Abstract
Motivated by recent advances in fabricating artificial lattices in semiconductors and their promise for quantum simulation of topological materials, we study the onedimensional dimerized Fermi–Hubbard model. We show how the topological phases at halffilling can be characterized by a reduced Zak phase defined based on the reduced density matrix of each spin subsystem. Signatures of bulk–boundary correspondence are observed in the triplon excitation of the bulk and the edge states of uncoupled spins at the boundaries. At quarterfilling, we show that owing to the presence of the Hubbard interaction the system can undergo a transition to the topological ground state of the noninteracting Su–Schrieffer–Heeger model with the application of a moderatestrength external magnetic field. We propose a robust experimental realization with a chain of dopant atoms in silicon or gatedefined quantum dots in GaAs where the transition can be probed by measuring the tunneling current through the manybody state of the chain.
Introduction
Topological phases of matter are among the most exciting developments of modern condensed matter physics,^{1,2,3,4} owing to their rich phenomenology and wideranging potential applications from metrology^{5} to quantum computation.^{6} Many experimental platforms have been used to realize these exotic phases of matter such as cold atoms,^{7} photonic lattices,^{8,9} and engineered solidstate systems including graphene nanoribbons,^{10,11} arrays of carbon monoxide molecules,^{12,13} and chlorine monolayers^{14} on a copper surface. The band theory of topological insulators (TIs)^{15} based on the independentelectron approximation is well developed and has had many successes. However, in many of the possible experimental platforms for quantum simulation of TIs using electrons in solids, such as dopant atoms and gatedefined quantum dots in semiconductors,^{16,17} the electron–electron interaction is much stronger than the hopping amplitude of the electrons^{18,19} and therefore the independentelectron approximation is poor. Topological phases of strongly correlated models form a topic of ongoing active research with intense theoretical^{20} and experimental effort, including recent implementations in cold atoms^{21} and twodimensional materials.^{22} There have been various proposals for the equivalent of the singleparticle Berry phase (or Zak phase in one dimension) for the characterization of interacting topological phases, from the magneticfluxinduced Berry phase^{23,24} to Green’s functions^{25} and entanglement.^{26,27,28}
Here we discuss one of the simplest onedimensional (1D) models of strongly correlated TIs, the Su–Schrieffer–Heeger–Hubbard (SSHH) model, whose topological properties in various contexts have been investigated using the entanglement entropy,^{26,27} the entanglement spectrum,^{28} correlation functions,^{29} quench dynamics,^{30} and Berry phase.^{31} The SSHH model describes electrons hopping on a 1D superlattice with staggered hopping amplitudes but uniform local interaction. In this model, there exists a charge excitation gap at halffilling due to the onsite interaction (the Mott gap) and another gap at quarterfilling due to dimerization. This opens the possibility of realizing these fillings in experiments, for example by measuring transport while varying the chemical potential and looking for vanishing conductance when the chemical potential lies in the gaps.^{18} For this reason, we focus on these two fillings.
We introduce the concept of the reduced manybody Zak phase based on the reduced density matrix of a subsystem and show that this phase, rather than the normal manybody Zak phase of the full system, should be used for classifying the topological phases at halffilling. This phase jumps from 0 to π as the hopping amplitude difference between the even and odd sites changes sign. At halffilling, the usual bulk–edge correspondence is manifested in the topological phase transition: the closing and reopening of the eigenenergy gap at the transition point accompanies the appearance of uncorrelated edge states. This is evident in the triplonexcitation spectrum of the dimer chain. In contrast, at quarterfilling the edges remain correlated to the bulk for both signs of the hopping amplitude difference, because of the presence of a longrange antiferromagnetic (AFM) order. There is also no gap in the eigenenergy spectrum due to the presence of gapless spin excitations. So the quarterfilled state does not show the characteristics of a TI. However, we show that applying an external magnetic field leads to a transition to the topological ground state of the noninteracting Su–Schrieffer–Heeger (SSH) model. Importantly, the strong onsite interaction significantly reduces the critical field strength required for the transition. Thus our analysis paves the way for the observation of electronic 1D topological insulator states in nanofabricated semiconductor devices. We propose a device architecture for observing this transition in a 1D chain of dopant atoms or quantum dots. The transition can be probed by measuring the tunneling current through the edges of the chain, which we estimate using a manybody formulation for the conductance of coupled quantum dots.^{32,33,34}
Results
The SSHH model
The SSHH Hamiltonian is
where
and
H_{0} is the wellknown noninteracting SSH model^{35} of a particle hopping along a chain with staggered hopping amplitudes, t_{±} = 1 ± Δt, as shown in Fig. 1a, and V is the onsite interaction. Here \({c}_{j,\sigma }^{\dagger }\) denotes the creation operator for the particle at site j and spin σ. All energies in this paper are scaled by the mean value of the two hopping amplitudes.
We first describe briefly the topological phases of the SSH model given by H_{0}.^{36,37} For 1D periodic systems of independent particles, the Berry phase picked up during an adiabatic process when the particle moves across the Bloch states in the Brillouin zone, first discussed by Zak,^{38} is
where u_{k} is the periodic part of the Bloch wavefunction, k the crystal momentum, and d the length of the unit cell.
In a chain with open boundary conditions (OBC) the singleparticle eigenstates of this Hamiltonian consist of two distinct types: zeroenergy edge states that are localized at the left and right edges, and extended bulk states that avoid the edges. The energy spectrum of the bulk states under periodic boundary conditions (PBC) splits into two bands, \({E_\pm}(k)={\pm {[2(1+\Delta {t}^{2})+2(1\Delta {t}^{2})\cos (kd)]}^{1/2}}\). The bulk state wavefunction in PBC has the Bloch form
where \(\left\varnothing \right\rangle\) is the vacuum and the phase shift θ_{j}(k) = 0 for the odd sublattice and \( {E_\pm} (k) \exp [i{\theta }_{j}(k)]=2\cos (kd/2)+2i\Delta t\sin (kd/2)\) for the even sublattice. For the SSH model, the Zak phase is quantized, more specifically it can only be 0 or π depending on the sign of Δt.^{7,36,37} There is a topological phase transition from the trivial phase (Δt < 0), where there is no edge state, to the nontrivial phase (Δt > 0) where the edge states appear. The energy levels of the bulk states form two bands separated by a gap in both phases, and the energy levels of the edge states appear in the middle of the band gap in the nontrivial phase (see Fig. 1b). The trivial and the nontrivial phases are characterized by the Zak phase of 0 and π, respectively.^{36}
Charge excitation gap
With interaction the singleparticle picture is no longer valid, but insight into the topological phases can be gained from looking at the addition energy spectrum, also known as the charge excitation spectrum, E_{ad}(n) = E_{0}(n) − E_{0}(n − 1) where E_{0}(n) is the manybody ground energy for filling n. We use exact diagonalization based on the Lanczos algorithm for an open chain with N = 12 sites to compute the addition energy spectrum and show it in Fig. 2. In this paper, we set N = 12 in all the numerical computations for the correlated case. Features that survive in the thermodynamic limit are either obvious or stated explicitly. At U = 0, the addition energy spectrum reduces to the single particle spectrum of the SSH model with the zeroenergy edge state in the middle of the gap at halffilling. At large interaction, the Mott gap forms at halffilling separating the lower and upper Hubbard bands as expected of the Hubbard model. The spectrum has reflection symmetry through the middle point of the Mott gap due to the particle–hole symmetry. Interestingly, there are further gaps at onequarter and threequarterfillings, and in the nontrivial phase the edge states of the charge excitation cross to lie in these gaps (see Fig. 2a, d). A more detailed description of these edge states is given below in the discussion of the quarterfilled system. The formation of the quarterfilling gap is due to the combination of the onsite repulsion U and the hopping amplitude difference Δt and has been studied previously.^{39} Our numerical analysis shows that this gap is approximately Δt in the largeU limit.
The charge gap and the midgap edge state in the addition energy spectrum at quarterfilling can be explained analytically in the full dimerization limit where t_{−} = 0 and t_{+} > 0. The ground state energy level of each Hubbard dimer (coupled by t_{+}) when there is a single particle is the bonding state E_{1} = −t_{+}, while the ground state energy level of the same dimer with two particles is
The energy of a particle at the isolated edges is zero. As the particles are added into the chain, they first fill the dimer bonding states as they are lower in energy. When each dimer is filled with one particle, we reach the point of quarterfilling. Now if another particle is added to a dimer, the energy cost is ΔE = E_{2} − E_{1}, while if a particle is added to the edges the energy cost is zero. Hence, if ΔE > 0 the edges are filled first, otherwise the dimers get filled with two particles until the point of halffilling and only then the edges are filled. Thus the transition of the addition energy level of the edge states from halffilling to quarterfilling happens at the critical interaction U_{c} such that ΔE = 0, or U_{c} = 3t_{+}. It is obvious from the above discussion that the addition energy gap at quarterfilling is ΔE ≈ t_{+} in the strongly correlated limit where U ≫ t_{+}. We note that in the general case where neither hopping amplitude is zero the gaps at halffilling and quarterfilling remain in the thermodynamic limit.^{39} We provide further evidence by a finitesize scaling analysis of the gap in Supplementary Material.
The reduced manybody Zak phase
For correlated systems one can define a manybody Zak phase, first introduced as a measure of macroscopic polarization,^{40,41,42} from the ground state of H satisfying a twisted boundary condition
where L is the total length of the chain. Writing \({\Psi }_{\kappa }={e}^{i\kappa \sum _{j=1}^{n}{x}_{j}}{\Phi }_{\kappa }\) with n the number of particles, then Φ_{κ} is the ground state of \(H(\kappa )={e}^{i\kappa \sum _{j=1}^{n}{x}_{j}}H{e}^{i\kappa \sum _{j=1}^{n}{x}_{j}}\) that satisfies the periodic boundary condition in all coordinates x_{j}. It can be seen as the manybody analog of u_{k} in the noninteracting case. H(κ) is the Hamiltonian of a ring threaded with the magnetic flux κL,^{43} and can be obtained from H by the simple replacement \({t}_{j}\to {t}_{j}{e}^{i\kappa ({x}_{j+1}{x}_{j})}\). The manybody Zak phase is then defined as the adiabatic phase picked up by the manybody ground state when this magnetic flux is changed by one flux quantum
From Eq. (5), we see that Ψ_{−π∕L} = Ψ_{π∕L} since they satisfy the same antiperiodic boundary condition, hence the function Φ_{κ} at the initial and the end points are related by Φ_{π∕L} = WΦ_{−π∕L} where \(W={e}^{i(2\pi /L)\sum _{j=1}^{n}{x}_{j}}\). For numerical computation, κ is discretized in a grid of M points κ_{l} from −π∕L to π∕L, and it can be shown that ϕ is simply the phase of a complex number^{23}
This phase can be rewritten in terms of the density matrix \(\rho (\kappa )=\left{\Phi }_{\kappa }\right\rangle \left\langle {\Phi }_{\kappa }\right\) as
The SSHH Hamiltonian H has inversion symmetry, thus changing x_{j} to −x_{j} maps H(κ) to H(−κ). This implies that \(H(\kappa )={\mathcal{U}}H(\kappa ){{\mathcal{U}}}^{\dagger }\) where \({\mathcal{U}}\) is the unitary operator of inversion. As a result E(κ) = E(−κ), and \({\Phi }_{\kappa }={e}^{i{\alpha }_{\kappa }}{\mathcal{U}}{\Phi }_{\kappa }\), where α_{κ} is an arbitrary phase. It follows that \({\rho }_{\kappa }={\mathcal{U}}{\rho }_{\kappa }{{\mathcal{U}}}^{\dagger }\), and with a grid centered around κ = 0 such that κ_{l} = −κ_{M−l}, we have \({Z}^{* }={\rm{tr}}\left(\prod _{l=M1}^{1}\rho ({\kappa }_{l}){W}^{\dagger }\right)={\rm{tr}}\left(\prod _{l=1}^{M1}\rho ({\kappa }_{l}){{\mathcal{U}}}^{\dagger }{W}^{\dagger }{\mathcal{U}}\right)\). As the inversion operation transforms x_{j} to −x_{j}, we have \({{\mathcal{U}}}^{\dagger }{W}^{\dagger }{\mathcal{U}}=W\) and thus Z^{*} = Z, or Z is real, meaning the manybody Zak phase must be either 0 or π depending on whether Z is positive or negative.
The total particle number n is a good quantum number for the eigenstates of the SSHH Hamiltonian. We first study the halffilled spinful case (n = N). The ground state Φ(κ) of H(κ) is computed with PBC and the Zak phase is obtained using the discrete formula of Eq. (7). We carry out the computation for −0.5 ≤ Δt ≤ 0.5 to see whether there is a topological phase change when Δt changes sign as in the noninteracting SSH model and for 0 ≤ U ≤ 10 to study the effect of interaction. The phase is found to be 0 for all values of U and Δt, so it does not reveal any phase transition for either weak or strong interaction. This result is expected at zero interaction, as we then have two copies of the SSH model, one with spin up and the other with spin down. For each copy the Zak phase changes from 0 to π, and it is straightforward that the Zak phase of the joint state (given by a Slater determinant) is the sum of the individual phases, hence its values are 0 and 2π, which are equal since the phase is defined only modulo 2π. Our result shows that adding interaction does not alter the Zak phase.
For revealing the topological phase transition, we introduce the reduced Zak phase of a subsystem within a larger correlated system. It can be obtained from the reduced density matrix of that subsystem. The definition is a generalization of the discrete formula given in Eq. (8), with the density matrix of the total system replaced by the reduced density matrix of the subsystem, which we denote by A:
where ρ_{A} is the reduced density matrix obtained by the partial trace over the complement, \({\rho }_{A}(\kappa )={{\rm{tr}}}_{\bar{A}}\left({\rho }_{\kappa }\right)\), and \({W}_{A}={e}^{i(2\pi /L)\sum _{j\in A}{x}_{j}}\). For the specific case of the halffilled SSHH model, we look at the reduced Zak phases of the spinup and spindown subsystem. By symmetry, the two phases are equal. We find that both change from 0 to π when Δt changes sign for both weak and strong interaction, i.e., for all interaction strength in the interval [0, 10].
Bulkedge correspondence and triplon excitations
One of the most interesting aspect of topological band insulators is bulk–edge correspondence: The change of the Zak phase, which is a property of the eigenstates of the bulk, is accompanied by the appearance of localized edge states and signaled by the closing and reopening of the bulk band gap in the excitation energy spectrum, as demonstrated for the noninteracting SSH model in Fig. 1. To investigate bulk–edge correspondence in the strongly correlated case at halffilling, we compute the excitation energy spectrum of an open chain for U = 10 in Fig. 3. In our calculations, we classify states according to the spin projection, \({S}_{z}=(1/2)\sum _{j}({n}_{j,\uparrow }{n}_{j,\downarrow })\), which commutes with the SSHH Hamiltonian. Owing to the symmetry between spin up and spin down, the states with S_{z} and −S_{z} have the same energy; the total spin S is also a good quantum number. In the trivial phase (Δt < 0), the ground state is nondegenerate and has S_{z} = 0 and S = 0. The energy gap closes at Δt = 0, at which point the lowest triplet excitation (S = 1, comprising the second lowest energy level with S_{z} = 0 and the two lowest energy levels with S_{z} = ±1) come down and become degenerate ground states in the nontrivial phase (Δt > 0). Thus the groundstate degeneracy χ changes to four across the topological phase transition.
When U ≫ t_{±}, the halffilled SSHH model is well approximated by the Heisenberg model of localized spin1/2 particles with alternating exchange interaction \({J_{\pm }}=4{t_{\pm }^{2}/U}\).^{44} For Δt far from zero, we find that, in the ground state, each dimer consisting of two sites coupled by the stronger exchange interaction, J_{>}, is in a singlet state and is uncorrelated from the other dimers. The excitation gap between the adjacent bands of states in Fig. 3a is due to the excitation to the triplet states of these dimers. This triplon excitation gap is hence approximately J_{>}, and the nth excited band has n triplons.
In the nontrivial phase (Δt > 0), the two edge spins at the two ends of the chain are decoupled from the dimers, and they can be in either a singlet state \(\left{S}_{0}\right\rangle =\left(\left\uparrow \downarrow \right\rangle \left\downarrow \uparrow \right\rangle \right)/\sqrt{2}\) or one of the three triplet states \(\left{T}_{0}\right\rangle =\left(\left\uparrow \downarrow \right\rangle +\left\downarrow \uparrow \right\rangle \right)/\sqrt{2}\), \(\left{T}_{+}\right\rangle =\left\uparrow \uparrow \right\rangle\), \(\left{T}_{}\right\rangle =\left\downarrow \downarrow \right\rangle\), all having zero energy. This explains the fourfold degeneracy of the ground state in the nontrivial phase. More specifically, at Δ = 0.5 and U = 10, our numerical calculation shows that the reduced density matrices of the two edges in the four ground states have around 99% overlap with the singlet and the triplet states, that is, \(\left\langle {\phi }_{j}\right{\rho }_{j}^{{\rm{edges}}}\left{\phi }_{j}\right\rangle \approx 0.99\) for j = 1, …, 4 where \(\left{\phi }_{j}\right\rangle\) are \(\left{S}_{0}\right\rangle ,\left{T}_{0}\right\rangle\), and \(\left{T_{\pm }}\right\rangle\).
The reduced density matrix of each strongly coupled dimer in the bulk at both Δt = ±0.5 satisfies \(\left\langle {S}_{0}\right{\rho }^{{\rm{dimer}}}\left{S}_{0}\right\rangle \approx 0.92\). Despite the significant nonvanishing value of the coupling J_{<}, the dimers are almost totally uncorrelated with each other and the edges. This is due to monogamy of entanglement: Since each spin in a dimer is maximally entangled with its partner in the singlet state, it must be unentangled from any other spin.^{45}
The decoupled dimer picture is further confirmed by the spin correlation \(\left\langle {S}_{z,j}{S}_{z,k}\right\rangle\) in the ground state with S_{z} = 0, as shown in Fig. 3d. In the nontrivial phase, the two spins in the dimer are perfectly anticorrelated with each other but uncorrelated with other spins, and the edge spins at the two ends are free. The spin correlation in the trivial phase is the same but without the two free ends (see Fig. 3f), since there is no weakly coupled edges in this case. A longrange AFM order develops near Δt = 0 as expected for a 1D Hubbard model^{46} (see Fig. 3e).
In the noninteracting regime, the edge states are identified by the localization of a singleparticle state at the edges, while in the strongly correlated regime we have an effective spin model and the edge states are identified as uncorrelated spins. In order to identify the edge states at arbitrary interaction, we calculate the von Neumann entropy of the entanglement^{47} between the two ends of the chain and the rest in Fig. 3c. The formation of the edge states is indicated by the sharp drop in entanglement since these states are uncorrelated from the rest. Figure 3c shows a clear transition line where the edge states are formed, and the transition to the edge phase is more abrupt at large U. At U = 0, the transition point is not at Δt = 0 as expected for the SSH model owing to finitesize effects; we expect the transition point would become closer to Δt = 0 with increasing system size (see Supplementary Material).
Figure 3b shows the eigenenergy spectrum in the nontrivial phase as the onsite interaction changes from weak to strong. At U = 0, the ground state degeneracy is χ = 6 since in addition to the one singlet state and three triplet states the edges have two more degenerate ionic states where two electrons occupy the same edge, i.e. \(\left\uparrow \downarrow ,\varnothing \right\rangle\) and \(\left\varnothing ,\uparrow \downarrow \right\rangle\). For U > 0, the energy of these ionic states is lifted owing to the onsite repulsion, thus reducing the groundstate degeneracy to χ = 4.
Persistent longrange AFM order at quarterfilling
Unlike the halffilled case, the quarterfilled system does not exhibit conventional bulk–edge correspondence; this is clear from the lack of a gap in the eigenenergy spectrum (see Fig 4a). Recall that while there exists a gap in the charge excitation spectrum at quarterfilling discussed earlier, the absence of an eigenenergy gap is due to gapless spin excitations.^{44} The picture of decoupled dimers each in a singlet state no longer applies: deep in both phases (Δt far from 0) each dimer is occupied by roughly a single electron, and in the nontrivial phase the two ends are shared by one electron (see Fig. 4b for illustration). In contrast to the isolated edge spins at halffilling, we find that the edges are strongly correlated with the dimers in the bulk through the spin degree of freedom, and there is longrange AFM order in both trivial and nontrivial phases. To show this, we again plot the spin correlation \(\left\langle {S}_{z,j}{S}_{z,k}\right\rangle\), however, now with a different definition for the “sites” j and k: in the nontrivial phase we denote the first value j, k = 1 and the last value j, k = N∕2 + 1, for the left and right edges, and each value in between, j, k = 2, . . ., N∕2, is assigned to a dimer in the bulk. A similar definition of effective sites is used in the trivial phase but without the edges. The spin correlation between the edges and the bulk dimers in the nontrivial phase is shown in Fig. 4c; longrange AFM order is visible. The spin correlation in the trivial phase is exactly the same but with the two edges removed as evident in Fig. 4e. Longrange AFM order persists in both phases and also at the point of the phase transition (see Fig. 4d). This persistent longrange AFM order is the reason why the entanglement between the two edges and the bulk shows no clear drop when Δt changes sign (see Fig. 5b and the discussion below).
Discussion
Magneticfieldinduced transition to SSH ground state
The absence of an eigenenergy gap and uncorrelated edge states suggests that the SSHH model at quarterfilling is not a TI. However, the ground state can undergo a transition to the topological ground state of the noninteracting SSH model if a magnetic field is applied, resulting in the total Hamiltonian \({H}_{1}=H({E}_{B}/2)\sum _{j}({n}_{j,\uparrow }{n}_{j,\downarrow })\) where E_{B} = gμ_{B}B and μ_{B} is the Bohr magneton and g the gfactor of electrons in the material. At a critical magnetic field, the ground state becomes the maximally ferromagnetic state with all of the electron spins aligned along the field axis (see Fig. 5a), and an energy gap is opened. Since there is no onsite interaction between particles with the same spin, this ground state must be the ground state of the noninteracting SSH model with N/2 electrons, and due to Pauli exclusion principle the highest energetic electron must occupy the midgap edge state shown in Fig. 1b. We find that the groundstate degeneracy at field strength larger than the critical value is χ = 2, agreeing with the fact that there are two degenerate edge states (left and right) in the SSH model. The transition to the SSH ground state is further confirmed in the entanglement entropy between the edges and the bulk in Fig. 5b. Without the field, the entanglement does not drop as Δt changes sign since the edges are correlated with the bulk through the persistent longrange AFM order at quarterfilling. At field strengths beyond the critical value, the entanglement drops sharply for Δt > 0 owing to the formation of the localized edge states in the nontrivial phase of the SSH model.
The magneticfieldinduced transition enables experimental realization of the SSH model in systems with local interactions. It is shown in Fig. 5c and more clearly in Fig. 5d, right panel, that the critical magnetic field reduces dramatically with increasing onsite interaction, meaning it is easier to realize the SSH model if the local interaction is stronger. For reaching the maximally ferromagnetic state, the last spindown particle needs to be pumped to the next unoccupied singleparticle energy level shown in Fig. 1b. When there is strong onsite interaction, this spindown particle interacts strongly with the other particles with opposite spins, raising the energy, hence it costs less energy to pump this spindown particle to a higher energy level, leading to a smaller required magnetic field.
Typical parameter values for dopant atoms in silicon and quantum dots in GaAs are \(\bar{t} \sim 1\) meV, \(U/\bar{t} \sim 10\), and assuming a gfactor of 2 our calculation gives a critical magnetic field of B_{c} ~ 2 T deep in the nontrivial phase at \(\Delta t/\bar{t}=0.5\), which is feasible. For electrons bounded to impurities or a quantum dot in a semiconductor host, the gfactor can deviate from the free electron value of 2,^{48} and the calculated critical field need to be rescaled. As long as the deviation is not too large, the critical magnetic field remains in the realistic range. One sees from Fig. 5d that, without the strong onsite interaction, at U = 0 for example, the required magnetic field is around ten times larger and therefore may not be realistically attainable for larger hopping amplitude. This emphasizes the importance of interaction.
We note that the jump in the critical field as Δt changes sign in the U = 0 limit (see Fig. 5d, left panel) is due to the formation of the midgap edge state in the nontrivial phase of the SSH model. In the trivial phase, the last spindown particle needs to be pumped from the lowest energy to the highest energy in the lower bulk band of Fig. 1b, while in the nontrivial phase it needs to be pumped to the midgap edge state, which is higher in energy; hence, a larger magnetic field is necessary.
Experimental realization with nanofabricated semiconductor devices
In the last section of the paper, we propose a device architecture for realizing the transition to the topological phase of the SSH model described above. With stateoftheart fabrication technology, it is possible to fabricate 1D chains of dopant atoms in silicon with scanning tunneling microscope (STM)^{49,50} or gatedefined quantum dots in GaAs,^{17} illustrated in Fig. 6a. Two leads, source and drain, are positioned close to one edge of the chain. Naturally there are potential barriers between these leads and the chain. Electrons from the source can tunnel through the barrier into the manybody state of the chain and then out to the drain. The A side gates are for tuning the onsite energy, and thus the chemical potential, by applying a voltage. The B side gates between the sites are for controlling the hopping amplitude (also commonly referred to as the “tunnel coupling” in these systems). A similar device without the source and the drain was fabricated for a chain of three quantum dots in ref. ^{17}.
We now show how a transport measurement of the proposed device can probe the transition to the SSH ground state at quarterfilling and also the transition between the trivial and nontrivial SSH topological phases. When the tunneling rate Γ of the electron from the source/drain to the nearest site is much smaller than the hopping amplitudes between the sites and kT, which is typical for dopant atoms and quantum dots, we are in the sequential tunneling regime.^{18,51} As the chemical potential is varied, each time it matches an addition energy (shown in Fig. 2), the electron in the lead has enough energy to tunnel into the manybody state of the chain and out to the other lead, resulting in a peak in the tunneling current (see Fig. 6b). Thus the set of peaks in the conductance spectrum maps the addition energy spectrum. The conductance in the linear response regime, applicable when the bias between the source and the drain is much smaller than the hopping amplitudes and kT, is computed with the Beenakker’s formula.^{18,32,33,34}
For the measurement using the source and drain on the left of Fig. 6a, the conductance peak at filling n is proportional to G_{0}D_{n} where G_{0} = e^{2}Γ∕(\(\hbar\)kT) and \({D}_{n}= \left\langle {\Psi }_{0}^{(n)} {c}_{1\uparrow }^{\dagger }+{c}_{1\downarrow }^{\dagger } {\Psi }_{0}^{(n1)}\right\rangle { }^{2}\) where \({\Psi }_{0}^{(n)}\) is the manybody ground state of the chain at filling n. D_{n} can be interpreted as the charge excitation density at the left edge at filling n. Figure 6b, top panel, shows the conductance spectrum in the strongly correlated case (U = 10) for both signs of Δt, revealing the lower and upper Hubbard bands, separated by the Mott gap, of the addition energy spectrum in Fig. 2. There is also evidence of the charge gap at quarterfilling in the lower band and three quarterfilling in the upper band. For Δt > 0, there is a sharp conductance peak in the middle of the quarterfilling gap due to the edge state of the charge excitation at this filling, which has a high density of charge excitation at the edges. The lower panel shows the conductance spectrum at an applied field strength just above the critical value of the transition to the SSH model. The midgap conductance peaks are much higher since in the SSH model the edge states are much more localized. Observing a sharp increase in the conductance peak at quarterfilling, as shown by our calculation in Fig. 5c, can serve as experimental evidence of the transition to the SSH model of topological insulators. And the appearance of this peak as Δt changes sign from negative to positive can be a probe of the topological phase transition.
As an example, we consider parameter values that are typical of phosphorous donors in silicon: Γ = 0.001 meV, \(\bar{t}=4\) meV, and U = 40 meV. The conductance peak at quarterfilling is then of the order of 10^{−6} S at 1 K, leading to a tunneling current of 0.1 nA at 0.1 mV bias, which is large enough for detection.
In the above, we discuss a relatively long chain of 12 sites so that the lower and upper Hubbard bands in the conductance spectrum appear dense, but finitesize signature of the edge state can be observed with a much smaller number of sites in experiments, as low as N = 4. For N = 4, the “bulk” consists of a single dimer in the nontrivial phase and each halfband either side of the quarterfilling gap in Fig. 6b has a single peak. It is better to have N = 6 so that each halfband has two close peaks and hence can be easily distinguished from the edgestate peak in the middle of the gap. These system sizes are feasible with current technology.
Robustness against disorders
Disorders in the onsite energy and hopping amplitude are unavoidable in real experiments. We investigate the effect of disorders by adding to the SSHH Hamiltonian the onsite energy term \({H}_{{\rm{onsite}}}=\sum _{j,\sigma =\uparrow \downarrow }{\epsilon }_{j}{n}_{j,\sigma }\), where each ϵ_{j} is chosen uniformly at random from a range [−δE, δE], and we add to each hopping amplitude, t_{j} = 1 + (−1)^{j}Δt, a variation chosen uniformly at random from a range [−δt, δt]. To study the robustness of the magneticfieldinduced topological phases above the critical field strength, we look at the distribution of the addition energy gap at quarter filling, the distribution of the critical magnetic field required, the signature of the edge state in the conductance spectrum, and the distribution of the manybody Zak phase.
We find that, in the presence of both onsite energy and hopping amplitude disorder, the topological phases are robust as long as δt + δE < ∣Δt∣. This is expected since the gap at quarterfilling in the fully spinpolarized regime is Δt, and the above condition makes sure that the gap is not closed by the disorder. Also, δt < ∣Δt∣ means that the weak–strong order between the odd and even hopping amplitudes is preserved, that is, the couplings within the bulk dimers are always stronger than those between them and with the edges. We show in Fig. 7 the numerical evidence for robustness when Δt = 0.5 and δt = δE = 0.5Δt. Note that only in this figure we choose to use absolute unit in meV for a more direct connection with experiments.
Figure 7a shows the distribution of the addition energy gap at quarter filling, which is E_{ad}(N∕2 + 1) − E_{ad}(N∕2) in the trivial phase, for B > B_{c}, compared with the distribution of an addition energy separation due to finitesize effect at a lower filling within the lower Hubbard band, E_{ad}(N∕2) − E_{ad}(N∕2 − 1). One sees that it is highly probable that the gap is much larger than the finitesize energy separations and thus can be identified in experiments. The critical magnetic field required for the transition to the noninteracting SSH limit varies within a realistic range, as demonstrated in Fig. 7b. The critical magnetic field can be reduced if one chooses a smaller hopping amplitude, but this will leave less room for disorder, hence there is a tradeoff. A typical conductance spectrum (for B > B_{c}) of the disordered system in Fig. 7c shows clearly the highrising edgestate peak in the nontrivial phase in the middle of the split Hubbard bands of the trivial phase, which can be used for identifying the topological phase transition. We see similar clear signatures in all the 20 random instances we generated for the conductance spectrum. The manybody Zak phase in the nontrivial phase for B > B_{c} also deviates very little from the ideal value of π.
Similar robustness behavior is observed for the cases of pure onsite energy disorder when δE < ∣Δt∣ and pure hopping amplitude disorder when δt < ∣Δt∣. The signatures of the topological phases are of course erased for very strong disorders, for example, when δt = δE = 2∣Δt∣ (see Supplementary Material). In a donor chain in silicon, the hopping amplitude oscillates rapidly with the donor separation due to the intervalley interference in the wavefunction. Even with a positional variation within a silicon unit cell, the hopping amplitude can drop to close to zero according to effective mass theory,^{18} thus it might be challenging to limit the hopping amplitude disorder to within the range [−∣Δt∣, ∣Δt∣]. This can be mitigated by fabricating interdonor side gates depicted as B in Fig. 6 for controlling the hopping amplitude. If acceptors are used instead, there is no hopping amplitude oscillation owing to the absence of intervalley interference,^{52} thus the B side gates are not needed, but the A side gates are still required for varying the chemical potential.
We also investigate the robustness against disorder of the topological phases at halffilling in zero magnetic field, as shown in Fig. 3. Recall that in the largeU limit the properties of the SSHH model can be understood from an effective Heisenberg model of local spins interacting with staggered exchanges, \({J}_{\pm }=4{t}_{\pm }^{2}/U\). The characteristic spin correlation in Fig. 3d, where each dimer in the bulk is strongly correlated while the correlations between the dimers and with the edges are negligible, is preserved if all the odd exchanges are smaller than all the even exchanges. This means the disorder in the hopping amplitude, δt, should be smaller than ∣Δt∣, similar to the quarterfilling case. One interesting difference from the quarterfilling case is that the onsite energy disorder can now be much larger. In the picture of the staggered Heisenberg model, one electron is localized at each site, thus changing the onsite energy is akin to changing an energy constant in the Heisenberg Hamiltonian, which does not affect the spin excitation spectrum showing the triplon bands in Fig. 3a. This is true as long as the onsite energy disorder is smaller than the onsite interaction U. For stronger variations, where the energy of one site is lower than that of another by more than U, double occupancy will be favored, leading to the breakdown of the Heisenberg picture. When both hopping amplitude and onsite energy disorders are present, we find that the topological phases at half filling are robust when δt < ∣Δt∣ and δt + δE < U. More specifically, the gap above the ground state in Fig. 3a and the characteristic spin correlation of Fig. 3d remain intact, and the reduced Zak phase deviates very little from its ideal value. We refer the reader to Supplementary Material for the numerical results.
Finally, we comment briefly on other possible imperfections. The SSHH model assumes the electrons are phase coherent throughout the length of the chain. A finite chain of 6 sites of dopant atoms in silicon can be made <50 nm, while the phase coherence length in STMfabricated samples at low temperature can be well >100 nm, as inferred from weaklocalization experiments,^{53} and in GaAsbased samples the phase coherence length can be as large as a μm.^{54} Spin–orbit coupling is not taken into account in our model, but it can be neglected if its energy scale is much smaller than the hopping amplitude. For Si:P, even with the enhancement due to external fields the energy scale of the spin–orbit coupling is of the order of 10^{−6} μeV, as inferred from the spinflip rate in the region of ms,^{55} which is negligible compared with a hopping amplitude in the meV or submeV range. In GaAs, spin–orbit coupling may lead to unwanted effect such as spin flip^{56} or spinflip tunneling between the dots^{57}; however, the energy scale of these effects are just as small. In our calculation of the conductance spectrum, we assume an energyindependent tunneling rate, Γ, between the system and the leads, but in reality electrons tunneling to the upper Hubbard bands have energies much closer to the top of the barrier between the leads and the system, resulting in a larger tunneling rate. The conductance peaks in the upper Hubbard band therefore should be much higher than those in the lower band.
In summary, we have investigated the topological phases of a 1D Fermi–Hubbard model in the strongly correlated regime. We introduce the concept of the reduced Zak phase, defined based on the reduced density matrix of a subsystem, and show that the topological phases at halffilling can be characterized by this phase. This reduced phase might be useful for studying the topological phases of a subsystem in a larger interacting system or an open system interacting with the external environment. From a study of entanglement and spin correlation, we demonstrate the bulk–edge correspondence in the halffilled system. At quarterfilling, the model does not exhibit properties of a topological insulator, but it can be transformed to the topological ground state of the noninteracting SSH model by applying a magnetic field. Finally, we propose a promising experimental realization with dopant atoms in silicon or quantum dots in GaAs. The scheme is robust against significant disorder in the hopping amplitude and onsite energy.
Methods
We use the Lanczos algorithm to diagonalize the Hamiltonian in the occupation basis^{58}
where the first part is for the spinup particles and the second for the spindown ones. A 1 at position j means the jth site is occupied and a 0 means the reverse. These basis states are then numbered according to the decimal value of its binary string. From this representation, the reduced density matrix of the spinup or spindown subsystem can be computed in a straightforward manner. For computing the entanglement entropy between the edges and the rest of the chain, we define the local Hilbert space of each site as \(\left\varnothing \right\rangle ,\left\uparrow \right\rangle ,\left\downarrow \right\rangle ,\left\uparrow \downarrow \right\rangle\), that is, a qudit with dimension 4, the entanglement entropy can then be calculated for the resulting system of qudits.^{47}
Data availability
Data of this study are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3346816. The data underlying this work are available without restriction. The Matlab code used in this paper can be downloaded at https://github.com/lehnqt/SSHH.git.
References
 1.
Thouless, D. J., Kohmoto, M., Nightingale, M. P. & den Nijs, M. Quantized Hall conductance in a twodimensional periodic potential. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 405–408 (1982).
 2.
Haldane, F. D. M. Model for a quantum Hall effect without Landau levels: condensedmatter realization of the "parity anomaly". Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2015–2018 (1988).
 3.
Kane, C. L. & Mele, E. J. Z_{2} topological order and the quantum spin Hall effect. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005).
 4.
Bernevig, B. A., Hughes, T. L. & Zhang, S.C. Quantum spin Hall effect and topological phase transition in HgTe quantum wells. Science 314, 1757–1761 (2006).
 5.
Pekola, J. P. et al. Singleelectron current sources: toward a refined definition of the ampere. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1421–1472 (2013).
 6.
Beenakker, C. Search for Majorana fermions in superconductors. Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 4, 113–136 (2013).
 7.
Atala, M. et al. Direct measurement of the Zak phase in topological Bloch bands. Nat. Phys. 9, 795–800 (2013).
 8.
Lu, L., Joannopoulos, J. D. & Soljačić, M. Topological photonics. Nat. Photon. 8, 821–829 (2014).
 9.
Mukherjee, S. et al. Experimental observation of anomalous topological edge modes in a slowly driven photonic lattice. Nat. Commun. 8, 13918 (2017).
 10.
Rizzo, D. J. et al. Topological band engineering of graphene nanoribbons. Nature 560, 204 (2018).
 11.
Gröning, O. et al. Engineering of robust topological quantum phases in graphene nanoribbons. Nature 560, 209 (2018).
 12.
Gomes, K. K., Mar, W., Ko, W., Guinea, F. & Manoharan, H. C. Designer Dirac fermions and topological phases in molecular graphene. Nature 483, 306–310 (2012).
 13.
Kempkes, S. N. et al. Robust zeroenergy modes in an electronic higherorder topological insulator. Nat. Mater. 18, 1292–1297 (2019).
 14.
Drost, R., Ojanen, T., Harju, A. & Liljeroth, P. Topological states in engineered atomic lattices. Nat. Phys. 13, 668–671 (2017).
 15.
Bansil, A., Lin, H. & Das, T. Colloquium: Topological band theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021004 (2016).
 16.
Salfi, J. et al. Quantum simulation of the Hubbard model with dopant atoms in silicon. Nat. Commun. 7, 11342 (2016).
 17.
Hensgens, T. et al. Quantum simulation of a FermiHubbard model using a semiconductor quantum dot array. Nature 548, 70–73 (2017).
 18.
Le, N. H., Fisher, A. J. & Ginossar, E. Extended Hubbard model for mesoscopic transport in donor arrays in silicon. Phys. Rev. B 96, 245406 (2017).
 19.
Dusko, A., Delgado, A., Saraiva, A. & Koiller, B. Adequacy of Si:P chains as FermiHubbard simulators. npj Quantum Inf. 4, 1–5 (2018).
 20.
Rachel, S. Interacting topological insulators: a review. Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 116501 (2018).
 21.
Jünemann, J. et al. Exploring interacting topological insulators with ultracold atoms: the synthetic CreutzHubbard model. Phys. Rev. X 7, 031057 (2017).
 22.
Nawa, K. et al. Triplon band splitting and topologically protected edge states in the dimerized antiferromagnet. Nat. Commun. 10, 2096 (2019).
 23.
Resta, R. Manifestations of Berry’s phase in molecules and condensed matter. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 12, R107 (2000).
 24.
Xiao, D., Chang, M.C. & Niu, Q. Berry phase effects on electronic properties. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1959–2007 (2010).
 25.
Manmana, S. R., Essin, A. M., Noack, R. M. & Gurarie, V. Topological invariants and interacting onedimensional fermionic systems. Phys. Rev. B 86, 205119 (2012).
 26.
Jiang, H.C., Wang, Z. & Balents, L. Identifying topological order by entanglement entropy. Nat. Phys. 8, 902 (2012).
 27.
Wang, D., Xu, S., Wang, Y. & Wu, C. Detecting edge degeneracy in interacting topological insulators through entanglement entropy. Phys. Rev. B 91, 115118 (2015).
 28.
Ye, B.T., Mu, L.Z. & Fan, H. Entanglement spectrum of SuSchriefferHeegerHubbard model. Phys. Rev. B 94, 165167 (2016).
 29.
Barbiero, L., Santos, L. & Goldman, N. Quenched dynamics and spincharge separation in an interacting topological lattice. Phys. Rev. B 97, 201115 (2018).
 30.
Dahan, D., Ahari, M. T., Ortiz, G., Seradjeh, B. & Grosfeld, E. NonAbelian fermion parity interferometry of Majorana bound states in a Fermi sea. Phys. Rev. B 95, 201114 (2017).
 31.
Guo, H. & Shen, S.Q. Topological phase in a onedimensional interacting fermion system. Phys. Rev. B 84, 195107 (2011).
 32.
Beenakker, C. W. J. Theory of Coulombblockade oscillations in the conductance of a quantum dot. Phys. Rev. B 44, 1646–1656 (1991).
 33.
Klimeck, G. ElectronPhonon and ElectronElectron Interactions in Quantum Transport. PhD thesis, Purdue Univ. (2008).
 34.
Chen, G., Klimeck, G., Datta, S., Chen, G. & Goddard, W. A. Resonant tunneling through quantumdot arrays. Phys. Rev. B 50, 8035–8038 (1994).
 35.
Su, W. P., Schrieffer, J. R. & Heeger, A. J. Solitons in polyacetylene. Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1698–1701 (1979).
 36.
Asbóth, J. K., Oroszlány, L. & Pályi, A. A Short Course on Topological Insulators: BandStructure and Edge States in One and Two Dimensions, Vol. 1 (Springer Heidelberg, 2016).
 37.
Delplace, P., Ullmo, D. & Montambaux, G. Zak phase and the existence of edge states in graphene. Phys. Rev. B 84, 195452 (2011).
 38.
Zak, J. Berry’s phase for energy bands in solids. Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2747–2750 (1989).
 39.
Penc, K. & Mila, F. Charge gap in the onedimensional dimerized Hubbard model at quarterfilling. Phys. Rev. B 50, 11429–11456 (1994).
 40.
Resta, R. & Sorella, S. Manybody effects on polarization and dynamical charges in a partly covalent polar insulator. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4738–4741 (1995).
 41.
Ortiz, G. & Martin, R. M. Macroscopic polarization as a geometric quantum phase: Manybody formulation. Phys. Rev. B 49, 14202–14210 (1994).
 42.
Grusdt, F., Höning, M. & Fleischhauer, M. Topological edge states in the onedimensional superlattice BoseHubbard model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 260405 (2013).
 43.
Kohn, W. Theory of the insulating state. Phys. Rev. 133, A171–A181 (1964).
 44.
Essler, F. H. L., Frahm, H., Göhmann, F., Klümper, A. & Korepin V. E. The OneDimensional Hubbard Model, Vol. 1 (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
 45.
Koashi, M. & Winter, A. Monogamy of quantum entanglement and other correlations. Phys. Rev. A 69, 022309 (2004).
 46.
Lieb, E. H. & Wu, F. Y. Absence of Mott transition in an exact solution of the shortrange, oneband model in one dimension. Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1445–1448 (1968).
 47.
Gu, S.J., Deng, S.S., Li, Y.Q. & Lin, H.Q. Entanglement and quantum phase transition in the extended Hubbard model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 086402 (2004).
 48.
Pryor, C. E. & Flatté, M. E. Landé g factors and orbital momentum quenching in semiconductor quantum dots. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 026804 (2006).
 49.
Zwanenburg, F. A. et al. Silicon quantum electronics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 961–1019 (2013).
 50.
Fuechsle, M. et al. A singleatom transistor. Nat Nano 7, 242–246 (2012).
 51.
Lansbergen, G. P. Electron Transport Through Single Donors in Silicon. PhD thesis, TUDelft (2010).
 52.
Zhu, J., Wu, W. & Fisher, A. A linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO) model for deterministically placed acceptor arrays in silicon. arXiv:1910.0845 (2019).
 53.
Ruess, F. J. et al. Toward atomicscale device fabrication in silicon using scanning probe microscopy. Nano Lett. 4, 1969–1973 (2004).
 54.
Lin, J. J. & Bird, J. P. Recent experimental studies of electron dephasing in metal and semiconductor mesoscopic structures. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 14, R501–R596 (2002).
 55.
Weber, B. et al. Spinorbit coupling in silicon for electrons bound to donors. npj Quantum Inf. 4, 1–5 (2018).
 56.
Scarlino, P. et al. Spinrelaxation anisotropy in a GaAs quantum dot. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 256802 (2014).
 57.
Hofmann, A. et al. Anisotropy and suppression of spinorbit interaction in a GaAs double quantum dot. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 176807 (2017).
 58.
Siro, T. & Harju, A. Exact diagonalization of the Hubbard model on graphics processing units. Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1884–1889 (2012).
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge financial support from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Grant No. EP/M009564/1 (ADDRFSS) and EPSRC strategic equipment grant no. EP/L02263X/1.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
N.H.L. carried out the analytical and numerical calculation. E.G. and N.H.L. were responsible for the main ideas. N.H.L., A.J.F., and E.G. wrote the manuscript. N.J.C. contributed to the experimental aspect of the proposal. All authors contributed to the discussions and interpretations of the results.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
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
Le, N.H., Fisher, A.J., Curson, N.J. et al. Topological phases of a dimerized Fermi–Hubbard model for semiconductor nanolattices. npj Quantum Inf 6, 24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4153402002539
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Further reading

Valley interference and spin exchange at the atomic scale in silicon
Nature Communications (2020)