Tensor Network Theory: A formalization blueprint

G Symmetries and Virtual-Boundary Nondecay: Supporting Results

The classification of matrix product state symmetries and boundary nondecay in Chapter 10 rests on permutation gauges, factor-system cocycle identities, stationary-boundary twists, and asymptotic transfer-operator limits.

Let \(I=\{ 0,\ldots ,d-1\} \) be the physical index set, \(M_{D}(\mathbb {C})\) the bond algebra, and \(G\) a group. All sums below are finite. We treat permutation symmetries on \(I\), gauge scalar uniqueness for injective tensors, and factor-system cocycle relations.

G.1 Permutation reindexing and identity bookkeeping

The linear-combination twist \(\widetilde{A}_g^i = \sum _j U(g)_{ij}\, A^j\) is the standard form used in the virtual representation theorem. The following alternative formulation replaces the matrix action by a permutation of the physical index; it is useful for symmetries that act by reordering basis states rather than by a general linear map.

Definition G.1.1 Action on the physical index
✓
#

An action of a monoid \(G\) on the physical index set \(I\) is a map \(\sigma : G \to \mathrm{End}(I)\) with \(\sigma (1) = \operatorname{id}\) and \(\sigma (gh) = \sigma (g) \circ \sigma (h)\) for all \(g, h \in G\). When \(G\) is a group, each \(\sigma (g)\) is a permutation of \(I\), with inverse \(\sigma (g^{-1})\).

Definition G.1.2 Permutation-twisted tensor
✓

Given an action \(\sigma \) of \(G\) on \(I\), the permutation-twisted tensor at the element \(g\) is

\begin{align} (A^{\sigma _g})^i & := A^{\sigma (g)(i)}. \label{eq:symmetry_perm_twist} \end{align}

In tensor-network notation the local tensor is unchanged and only the physical leg is relabelled:

\begin{tenkz}[cols=1, boundary=open]
            \tn[ports={90:physical:$i$}]{A}
        \end{tenkz} \(\qquad \xrightarrow {\sigma _g} \qquad \) \begin{tenkz}[cols=1, boundary=open]
            \tn[ports={90:physical:$\sigma(g)(i)$}]{A}
        \end{tenkz}.
Lemma G.1.3 Identity twist
✓

For an action \(\sigma \), \((A^{\sigma _1})^i = A^i\) for all \(i\).

Proof ▶

The claim follows from \(\sigma (1)(i) = i\) for all \(i\).

Composition order. The linear-combination twist (Lemma 10.1.4) composes as \(\widetilde{(\widetilde{A}_h)}_g = \widetilde{A}_{gh}\), applying \(h\) first then \(g\). The action twist below uses the same left-action convention \(\sigma (gh) = \sigma (g) \circ \sigma (h)\), so \((A^{\sigma _g})^{\sigma _h} = A^{\sigma _{gh}}\); the inner map \(\sigma (h)\) acts first on the index.

Lemma G.1.4 Composition of action twists
✓

For an action \(\sigma \) and all \(g, h \in G\),

\begin{align} A^{\sigma _{gh}} & = (A^{\sigma _g})^{\sigma _h}. \label{eq:symmetry_perm_composition} \end{align}
Proof ▶

Expanding both sides gives \((A^{\sigma _{gh}})^i = A^{\sigma (g)(\sigma (h)(i))} = ((A^{\sigma _g})^{\sigma _h})^i\). Diagrammatically this is just two consecutive relabellings of the same local tensor:

\begin{tenkz}[cols=1, boundary=open]
            \tn[ports={90:physical:$i$}]{A}
        \end{tenkz} \(\qquad \xrightarrow {\sigma _h} \qquad \) \begin{tenkz}[cols=1, boundary=open]
            \tn[ports={90:physical:$\sigma(h)(i)$}]{A}
        \end{tenkz} \(\qquad \xrightarrow {\sigma _g} \qquad \) \begin{tenkz}[cols=1, boundary=open]
            \tn[ports={90:physical:$\sigma(g)(\sigma(h)(i))$}]{A}
        \end{tenkz}.

G.1.1 Linear physical-index rotations

The same bookkeeping applies to a general matrix acting on the physical index.

Definition G.1.1.1 Physical-index rotation
✓

Given a matrix \(M \in \mathbb {C}^{m\times d}\) and an MPS tensor \(A\) with physical dimension \(d\), the physical-index rotation is the tensor with physical dimension \(m\) given by \((A_M)^i := \sum _j M_{ij}\, A^j\) for \(i=0,\ldots ,m-1\). When the matrix is a unitary \(u\), the rotation is written \(A_u\).

Lemma G.1.1.2 Matrix product vector under physical rotation
✓

For \(M\in \mathbb {C}^{m\times d}\) and a length-\(N\) physical configuration \(s=(s_0,\ldots ,s_{N-1})\in \{ 0,\ldots ,m-1\} ^N\), physical rotation satisfies

\begin{align} \operatorname{tr}((A_M)^{s_0}\cdots (A_M)^{s_{N-1}}) & = \sum _{t\in \{ 0,\ldots ,d-1\} ^N} \left(\prod _{n=0}^{N-1}M_{s_n,t_n}\right) \operatorname{tr}(A^{t_0}\cdots A^{t_{N-1}}). \label{eq:symmetry_mpv_rotation} \end{align}
Proof ▶

Substitute \((A_M)^{s_n}=\sum _{t_n}M_{s_n,t_n}A^{t_n}\) at each site, distribute the finite sums through the ordered matrix product, and use linearity of the trace to obtain (3).

Theorem G.1.1.3 Blocking commutes with physical maps
✓

For \(W\in \mathbb {C}^{m\times n}\), a tensor \(C\) with physical dimension \(n\), and \(L\ge 0\), blocking the rotated tensor over \(L\) sites is rotating the blocked tensor by the \(L\)-fold Kronecker power of \(W\):

\begin{align} (C_W)^{[L]} & =\bigl(C^{[L]}\bigr)_{W^{\otimes L}}. \label{eq:app_block_tensor_rotate_physical} \end{align}
Proof ▶

Decode a blocked physical index as a word \(b\) of length \(L\). Substituting \((C_W)^{b_k}=\sum _{v_k}W_{b_kv_k}C^{v_k}\) into the ordered product and distributing gives, for each word \(v\), the summand \((\prod _kW_{b_kv_k})\, C^{v_0}\cdots C^{v_{L-1}}\). Reindexing the sum over words by the blocked index gives the right-hand side of (4), whose coefficients are the entries of \(W^{\otimes L}\).

G.2 Gauge ratios and scalar uniqueness

For injective tensors, any two similarity transformations yielding the same target tensor differ by a scalar multiple.

Lemma G.2.1 Gauge ratio commutes with tensor matrices
✓
#

Diagrammatically, the hypothesis is that the two local gauges

\begin{tenkz}[cols=1, boundary=open]
            \tn[ports={90:physical:$i$}]{B}
        \end{tenkz} \( = \) \begin{tenkz}[boundary=open]
            \tn[skin=ring]{X} & \tn[ports={90:physical:$i$}]{A} &
            \tn[skin=ring]{X^{-1}}
        \end{tenkz}

  and  

\begin{tenkz}[cols=1, boundary=open]
            \tn[ports={90:physical:$i$}]{B}
        \end{tenkz} \( = \) \begin{tenkz}[boundary=open]
            \tn[skin=ring]{Y} & \tn[ports={90:physical:$i$}]{A} &
            \tn[skin=ring]{Y^{-1}}
        \end{tenkz}

produce the same target tensor \(B^i\) from the same source tensor \(A^i\). If \(X, Y \in \mathrm{GL}_D(\mathbb {C})\) both conjugate an MPS tensor \(A\) to the same tensor \(B\) (i.e. \(B^i = X A^i X^{-1} = Y A^i Y^{-1}\) for all \(i\)), then \(Y^{-1} X\) commutes with every \(A^i\).

Proof ▶

Direct matrix calculation: conjugating both gauge relations and composing gives \((Y^{-1} X) A^i = A^i (Y^{-1} X)\).

Lemma G.2.2 Gauge ratio is scalar for injective tensors
✓

Under the same hypotheses, if \(A\) is additionally injective, then \(Y^{-1} X = \lambda \mathbb {1}_D\) for some scalar \(\lambda \in \mathbb {C}\).

Proof ▶

By Lemma G.2.1, \(Y^{-1}X\) commutes with all \(A^i\). Since \(\{ A^i\} \) spans \(M_{D}(\mathbb {C})\), the matrix \(Y^{-1}X\) commutes with all of \(M_{D}(\mathbb {C})\). By Lemma 2.1.5, it is a scalar matrix.

Theorem G.2.3 Projective multiplication law for gauge matrices
✓

Let \(A\) be an injective MPS tensor with on-site symmetry under a group representation \(U : G \to \mathrm{GL}_d(\mathbb {C})\). For each \(g \in G\), let \(X(g) \in \mathrm{GL}_D(\mathbb {C})\) satisfy \(\widetilde{A}_g^i = X(g)\, A^i\, X(g)^{-1}\) for all \(i\). Then for all \(g, h \in G\), there exists \(c(g,h) \in \mathbb {C}\) such that \(X(h)\, X(g) = c(g,h)\, X(g \cdot h)\). Invertibility of both sides forces \(c(g,h) \in \mathbb {C}^{\times }\). Diagrammatically, both candidate gauges realize the twisted tensor \(\widetilde{A}_{gh}^i\):

\begin{tenkz}[boundary=open]
            \tn[skin=ring]{X(h)X(g)} & \tn[ports={90:physical:$i$}]{A} &
            \tn[skin=ring]{(X(h)X(g))^{-1}}
        \end{tenkz} \( = \) \begin{tenkz}[boundary=open]
            \tn[skin=ring]{X(gh)} & \tn[ports={90:physical:$i$}]{A} &
            \tn[skin=ring]{X(gh)^{-1}}
        \end{tenkz}

and both sides conjugate \(A^i\) to the same twisted tensor \(\widetilde{A}_{gh}^i\).

Proof ▶

By the composition law \(\widetilde{A}_{gh} = \widetilde{(\widetilde{A}_h)}_g\) (Lemma 10.1.4), both \(X(h)\, X(g)\) and \(X(gh)\) conjugate \(A\) to \(\widetilde{A}_{gh}\). Lemma G.2.2 then gives the scalar factor.

G.3 Cocycle equivalence and coboundaries

Let \(\omega _1,\omega _2:G\times G\to \mathbb {C}^\times \) be arbitrary scalar \(2\)-cochains. The definitions of coboundary and cohomology are Definitions 10.2.1 and 10.2.2.

Theorem G.3.1 Cohomology relation is an equivalence relation
✓

The relation “cohomologous to” is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive on the set of \(\mathbb {C}^\times \)-valued scalar \(2\)-cochains, and therefore also on the subset of cocycles.

Proof ▶

Reflexivity: take \(\varphi =1\). Symmetry: replace \(\varphi \) by \(\varphi ^{-1}\). Transitivity: compose the witnesses \(\varphi \) and \(\psi \) pointwise in (11).

A scalar \(2\)-cochain \(\omega \) is a coboundary if and only if \(\omega \sim \mathbb {1}\), where \(\mathbb {1}(g,h)=1\) for all \(g,h\).

Proof ▶

Both directions follow by absorbing or introducing the factor \(\mathbb {1}(g,h)=1\) via \(x\cdot 1=x\) in (11).

G.4 Stationary-boundary twist support

Fix an MPS tensor \(A=(A^i)_{i=0}^{d-1}\), a physical matrix \(u\), and a stationary boundary matrix \(\Lambda \in M_{D}(\mathbb {C})\). The twisted transfer map \(\mathcal{E}_u\) (Definition 10.3.1) acts on virtual-boundary functionals, complementing the physical endpoint correlators of Definition 10.3.4.

Definition G.4.1 Twisted companion tensor
✓
#

For an MPS tensor \(A\) and a physical-index matrix \(u\), define the companion tensor \(B_u\) by

\begin{align} B_u^n & := \sum _{n'=0}^{d-1} \overline{u_{n'n}}\, A^{n'}. \label{eq:symmetry_companion_tensor} \end{align}
Lemma G.4.2 Twisted transfer as a mixed transfer operator
✓

The twisted transfer map of \(A\) is the mixed transfer operator of the pair \((A,B_u)\):

\begin{align} \mathcal{E}_u & = F_{A,B_u}. \label{eq:symmetry_twisted_mixed_transfer} \end{align}
Proof ▶

Expand both definitions and rearrange the double sum.

Lemma G.4.3 The companion tensor has the same transfer map
✓

If \(uu^\dagger =\mathbb {1}_d\), then for every \(X\in M_{D}(\mathbb {C})\) the companion family \(B_u\) satisfies

\begin{align} \mathcal{E}_{B_u}(X) & =\mathcal{E}_A(X). \notag \end{align}
Proof ▶

The corresponding theorem in the companion quantum-channel volume  [ 216 , “Unitary freedom in Kraus operators” ] applies to the unitary combination defining \(B_u\). Equivalently, expand \(B_u^n=\sum _{n'}\overline{u_{n'n}}A^{n'}\). The coefficient of \(A^jX(A^k)^\dagger \) in \(\mathcal{E}_{B_u}(X)\) is

\begin{align} \sum _n\overline{u_{jn}}u_{kn} & =(uu^\dagger )_{kj}=\delta _{kj}. \notag \end{align}

All off-diagonal terms vanish and the diagonal terms sum to \(\mathcal{E}_A(X)\).

Definition G.4.4 Virtual-boundary twist functional
✓

For a boundary state \(\Lambda \) and boundary matrices \(X,Y \in M_{D}(\mathbb {C})\), the virtual-boundary twist functional is

\begin{align} R_L(u;X,Y) & := \operatorname{tr}\! (\Lambda X \mathcal{E}_u^L(Y)). \label{eq:symmetry_boundary_string} \end{align}

The special case \(X=Y=\mathbb {1}\) is the stationary-boundary block-twist functional of Definition 10.3.2. The matrices \(X,Y\) act on the virtual level. In the physical string correlator of  [ 229 ] the string of twists is instead flanked by local operators \(x,y\) acting on physical sites; expanding such operators in the transfer picture produces particular virtual matrices, and [ 229 ] argues that for injective tensors, physical operators on sufficiently many sites produce every virtual matrix. The results below are stated directly in this virtual-boundary form.

Lemma G.4.5 Virtual-boundary nondecay prevents convergence to zero
✓

If virtual-boundary nondecay holds for \(A,u,\Lambda \), then for some boundary matrices \(X,Y\) the sequence \(R_L(u;X,Y)\) does not tend to \(0\) as \(L\to \infty \).

Proof ▶

A uniform lower bound \(c \le \| R_L(u;X,Y)\| \) is incompatible with convergence to \(0\).

G.5 Kraus mixing, transfer expansions, and a common TP gauge

Because \(A\) and its companion \(B_u\) share the same transfer map, they admit a common trace-preserving gauge.

Lemma G.5.1 Unitary Kraus mixing
✓
#

If \(u\) is unitary, then replacing Kraus operators \(\{ A_i\} \) by their unitary mixtures \(\{ \sum _j u_{ij} A_j\} \) preserves the channel:

\begin{align} \sum _i \left(\sum _j u_{ij} A_j\right)\, Y \left(\sum _j u_{ij} A_j\right)^\dagger & = \sum _i A_i\, Y\, A_i^\dagger . \label{eq:symmetry_unitary_kraus_mixing} \end{align}
Proof ▶

This is exactly the usual invariance of a Kraus decomposition under a unitary change of Kraus operators; see the corresponding theorem in the companion quantum-channel volume  [ 216 , “Unitary freedom in Kraus operators” ] .

Definition G.5.2 Common trace-preserving gauge for a twisted pair
✓
#

A common trace-preserving gauge setup for \((A,u)\) consists of a tensor \(B\) equal to the companion \(B_u\) and satisfying \(\mathcal{E}_B(X)=\mathcal{E}_A(X)\) for every \(X\in M_{D}(\mathbb {C})\). It also includes a positive definite matrix \(\sigma \) fixed by the adjoint transfer map of \(B\), its positive square root \(S\), and gauged tensors \(A',B'\) satisfying

\begin{align} B & =B_u, & \mathcal{E}_B(X) & =\mathcal{E}_A(X), & \mathcal{E}_{B^\dagger }(\sigma ) & =\sigma , & \sigma & {\gt}0, \\ S & =\sigma ^{1/2}, & S^\dagger & =S, & A’^i & =SA^iS^{-1}, & B’^i & =SB^iS^{-1}. \notag \end{align}

In addition,

\begin{align} SS^{-1} & =S^{-1}S=\mathbb {1}, & S^\dagger (S^\dagger )^{-1} & =\mathbb {1}, & (S^{-1})^\dagger & =S^{-1}, \\ \sum _i(A’^i)^\dagger A’^i & =\mathbb {1}, & \sum _i(B’^i)^\dagger B’^i & =\mathbb {1}, \notag \end{align}

together with irreducibility of both \(A'\) and \(B'\). These identities complete the common trace-preserving gauge data.

Definition G.5.3 Construction of the common trace-preserving gauge
✓

Let \(D{\gt}0\). If \(A\) is injective, \(uu^\dagger =\mathbb {1}_d\), and \(\mathcal{E}_A(\mathbb {1})=\mathbb {1}\), define the common trace-preserving gauge setup for \((A,u)\) by choosing the unique positive definite stationary state of the adjoint channel and using the data in Definition G.5.2.

Proof ▶

Injectivity makes \(\mathcal{E}_A\) irreducible. The adjoint channel therefore has a positive definite stationary state \(\sigma \). By Lemma G.4.3, \(A\) and \(B_u\) have the same transfer map, hence the same adjoint fixed point. Put \(S=\sigma ^{1/2}\). Positivity makes \(S\) invertible, and direct substitution gives

\begin{align} \sum _i(SA^iS^{-1})^\dagger (SA^iS^{-1}) & =\mathbb {1}, \\ \sum _i(SB_u^iS^{-1})^\dagger (SB_u^iS^{-1}) & =\mathbb {1}. \notag \end{align}

Similarity preserves irreducibility, so the two gauged families have all the asserted properties.

Theorem G.5.4 Twisted eigenvalues survive the common gauge
✓

If \(V\ne 0\) and \(\mathcal{E}_u(V)=\lambda V\), then \(\lambda \) is an eigenvalue of the mixed transfer map \(F_{A',B'}\) in any common trace-preserving gauge setup.

Proof ▶

By Lemma G.4.2, the original equation is \(F_{A,B_u}(V)=\lambda V\). Multiplying on the left and right by \(S\) and using \(S^\dagger =S\) gives

\begin{align} F_{A',B'}(SVS) & =\lambda SVS. \notag \end{align}

Since \(S\) is invertible, \(SVS\ne 0\).

G.6 Boundary and limit support

Lemma G.6.1 Spectral radius \({\lt}1\) forces virtual-boundary decay
✓

If \(\rho (\mathcal{E}_u) {\lt} 1\), then, as \(L \to \infty \), for all boundary matrices \(X,Y,\Lambda \in M_{D}(\mathbb {C})\) one has \(R_L(u;X,Y) \longrightarrow 0\).

Proof ▶

In finite dimension, \(\rho (\mathcal{E}_u) {\lt} 1\) implies \(\mathcal{E}_u^L \to 0\) in operator norm. Composing with the fixed trace pairing \(Z \mapsto \operatorname{tr}(\Lambda X Z)\) gives the stated scalar convergence.

G.7 Universality of virtual-boundary nondecay

For injective on-site symmetric tensors with canonical normalizations, virtual-boundary nondecay is invariant under symmetry-preserving equivalences.

Theorem G.7.1 Virtual-boundary nondecay agrees for two injective MPV-symmetric tensors
✓

If \(A\) and \(B\) are injective, both on-site symmetric under a unitary representation \(U\), and if \(\mathcal{E}_A(\mathbb {1})=\mathbb {1}\), \(\mathcal{E}_B(\mathbb {1})=\mathbb {1}\), \(\Lambda _A\) and \(\Lambda _B\) are positive definite, \(\operatorname{tr}(\Lambda _A)=1\), \(\operatorname{tr}(\Lambda _B)=1\), \(\mathcal{E}_A^\dagger (\Lambda _A)=\Lambda _A\), and \(\mathcal{E}_B^\dagger (\Lambda _B)=\Lambda _B\), then for every \(g \in G\), virtual-boundary nondecay holds for \(A\) with twist \(U(g)\) if and only if it holds for \(B\). In particular, since Definition 10.4.1 implies on-site symmetry for both tensors, this theorem applies to tensors in the same SPT phase; it applies equally to symmetric tensors in different SPT phases.

Proof ▶

Both directions follow from Theorem 10.4.35, which shows that virtual-boundary nondecay holds universally for injective symmetric tensors with canonical normalisations.