, and Paul Fendley, “Onsager symmetries in U(1)-invariant clock models,” J. Stat. Mech. 1904, 043107 (2019), arXiv:1812.09091 [cond-mat.stat-mech].DOI
  62. [62]Tzu-Chun Huang, Ying-Hsuan Lin, and Sahand Seifnashri, “Construction of two-dimensional topological field theories with non-invertible symmetries,” JHEP 12, 028 (2021), arXiv:2110.02958 [hep-th].DOI
  63. [63]This can be checked by restricting the background-field couplings of the two symmetry groups to the common Z_2^2 subgroup and computing the ratio of the resulting partition functions.
  64. [64]Xie Chen, Zheng-Cheng Gu, Zheng-Xin Liu, and Xiao-Gang Wen, “Symmetry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group,” Phys. Rev. B 87, 155114 (2013), arXiv:1106.4772 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  65. [65]Sonia Natale, “On the equivalence of module categories over a group-theoretical fusion category,” SIGMA. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications 13, 042 (2017), arXiv:1608.04435 [math.QA].DOI
  66. [66]Here ω denotes a normalized cocycle representative, satisfying ω(e, g, h) = ω(g, e, h) = ω(g, h, e) = 1 for the identity element e ∈ G. This can always be achieved by multiplying a cocycle representative by a coboundary, without changing its cohomology class. For any three-cocycle ω̃, define β(g, h) = ω̃(g, e, h)/ω̃(e, e, h). The cocycle condition implies that ω̃ = ω̃δβ is normalized.
  67. [67]A. Giveon, E. Rabinovici, and G. Veneziano, “Duality in String Background Space,” Nucl. Phys. B 322, 167–184 (1989).DOI
  68. [68]T. H. Buscher, “A Symmetry of the String Background Field Equations,” Phys. Lett. B 194, 59–62 (1987).DOI
  69. [69]T. H. Buscher, “Path Integral Derivation of Quantum Duality in Nonlinear Sigma Models,” Phys. Lett. B 201, 466–472 (1988).DOI
  70. [70]Amit Giveon, Massimo Porrati, and Eliezer Rabinovici, “Target space duality in string theory,” Phys. Rept. 244, 77–202 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9401139.DOI
  71. [71]Martin Roček and Erik P. Verlinde, “Duality, quotients, and currents,” Nucl. Phys. B 373, 630–646 (1992), arXiv:hep-th/9110053.DOI
  72. [72]Jeffrey A. Harvey and Gregory W. Moore, “An Uplifting Discussion of T-Duality,” JHEP 05, 145 (2018), arXiv:1707.08888 [hep-th].DOI
  73. [73]Ying-Hsuan Lin and Shu-Heng Shao, “Z_N Symmetries, Anomalies, and the Modular Bootstrap,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 125001 (2021), arXiv:2101.08343 [hep-th].DOI
  74. [74]David Handel, “On products in the cohomology of the dihedral groups,” Tohoku Math. J. 45, 13–42 (1993).DOI
  75. [75]This can be checked by restricting the background-field couplings of the two symmetry groups to the common Z_2^2 subgroup and computing the ratio of the resulting partition functions.
  76. [76]Christian Bär and Christian Becker, “Differential characters and geometric chains,” in Differential Characters, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 2112 (Springer, Cham, 2014) pp. 1–90, arXiv:1303.6457 [math.DG].
  77. [77]Pranay Gorantla, Ho Tat Lam, Nathan Seiberg, and Shu-Heng Shao, ““2+1d compact lifshitz theory, tensor gauge theory, and fractons,” Phys. Rev. B 108, 075106 (2023), arXiv:2209.10030 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  78. [78]Ashvin Vishwanath, L. Balents, and T. G. Senthil, “Quantum Criticality and Deconfinement in Phase Transitions Between Valence Bond Solids,” Phys. Rev. B 69, 224416 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0311085.DOI
  79. [79]Benjamin Hsu and Eduardo Fradkin, “Dynamical stability of the quantum lifshitz theory in 2+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. B 87, 085102 (2013), arXiv:1205.4911 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  80. [80]Luca V. Delacrétaz, Diego M. Hofman, and Grégoire Mathys, “Superfluids as Higher-form Anomalies,” Sci-Post Phys. 8, 047 (2020), arXiv:1908.06977 [hep-th].DOI
  81. [81]Clay Córdova, Daniel S. Freed, and Constantin Teleman, “Gapped theories have torsion anomalies,” (2024), arXiv:2408.15148 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2408.15148

Paper details

vlnc:W_9uy4fg5b
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 1

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Physics and Astronomy

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents