AG-2026.01-968·cond-mat.str-el·cross-listed: cond-mat.quant-gashep-th
When does a lattice higher-form symmetry flow to a topological higher-form symmetry at low energies?
Authors
- Ruizhi Liu
- Pok Man Tam
- Ho Tat Lam
- Liujun Zou
Abstract
We study the lattice version of higher-form symmetries on tensor-product Hilbert spaces. Interestingly, at low energies, these symmetries may not flow to the topological higher-form symmetries familiar from relativistic quantum field theories, but instead to non-topological higher-form symmetries. We present concrete lattice models exhibiting this phenomenon. One particular model is an $\mathbb{R}$ generalization of the Kitaev honeycomb model featuring an $\mathbb{R}$ lattice 1-form symmetry. We show that its low-energy effective field theory is a gapless, non-relativistic theory with a non-topological $\mathbb{R}$ 1-form symmetry. In both the lattice model and the effective field theory, we demonstrate that the non-topological $\mathbb{R}$ 1-form symmetry is not robust against local perturbations. In contrast, we also study various modifications of the toric code and their low-energy effective field theories to demonstrate that the compact $\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice 1-form symmetry does become topological at low energies unless the Hamiltonian is fine-tuned. Along the way, we clarify the rules for constructing low-energy effective field theories in the presence of multiple superselection sectors. Finally, we argue on general grounds that non-compact higher-form symmetries (such as $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{Z}$ 1-form symmetries) in lattice systems generically remain non-topological at low energies, whereas compact higher-form symmetries (such as $\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ and $U(1)$ 1-form symmetries) generically become topological.
Submitted
28 January 20262 months ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2601.20935
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.