Abstract
The area law for entanglement provides one of the most important connections between information theory and quantum manybody physics. It is not only related to the universality of quantum phases, but also to efficient numerical simulations in the ground state. Various numerical observations have led to a strong belief that the area law is true for every noncritical phase in shortrange interacting systems. However, the area law for longrange interacting systems is still elusive, as the longrange interaction results in correlation patterns similar to those in critical phases. Here, we show that for generic noncritical onedimensional ground states with locally bounded Hamiltonians, the area law robustly holds without any corrections, even under longrange interactions. Our result guarantees an efficient description of ground states by the matrixproduct state in experimentally relevant longrange systems, which justifies the densitymatrix renormalization algorithm.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The quantum entanglement plays a crucial role in characterizing the lowtemperature physics of quantum manybody systems in terms of quantum information science. It is often measured by the quantum entanglement entropy between two subsystems, and its scaling is deeply related to the universality of the ground state^{1,2}. When the interactions in quantum manybody systems are local, the quantum correlation is typically expected to be short range. This intuition leads to the conjecture that the entanglement entropy naturally scales as the boundary area of the subregion. This arealaw conjecture is numerically verified in various quantum manybody systems, and is expected to be true in all gapped ground states (i.e., in noncritical phases)^{3}.
In onedimensional (1D) systems, for an arbitrary decomposition of the total system, the area law for a ground state is simply stated as follows (Fig. 1):
where the ground state is denoted as \(\left0\right\rangle\) and S(ρ_{L}) is the von Neumann entropy, namely \(S({\rho }_{L})\,=\,{\rm{tr}}({\rho }_{L}\mathrm{log}\,{\rho }_{L})\). Over the past dozen years or so, the arealaw conjecture has attracted much attention, as it characterizes the universal structure of manybody physics in simple and beautiful ways^{3}. However, providing detailed proof of the area law is still an extremely challenging problem. So far, the proof of this law is limited to gapped 1D systems^{4,5,6,7}, 1D quantum states with finite correlation lengths^{8,9}, gapped harmonic lattice systems^{10,11}, treegraph systems^{12}, and highdimensional systems with specific assumptions^{13,14,15,16,17} (see ref. ^{3} for a comprehensive review). The area law is the backbone of the densitymatrix renormalization algorithm^{18}, as it implicitly assumes the arealaw structure of the ground states. The results pertaining to the 1D area law^{4,6} rigorously justify the efficient description of the ground states using the matrixproduct state (MPS), which facilitates the calculation of the ground states by the classical polynomialtime algorithm^{7,19}. Finally, in the characterization of ground states, complete classification of 1D quantum phases has been achieved under the MPS ansatz^{20}.
Recent experimental advances have enabled the finetuning of the interactions between particles^{21,22,23,24}. These advances push the longrange interacting systems from the theoretical playground to the field relevant to practical applications. One of the examples of controllable 1D longrange interacting spin systems is the following longrange transverse Ising model:
with {σ^{x}, σ^{y}, σ^{z}} as the Pauli matrices, where r_{i,j} is the distance between the two sites i and j, and the exponent is tunable from α = 0 to α = 3^{22,24} (also α = 6 by vanderWaals interactions^{25,26}). In theoretical studies, new types of quantum phases induced by longrange interactions have been reported in the transverse Ising model^{27,28}, the Kitaev chain^{29,30}, the XXZ model^{31}, the Heisenberg model^{32,33}, as well as other models. Typically, nontrivial quantum phases are induced by longrange interactions with power exponents smaller than three (α ≤ 3). For α > 3, the universality class is the same as that of shortrange interacting systems^{34,35} (i.e., α = ∞). This means that the regime of α ≤ 3 is essentially important to the discussion of the area law in longrange interacting systems.
We can now turn to the question of whether the area law of the entanglement entropy (1) is still satisfied in the presence of longrange interactions. Typically, longrange interacting systems show a powerlaw decay of the correlations even in noncritical ground states^{27,29}; this property is similar to critical ground states in shortrange interacting systems. To date, it has been a challenge, both numerically and theoretically, to identify the regime of α to justify the area law. Although several numerical studies suggest that the area law holds for shortrange regimes (i.e., α > 3), the possibility of a sublogarithmic violation to the standard area law (1) has also been indicated for α ≤ 3^{27}. On the other hand, most theoretical analyses regarding the area law rely on the strict locality of the interactions, and cannot be directly applied to the powerlaw decay of interactions even for sufficiently large α values.
One of the natural routes to prove the area law under longrange interactions is to connect the entanglement entropy to the powerlaw decay of the bipartite correlation by extending the arealaw proof from exponential clustering^{8,9}. However, such a connection cannot be generalized because of the existence of strange quantum states^{36} that have arbitrarily large entanglement entropy values while maintaining a correlation length of order \({\mathcal{O}}[\mathrm{log}\,(n)]\) (i.e., corresponding to α = ∞). The other route relies on assuming the existence of the quasiadiabatic path^{37} to a trivial ground state satisfying the area law. Using the smallincrementalentangling theorem, this assumption ensures the area law in generic gapped shortrange interacting systems^{38}. However, regarding 1D longrange interacting systems, the area law has been proved only for shortrange regimes α > 4 even under this strong assumption^{39}.
Based on the above discussion, we report a general theorem on the area law in 1D longrange interacting systems in this work. It applies to generic 1D gapped systems with α > 2 and ensures a constantbounded entanglement entropy even in longrange regimes (α ≤ 3) in which nontrivial quantum phases appear owing to their longrange nature. We provide an outline of the proof in the “Methods” section.
Results
Main statement on the area law
We consider a 1D system with n sites, each of which has a ddimensional Hilbert space. We focus on the Hamiltonian H with powerlaw decaying interactions
with \(\parallel {h}_{i,j}\parallel \le J/{r}_{i,j}^{\alpha }\) and ∥h_{i}∥ ≤ B for ∀i, j, where \({\{{h}_{i,j}\}}_{i\,{<}\,j}\) are the bipartite interaction operators, \({\{{h}_{i}\}}_{i\,=\,1}^{n}\) are the local potentials, and J and B are constants of \({\mathcal{O}}(1)\). One typical example is given by the longrange Ising model, shown in Eq. (2), where d = 2, \({h}_{i,j}={J}_{i,j}{\sigma }_{i}^{x}{\sigma }_{j}^{x}/{r}_{i,j}^{\alpha }\) and \({h}_{i}=B{\sigma }_{i}^{z}\). As long as the local energy is finitely bounded, our result can also be extended to fermionic and bosonic systems (e.g., hardcore bosons). For simplicity, we here restrict ourselves to twobody interactions, but our results are generalized to generic kbody interactions with \(k={\mathcal{O}}(1)\). We consider the entanglement entropy of the ground state \(\left0\right\rangle\) in terms of the spectral gap Δ just above the groundstate energy. We assume that the ground state is not degenerate.
We now discuss our main theorem. We define the interaction between two concatenated subsystems X and Y as follows (Fig. 2):
It simply selects all the interaction terms \(\{h_{i,j}\}_{\!i< j}\) between two sites in X and Y. Here, we assume the existence of a constant g_{0} ≥ 1 such that
for arbitrary choices of X and Y, separated by a distance r. Under condition (5), the entanglement entropy S(ρ_{L}) is bounded from above by
for arbitrary choices of L and R, where \({\mathcal{G}}(x):={x}^{1\,+\,2/\bar{\alpha }}{\mathrm{log}\,}^{3\,+\,3/\bar{\alpha }}(x)\) and c is a constant that depends on α, J, B, \(\bar{\alpha }\), and g_{0}. When the local dimension d and the spectral gap Δ are independent of the system size n, the above inequality results in a constant upper bound for the entanglement entropy. Our arealaw result can also be applied to quasi1D systems (e.g., ladder systems) by appropriately choosing the local dimension d.
Why does the area law hold for α > 2?
We here show a physical intuition behind our long area law (6). Naively, the area law might be derived from the powerlaw decay of the bipartite correlations^{40}. However, this behavior of the correlation functions is also observed in critical ground states, where the area law is usually known to be violated^{1,2}. Moreover, as has been mentioned, the entanglement entropy can obey the volume law for a quantum state with superpolynomially decaying correlations^{36}. At first glance, these points are contradictory to our results. In order to resolve this, we need to focus on the fact that the gap condition imposes much stronger restrictions on the entanglement structure of the ground states than the decay of bipartite correlations (see refs. ^{41,42} for example). Our proof approach fully utilizes the gap condition. This point is reflected to the approximation of the ground state using a polynomial of the Hamiltonian, where the approximation error increases as the spectral gap shrinks (see Claim 3 in the “Methods” section).
We also mention why the condition α > 2 is a natural condition for the longrange area law. If the exponent α is small enough such that condition (5) breaks down, the norm of the boundary interaction along a cut (i.e., V_{X,Y} with X = L and Y = R) diverges in the thermodynamic limit (n → ∞). Then, the system energy possesses a highdimensional character, and hence its 1D character should be lost.
In order to study this point in more detail, let us consider the area law for thermal equilibrium states, namely ρ = e^{−βH}/tr(e^{−βH}). A natural extension of the ground state’s area law is to consider the mutual information I_{ρ}(L: R): = S(ρ_{L}) + S(ρ_{R}) − S(ρ). Note that the mutual information is equal to the entanglement entropy in the limit of β → ∞. At arbitrary temperatures, ref. ^{43} has provided the upper bound of I_{ρ}(L: R) ≤ 2β∥V_{L,R}∥ (see also ref. ^{44}), which becomes a constant upper bound (i.e., the area law) if \(\parallel {V}_{L,R}\parallel ={\mathcal{O}}(1)\). On the other hand, the area law may collapse for α ≤ 2, where the norm of V_{L,R} can diverge to infinity in the thermodynamic limit. It is natural to expect that the condition for the area law in the thermal state should be looser than that in the ground state. This intuition indicates that the condition of α > 2 should be, at least, a necessary condition for the area law of the entanglement entropy in the ground state. We have actually proved that α > 2 is the sufficient condition. We thus believe that our condition of α > 2 is already optimal (see also the “Discussion” section below).
Several remarks on the area law
There are several remarks pertaining to the above arealaw results. First, in the shortrange limit (i.e., \(\bar{\alpha }\to \infty\)), our arealaw bound reduces to the following upper bound:
This upper bound reproduces the stateoftheart bound in shortrange interacting systems^{6,7}. This implies that our result provides a natural generalization from the short to the longrange area law.
Second, assumption (5) is always satisfied for α > 2 because of \(\bar{\alpha }\ge \alpha 2\) (see the “Methods” section). This condition covers important classes of longrange interactions such as van der Waals interactions (α = 6) and dipole–dipole interactions (α = 3). The condition α > 2 is the most general sufficient condition for inequality (5) to be satisfied. Hence, when considering special classes of Hamiltonians, this condition can be relaxed. As one such example, we consider fermionic systems with longrange hopping as follows:
where \({\{{a}_{i}^{\dagger },{a}_{i}\}}_{i=1}^{n}\) are the creation and the annihilation operators for the fermion, and V is composed of arbitrary finiterange interaction terms such as \({a}_{i}{a}_{i}^{\dagger }{a}_{j}{a}_{j}^{\dagger }\) with \({r}_{i,j}={\mathcal{O}}(1)\). In the above cases, we can prove that for α > 3/2, condition (5) is satisfied (see Lemma 2 in Supplementary Note 1). For V = 0, this model is integrable and exactly solvable. For example, the Kitaev chain with longrange hopping corresponds to this class. Interestingly, in the longrange Kitaev chain, the point α_{c} = 3/2 is linked to a phase transition resulting from conformalsymmetry breaking^{29}.
Finally, we mention the relevance to experimental observations regarding the longrange area law. Recent advances in experimental setups have achieved direct observation of the secondorder Rényi entropy^{45}. The secondorder Rényi entropy for a subsystem L (as in Fig. 1) is defined as \({S}_{2}({\rho }_{L}):={\mathrm{log}}\,[{\rm{t}}r({\rho }_{L}^{2})]\), and S_{2}(ρ_{L}) provides a lower bound for the entanglement entropy S(ρ_{L}) in Eq. (1). Hence, we can obtain the same arealaw bound as (6) for S_{2}(ρ_{L}). Recently, the measurement of Rényi entropy was reported^{46} in longrange XY models with tunable power exponents 0 < α < 3. We expect that our arealaw bound would support the outcome of experimental observations regarding entanglement entropy of ground states.
Matrixproductstate approximation
Based on our analysis, we can also determine the efficiency of the approximation of ground states \(\left0\right\rangle\) in terms of the matrixproduct representation. We approximate the exact ground state \(\left0\right\rangle\) using the following quantum state \(\left{\psi }_{D}\right\rangle\):
where each of the matrices \({\{{A}_{i}^{[{s}_{i}]}\}}_{i,{s}_{i}}\) is described by the D × D matrix. We refer to the matrix size D as the bond dimension. This MPS has entanglement entropy less than \(\mathrm{log}\,D\) for an arbitrary cut of the system. Although arbitrary quantum states can be described by the MPS, generic quantum states require exponentially large bond dimensions, namely \(D=\exp [{\mathcal{O}}(n)]\)^{18}. If a quantum state is well approximated by the MPS with small bond dimensions, we can efficiently calculate the expectation values of local observables (e.g., energy).
The MPS is the basic ansatz for various types of variational methods (e.g., the densitymatrix renormalization group^{18}), and it is crucial to determine whether ground states can be well approximated by the MPS with a small bond dimension. On the MPS representation of the ground state \(\left0\right\rangle\), we prove the following statement: if condition (5) is satisfied and the spectral gap is nonvanishing, there exists an MPS \(\left{\psi }_{D}\right\rangle\) with bond dimensions \(D=\exp [c^{\prime} {\bar{\alpha }}^{1}{\mathrm{log}\,}^{5/2}(1/\delta )]\) [\(c^{\prime}\): constant, \(\bar{\alpha }={\mathcal{O}}(1)\)] such that
for an arbitrary concatenated subregion X, where ∥ ⋅ ∥_{1} is the trace norm and ∣X∣ denotes the cardinality of X. We show the proof in the “Methods” section.
From approximation (8), to achieve an approximation error of δ = 1/poly(n), we need quasipolynomial bond dimensions, namely \(D=\exp [{\mathcal{O}}({\mathrm{log}\,}^{5/2}(n))]\). Our result justifies the MPS ansatz with small bond dimensions, obtained at a moderate computational cost. This in turn explains the empirical success of the densitymatrixrenormalizationgroup algorithm in longrange interacting systems^{27,29,33}. On the other hand, our estimation is still slightly weaker than polynomialsize bond dimensions \(D=\exp [{\mathcal{O}}({\mathrm{log}}\,(n))]\). This is in contrast to the shortrange interacting cases, where only sublinear bond dimensions \(D\,=\,\exp [{\mathcal{O}}({\mathrm{log}\,}^{3/4}(n))]\) are required to represent the gapped ground states using the MPS^{6}.
Discussion
We discuss several future research directions and open questions. First, could we find an explicit example that violates the entanglement area law for α ≤ 2 or for α ≤ 3/2 in free fermionic systems? So far, rigorous violations of the area law have been observed for α = 1 in gapped free fermionic systems^{47}. Moreover, at α ≈1, all existing arealaw violations are at most logarithmic, namely \(S({\rho }_{L})\,\lesssim\, {\mathrm{log}}\,( L )\). The existence of a natural longrange interacting gapped system where the entanglement entropy obeys the subvolume law as S(ρ_{L}) ≲ ∣L∣^{γ} (0 < γ < 1) is an intriguing issue. Conversely, it is also challenging to generalize our area law to the subvolumelaw bound for α ≤ 2. This regime is more relevant to highdimensional systems, and any entropic bound better than the volume law would be helpful in tackling the highdimensional arealaw conjecture.
Second, can we develop an efficiencyguaranteed algorithm to calculate the ground state under the gap condition? In inequality (8), we have proved the existence of an efficient MPS description of the ground state, but how to find such a description is not clear. In shortrange interacting systems, this problem has been extensively investigated in popular works by Vidick et al.^{7,19}. We expect that their formalism would be generalized to the present cases, and leads to a quasipolynomialtime algorithm for calculating ground states within a polynomial error 1/poly(n). Furthermore, we still have scope to improve the quasipolynomial bond dimension of \(\exp [{\mathcal{O}}({\mathrm{log}\,}^{5/2}(n))]\) to approximate the ground states. Whether this bound can be relaxed to a polynomial form of \(\exp [{\mathcal{O}}({\mathrm{log}}\,(n))]={\rm{poly}}(n)\) is a question that will be addressed in the future.
Methods
Derivation of \(\pmb{\bar{\alpha }\,\ge\,\alpha\,\,2}\)
We here show the proof of \(\bar{\alpha }\,\ge\,\alpha\,\,2\) for Hamiltonian (3). More general cases including fermionic systems are given in Supplementary Note 1. For the proof, we estimate the upper bound of
where we use the powerlaw decay of the interaction as \(\parallel {h}_{i,j}\parallel \le J/{r}_{i,j}^{\alpha }\). Let us define dist(X, Y) = r. Then, we obtain
where we use the fact that X and Y are concatenated subsets. For arbitrary integer \({r}_{0}\in {\mathbb{N}}\), we have
and hence
We thus prove that ∥V_{X,Y}∥ decays at least faster than r^{−α + 2}.
Proof sketch of the main result
We here show the sketch of the proof for arealaw inequality (6). The full proof is quite intricate, and we show the details in Supplementary Notes 2–4. In Fig. 3, we have summarized a flow of the discussions in this section.
For the proof, we take the approximategroundstateprojection (AGSP) approach^{5,6}. The AGSP operator K is roughly given by the operator that satisfies \(K\left0\right\rangle\,\simeq\,\left0\right\rangle\) and \(\parallel K(1\left0\right\rangle \left\langle 0\right)\parallel\,\simeq\,0\). The ground state \(\left0\right\rangle\) does not change by the AGSP K, while any excited state approximately vanishes by K. In more formal definitions, the AGSP is defined by three parameters δ_{K}, ϵ_{K}, and D_{K}. Let \(\left{0}_{K}\right\rangle\) be a quantum state that does not change by K, namely \(K\left{0}_{K}\right\rangle =\left{0}_{K}\right\rangle\). Then, the three parameters are defined by the following three inequalities:
where SR(K) is the Schmidt rank of K with respect to the given partition Λ = L ⊔ R. The essential point of this approach is that a good AGSP ensures the existence of a quantum state that has a small Schmidt rank and large overlap with the ground state. It is mathematically formulated by the following statement:
Claim 1
(Proposition 2 in Supplementary Note 2) Let K be an AGSP operator for \(\left0\right\rangle\) with the parameters (δ_{K}, ϵ_{K}, D_{K}). If we have \({\epsilon }_{K}^{2}{D}_{K}\le (1/2)\), there exists a quantum state \(\left\psi \right\rangle\) with \({\rm{SR}}(\left\psi \right\rangle )\,\le\,{D}_{{K}}\) such that
where \({\rm{SR}}(\left\psi \right\rangle )\) is the Schmidt rank of \(\left\psi \right\rangle\) with respect to the given partition.
From this statement, the primary problem reduces to one of finding a good AGSP to satisfy the condition \({\epsilon }_{K}^{2}{D}_{K}\le (1/2)\).
In the construction of the AGSP operator with the desired properties, we usually utilize a polynomial of the Hamiltonian. The obstacle here is that the longrange interactions induce an infinitely large Schmidt rank in the thermodynamic limit; that is, the Hamiltonian H has the Schmidt rank of poly(n). In order to avoid this, we truncate the longrange interactions of the Hamiltonian. If we truncate all the longrange interactions, the norm difference between the original Hamiltonian and the truncated one is on the order of \({\mathcal{O}}(n)\), and hence the spectral gap condition cannot be preserved. The first central idea in the proof is to truncate the longrange interaction only around the boundary (see Fig. 4). In more detail, we first decompose the total system into (q + 2) blocks with q an even integer. The edge blocks B_{0} and B_{q + 1} have arbitrary sizes, but the bulk blocks B_{1}, B_{2}, …, B_{q} have the size l (i.e., ∣B_{s}∣ = l). Then, we truncate all the interactions between nonadjacent blocks, which yields the Hamiltonian H_{t} as
where h_{s} is the internal interaction in the block B_{s}, and h_{s,s + 1} is the interaction between two blocks B_{s} and B_{s + 1}. By using notation (4), we have \({h}_{s,s\,+\,1}\,=\,{V}_{{B}_{s},{B}_{s\,+\,1}}\). In the Hamiltonian H_{t}, longrange interactions only around the boundary are truncated, and hence the norm difference between the original and the truncated Hamiltonian can be sufficiently small for large l.
Claim 2
(Lemmas 3 and 4 in Supplementary Note 2) The norm distance between H and H_{t} is bounded from above by
Also, the spectral gap Δ_{t} of H_{t} and the norm difference between \(\left0\right\rangle\) and \(\left{0}_{{\rm{t}}}\right\rangle\) are upperbounded by
where \(\left{0}_{{\rm{t}}}\right\rangle\) is the ground state of H_{t}.
From this statement, if \(q{l}^{\bar{\alpha }}\,\lesssim \,1\), the truncated Hamiltonian H_{t} possesses almost the same properties as the original one.
The second technical obstacle is the norm of the Hamiltonian. The gap condition provides us an efficient construction of the AGSP operator, which is expressed by the following statement:
Claim 3
(Lemma 11 in Supplementary Note 2) By using the Chebyshev polynomial, we can find a mdegree polynomial K(m, H_{t}) such that
where the explicit form of the polynomial K(m,x) is given in Supplemental Lemma 11.
We notice that the gap condition plays a crucial role in this claim. Here, the norm of ∥H_{t}∥ is as large as \({\mathcal{O}}(n)\), which necessitates the polynomial degree of \(m={\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{n})\). Polynomials with such a large degree cannot be utilized to prove the condition for the AGSP in Claim 1. To overcome this difficulty, we aim to construct an effective Hamiltonian with a small norm that retains the similar lowenergy properties to the original Hamiltonian. For this purpose, in each of the blocks, we cut off the energy spectrum up to some truncation energy (see Fig. 5). Then, the block–block interactions (i.e., h_{s,s + 1}) do not change, and the internal Hamiltonian h_{s} is transformed to \({\tilde{h}}_{s}\). By this energy cutoff, the total norm of the effective Hamiltonian \({\tilde{H}}_{{\rm{t}}}\) is roughly given by qτ. The question is whether this effective Hamiltonian possesses the groundstate property similar to H. By extending the original result in ref. ^{48}, which considers a cutoff in a Hamiltonian of one region, we prove the statement as follows:
Claim 4
(Theorem 5 in Supplementary Note 2) Let us choose τ such that
Then, the spectral gap \({\tilde{\Delta}}_{{\rm{t}}}\) of the effective Hamiltonian is preserved as
Moreover, the norm distance between the original ground state \(\left{0}_{{\rm{t}}}\right\rangle\) and the effective one \(\left{\tilde{0}}_{{\rm{t}}}\right\rangle\) is exponentially small with respect to the cutoff energy τ:
As long as τ is larger than \({\mathcal{O}}({\rm{log}}(q))\), the spectral gap is preserved, and the norm of the effective Hamiltonian is as large as \(q\,\mathrm{log}\,(q)\), namely \(\parallel {\tilde{H}}_{{\rm{t}}}\parallel \lesssim \;q\,\mathrm{log}\,(q)\). In the standard construction of the effective Hamiltonian^{6,48}, we perform the energy cutoff only in the edge blocks (i.e., B_{0} and B_{q+1}). However, this simple procedure allows us to prove the longrange area law only in the shortrange powerexponent regimes (i.e., α > 3). The multienergy cutoff is crucial to prove the area law even in the longrange powerexponent regimes (i.e., 2 < α ≤ 3).
By using the polynomial K(m,x) in (11) with \(x={\tilde{H}}_{{\rm{t}}}\), we can obtain the AGSP operator K_{t} for the ground state \(\left{0}_{{\rm{t}}}\right\rangle\) of H_{t}. Before showing the AGSP parameter for K_{t}, we discuss the Schmidt rank of the polynomial of the Hamiltonian. Now, the effective Hamiltonian \({\tilde{H}}_{{\rm{t}}}\) is given by the form of \(\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{s\,=\,0}^{q\,+\,1}{\tilde{h}}_{s}+\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{s\,=\,0}^{q}{h}_{s,s\,+\,1}\). By extending the Schmidt rank estimation in refs. ^{5,6}, we can derive the following statement:
Claim 5
(Proposition 4 in Supplementary Note 2) The Schmidt rank of the power of the effective Hamiltonian \({\rm{SR}}({H}_{{\rm{t}}}^{m})\) is bounded from above by
This inequality gives the upper bound of the Schmidt rank for \({K}(m,{\tilde{H}}_{{\rm{t}}})\).
We have obtained all the ingredients to estimate the parameters \({\delta }_{{K}_{{\rm{t}}}}\), \({\epsilon }_{{K}_{{\rm{t}}}}\), and \({D}_{{K}_{{\rm{t}}}}\) for the AGSP \({K}_{{\rm{t}}}={K}(m,{\tilde{H}}_{{\rm{t}}})\). They are given by Claim 4, inequality (11), and Claim 5 as follows:
where we omit the \(\bar{\alpha }\)dependence of the parameters. Let us apply Claim 1 to the AGSP K_{t} and the ground state \(\left{0}_{{\rm{t}}}\right\rangle\). Under the condition of \(q{l}^{\bar{\alpha }}\,\lesssim\, 1\), we can find q, m, and l such that \({\epsilon }_{{K}_{{\rm{t}}}}^{2}{D}_{{K}_{{\rm{t}}}}\le (1/2)\), where {q, m, l} have quantities of \({\mathcal{O}}(1)\). This leads to the following statement:
Claim 6
(Proposition 6 in Supplementary Note 3) There exists a quantum state \(\left\phi \right\rangle\) such that \(\parallel \left0\right\rangle \left\phi \right\rangle \parallel \le 1/2\) with
where c* is a constant that depends only on g_{0} and \(\bar{\alpha }\), which is finite in the limit of \(\bar{\alpha }\to \infty\).
Finally, we construct a set of the AGSP operators \({\{{K}_{p}\}}_{p\,=\,1}^{\infty }\) for the ground state \(\left0\right\rangle\), where the AGSP parameters are denoted by δ_{p}, ϵ_{p}, and D_{p}. The errors ϵ_{p} and δ_{p} decrease with the index p, namely ϵ_{1} ≥ ϵ_{2} ≥ ⋯ and δ_{1} ≥ δ_{2} ≥ ⋯ . In the limit of p → ∞, the AGSP K_{p} approaches the exact groundstate projection as \({K}_{\infty }=\left0\right\rangle \left\langle 0\right\), namely \({\mathrm{lim}\,}_{p\to \infty }{\delta }_{p}=0\) and \({\mathrm{lim}\,}_{p\to \infty }{\epsilon }_{p}=0\). These AGSP operators allow the derivation of an upper bound of the entanglement entropy, as well as the approximation of the ground state by quantum states with small Schmidt ranks.
Claim 7
(Proposition 3 in Supplementary Note 2) Let \(\left\phi \right\rangle\) be an arbitrary quantum state with \(\parallel \left0\right\rangle \left\phi \right\rangle \parallel \le 1/2\). Also, let \({\{{K}_{p}\}}_{p\,=\,1}^{\infty }\) be AGSP operators defined as above. Then, we prove for each of \({\{{K}_{p}\}}_{p\,=\,1}^{\infty }\)
where the phase \({\theta }_{p}\in {\mathbb{R}}\) is appropriately chosen. Moreover, under the condition γ_{p} ≤ 1 for all p, the entanglement entropy is bounded from above by
where we set γ_{0} := 1.
In Proposition 7 of Supplementary Note 3, we show a construction of the AGSP set \({\{{K}_{p}\}}_{p\,=\,1}^{\infty }\) such that \({\gamma }_{p}^{2}=1/{p}^{2}\) and
where c_{1} and c_{2} are constants that depend on g_{0}. We have obtained the quantum state \(\left\phi \right\rangle\) with the Schmidt rank as in (13), and hence from Claim 7, the above AGSP operators give the upper bound of the entanglement entropy in (6). This completes the proof of the area law in longrange interacting systems. □
MPS approximation of the ground state
We here prove inequality (8). For simplicity, let us consider X to be the total system (i.e., X = Λ). Generalization to X ⊂ Λ is straightforward. Our proof relies on the following statement:
Claim 8
(Lemma 1 in ref. ^{49}) Let \(\left\psi \right\rangle\) be an arbitrary quantum state. We define the Schmidt decomposition between the subsets {1, 2, …, i} and {i + 1, i + 2, …, n}, as follows:
where \({\{{\mu }_{m}^{(i)}\}}_{m\,=\,1}^{\infty }\) are the Schmidt coefficients in the descending order. Then, there exists an MPS approximation \(\left{\psi }_{D}\right\rangle\) with the bond dimension D that approximates the quantum state \(\left\psi \right\rangle\) as
From this claim, if we can obtain the truncation error of the Schmidt rank, we can also derive the approximation error by the MPS.
In the following, we give the truncation error by using Claim 7. Let us consider a fixed decomposition as Λ = L ⊔ R. Then, Claim 7 ensures the existence of the approximation of the ground state \(\left0\right\rangle\) with the approximation error γ_{p}, which is achieved by the quantum state \({\psi }_{p}\rangle :={K}_{p}{e}^{i{\theta }_{p}}\phi \rangle /\parallel {K}_{p}\phi \rangle \parallel\) with its Schmidt rank of
where \(\left\phi \right\rangle\) has the Schmidt rank of (13) at most. We have already proved that for γ_{p} = 1/p^{2}, the quantity D_{p} is upperbounded by (14). Thus, for p ≥ (1/δ)^{1/4} or (γ_{p} ≤ δ^{1/2}), the Schmidt rank \(\mathrm{log}\,[{\rm{SR}}(\left{\psi }_{p}\right\rangle )]\) satisfies the following inequality:
for \(1/\Delta ={\mathcal{O}}(1)\) and sufficiently small δ ≪ 1, where we use the fact that \(\mathrm{log}\,[{\rm{SR}}(\left\phi \right\rangle )]\) is a constant of \({\mathcal{O}}(1)\).
In order to connect inequality (16) to the truncation error of the Schmidt decomposition, we use the following statement:
Claim 9
(Eckart–Young theorem^{50}) Let us consider a normalized state \(\left\psi \right\rangle\) as in Eq. (15). Then, for an arbitrary quantum state \(\left\psi ^{\prime} \right\rangle\), we have the inequality of \({\sum }_{m \,{> }\,{\rm{SR}}(\left\psi ^{\prime} \right\rangle )} {\mu }_{m}^{(i)}{ }^{2}\,\le\,\parallel \left\psi \right\rangle \left\psi ^{\prime} \right\rangle {\parallel }^{2}\), where the Schmidt rank \({\rm{SR}}(\left\psi ^{\prime} \right\rangle )\) is defined for the decomposition of {1, 2, …, i} and {i + 1, i + 2, …, n}.
In the above claim, we choose \(\left{0}\right\rangle, {\psi }_{p}\rangle\) as \(\left\psi \right\rangle, \left\psi ^{\prime} \right\rangle\), respectively, and obtain the inequality of
where we use \(\parallel {\psi }_{p}\rangle\,\,\left0\right\rangle \parallel\,\le\,{\gamma }_{p}\). By applying inequalities (16) and (17) to Claim 8, we can achieve
if \({\mathrm{log}}\,(D)\) is as large as \({\bar{\alpha }}^{1}{\mathrm{log}\,}^{5/2}(1/\delta )\) [\(\bar{\alpha }={\mathcal{O}}(1)\)]. This completes the proof. □
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this paper, as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
Vidal, G., Latorre, J. I., Rico, E. & Kitaev, A. Entanglement in quantum critical phenomena. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003).
Calabrese, P. & Cardy, John Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory. J. Stat. Mech. 2004, P06002 (2004).
Eisert, J., Cramer, M. & Plenio, M. B. Colloquium: area laws for the entanglement entropy. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277–306 (2010).
Hastings, M. B. An area law for onedimensional quantum systems. J. Stat. Mech. 2007, P08024–P08024 (2007a).
Arad, I., Landau, Z. & Vazirani, U. Improved onedimensional area law for frustrationfree systems. Phys. Rev. B 85, 195145 (2012).
Arad, I., Kitaev, A., Landau, Z. & Vazirani, U. An Area Law and Subexponential Algorithm For 1D Systems. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1162 (2013).
Arad, I., Landau, Z., Vazirani, U. & Vidick, T. Rigorous RG algorithms and area laws for low energy eigenstates in 1D. Commun. Math. Phys. 356, 65–105 (2017).
Fernando GSL, B. & Michał, H. An area law for entanglement from exponential decay of correlations. Nat. Phys. 9, 721 (2013).
Cho, J. Realistic arealaw bound on entanglement from exponentially decaying correlations. Phys. Rev. X 8, 031009 (2018).
Audenaert, K., Eisert, J., Plenio, M. B. & Werner, R. F. Entanglement properties of the harmonic chain. Phys. Rev. A 66, 042327 (2002).
Plenio, M. B., Eisert, J., Dreißig, J. & Cramer, M. Entropy, entanglement, and area: analytical results for harmonic lattice systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 060503 (2005).
Abrahamsen, N. A PolynomialTime Algorithm For Ground States of Spin Trees. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04862 (2019).
Lluís, M. Area law for the entropy of lowenergy states. Phys. Rev. A 80, 052104 (2009).
Fernando, G. S. L. B. & Cramer, Marcus Entanglement area law from specific heat capacity. Phys. Rev. B 92, 115134 (2015).
Hastings, M. B. Entropy and entanglement in quantum ground states. Phys. Rev. B 76, 035114 (2007b).
Cho, J. Sufficient condition for entanglement area laws in thermodynamically gapped spin systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 197204 (2014).
Anshu, A., Arad, I. & Gosset, D. Entanglement subvolume law for 2D frustrationfree spin systems. in Proc. 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2020) p. 868–874.
Ulrich, S. The densitymatrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states. Ann. Phys. 326, 96 – 192 (2011).
Landau, Z., Vazirani, U. & Vidick, T. A polynomial time algorithm for the ground state of onedimensional gapped local hamiltonians. Nat. Phys. 11, 566 (2015).
Chen, X., ZhengCheng, G. & Wen, X.G. Complete classification of onedimensional gapped quantum phases in interacting spin systems. Phys. Rev. B 84, 235128 (2011).
Richerme, P. et al. Nonlocal propagation of correlations in quantum systems with longrange interactions. Nature 511, 198 (2014).
Jurcevic, P. et al. Quasiparticle engineering and entanglement propagation in a quantum manybody system. Nature 511, 202 (2014).
Islam, R. et al. Emergence and frustration of magnetism with variablerange interactions in a quantum simulator. Science 340, 583–587 (2013).
Zhang, J. et al. Observation of a manybody dynamical phase transition with a 53qubit quantum simulator. Nature 551, 601 (2017).
Zeiher, J. et al. Coherent manybody spin dynamics in a longrange interacting ising chain. Phys. Rev. X 7, 041063 (2017).
Zeiher, J. et al. Manybody interferometry of a rydbergdressed spin lattice. Nat. Phys. 12, 1095–1099 (2016).
Koffel, T., Lewenstein, M. & Tagliacozzo, L. Entanglement entropy for the longrange ising chain in a transverse field. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 267203 (2012).
Fey, S. & Schmidt, K. P. Critical behavior of quantum magnets with longrange interactions in the thermodynamic limit. Phys. Rev. B 94, 075156 (2016).
Vodola, D., Lepori, L., Ercolessi, E., Gorshkov, A. V. & Pupillo, G. Kitaev chains with longrange pairing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 156402 (2014).
Lepori, L., Vodola, D., Pupillo, G., Gori, G. & Trombettoni, A. Effective theory and breakdown of conformal symmetry in a longrange quantum chain. Ann. Phys. 374, 35–66 (2016).
Maghrebi, M. F., Gong, Z.X. & Gorshkov, A. V. Continuous symmetry breaking in 1d longrange interacting quantum systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 023001 (2017).
Sandvik, A. W. Ground states of a frustrated quantum spin chain with longrange interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 137204 (2010).
Gong, Z.X. et al. Kaleidoscope of quantum phases in a longrange interacting spin1 chain. Phys. Rev. B 93, 205115 (2016).
Fisher, M. E., Ma, S.K. & Nickel, B. G. Critical exponents for longrange interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 917–920 (1972).
Dutta, A. & Bhattacharjee, J. K. Phase transitions in the quantum ising and rotor models with a longrange interaction. Phys. Rev. B 64, 184106 (2001).
Hastings, M. B. Random mera states and the tightness of the brandaohorodecki entropy bound. Quantum Inf. Comput. 16, 1228–1252 (2016).
Hastings, M. B. & Wen, X.G. Quasiadiabatic continuation of quantum states: the stability of topological groundstate degeneracy and emergent gauge invariance. Phys. Rev. B 72, 045141 (2005).
Van Acoleyen, K., Mariën, M. & Verstraete, F. Entanglement rates and area laws. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 170501 (2013).
Gong, Z.X., FossFeig, M., Fernando, G. S. L. B. & Gorshkov, A. V. Entanglement area laws for longrange interacting systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 050501 (2017).
Hastings, M. B. & Koma, T. Spectral gap and exponential decay of correlations. Commun. Math. Phys. 265, 781–804 (2006).
Kuwahara, T. Asymptotic behavior of macroscopic observables in generic spin systems. J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 053103 (2016).
Kuwahara, T., Arad, I., Amico, L. & Vedral, V. Local reversibility and entanglement structure of manybody ground states. Quantum Sci. Technol. 2, 015005 (2017).
Wolf, M. M., Verstraete, F., Hastings, M. B. & Cirac, J. I. Area laws in quantum systems: mutual information and correlations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 070502 (2008).
Kuwahara, T., Alhambra, A. M. & Anshu, A. Improved thermal area law and quasilinear time algorithm for quantum Gibbs states. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.11174 (2020).
Islam, R. et al. Measuring entanglement entropy in a quantum manybody system. Nature 528, 77 (2015).
Brydges, T. et al. Probing Rényi entanglement entropy via randomized measurements. Science 364, 260–263 (2019).
Eisert, J. & Osborne, T. J. General entanglement scaling laws from time evolution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 150404 (2006).
Arad, I., Kuwahara, T. & Landau, Z. Connecting global and local energy distributions in quantum spin models on a lattice. J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 033301 (2016).
Verstraete, F. & Cirac, J. I. Matrix product states represent ground states faithfully. Phys. Rev. B 73, 094423 (2006).
Eckart, C. & Young, G. The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Psychometrika 1, 211–218 (1936).
Acknowledgements
The work of T.K. was supported by the RIKEN Center for AIP and JSPS KAKENHI Grant no. 18K13475. K.S. was supported by JSPS GrantsinAid for Scientific Research (JP16H02211 and JP19H05603).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
T.K. and K.S. contributed to all aspects of this work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Communications thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kuwahara, T., Saito, K. Area law of noncritical ground states in 1D longrange interacting systems. Nat Commun 11, 4478 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4146702018055x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s4146702018055x
This article is cited by

Almost Surely Convergence of the Quantum Entropy of Random Graph States and the Area Law
International Journal of Theoretical Physics (2024)

Logarithmic, fractal and volumelaw entanglement in a Kitaev chain with longrange hopping and pairing
Journal of High Energy Physics (2023)

Entanglement spread area law in gapped ground states
Nature Physics (2022)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.