This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Universal tripartite entanglement in one-dimensional many-body systems

Yijian Zou Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo ON, N2L 2Y5, Canada University of Waterloo, Waterloo ON, N2L 3G1, Canada Sandbox@Alphabet, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA    Karthik Siva Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA    Tomohiro Soejima Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA    Roger S. K. Mong Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA    Michael P. Zaletel Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA Materials Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
Abstract

Motivated by conjectures in holography relating the entanglement of purification and reflected entropy to the entanglement wedge cross-section, we introduce two related non-negative measures of tripartite entanglement gg and hh. We prove structure theorems which show that states with nonzero gg or hh have nontrivial tripartite entanglement. We then establish that in 1D these tripartite entanglement measures are universal quantities that depend only on the emergent low-energy theory. For a gapped system, we argue that either g0g\neq 0 and h=0h=0 or g=h=0g=h=0, depending on whether the ground state has long-range order. For a critical system, we develop a numerical algorithm for computing gg and hh from a lattice model. We compute gg and hh for various CFTs and show that hh depends only on the central charge whereas gg depends on the whole operator content.

Quantum entanglement has come to play a key role in our understanding of emergent phenomena in quantum many-body physics and modern numerical methods. Most attention has focused on bipartite entanglement, e.g. properties of a pure state on two parties |ψAB\ket{\psi}_{AB}. The entanglement entropy S(A)S(A) is the unique measure of bipartite entanglement because, up to reversible local operations and classical communication, the EPR pair is the unique form of bipartite entanglement. In contrast, a pure tripartite state |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} admits a large (presumably infinite) number of distinct forms of entanglement, and consequently a variety of tripartite entanglement measures have been proposed [1]. But it remains relatively unexplored what universal features such measures might reveal about a many-body system [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9].

Recently two tripartite entanglement measures, the entanglement of purification EP(A:B)E_{P}(A:B) [10] and the “reflected entropy” SR(A:B)S_{R}(A:B) [11] have been applied to many-body physics within the context of holographic duality. As motivation, recall that the Ryu-Takayanagi formula equates the bipartite entanglement entropy of a boundary theory to the area of a minimal surface in its holographic dual [12], a central result in the effort to relate the emergence of spacetime geometry to quantum entanglement. It is then natural ask whether there are multi-partite entanglement measures which might also have a dual geometric interpretation. In Refs. [13, 14] it was conjectured that the minimal cross section of the bulk “entanglement wedge” joining two parties, EW(A:B)E_{W}(A:B), is dual to the entanglement of purification in the boundary, EP=EWE_{P}=E_{W}. More recently, however, by developing a field-theoretic method for calculating SRS_{R} in generic conformal field theories (CFTs), it was shown that SR=2EWS_{R}=2E_{W} [11]. In general SR2EPS_{R}\neq 2E_{P}, so one possible resolution is that their equality is a special property of holographic CFTs which is violated at subleading order in large-NN expansion 111It has also been argued that the logarithmic negativity is dual to EWE_{W} [7], but N\mathcal{E}_{N} is not lower bounded by II, so we do not consider it here.. The gap between them, 2EPSR2E_{P}-S_{R}, would then constitute an interesting entanglement measure of this violation. But investigating this discrepancy requires a method for computing these quantities in generic many-body systems.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 1: Left: A spin chain on a circle that is divided into three parties AA, BB, and CC. Right: Geometry in the computation of EP(A:B)E_{P}(A:B). Region CC is divided into CLC_{L} and CRC_{R}. The dashed line represents the entanglement cut between ACLAC_{L} and BCRBC_{R}.

In this work we derive a method for computing EPE_{P} and SRS_{R} in 1D lattice models. To summarize our findings it is convenient to define UV-regularized version of these quantities 2222EP(A:B),SR(A:B)2E_{P}(A:B),S_{R}(A:B) and I(A:B)I(A:B) all scale logarithmically with the UV cutoff with the same coefficient c/3c/3 in front, see Ref. 13, 14, 11., g(A:B)2EP(A:B)I(A:B)0g(A:B)\equiv 2E_{P}(A:B)-I(A:B)\geq 0 and h(A:B)SR(A:B)I(A:B)0h(A:B)\equiv S_{R}(A:B)-I(A:B)\geq 0, where II is the mutual information 333Note that while the constituents are, g,hg,h are not monotonic under quantum operations on A,BA,B.. For the tripartition of a ring shown in Fig. 1, holographic duality predicts that they take on the universal value g=h=c3log(2)g=h=\frac{c}{3}\log(2), where cc is the central charge of the CFT 444In this computation, the regions A,BA,B are taken to touch and the UV divergences in EW,IE_{W},I are regulated by a radial cutoff which is taken to zero after the subtraction 2EWI2E_{W}-I [14]. This prescription corresponds to the lattice regularization employed in our numerical results. An alternative procedure, in which the quantities are regularized by a small spacing between A,BA,B, yields a different result [13].. But what about in a generic lattice model? As a limiting case, we start by proving structure theorems for states with g,h=0g,h=0 which imply that h=0h=0 if an only if a state is gapped (c=0c=0), while g=0g=0 if and only if the system is gapped and does not spontaneously break a symmetry. We then develop a method for numerically computing g,hg,h from a lattice Hamiltonian on systems up to N100N\sim 100 sites. As expected, we find that h=c3log2h=\frac{c}{3}\log 2 is universal. However we find that ghg\geq h and depends on the operator content of the CFT in addition cc, yet is nevertheless completely universal. Thus 2EPSR=gh2E_{P}-S_{R}=g-h constitutes a new and universal tripartite entanglement invariant of CFTs.

EPE_{P} and SRS_{R} — We first review the definitions of the entanglement of purification EP(A:B)E_{P}(A:B) and reflected entropy SR(A:B)S_{R}(A:B). Unlike the bipartite entanglement entropy, which is a function of a reduced density matrix on one party, these mixed state entanglement measures are functions of the reduced density matrix on two parties, ρAB\rho_{AB}, or equivalently its purification |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC}, where ρAB=TrC|ψψ|\rho_{AB}=\operatorname{Tr}_{C}\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}.

The entanglement of purification EP(A:B)E_{P}(A:B) [10] is the minimum of the entanglement entropy SACLS_{AC_{L}} over all purifications |ϕABCLCR\ket{\phi}_{ABC_{L}C_{R}} of ρAB\rho_{AB} to another pair of systems C=CLCRC=C_{L}C_{R}:

EP(A:B)min|ϕSACL(|ϕABCLCR).E_{P}(A:B)\equiv\min_{\ket{\phi}}S_{AC_{L}}\big{(}\ket{\phi}_{ABC_{L}C_{R}}\big{)}. (1)

The partitions of the subsystems are depicted schematically in Fig. 1. In principle the auxiliary space CLCRC_{L}C_{R} can be arbitrary, but the minimal SACLS_{AC_{L}} can always be achieved with dim(CL),dim(CR)rank(ρAB)\dim(\mathcal{H}_{C_{L}}),\,\dim(\mathcal{H}_{C_{R}})\leq\operatorname{rank}(\rho_{AB}).[19] We may alternatively rephrase Eq. (1) as a minimization over unitary operations UCU_{C} restricted to CLCRC_{L}C_{R} starting from an arbitrary purification |ϕ0ABCLCR\ket{\phi_{0}}_{ABC_{L}C_{R}} of sufficiently large dimension,

EP(A:B)=minUCLCRSACL(UC|ϕ0ABCLCR),E_{P}(A:B)=\min_{U_{C_{L}C_{R}}}S_{AC_{L}}\big{(}U_{C}\ket{\phi_{0}}_{ABC_{L}C_{R}}\big{)}, (2)

which is the viewpoint taken in our numerical approach.

EPE_{P} is lower bounded by the mutual information [10], EP(A:B)I(A:B)/2E_{P}(A:B)\geq I(A:B)/2, so we define a non-negative quantity

g(A:B)2EP(A:B)I(A:B)0.g(A:B)\equiv 2E_{P}(A:B)-I(A:B)\geq 0. (3)

The physical intuition behind this new quantity is that the subtraction of the mutual information removes correlations which are purely bipartite, as will be made more precise by the structure theorems below.

To define the reflected entropy SR(A:B)S_{R}(A:B), we instead pick a particular purification of ρAB\rho_{AB} known as the canonical purification |ρAB\ket{\sqrt{\rho_{AB}}}. It is defined as follows: we first take the unique non-negative square root of the reduced density matrix ρAB\rho_{AB}, and then regard the operator ρAB\sqrt{\rho_{AB}} as a state |ρABABAB\ket{\sqrt{\rho_{AB}}}\in\mathcal{H}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{B}\otimes\mathcal{H}^{*}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{H}^{*}_{B}. The reflected entropy SR(A:B)S_{R}(A:B) is defined as

SR(A:B)SAA(|ρAB).S_{R}(A:B)\equiv S_{AA^{*}}\big{(}\ket{\sqrt{\rho_{AB}}}\big{)}. (4)

It is shown in Ref. 11 that SR(A:B)I(A:B)S_{R}(A:B)\geq I(A:B), so we define the nonnegative quantity

h(A:B)SR(A:B)I(A:B)0.h(A:B)\equiv S_{R}(A:B)-I(A:B)\geq 0. (5)

In order to interpret the nature of the tripartite entanglement captured by these quantities, we derive “structure theorems” for states which saturate these lower bounds, i.e., states with g=0g=0 or h=0h=0.

States with g(A:B)=0g(A:B)=0 — We first define a class of pure tripartite wavefunctions known as triangle states.

Definition 1 (Triangle State).

A state |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is a triangle state if for each local Hilbert space there exists a bipartition α=αLαR\mathcal{H}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{H}_{\alpha_{L}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{\alpha_{R}} (α=A,B,C\alpha=A,B,C) such that

|ψABC=|ψARBL|ψBRCL|ψCRAL,\displaystyle\ket{\psi}_{ABC}=\ket{\psi}_{A_{R}B_{L}}\ket{\psi}_{B_{R}C_{L}}\ket{\psi}_{C_{R}A_{L}}, (6)

where |ψαRβL\ket{\psi}_{\alpha_{R}\beta_{L}} are pure states in αRβL\mathcal{H}_{\alpha_{R}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{\beta_{L}}.

In other words, a triangle state can be obtained by pair-wise distributing bipartite-entangled states followed by local unitaries. In this sense, a triangle state lacks nontrivial tripartite entanglement. We prove the following theorem in the Supplemental Material (SM) [20, 21].

Theorem 2.

A state |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is a triangle state up to local isometries if and only if g(A:B)=0g(A:B)=0.

The “only if” direction can be shown by noting that 2EP(A:B)=I(A:B)2E_{P}(A:B)=I(A:B) in the purification |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} of ρAB\rho_{AB}. The proof of the “if” direction is more complicated, and is presented in SM [20].

Conversely, g(A:B)>0g(A:B)>0 implies that |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} contains tripartite entanglement that cannot be factorized pairwise. For example, for a GHZ state |ψABC=d1j=1d|jAjBjC\ket{\psi}_{ABC}=\sqrt{d^{-1}}\sum_{j=1}^{d}\ket{j_{A}j_{B}j_{C}} the optimal purification of ρAB\rho_{AB} is |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} itself [14], resulting in g(A:B)=logdg(A:B)=\log d. It can also be shown that the WW state has nonzero g(A:B)g(A:B). This is in accordance with the fact the GHZ state and WW state are not triangle states [22].

States with h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0 — It can be verified that a triangle state has h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0, so h(A:B)0h(A:B)\neq 0 also implies irreducible tripartite entanglement. But for the GHZ state, g(A:B)0g(A:B)\neq 0 while h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0, which suggests that that some forms of tripartite entanglement are “invisible” to hh.

To make this precise we introduce the notion of sum of triangle states.

Definition 3 (sum of triangle states (SOTS)).

A pure state |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is a SOTS if for each local Hilbert space α\mathcal{H}_{\alpha} there exists a decomposition α=jαLjαRj\mathcal{H}_{\alpha}=\bigoplus_{j}\mathcal{H}_{\alpha^{j}_{L}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{\alpha^{j}_{R}} such that

|ψABC=jpj|ψjARjBLj|ψjBRjCLj|ψjCRjALj,\ket{\psi}_{ABC}=\sum_{j}\sqrt{p_{j}}\ket{\psi_{j}}_{A^{j}_{R}B^{j}_{L}}\ket{\psi_{j}}_{B^{j}_{R}C^{j}_{L}}\ket{\psi_{j}}_{C^{j}_{R}A^{j}_{L}}, (7)

where |ψjαRjβLj\ket{\psi_{j}}_{\alpha^{j}_{R}\beta^{j}_{L}} represents a pure state in αRjβLj\mathcal{H}_{\alpha^{j}_{R}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{\beta^{j}_{L}}, etc, and jpj=1\sum_{j}p_{j}=1.

For example, the GHZ state is a SOTS with pj=1dp_{j}=\frac{1}{d} and the triangle state is a SOTS for which pj=1p_{j}=1 for exactly one jj. By using the structure theorem for states satisfying strong subadditivity [23], we prove [20] the following:

Theorem 4.

A state |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is a SOTS if and only if h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0.

As a corollary, while in general h(A:B)h(B:C)h(C:A)h(A:B)\neq h(B:C)\neq h(C:A), if one vanishes then all of them vanish (and likewise for gg).

gg and hh for 1D gapped systems — We now give a physical interpretation of these structure theorems in the context of 1D Hamiltonians: we argue that on a ring with the tripartition shown in Fig. 1, a system is gapped if and only if h=0h=0, and gapped without long-range order if and only if g=0g=0. As motivation, consider the two limiting gapped phases of the 1D Ising model: the symmetric paramagnet, |PM=|\ket{\mathrm{PM}}=\ket{\rightarrow\rightarrow\cdots}, and the ferromagnet |FM=12(|+|)\ket{\mathrm{FM}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\big{(}\ket{\mathord{\uparrow\uparrow}\cdots}+\ket{\mathord{\downarrow\downarrow}\cdots}\big{)}. When partitioned into 3 subsystems, the |PM\ket{\mathrm{PM}} (|FM\ket{\mathrm{FM}}) state corresponds to a product state (GHZ state), so it will have g=0g=0 (g=log2g=\log 2) and for both, h=0h=0. Indeed, we see that gg is sensitive to the “cat state” structure of the exact ground state in a symmetry-broken phase, so will generically detect the multiplicity of super-selection sectors. Away from these extremal points, the ground state develops additional short-range entanglement. However, so long as sizes of the regions NA,NB,NCN_{A},N_{B},N_{C} are larger than the correlation length ξ\xi, this additional entanglement simply dresses the product state within each superselection sector into a triangle state, and so with exponential accuracy in N/ξN/\xi, gg and hh are unchanged.

The argument can be phrased most precisely in the language of matrix product states. We first take a finite-dimensional MPS as an approximation to the ground state of a 1D system 555There is a caveat to use the finite-dimensional MPS as an approximation. It is only rigorously proven that the state can be faithfully represented if bond dimension grows with the system size [37, 38]. For a finite bond dimension, it has only been shown that local properties can be well approximated [39]. In order to make our argument, we have to assume that the finite bond dimension does not result in a substantial error in gg or hh, which are nonlocal properties of the ground state. Despite not rigorous proven, the assumption is highly plausible because of empirical success of infinite MPS algorithms, where correlation functions and entanglement properties at long distances are extracted from a finite-dimensional MPS. Therefore the argument could be regarded as heuristic for a general gapped theory. However, it is rigorous if the ground state can be exactly represented by a finite-dimensional MPS, for example that of a MPS parent Hamiltonian [29].. The thermodynamic limit is taken by fixing NA/N,NB/NN_{A}/N,N_{B}/N and taking NN\rightarrow\infty, where NN is the total system size. In the thermodynamic limit we can then apply the standard MPS coarse-graining procedure [25] to obtain a fixed-point MPS. If the initial correlation length is finite [26], the state flows to an MPS with ξ=0\xi=0. It is straightforward to show that a ξ=0\xi=0 MPS is precisely the NN-party generalization 666The generalization of a triangle state to many parties is a polygon state, which is discussed in detail in [20]. A polygon state is a triangle state with respect to any tripartition into contiguous regions. of a triangle state [25, 28], so by the structure theorems we obtain g=h=0g=h=0. On the other hand, if the MPS has an infinite correlation length (e.g., it is a cat state as occurs for spontaneous symmetry breaking or phase coexistence), then it flows to a sum of ξ=0\xi=0 MPS which are locally orthogonal [29, 20]. Thus in the long-range ordered phase we have g0g\neq 0 and h=0h=0. These cases are analyzed in greater detail in [20]. Note that the precise statement of our claim is thus as follows: A fixed-point MPS has h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0 for all contiguous tripartitions. Since all MPS flow towards fixed-point MPS under coarse graining, h(A:B)0h(A:B)\to 0 as NA,NBN_{A},N_{B}\to\infty 777Technically, taking the limit assumes the continuity of g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) with respect to the reduced density matrix ρAB\rho_{AB} [20]. The continuity property of EPE_{P} and SRS_{R} has already been proven in [10, 40]..

Gapless systems — At a critical point gg and hh need not vanish. In fact, they are universal constants which depend only on the emergent CFT in the thermodynamic limit.

We now briefly describe the algorithm to compute gg and hh of the ground state of a critical quantum spin chain with NN sites and Hamiltonian HH. First the ground state |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is obtained in the form of a periodic uniform MPS (puMPS) [31, 32, 33]. A puMPS consists of NN copies of the same rank-3 tensor MM with dimensions D×D×dD\times D\times d, where dd is the dimension of the Hilbert space on each site, and DD is the bond dimension which grows polynomially with the system size NN (Fig. 2). The tensor MM is obtained variationally by minimizing the expectation value of HH. We then apply the standard MPS coarse-graining procedure [25, 20] to “compress” the Hilbert space of each region down to a smaller one via a sequence of isometries, αα~\mathcal{H}_{\alpha}\to\mathcal{H}_{\tilde{\alpha}}. Because the entropy of each region is sub-extensive, SαNαlog(d)S_{\alpha}\ll N_{\alpha}\log(d) – even at a critical point – we can reduce the dimension of the Hilbert space d~αdα\tilde{d}_{\alpha}\ll d_{\alpha} while preserving all the bipartite and tripartite entanglement properties among the three parties AA, BB and CC to high-accuracy. The coarse-grained state |ψ~A~B~C~\ket{\tilde{\psi}}_{\tilde{A}\tilde{B}\tilde{C}} can be represented by a MPS with three tensors MαM_{\alpha} with dimensions D×D×d~αD\times D\times\tilde{d}_{\alpha} (Fig. 2), where d~αD2\tilde{d}_{\alpha}\leq D^{2}. D,d~αD,\tilde{d}_{\alpha} grow polynomial with system size; as an example, for the Ising CFT we use D=12D=12, d~α=36\tilde{d}_{\alpha}=36 for N=24N=24 and D=26D=26, d~α=100\tilde{d}_{\alpha}=100 for N=84N=84.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: The state before and after coarse-graining. Top: The periodic uniform matrix product state (puMPS) represents the ground state of a translation-invariant critical quantum spin chain before coarse-graining. Bottom: The puMPS is coarse-grained into a MPS with 3 tensors corresponding to the coarse-grained Hilbert spaces A~,B~,C~\mathcal{H}_{\tilde{A}},\mathcal{H}_{\tilde{B}},\mathcal{H}_{\tilde{C}}.

We compute SR(A:B)S_{R}(A:B) according to Eq. (4) in the dense representation. Assuming that d~Ad~B\tilde{d}_{A}\leq\tilde{d}_{B}, the total time cost scales as 𝒪(d~A4d~B2)\mathcal{O}\big{(}\tilde{d}^{4}_{A}\tilde{d}^{2}_{B}\big{)}. To compute EP(A:B)E_{P}(A:B), we first make a random split of C~\mathcal{H}_{\tilde{C}} into C~LC~R\mathcal{H}_{\tilde{C}_{L}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{\tilde{C}_{R}} with dimensions d~CL×d~CR\tilde{d}_{C_{L}}\times\tilde{d}_{C_{R}}. We then numerically minimize the entanglement entropy of A~C~L\tilde{A}\tilde{C}_{L} with respect to a unitary UC~U_{\tilde{C}} on C~\tilde{C},

EP(A:B)=minUC~SA~C~L(UC~|ψ~A~B~C~).\displaystyle E_{P}(A:B)=\min_{U_{\tilde{C}}}S_{\tilde{A}\tilde{C}_{L}}\Big{(}U_{\tilde{C}}\ket{\tilde{\psi}}_{\tilde{A}\tilde{B}\tilde{C}}\Big{)}. (8)

We verified numerically that the d~α\tilde{d}_{\alpha} are large enough to achieve the (near) optimal purification. The numerical optimization can be performed with, e.g., the non-linear conjugate gradient algorithm, since the gradient can be constructed explicitly (see [20]). The time cost of each gradient calculation scales as 𝒪(d~A2d~Bd~C2)\mathcal{O}(\tilde{d}^{2}_{A}\tilde{d}_{B}\tilde{d}^{2}_{C}), assuming that d~Ad~B\tilde{d}_{A}\leq\tilde{d}_{B}. The mutual information I(A:B)I(A:B) can also be computed using the coarse-grained state, with time cost O(d~max3)O(\tilde{d}^{3}_{\max}), where d~maxmaxα{d~α}\tilde{d}_{\max}\equiv\max_{\alpha}\{\tilde{d}_{\alpha}\}.

gg and hh for various CFTs — In order to show that gg and hh are universal, we study the Ising model with an irrelevant near-to-nearest neighbor interaction [34],

H=j=1N[XjXj+1Zj+λ(XjXj+1Zj+2+ZjXj+1Xj+2)],\displaystyle H=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\left[\begin{array}[]{l}-X_{j}X_{j+1}-Z_{j}\\ {\;}\mathop{+}\lambda\big{(}X_{j}X_{j+1}Z_{j+2}+Z_{j}X_{j+1}X_{j+2}\big{)}\end{array}\right], (11)

where XjX_{j}(ZjZ_{j}) are Pauli XX(ZZ) matrices on sites jj and periodic boundary conditions are assumed. The model is critical described by the Ising CFT for λ<λ\lambda<\lambda^{*}, gapped for λ>λ\lambda>\lambda^{*}, where the transition at λ0.428\lambda^{*}\approx 0.428 is described by the tricritical Ising CFT [34]. We study four parameter values, λ=0,0.3,0.4,λ\lambda=0,0.3,0.4,\lambda^{*}, where the first three correspond to the Ising CFT and the last correspond to the tricritical Ising CFT.

We fix NA=NB=NC=N/3N_{A}=N_{B}=N_{C}=N/3 and compute g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) as a function of NN, shown in Fig. 3. We see that both gg and hh converge to a constant as NN\rightarrow\infty 888The extrapolation is based on the numerical observation that gg and hh converges as a power of 1/N1/N, where the power is determined empirically.. Furthermore, the constant is the same for λ=0\lambda=0 and λ=0.3\lambda=0.3, indicating that gg and hh are universal. We denote the universal quantities as gCFTg^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} and hCFTh^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}}. At λ=λ0.428\lambda=\lambda^{*}\approx 0.428, we obtain a different value that corresponds to the tricritical Ising CFT. At λ=0.4\lambda=0.4, both gg and hh go through a renormalization group flow from the tricritical Ising CFT to the Ising CFT, analogous to the spectral flow observed in Ref. 31. The values of gCFTg^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} and hCFTh^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} for various CFTs are summarized in Table 1.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) from the model Eq. (11) with different λ\lambda’s. At λ=0\lambda=0 and λ=0.3\lambda=0.3, the quantities converge to gCFTg^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} and hCFTh^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} of the Ising CFT. At λ=λ0.428\lambda=\lambda^{*}\approx 0.428, both quantities converge to a different value that corresponds to the tricritical Ising CFT. At λ=0.4\lambda=0.4 we observe a renormalization group flow from the tricritical Ising CFT to the Ising CFT.
Theory cc gCFTg^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} hCFTh^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} c3log2\tfrac{c}{3}\log 2
gapped symmetric 0 0 0 0
long-range ordered 0 >0>0 0 0
Ising CFT 1/21/2 0.450 0.1155 0.11553
Tricritical Ising CFT 7/107/10 0.719 0.1617 0.16173
Free boson R=3R=\sqrt{3} 11 0.920 0.2310 0.23105
Free boson R=2R=2 11 0.899 0.2310 0.23105
Free boson R=6R=\sqrt{6} 11 0.906 0.2310 0.23105
Table 1: gCFTg^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} and hCFTh^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} extracted numerically through finite size scaling. For the gapped spin chains, the universal values of gg and hh are shown. For the gapless spin chains, we show the central charge cc as well as gCFTg^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} and hCFTh^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} of the CFTs.

We also verified that the values of gCFTg^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} and hCFTh^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} do not depend on the relative sizes of A,B,CA,B,C [20]. For any ratio NA/NN_{A}/N and NB/NN_{B}/N, once we take the thermodynamic limit NN\rightarrow\infty, both g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) converge to the universal constants gCFTg^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} and hCFTh^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}}.

We proceed to examine how gCFTg^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} and hCFTh^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} depend on the conformal data of the CFT. To do so we compute gCFTg^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} and hCFTh^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} for the free compactified boson CFT for differing compactification radius RR. All have the same central charge c=1c=1, but the operator content depends on RR. A concrete lattice realization of the CFT is the XXZ model,

H=j(XjXj+1+YjYj+1+ΔZjZj+1),\displaystyle H=\sum_{j}\big{(}X_{j}X_{j+1}+Y_{j}Y_{j+1}+\Delta Z_{j}Z_{j+1}\big{)}, (12)

where 1Δ<1-1\leq\Delta<1 is a parameter that determines the compactification radius R=2π/cos1(Δ)R=\sqrt{2\pi/\cos^{-1}(-\Delta)}. We compute gCFTg^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} and hCFTh^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} for different RR’s by extrapolating g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) for different Δ\Delta’s to the thermodynamic limit. The result is shown in Fig. 4 and Tab. 1, where R=3,2,6R=\sqrt{3},2,\sqrt{6} correspond to Δ=0.5,0,0.5\Delta=0.5,0,-0.5, respectively 999Note that at Δ=0\Delta=0 both gCFTg^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} and hCFTh^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} equal twice of that for the Ising CFT, in accordance with the duality between the CFTs..

We see that hCFTh^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} does not depend on Δ\Delta and is compatible with hCFT=c3log2h^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}=\frac{c}{3}\log 2. On the other hand, gCFTg^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} depends on Δ\Delta and thus on RR. For example, as shown in Table I, gCFTg^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} takes on three different values at Δ=0,0.5,0.5\Delta=0,0.5,-0.5, which correspond to R=2,3,6R=2,\sqrt{3},\sqrt{6}, respectively. We conclude that hCFTh^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} only depends on the central charge but gCFTg^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} depends on the whole operator content. This feature of hCFTh^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}} can be understood as follows. The canonical purification of ρAB\rho_{AB} can be regarded as the ground state of a CFT living on a circle, divided into four contiguous segments A,B,B¯,A¯A,B,\bar{B},\bar{A}. The measure h(A:B)=SAA¯SASB+SABh(A:B)=S_{A\bar{A}}-S_{A}-S_{B}+S_{AB} involves only contiguous pieces and is hence proportional to the central charge.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) from the XXZ model with different Δ\Delta’s at sizes 18N4818\leq N\leq 48. We see that gCFTg^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} depends on Δ\Delta while hCFTh^{\textsl{\tiny CFT}} is independent of Δ\Delta.

Discussion — In this work we have introduced two positive quantities gg and hh which quantify the obstruction to factorizing a tripartite state into pairwise correlations. While the entanglement wedge cross section duality EW=EP=SR/2E_{W}=E_{P}=S_{R}/2 predicts h=g=c3log(2)h=g=\frac{c}{3}\log(2), for low-cc CFTs like the Ising model we find g>h=c3log(2)g>h=\frac{c}{3}\log(2). The gap ghg-h is universal, but it remains an open question how to compute it from the underlying data of the CFT. It is natural to conjecture a general bound ghg\geq h, which would follow from the monotonicity of SRS_{R} under a partial trace.

Acknowledgements.
The authors are grateful to Ning Bao, Jeongwan Haah, and Guifre Vidal for enlightening conversations. We are particularly indebted to Brian Swingle both for our earlier collaborations and the suggestion to compute SRS_{R}. YZ acknowledges Compute Canada. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science. Sandbox is a team within the Alphabet family of companies, which includes Google, Verily, Waymo, X, and others. KS acknowledges support from the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (Grant No. DGE 1752814). RM is supported by the National Science Foundation under DMR-1848336. MPZ was supported the DOE, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics under QuantISED Award DE-SC0019380 and under contract DE-AC02-05CH11231.

References

  • Walter et al. [2016] M. Walter, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, Multipartite entanglement, Quantum Information: From Foundations to Quantum Technology Applications , 293 (2016).
  • Audenaert et al. [2002] K. Audenaert, J. Eisert, M. B. Plenio, and R. F. Werner, Entanglement properties of the harmonic chain, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042327 (2002).
  • Marcovitch et al. [2009] S. Marcovitch, A. Retzker, M. B. Plenio, and B. Reznik, Critical and noncritical long-range entanglement in klein-gordon fields, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012325 (2009).
  • Bayat et al. [2010] A. Bayat, P. Sodano, and S. Bose, Negativity as the entanglement measure to probe the kondo regime in the spin-chain kondo model, Phys. Rev. B 81, 064429 (2010).
  • Bhattacharyya et al. [2019] A. Bhattacharyya, A. Jahn, T. Takayanagi, and K. Umemoto, Entanglement of purification in many body systems and symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 201601 (2019).
  • Kudler-Flam and Ryu [2019] J. Kudler-Flam and S. Ryu, Entanglement negativity and minimal entanglement wedge cross sections in holographic theories, Phys. Rev. D 99, 106014 (2019).
  • Kusuki et al. [2019] Y. Kusuki, J. Kudler-Flam, and S. Ryu, Derivation of holographic negativity in ads3/cft2{\mathrm{ads}}_{3}/{\mathrm{cft}}_{2}Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 131603 (2019).
  • Bayat [2017] A. Bayat, Scaling of tripartite entanglement at impurity quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 036102 (2017).
  • Gray et al. [2019] J. Gray, A. Bayat, A. Pal, and S. Bose, Scale invariant entanglement negativity at the many-body localization transition (2019), arXiv:1908.02761 [cond-mat.dis-nn] .
  • Terhal et al. [2002] B. M. Terhal, M. Horodecki, D. W. Leung, and D. P. DiVincenzo, The entanglement of purification, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4286 (2002).
  • Dutta and Faulkner [2019] S. Dutta and T. Faulkner, A canonical purification for the entanglement wedge cross-section, arXiv:1905.00577 [hep-th] (2019), unpublished.
  • Ryu and Takayanagi [2006] S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from the anti–de sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 181602 (2006).
  • Umemoto and Takayanagi [2018] K. Umemoto and T. Takayanagi, Entanglement of purification through holographic duality, Nat. Phys. 14, 573 (2018)arXiv:1708.09393 .
  • Nguyen et al. [2018] P. Nguyen, T. Devakul, M. G. Halbasch, M. P. Zaletel, and B. Swingle, Entanglement of purification: from spin chains to holography, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018, 1 (2018).
  • Note [1] It has also been argued that the logarithmic negativity is dual to EWE_{W} [7], but N\mathcal{E}_{N} is not lower bounded by II, so we do not consider it here.
  • Note [2] 2EP(A:B),SR(A:B)2E_{P}(A:B),S_{R}(A:B) and I(A:B)I(A:B) all scale logarithmically with the UV cutoff with the same coefficient c/3c/3 in front, see Ref. \rev@citealpTakayanagi2017,Nguyen2018,Dutta2019.
  • Note [3] Note that while the constituents are, g,hg,h are not monotonic under quantum operations on A,BA,B.
  • Note [4] In this computation, the regions A,BA,B are taken to touch and the UV divergences in EW,IE_{W},I are regulated by a radial cutoff which is taken to zero after the subtraction 2EWI2E_{W}-I [14]. This prescription corresponds to the lattice regularization employed in our numerical results. An alternative procedure, in which the quantities are regularized by a small spacing between A,BA,B, yields a different result [13].
  • Ibinson et al. [2008] B. Ibinson, N. Linden, and A. Winter, Robustness of quantum Markov chains, Communications in Mathematical Physics 277, 289 (2008)arXiv:0611057 [quant-ph] .
  • [20] Supplemental material.
  • [21] Jeongwan Haah (private communication).
  • Dür et al. [2000] W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000).
  • Hayden et al. [2004] P. Hayden, R. Jozsa, D. Petz, and A. Winter, Structure of States Which Satisfy Strong Subadditivity of Quantum Entropy with Equality, Communications in Mathematical Physics 246, 359 (2004).
  • Note [5] There is a caveat to use the finite-dimensional MPS as an approximation. It is only rigorously proven that the state can be faithfully represented if bond dimension grows with the system size [37, 38]. For a finite bond dimension, it has only been shown that local properties can be well approximated [39]. In order to make our argument, we have to assume that the finite bond dimension does not result in a substantial error in gg or hh, which are nonlocal properties of the ground state. Despite not rigorous proven, the assumption is highly plausible because of empirical success of infinite MPS algorithms, where correlation functions and entanglement properties at long distances are extracted from a finite-dimensional MPS. Therefore the argument could be regarded as heuristic for a general gapped theory. However, it is rigorous if the ground state can be exactly represented by a finite-dimensional MPS, for example that of a MPS parent Hamiltonian [29].
  • Verstraete et al. [2005a] F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and M. M. Wolf, Renormalization-group transformations on quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 140601 (2005a).
  • Hastings and Koma [2006] M. B. Hastings and T. Koma, Spectral gap and exponential decay of correlations, Communications in Mathematical Physics 265, 781 (2006).
  • Note [6] The generalization of a triangle state to many parties is a polygon state, which is discussed in detail in [20]. A polygon state is a triangle state with respect to any tripartition into contiguous regions.
  • Chen et al. [2011] X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin systems, Phys. Rev. B 83, 035107 (2011).
  • Perez-Garcia et al. [2007] D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quantum Info. Comput. 7, 401–430 (2007).
  • Note [7] Technically, taking the limit assumes the continuity of g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) with respect to the reduced density matrix ρAB\rho_{AB} [20]. The continuity property of EPE_{P} and SRS_{R} has already been proven in [10, 40].
  • Zou et al. [2018] Y. Zou, A. Milsted, and G. Vidal, Conformal data and renormalization group flow in critical quantum spin chains using periodic uniform matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 230402 (2018).
  • Zou et al. [2020] Y. Zou, A. Milsted, and G. Vidal, Conformal fields and operator product expansion in critical quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 040604 (2020).
  • Zou and Vidal [2020] Y. Zou and G. Vidal, Emergence of conformal symmetry in quantum spin chains: Antiperiodic boundary conditions and supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. B 101, 045132 (2020).
  • O’Brien and Fendley [2018] E. O’Brien and P. Fendley, Lattice supersymmetry and order-disorder coexistence in the tricritical ising model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 206403 (2018).
  • Note [8] The extrapolation is based on the numerical observation that gg and hh converges as a power of 1/N1/N, where the power is determined empirically.
  • Note [9] Note that at Δ=0\Delta=0 both gCFTg^{{\textsl{CFT}}} and hCFTh^{{\textsl{CFT}}} equal twice of that for the Ising CFT, in accordance with the duality between the CFTs.
  • Verstraete and Cirac [2006] F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states represent ground states faithfully, Physical Review B 73, 094423 (2006).
  • Arad et al. [2013] I. Arad, A. Kitaev, Z. Landau, and U. Vazirani, An area law and sub-exponential algorithm for 1d systems, arXiv:1301.1162 [quant-ph] (2013), unpublished.
  • Dalzell and Brandão [2019] A. M. Dalzell and F. G. S. L. Brandão, Locally accurate MPS approximations for ground states of one-dimensional gapped local Hamiltonians, Quantum 3, 187 (2019).
  • Akers and Rath [2020] C. Akers and P. Rath, Entanglement wedge cross sections require tripartite entanglement, Journal of High Energy Physics 202010.1007/JHEP04(2020)208 (2020).
  • Verstraete et al. [2005b] F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and M. M. Wolf, Renormalization-group transformations on quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 140601 (2005b).

Appendix A Vanishing gg and triangle states

In this section we prove a structure theorem for tripartite quantum states |ψABCABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC}\in\mathcal{H}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{B}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{C} with vanishing g(A:B)g(A:B). We first remind the reader of the definitions of conditional mutual information.

Definition 5 (Conditional mutual information).

Given three parties AA, BB and CC, the conditional mutual information is defined by I(A:C|B)I(A:BC)I(A:B)=S(AB)+S(BC)S(ABC)S(B)I(A:C|B)\equiv I(A:BC)-I(A:B)=S(AB)+S(BC)-S(ABC)-S(B).

We will use the following properties of the conditional mutual information:

  1. 1.

    I(A:C|B)=I(C:A|B)I(A:C|B)=I(C:A|B)  (commutativity);

  2. 2.

    I(A:C|B)0I(A:C|B)\geq 0  (strong subadditivity).

We first re-state the definition of a “triangle state”.

Definition 6 (Triangle state).

A pure tripartite state |ψABCABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC}\in\mathcal{H}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{B}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{C} is a triangle state if for each local Hilbert space there exists a bipartition α=(αLαR)α0\mathcal{H}_{\alpha}=(\mathcal{H}_{\alpha_{L}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{\alpha_{R}})\oplus\mathcal{H}_{\alpha}^{0} (α=A,B,C\alpha=A,B,C) such that

|ψABC=|ψARBL|ψBRCL|ψCRAL.\ket{\psi}_{ABC}=\ket{\psi}_{A_{R}B_{L}}\ket{\psi}_{B_{R}C_{L}}\ket{\psi}_{C_{R}A_{L}}. (13)

Observe that |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} has no support in any α0\mathcal{H}_{\alpha}^{0}. Note that for notational clarity, the main text version of this definition defines the bipartition as α=αLαR\mathcal{H}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{H}_{\alpha_{L}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{\alpha_{R}}, and as a result that equivalence is only up to local isometry. The triangle state is a tensor product of pure states which may be entangled between at most two out of three parties.

We now state and prove the first structure theorem [21]:

Theorem 7 (States with vanishing gg).

A pure tripartite quantum state |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is a triangle state if and only if for any two-party reduced density matrix (ρAB,ρBC,ρCA\rho_{AB},\rho_{BC},\rho_{CA}), g(A:B)=g(B:C)=g(C:A)=0g(A:B)=g(B:C)=g(C:A)=0, respectively.

To prove Theorem 7, we will need the following theorem from Hayden et al. [23]:

Theorem 8 (Quantum Markov property [23]).

Let ρABC\rho_{ABC} be a quantum state on =ABC\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{B}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{C}. Then ρABC\rho_{ABC} satisfies strong subadditivity with equality—i.e., I(A:C|B)=0I(A:C|B)=0—if and only if there exists a decomposition of B\mathcal{H}_{B}

B=iBLiBRi\mathcal{H}_{B}=\bigoplus_{i}\mathcal{H}_{B_{L}}^{i}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{B_{R}}^{i} (14)

such that

ρABC=iqiρABLiρBRCi,\displaystyle\rho_{ABC}=\sum_{i}q_{i}\,\rho_{AB_{L}}^{i}\otimes\rho_{B_{R}C}^{i}\,, (15)

where ρABLi,ρBRCi\rho_{AB_{L}}^{i},\rho_{B_{R}C}^{i} are density matrices in ABLi,BRiC\mathcal{H}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{B_{L}}^{i},\mathcal{H}_{B_{R}}^{i}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{C} respectively, and {qi}\{q_{i}\} forms a probability distribution [[i.e., qi0q_{i}\geq 0 and iqi=1\sum_{i}q_{i}=1]].

For a pure tripartite state |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} satisfying I(A:C|B)=0I(A:C|B)=0, since the density matrix of a pure state is not convex combinations of mixed states, the sum contains only one term and |ψABC=|ψABL|ψBRC\ket{\psi}_{ABC}=\ket{\psi}_{AB_{L}}\ket{\psi}_{B_{R}C}.

Proof of Theorem 7.

One direction of the theorem is straightforward to prove. That is, if a pure quantum state ρABC\rho_{ABC} is a triangle state, then for any of the three bipartite reduced density matrices, g(A:B)=g(B:C)=g(C:A)=0g(A:B)=g(B:C)=g(C:A)=0. This can be seen by computing, for example, S(ACL)S(AC_{L}) and I(A:B)I(A:B) for Eq. (13), and observing that S(ACL)=I(A:B)/2S(AC_{L})=I(A:B)/2. Since any purification provides an upper bound on EP(A:B)E_{P}(A:B), this must be the optimal one, as the lower bound is saturated. Similar computation may be done for g(B:C)g(B:C) and g(C:A)g(C:A) for reduced density matrices of the triangle state to show that these, too, must equal zero.

To prove the converse, consider an optimal purification of ρAB\rho_{AB} to C=CLCRC=C_{L}\otimes C_{R}. Then we can write g(A:B)g(A:B) as a sum of two non-negative quantities, in two different ways

g(A:B)\displaystyle g(A:B) =I(CL:BCR|A)+I(CR:A|B)\displaystyle=I(C_{L}:BC_{R}|A)+I(C_{R}:A|B) (16a)
=I(CR:ACL|B)+I(CL:B|A).\displaystyle=I(C_{R}:AC_{L}|B)+I(C_{L}:B|A). (16b)

The decompositions follow from rewriting gg as g(A:B)=2S(ACL)I(A:B)=I(ACL:BCR)I(A:B)g(A:B)=2S(AC_{L})-I(A:B)=I(AC_{L}:BC_{R})-I(A:B) and repeated use of Definition 5. Thus, if g(A:B)=0g(A:B)=0, then all four of the condition mutual informations vanishes:

I(CL:B|A)=I(CR:A|B)=I(CL:BCR|A)=I(CR:ACL|B)=0.\displaystyle I(C_{L}:B|A)=I(C_{R}:A|B)=I(C_{L}:BC_{R}|A)=I(C_{R}:AC_{L}|B)=0. (17)

In quantum information language Eqs. (17) imply that the state ρABCLCR\rho_{ABC_{L}C_{R}} forms a quantum Markov chain across the tripartitions CL|A|BCRC_{L}|A|BC_{R} and ACL|B|CRAC_{L}|B|C_{R}.

Applying Theorem 8 to Eq. (16), we obtain a decomposition along the conditioned Hilbert space of the optimally purified state. However, for either tripartition CL:A:BCRC_{L}:A:BC_{R} or ACL:B:CRAC_{L}:B:C_{R}, the state in question is pure, so as observed earlier, the sum in Eq. (15) can contain only one term. The pure state must therefore be a tensor product of two pure states. Decomposing A=ARAL\mathcal{H}_{A}=\mathcal{H}_{A_{R}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{A_{L}} for the quantum Markov chain across CL:A:BCRC_{L}:A:BC_{R}, we obtain

|ψABCLCR=|ψCLAR|ψALBCR.\ket{\psi}_{ABC_{L}C_{R}}=\ket{\psi}_{C_{L}A_{R}}\ket{\psi}_{A_{L}BC_{R}}. (18)

Next, using the other Markov chain ACL:B:CRAC_{L}:B:C_{R} in Eq. (17) we may write |ψALBCR\ket{\psi}_{A_{L}BC_{R}} as yet another tensor product of pure states:

|ψALBCR=|ψALBR|ψBLCR.\ket{\psi}_{A_{L}BC_{R}}=\ket{\psi}_{A_{L}B_{R}}\ket{\psi}_{B_{L}C_{R}}. (19)

The optimal purification is therefore decomposed as

|ψABCLCR=|ψCLAR|ψALBR|ψBLCR\ket{\psi}_{ABC_{L}C_{R}}=\ket{\psi}_{C_{L}A_{R}}\ket{\psi}_{A_{L}B_{R}}\ket{\psi}_{B_{L}C_{R}} (20)

and is therefore a triangle state. The original state is a purification which is equivalent to this triangle state up to a local isometry on CC. We note that by looking at g(A:B)g(A:B), we deduce that |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is locally isometric to a triangle state. However, the same argument may be applied using any pair of parties. ∎

Appendix B Vanishing hh and sums of triangle states (SOTS)

In this section we define a classes of states called Sum of polygon states (SOPS) and discuss their properties. The main result of this section is the structure theorem for quantum states with vanishing h(A:B)h(A:B) (Theorem 14).

Definition 9 (Splitting).

A splitting of a Hilbert space i\mathcal{H}_{i} is an orthogonal decomposition of the Hilbert space into a direct sum of tensor product spaces

i=i0jiLjiRj.\displaystyle\mathcal{H}_{i}=\mathcal{H}_{i}^{0}\;\oplus\;\bigoplus_{j}\mathcal{H}_{iL}^{j}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{iR}^{j}\,. (21)

The space i0\mathcal{H}_{i}^{0} may be 0-dimensional.

Definition 10 (Sum of polygon states—SOPS).

An NN-party pure quantum state |ψ12N\ket{\psi}\in\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathcal{H}_{N} is a SOPS with respect to the decomposition (1,2,,N)(\mathcal{H}_{1},\mathcal{H}_{2},\dots,\mathcal{H}_{N}) if for each party ii, i\mathcal{H}_{i} admits a splitting and

|ψ\displaystyle\ket{\psi} =jaji|j(iR)(i+L)suchthat|j(iR)(i+L)iRji+Lj.\displaystyle=\sum_{j}a_{j}\bigotimes_{i}\ket{j}_{(iR)(i^{+}L)}\qquad\mathrm{such\ that\ }\ket{j}_{(iR)(i^{+}L)}\in\mathcal{H}_{iR}^{j}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{i^{+}L}^{j}\,. (22)

where i+(imodN)+1i^{+}\equiv(i\mod N)+1 denote the party after ii, the coefficients are normalized to j|aj|2=1\sum_{j}|a_{j}|^{2}=1.

We may, without loss of generality, take aja_{j}\in\mathbb{R} and aj0a_{j}\geq 0 by absorbing its phase into one of |j(iR)(i+L)\ket{j}_{(iR)(i^{+}L)}. A SOTS is a special case of SOPS with N=3N=3; the triangle state defined in Eq. (13) may be seen as a special case of Eq. (22) in which aj=1a_{j}=1 for exactly one jj. The decomposition is invariant under a cyclic permutation, e.g. if a state is a SOPS with respect to (A,B,C)(A,B,C), it is also a SOPS with respect to (B,C,A)(B,C,A).

We now show that a SOPS is still a SOPS when the local Hilbert spaces are re-defined to include their nearest neighbors, a procedure we term “coarse-graining”. For example, if we define 1:3=123\mathcal{H}_{1:3}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{3}, then a state which is an SOPS for 12N\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}\dots\otimes\mathcal{H}_{N} decomposition is also a SOPS for 1:34N\mathcal{H}_{1:3}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{4}\dots\otimes\mathcal{H}_{N}. Note that an arbitrary combination (such as one which is not nearest-neighbor) does not necessarily preserve the SOPS structure.

Lemma 11 (SOPS structure preserved under coarse-graining).

Let N3N\geq 3. If |Ψ1N\ket{\Psi}\in\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathcal{H}_{N} is an NN-party SOPS, then |Ψ\ket{\Psi} is an (N1)(N{-}1)-party SOPS with respect to the decomposition (1,,i:i+1,i+2,,N)(\mathcal{H}_{1},\dots,\mathcal{H}_{i:i+1},\mathcal{H}_{i+2},\dots,\mathcal{H}_{N}), where i:i+1=ii+1\mathcal{H}_{i:i+1}=\mathcal{H}_{i}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{i+1}.

Proof.

Without loss of generality, we show this for i=1i=1; we coarse-grain 121:2\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}\to\mathcal{H}_{1:2}. Because 1-2 always appear in Eq. (22) through the combination |j(NR)(1L)|j(1R)(2L)|j(2R)(3L)\ket{j}_{(NR)(1L)}\ket{j}_{(1R)(2L)}\ket{j}_{(2R)(3L)}, we can identify the splitting 1:2,Lj=1Lj1Rj2Lj\mathcal{H}_{1:2,L}^{j}=\mathcal{H}_{1L}^{j}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{1R}^{j}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2L}^{j} and 1:2,Rj=2Rj\mathcal{H}_{1:2,R}^{j}=\mathcal{H}_{2R}^{j}. Identifying |j(NR)(1:2,L)=|j(NR)(1L)|j(1R)(2L)\ket{j}_{(NR)(1:2,L)}=\ket{j}_{(NR)(1L)}\ket{j}_{(1R)(2L)}, the claim follows. ∎

SOPS satisfy a number of interesting properties which we now state.

Porism 12.

Let N4N\geq 4 and |ψ\ket{\psi} be a SOPS with respect to (1,,N)(\mathcal{H}_{1},\dots,\mathcal{H}_{N}). Then I(i1,i+1|i)=0I(\mathcal{H}_{i-1},\mathcal{H}_{i+1}|\mathcal{H}_{i})=0 for all ii.

To simplify notation, here we identify the parties (and their respective Hilbert spaces) 0N0\leftrightarrow N and 1N+11\leftrightarrow N+1.

Proof.

Without loss of generality we take i=2i=2. Under coarse-graining, it suffices to prove the statement for N=4N=4. For a state |ψ1234SOPS(N=4)\ket{\psi}_{1234}\in\mathrm{SOPS}(N=4) written in the form Eq. (22), the density matrix ρ123\rho_{123} is

ρ123=j|aj|2(ρ1Lj|j(1R)(2L)j|(1R)(2L))(|j(2R)(3L)j|(2R)(3L)ρ3Rj),\displaystyle\rho_{123}=\sum_{j}|a_{j}|^{2}\Big{(}\rho_{1L}^{j}\otimes\ket{j}_{(1R)(2L)}\bra{j}_{(1R)(2L)}\Big{)}\otimes\Big{(}\ket{j}_{(2R)(3L)}\bra{j}_{(2R)(3L)}\otimes\rho_{3R}^{j}\Big{)}, (23)

where ρ1Lj=Tr4R|j(4R)(1L)j|(4R)(1L)\rho_{1L}^{j}=\operatorname{Tr}_{4R}\ket{j}_{(4R)(1L)}\bra{j}_{(4R)(1L)} is the density matrix within 1Rj\mathcal{H}_{1R}^{j}, and ρ3Rj=Tr4L|j(3R)(4L)j|(3R)(4L)\rho_{3R}^{j}=\operatorname{Tr}_{4L}\ket{j}_{(3R)(4L)}\bra{j}_{(3R)(4L)} the density matrix within 3Lj\mathcal{H}_{3L}^{j}. This is precisely in the form of Eq. (15) with (1,2,3)=(A,B,C)(1,2,3)=(A,B,C) of Theorem 8, and hence I(1:3|2)=0I(\mathcal{H}_{1}:\mathcal{H}_{3}|\mathcal{H}_{2})=0. ∎

Lemma 13.

Let |ψ\ket{\psi} be a SOPS with respect to (1,,N)(\mathcal{H}_{1},\dots,\mathcal{H}_{N}), and ρa:b\rho_{a:b} be its density matrix for any contiguous subgroup of parties aa+1b\mathcal{H}_{a}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{a+1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathcal{H}_{b}. Then the canonical purification of ρa:b\rho_{a:b} is a SOPS with respect to (a,a+1,,b1,b,¯b,¯b1,,¯a)(\mathcal{H}_{a},\mathcal{H}_{a+1},\dots,\mathcal{H}_{b-1},\mathcal{H}_{b},\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{b},\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{b-1},\dots,\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{a}).

Proof.

Again, we may combine all the parties outside of the a,,ba,\dots,b range into a single party, which we label as 11. Hence, without loss of generality we take (a,b)=(2,n)(a,b)=(2,n). The density matrix on 2n\mathcal{H}_{2}\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathcal{H}_{n} is

ρ2:n\displaystyle\rho_{2:n} =j|aj|2ρ2Lj[i=2n1|j(iR)(i+L)j|(iR)(i+L)]ρnRj,\displaystyle=\sum_{j}|a_{j}|^{2}\,\rho_{2L}^{j}\otimes\left[\bigotimes_{i=2}^{n-1}\ket{j}_{(iR)(i^{+}L)}\bra{j}_{(iR)(i^{+}L)}\right]\otimes\rho_{nR}^{j}\,, (24)

where ρ2Lj=Tr1R|j(1R)(2L)j|(1R)(2L)\rho_{2L}^{j}=\operatorname{Tr}_{1R}\ket{j}_{(1R)(2L)}\bra{j}_{(1R)(2L)} and ρnRj=Tr1L|j(nR)(1L)j|(nR)(1L)\rho_{nR}^{j}=\operatorname{Tr}_{1L}\ket{j}_{(nR)(1L)}\bra{j}_{(nR)(1L)} are the density matrices in their respective spaces after tracing out 1\mathcal{H}_{1}. As each term in Eq. (24) are orthogonal, its canonical purification is

CanonPur[ρ2:n]=j|aj|CanonPur[ρ2Lj][i=2n1|j(iR)(i+L)j|(iR)(i+L)]CanonPur[ρnRj][i=2n1|j(iR¯)(i+L¯)j|(iR¯)(i+L¯)].\displaystyle\begin{aligned} \operatorname{CanonPur}\!\big{[}\rho_{2:n}\big{]}&=\sum_{j}|a_{j}|\operatorname{CanonPur}\!\big{[}\rho_{2L}^{j}\big{]}\otimes\left[\bigotimes_{i=2}^{n-1}\ket{j}_{(iR)(i^{+}L)}\bra{j}_{(iR)(i^{+}L)}\right]\\ &\mkern 100.0mu\otimes\operatorname{CanonPur}\!\big{[}\rho_{nR}^{j}\big{]}\otimes\left[\bigotimes_{i=2}^{n-1}\ket{j}_{(\overline{iR})(\overline{i^{+}L})}\bra{j}_{(\overline{iR})(\overline{i^{+}L})}\right].\end{aligned} (25)

The canonical purifications CanonPur[ρ2Lj]\operatorname{CanonPur}\!\big{[}\rho_{2L}^{j}\big{]} and CanonPur[ρnRj]\operatorname{CanonPur}\!\big{[}\rho_{nR}^{j}\big{]} live in the Hilbert spaces ¯2Lj2Lj\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{2L}^{j}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2L}^{j} and nRj¯nRj\mathcal{H}_{nR}^{j}\otimes\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{nR}^{j} respectively. After we swap the left/right labels for the splittings (Def. 9) of ¯i\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{i}, Eq. (25) takes on the form a SOPS with respect to the decomposition (2,3,,n,¯n,¯n1,,¯2)\big{(}\mathcal{H}_{2},\mathcal{H}_{3},\dots,\mathcal{H}_{n},\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{n},\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{n-1},\dots,\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{2}\big{)}. ∎

We now state the main result of the section, the second of the structure theorems.

Theorem 14 (States with vanishing hh).

A pure tripartite quantum state |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is a sum of triangle states (a SOPS with N=3N=3) if and only if h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0 for ρAB\rho_{AB}.

To prove the “only if” direction of Theorem 14, we use Porism 12 and Lemma 13. To prove the “if” direction, we will additionally need Lemma 15, Fact 16, and Proposition 17 below.

Lemma 15.

Given a pure state on four parties A,B,C,DA,B,C,D, if it is both a product state under the bipartition (AB,CD)(AB,CD) and (AD,BC)(AD,BC):

|ABCD=|AB|CD=|AD|BC,\displaystyle\ket{ABCD}=\ket{AB}\ket{CD}=\ket{AD}\ket{BC}, (26)

then it is a product state across all four parties, i.e.,

|ABCD=|A|B|C|D.\displaystyle\ket{ABCD}=\ket{A}\ket{B}\ket{C}\ket{D}. (27)
Proof.

Since the state is a product state under the bipartition (AB,CD)(AB,CD), then ρAD=ρAρD\rho_{AD}=\rho_{A}\otimes\rho_{D}. The state is also a product state under the bipartition (AD,BC)(AD,BC), hence ρAD\rho_{AD} is a pure-state density matrix with rank 11, so ρA\rho_{A} and ρD\rho_{D} must be pure. The same argument applies to ρB\rho_{B} and ρC\rho_{C}. Therefore the state is a product state across the four parties. ∎

Fact 16.

Let pap_{a} and qaq_{a} be two probability distributions on 1aN1\leq a\leq N. Then the sum

a=1Npaqa=1\displaystyle\sum_{a=1}^{N}p_{a}q_{a}=1 (28)

if and only if the distribtions p,qp,q are identical with a single nonzero entry. That is, there exist uu such that pu=qu=1p_{u}=q_{u}=1 and pa=qa=0p_{a}=q_{a}=0 for all aua\neq u.

Proof.

Because 0pa,qa10\leq p_{a},q_{a}\leq 1, the probabilities obey the inequalities

(a=1Npaqa)2(a=1Npa2)(a=1Nqa2)(a=1Npa)(a=1Nqa)=12=1.\displaystyle\left(\sum_{a=1}^{N}p_{a}q_{a}\right)^{2}\leq\left(\sum_{a=1}^{N}p_{a}^{2}\right)\left(\sum_{a=1}^{N}q_{a}^{2}\right)\leq\left(\sum_{a=1}^{N}p_{a}\right)\left(\sum_{a=1}^{N}q_{a}\right)=1^{2}=1. (29)

The first inequality is the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, where equality holds iff paqap_{a}\propto q_{a}. The second inequality follows from the fact that pa2pap_{a}^{2}\leq p_{a}, where equality holds iff pa=0p_{a}=0 or 11.

The first term is unity iff both inequalities are satified equality, i.e., all the terms of Eq. (29) are equal. From the normalization constraint apa=aqa=1\sum_{a}p_{a}=\sum_{a}q_{a}=1, this is equivalent to pa=qap_{a}=q_{a} for all aa, and that exactly one of pap_{a} is unity, while the remaining pp’s vanishes. ∎

Proposition 17.

Let |ψ1234\ket{\psi}_{1234} be a pure 4-party state in 1234\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{3}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{4}. If I(i1:i+1|i)=0I\big{(}\mathcal{H}_{i-1}:\mathcal{H}_{i+1}\big{|}\mathcal{H}_{i}\big{)}=0 for all i{1,,4}i\in\{1,\dots,4\}, then |ψ1234\ket{\psi}_{1234} is a SOPS with respect to (1,2,3,4)(\mathcal{H}_{1},\mathcal{H}_{2},\mathcal{H}_{3},\mathcal{H}_{4}).

Proof.

We first consider 1\mathcal{H}_{1} and the condition I(1:3|2)=0I(\mathcal{H}_{1}:\mathcal{H}_{3}|\mathcal{H}_{2})=0 and use Theorem 8 to observe that there exists a decomposition

2=k2Lk2Rk\displaystyle\mathcal{H}_{2}=\bigoplus_{k}\mathcal{H}_{2L}^{k}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2R}^{k} (30)

such that the reduced density matrix ρ123\rho_{123} on 123\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{3} may be written as

ρ123=kqk(2)ρ1(2L)kρ(2R)3k\displaystyle\rho_{123}=\sum_{k}q^{(2)}_{k}\,\rho_{1(2L)}^{k}\otimes\rho_{(2R)3}^{k} (31)

where {qk(2)}\big{\{}q^{(2)}_{k}\big{\}} form a probability distribution. For convenience, we take qk(2)>0q^{(2)}_{k}>0 for all kk (truncating the sum if necessary). We consider the canonical purification of the reduced density matrix ρ123\rho_{123} to ¯1¯2¯3\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{2}\otimes\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{3}. From Eq. (31), the canonical purification is

CanonPur[ρ123]=kqk(2)|k1(2L)1(2L)¯|k(2R)3(2R)3¯,\displaystyle\operatorname{CanonPur}\!\big{[}\rho_{123}\big{]}=\sum_{k}\sqrt{q^{(2)}_{k}}\,{\big{|}{k}\big{\rangle}}_{1(2L)\overline{1(2L)}}\otimes{\big{|}{k}\big{\rangle}}_{(2R)3\overline{(2R)3}}\,, (32)

where |j1(2L)1(2L)¯12¯1¯2{\big{|}{j}\big{\rangle}}_{1(2L)\overline{1(2L)}}\in\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}\otimes\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{1}\otimes\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{2} is the canonical purification of ρ1(2L)j\rho_{1(2L)}^{j}, etc. Note that the canonical purification may be obtained by isometry acting on 4\mathcal{H}_{4} of the original pure state |ψ1234\ket{\psi}_{1234}. This may alternatively be viewed as identification of a particular basis in 4\mathcal{H}_{4}, and this viewpoint is just the difference between active and passive transformation. As a result, the isometry does not change any entanglement properties among the four parties. The state |ψ1234\ket{\psi}_{1234} must take the form

|ψ1234=kqk(2)|k(4R)1(2L)|k(2R)3(4L),\displaystyle\ket{\psi}_{1234}=\sum_{k}\sqrt{q^{(2)}_{k}}\,{\big{|}{k}\big{\rangle}}_{(4R)1(2L)}{\big{|}{k}\big{\rangle}}_{(2R)3(4L)}\,, (33)

where the decomposition of 4\mathcal{H}_{4}

4=m4Rm4Lm\displaystyle\mathcal{H}_{4}=\bigoplus_{m}\mathcal{H}_{4R}^{m}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{4L}^{m} (34)

is induced by the reflection of Eq. (30) in the canonical purification. We have interchanged the labeling of LL and RR for later convenience.

Similarly, from I(4:2|1)=0I(\mathcal{H}_{4}:\mathcal{H}_{2}|\mathcal{H}_{1})=0, there exists a splitting on 1\mathcal{H}_{1} and 3\mathcal{H}_{3} such that

|ψ1234=jqj(1)|j(1R)2(3L)|j(3R)4(1L).\displaystyle\ket{\psi}_{1234}=\sum_{j}\sqrt{q^{(1)}_{j}}\,{\big{|}{j}\big{\rangle}}_{(1R)2(3L)}{\big{|}{j}\big{\rangle}}_{(3R)4(1L)}. (35)

Up to now, we have introduced a splitting on the four Hilbert spaces and the Schmidt decompositions between two different cuts. Comparing Eqs. (35) and (33), it is not clear that there is a term-by-term equivalence. We now use projectors onto the orthogonal subspaces of each Hilbert space, such as in Eq. (30), to find that there is indeed such an equivalence and that that each term in the sum is precisely a term in Eq. (22).

Let Pk(i)P^{(i)}_{k} be a projector on to the kkth subspace in the decomposition of i\mathcal{H}_{i}, i.e., iLkiRk\mathcal{H}_{iL}^{k}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{iR}^{k}. As they are projectors onto the Schmidt bases, kPk(i)|ψ1234=|ψ1234\sum_{k}P^{(i)}_{k}\ket{\psi}_{1234}=\ket{\psi}_{1234}. In addition, from Eqs. (30), (33), and (34), we have

Pj(2)Pk(4)|ψ1234=δjkPk(2)|ψ1234.\displaystyle P^{(2)}_{j}P^{(4)}_{k}\ket{\psi}_{1234}=\delta_{jk}P^{(2)}_{k}\ket{\psi}_{1234}. (36a)
Similarly, Eq. (35) implies that
P(1)Pm(3)|ψ1234=δmP(1)|ψ1234.\displaystyle P^{(1)}_{\ell}P^{(3)}_{m}\ket{\psi}_{1234}=\delta_{\ell m}P^{(1)}_{\ell}\ket{\psi}_{1234}. (36b)

We iet |k,j(4R)1(2L){\big{|}{k,j}\big{\rangle}}_{(4R)1(2L)} be the normalized state from the projection Pj(1)|k(4R)1(2L)P^{(1)}_{j}{\big{|}{k}\big{\rangle}}_{(4R)1(2L)}; we rewrite part of Eq. (33) as

Pj(1)|k(4R)1(2L)\displaystyle P^{(1)}_{j}{\big{|}{k}\big{\rangle}}_{(4R)1(2L)} =Mkj(1)|k,j(4R)1(2L)\displaystyle=M^{(1)}_{k\to j}{\big{|}{k,j}\big{\rangle}}_{(4R)1(2L)} 4Rk1Lj1Rj2Lk,\displaystyle\in\mathcal{H}_{4R}^{k}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{1L}^{j}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{1R}^{j}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2L}^{k}\,, (37a)
where j|Mkj(1)|2=1\sum_{j}\big{|}M^{(1)}_{k\to j}\big{|}^{2}=1 as the normalization condition. (If one of the projections Pj|kP_{j}\ket{k} vanishes, i.e., Mkj=0M_{k\to j}=0, we may simply assign |k,j\ket{k,j} to be an arbitrary normalized state in the respective Hilbert space.)

Likewise, the projection on the Schmidt states in Eqs. (33) and (35) are denoted as

Pk(2)|(1R)2(3L)\displaystyle P^{(2)}_{k}{\big{|}{\ell}\big{\rangle}}_{(1R)2(3L)} =Mk(2)|,k(1R)2(3L)\displaystyle=M^{(2)}_{\ell\to k}{\big{|}{\ell,k}\big{\rangle}}_{(1R)2(3L)} 1R2Lk2Rk3L,\displaystyle\in\mathcal{H}_{1R}^{\ell}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2L}^{k}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2R}^{k}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{3L}^{\ell}\,, (37b)
P(3)|m(2R)3(4L)\displaystyle P^{(3)}_{\ell}{\big{|}{m}\big{\rangle}}_{(2R)3(4L)} =Mm(3)|m,(2R)3(4L)\displaystyle=M^{(3)}_{m\to\ell}{\big{|}{m,\ell}\big{\rangle}}_{(2R)3(4L)} 2Rm3L3R4Lm,\displaystyle\in\mathcal{H}_{2R}^{m}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{3L}^{\ell}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{3R}^{\ell}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{4L}^{m}\,, (37c)
Pm(4)|j(3R)4(1L)\displaystyle P^{(4)}_{m}{\big{|}{j}\big{\rangle}}_{(3R)4(1L)} =Mjm(4)|j,m(3R)4(1L)\displaystyle=M^{(4)}_{j\to m}{\big{|}{j,m}\big{\rangle}}_{(3R)4(1L)} 3Rj4Lm4Rm1Lj,\displaystyle\in\mathcal{H}_{3R}^{j}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{4L}^{m}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{4R}^{m}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{1L}^{j}\,, (37d)

with k|Mk(2)|2=|Mm(3)|2=m|Mjm(4)|2=1\sum_{k}\big{|}M^{(2)}_{\ell\to k}\big{|}^{2}=\sum_{\ell}\big{|}M^{(3)}_{m\to\ell}\big{|}^{2}=\sum_{m}\big{|}M^{(4)}_{j\to m}\big{|}^{2}=1.

Let PjkmPj(1)Pk(2)P(3)Pm(4)P_{jk\ell m}\equiv P^{(1)}_{j}P^{(2)}_{k}P^{(3)}_{\ell}P^{(4)}_{m} be a product of (commuting) projectors. We look at its action on |ψ1234\ket{\psi}_{1234} written in two different ways [Eqs. (33) and (35)]. By Eqs. (36), any projector for which jj\neq\ell or kmk\neq m will annihilate the state |ψ1234\ket{\psi}_{1234}; it therefore suffices to consider only projectors of the form PjkjkP_{jkjk}.

Pjkjk|ψ1234\displaystyle P_{jkjk}\ket{\psi}_{1234} =qk(2)Mkj(1)Mkj(3)|k,j(4R)1(2L)|k,j(2R)3(4L)\displaystyle=\sqrt{q^{(2)}_{k}}\,M^{(1)}_{k\to j}M^{(3)}_{k\to j}\,{\big{|}{k,j}\big{\rangle}}_{(4R)1(2L)}\,{\big{|}{k,j}\big{\rangle}}_{(2R)3(4L)} [from Eq. (33)],\displaystyle\text{[from Eq.~{}\eqref{eq:H24_decomp}]}, (38a)
Pjkjk|ψ1234\displaystyle P_{jkjk}\ket{\psi}_{1234} =qj(1)Mjk(2)Mjk(4)|j,k(1R)2(3L)|j,k(3R)4(1L)\displaystyle=\sqrt{q^{(1)}_{j}}\,M^{(2)}_{j\to k}M^{(4)}_{j\to k}\,{\big{|}{j,k}\big{\rangle}}_{(1R)2(3L)}\,{\big{|}{j,k}\big{\rangle}}_{(3R)4(1L)} [from Eq. (35)].\displaystyle\text{[from Eq.~{}\eqref{eq:H13_decomp}]}. (38b)

Consider the application of Pj(1)Pj(3)P^{(1)}_{j}P^{(3)}_{j} on |k(4R)1(2L)|k(2R)3(4L)\ket{k}_{(4R)1(2L)}\ket{k}_{(2R)3(4L)}, individual terms in the RHS of Eq. (33).

|k(4R)1(2L)|k(2R)3(4L)=jPj(1)Pj(3)|k(4R)1(2L)|k(2R)3(4L)\displaystyle{\big{|}{k}\big{\rangle}}_{(4R)1(2L)}{\big{|}{k}\big{\rangle}}_{(2R)3(4L)}=\sum_{j}P^{(1)}_{j}P^{(3)}_{j}{\big{|}{k}\big{\rangle}}_{(4R)1(2L)}{\big{|}{k}\big{\rangle}}_{(2R)3(4L)} =jMkj(1)Mkj(3)|k,j(4R)1(2L)|k,j(2R)3(4L).\displaystyle=\sum_{j}M^{(1)}_{k\to j}M^{(3)}_{k\to j}\,{\big{|}{k,j}\big{\rangle}}_{(4R)1(2L)}\,{\big{|}{k,j}\big{\rangle}}_{(2R)3(4L)}\,. (39)

The normalization condition for the projection is

k,j|Mkj(1)Mkj(3)|2=1\displaystyle\forall k,\quad\sum_{j}\big{|}M^{(1)}_{k\to j}M^{(3)}_{k\to j}\big{|}^{2}=1 (40)

Applying Fact 16 to the probability distributions |Mkj(1)|2\big{|}M^{(1)}_{k\to j}\big{|}^{2} and |Mkj(3)|2\big{|}M^{(3)}_{k\to j}\big{|}^{2}, we conclude that there exist a map j(k)j(k), such that |Mkj(k)(1)|=|Mkj(k)(3)|=1\big{|}M^{(1)}_{k\to j(k)}\big{|}=\big{|}M^{(3)}_{k\to j(k)}\big{|}=1, and that the other terms vanishes. Likewise, the same argument applied to the individual terms in the RHS of Eq. (35) implies that there exists a single nonzero entry Mjk(j)(2,4)M^{(2,4)}_{j\to k(j)}. In equation form,

|Mkj(1)|\displaystyle\big{|}M^{(1)}_{k\to j}\big{|} =|Mkj(3)|={1j=j(k),0jj(k).\displaystyle=\big{|}M^{(3)}_{k\to j}\big{|}=\begin{cases}1&j=j(k),\\ 0&j\neq j(k).\end{cases} |Mjk(2)|\displaystyle\big{|}M^{(2)}_{j\to k}\big{|} =|Mjk(4)|={1k=k(j),0kk(j).\displaystyle=\big{|}M^{(4)}_{j\to k}\big{|}=\begin{cases}1&k=k(j),\\ 0&k\neq k(j).\end{cases} (41)

Next, the Eqs. (38a) and (38b) implies that the coefficients have equal absolute values. This is possible only if j(k)j(k) and k(j)k(j) are inverse functions: i.e., j(k(j))=jj(k(j))=j and k(j(k))=kk(j(k))=k. In addition we have qj(1)=qk(j)(2)q^{(1)}_{j}=q^{(2)}_{k(j)}.

Finally, applying Lemma 17 to Eqs. (38), we can write each Pjkjk|ψ1234P_{jkjk}\ket{\psi}_{1234} as a product of states.

|ψ1234\displaystyle\ket{\psi}_{1234} =j,kPjkjk|ψ1234\displaystyle=\sum_{j,k}P_{jkjk}\ket{\psi}_{1234}
=jPj,k(j),j,k(j)qk(j)(2)Mk(j)j(1)Mk(j)j(3)|k,j(4R)(1L)|j,k(1R)(2L)|k,j(2R)(3L)|j,k(3R)(4L),\displaystyle=\sum_{j}P_{j,k(j),j,k(j)}\sqrt{q^{(2)}_{k(j)}}\,M^{(1)}_{k(j)\to j}M^{(3)}_{k(j)\to j}\,{\big{|}{k,j}\big{\rangle}}_{(4R)(1L)}{\big{|}{j,k}\big{\rangle}}_{(1R)(2L)}{\big{|}{k,j}\big{\rangle}}_{(2R)(3L)}{\big{|}{j,k}\big{\rangle}}_{(3R)(4L)}\,, (42)

where |x,y(AR)(BL)ARxBLy\ket{x,y}_{(AR)(BL)}\in\mathcal{H}_{AR}^{x}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{BL}^{y}. This is precisely the form of a SOPS (Def. 10). ∎

To summarize, we used quantum Markov property [Theorem 8] to find a decomposition of each local Hilbert space i=μiLμiRμ\mathcal{H}_{i}=\bigoplus_{\mu}\mathcal{H}_{iL}^{\mu}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{iR}^{\mu}. The decomposition gives us orthogonal projectors onto a basis in which the Schmidt vectors along each cut factorized. Aided by Lemmas 15 and 16, we then found that there is a bijection between the Schmidt vectors and values along different cuts. This enabled us to find orthogonal projectors PjkjkP_{jkjk} which when applied to |ψ1234\ket{\psi}_{1234}, return a polygon state.

With the bulk of the technical work behind us, we now complete the proof of the structure theorem for hh.

Proof of Theorem 14.

Let |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} be a 3-party state on AA, BB, and CC. We denote the canonical purification of ρAB\rho_{AB} as

|ΨABB¯A¯CanonPur[ρAB]AB¯B¯A.\displaystyle\begin{aligned} \ket{\Psi}_{AB\bar{B}\bar{A}}&\equiv\operatorname{CanonPur}\!\big{[}\rho_{AB}\big{]}&&\in\mathcal{H}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{B}\otimes\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{B}\otimes\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{A}.\end{aligned} (43)

We recast h(A:B)h(A:B) as a conditional mutual information:

h(A:B)=SAA¯+(SABSASB)=SA¯A+SABSASA¯AB=I(A¯:B|A).\displaystyle\begin{aligned} h(A:B)&=S_{A\bar{A}}+(S_{AB}-S_{A}-S_{B})\\ &=S_{\bar{A}A}+S_{AB}-S_{A}-S_{\bar{A}AB}\\ &=I\big{(}\bar{A}:B\big{|}A\big{)}.\end{aligned} (44)

Because of the symmetry ABA\leftrightarrow B and A,BA¯,B¯A,B\leftrightarrow\bar{A},\bar{B}, the following quantities are equal.

h(A:B)=I(A¯:B|A)=I(A:B¯|B)=I(B:A¯|A)=I(B¯:A|A¯).\displaystyle h(A:B)=I\big{(}\bar{A}:B\big{|}A\big{)}=I\big{(}A:\bar{B}\big{|}B\big{)}=I\big{(}B:\bar{A}\big{|}A\big{)}=I\big{(}\bar{B}:A\big{|}\bar{A}\big{)}. (45)

If |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is a SOTS (SOPS with N=3N=3), then by Lemma 13 the canonical purification |ΨABB¯A¯\ket{\Psi}_{AB\bar{B}\bar{A}} is a SOPS with respect to (A,B,¯B,¯A)(\mathcal{H}_{A},\mathcal{H}_{B},\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{B},\mathord{\,\overline{\!\mathcal{H}}}_{A}). Via Porism 12, Eq. (45) is identically zero. Thus, if |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is a SOTS, h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0.

The proof for the converse statement is as follows. If h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0 for |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC}, then Eq. (45) vanishes for |ΨABB¯A¯\ket{\Psi}_{AB\bar{B}\bar{A}}. It follows from Proposition 17 that |ΨABB¯A¯\ket{\Psi}_{AB\bar{B}\bar{A}} is a 4-party SOPS. Finally observe that |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is isometric to |ΨABB¯A¯\ket{\Psi}_{AB\bar{B}\bar{A}} after coarse-graining B¯A¯C\bar{B}\bar{A}\to C, which by Lemma 11 makes |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} a 3-party SOPS.

This complete the proof that h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0 if and only if |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} is a SOTS. ∎

Remark. The converse of Porism 12 is the statement

iI(i1:i+1|i)=0?|ψ1NSOPS(1,,N).\displaystyle\forall i\quad I(\mathcal{H}_{i-1}:\mathcal{H}_{i+1}|\mathcal{H}_{i})=0\quad\overset{?}{\Longrightarrow}\quad\ket{\psi}_{1\dots N}\in\mathrm{SOPS}(\mathcal{H}_{1},\dots,\mathcal{H}_{N}). (46)

Proposition 17 proves that this is indeed true for N=4N=4. The statement is trivially true for N=3N=3, since for three parties the left-hand-side implies that |ψ123\ket{\psi}_{123} is a product state. Evidently this statement is false for N6N\geq 6, because of the existence of a 6-party perfect tensor. The case for N=5N=5 remains an open problem.

Appendix C Coarse-graining of matrix product states

Here we present the details of the matrix product state techniques that are used to compute EP(A:B)E_{P}(A:B) and SR(A:B)S_{R}(A:B) for a critical quantum spin chain. As mentioned in the main text, we coarse-grain spins in regions A,B,CA,B,C and truncate the Hilbert spaces A,B,C\mathcal{H}_{A},\mathcal{H}_{B},\mathcal{H}_{C} into A~,B~,C~\mathcal{H}_{\tilde{A}},\mathcal{H}_{\tilde{B}},\mathcal{H}_{\tilde{C}}. The starting point is a periodic uniform matrix product state (puMPS) that represents the ground state. A puMPS is composed of NN identical rank-3 tensors MM,

|ψ(M)=s1s2snTr(Ms1Ms2MsN)|s1s2sN,\ket{\psi(M)}=\sum_{s_{1}s_{2}\cdots s_{n}}\operatorname{Tr}(M_{s_{1}}M_{s_{2}}\cdots M_{s_{N}})\ket{s_{1}s_{2}\cdots s_{N}}, (47)

where MsiM_{s_{i}} is a D×DD\times D matrix, si=1,2,,ds_{i}=1,2,\dots,d is the index for the Hilbert space on one site, and DD is the bond dimension. The bond dimension DD restricts the amount of entanglement in the ansatz. Specifically, the reduced density matrix of a puMPS on any contiguous region has rank at most D2D^{2}. In order to represent the ground state faithfully, DD grows polynomially with NN for a critical spin chain, but stays constant for a gapped spin chain [37]. We employ methods in Ref. 31 to minimize the energy with respect to the Hamiltonian HH and obtain the optimized puMPS |ψ(M)\ket{\psi(M)} as an approximation to the ground state.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: (a) Unit cell tensor MM. Virtual indices are labeled α,β\alpha,\beta and physical index is labeled sis_{i}. (b) Tαγ,βδT_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta} is formed by the contraction of the unit cell tensors along the physical index.

Next, we block spins to obtain a series of tensors M(n)M^{(n)} that represents the coarse-grained tensor for nn contiguous sites. Consider the transfer matrix

Tαβγδ=s=1dMsαβMsγδ.T_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}=\sum_{s=1}^{d}M_{s\alpha\beta}M^{*}_{s\gamma\delta}. (48)

For clarity, the indices and multiplication are shown using graphical tensor notation as well in Fig. 5. Grouping the indices (α,γ)(\alpha,\gamma) and (β,δ)(\beta,\delta), this tensor can be viewed as a D2×D2D^{2}\times D^{2} matrix. We can take its nn-th power TnT^{n}, e.g.

(T2)αγ,βδ=β1,δ1Tαβ1γδ1Tβ1βδ1δ.(T^{2})_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}=\sum_{\beta_{1},\delta_{1}}T_{\alpha\beta_{1}\gamma\delta_{1}}T_{\beta_{1}\beta\delta_{1}\delta}. (49)

Now we regroup the indices (α,β)(\alpha,\beta) and (γ,δ)(\gamma,\delta) for each tensor (Tn)αβγδ(T^{n})_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} to obtain a D2×D2D^{2}\times D^{2} matrix (different from above) that is Hermitian and positive. These matrices admit an eigenvalue decomposition,

(Tn)αβ,γδ=S=1d(n)λS(n)USαβ(n)USγδ(n),(T^{n})_{\alpha\beta,\gamma\delta}=\sum_{S=1}^{d^{(n)}}\lambda^{(n)}_{S}U^{(n)}_{S\alpha\beta}U^{(n)*}_{S\gamma\delta}, (50)

where d(n)d^{(n)} is the number of positive eigenvalues. It can be easily shown that d(n)min(D2,dn)d^{(n)}\leq\min{(D^{2},d^{n})}. Let

MSαβ(n)=S=1d(n)λS(n)USαβ(n),M^{(n)}_{S\alpha\beta}=\sum_{S=1}^{d^{(n)}}\sqrt{\lambda^{(n)}_{S}}U^{(n)}_{S\alpha\beta}, (51)

then the nnth power of the transfer matrix can be recovered by MSαβ(n)M^{(n)}_{S\alpha\beta},

(Tn)αβγδ=S=1d(n)MSαβ(n)MSγδ(n).(T^{n})_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}=\sum_{S=1}^{d^{(n)}}M^{(n)}_{S\alpha\beta}M^{(n)*}_{S\gamma\delta}. (52)

So far we have obtained a series of tensors M(n)M^{(n)} as a result of coarse-graining nn spins.

Now we can compute the mutual information I(A:B)=SA+SBSABI(A:B)=S_{A}+S_{B}-S_{AB}. First, we would like to compute SAS_{A}, where AA contains NAN_{A} contiguous sites, and the complement A¯\bar{A} contains NNAN-N_{A} sites. We can use the tensors M(NA)M^{(N_{A})} and M(NA¯)M^{(N_{\bar{A}})} to construct a coarse-grained state

|ψ~AA¯=SA,SA¯α,β=1DMSAαβ(NA)MSA¯βα(NA¯)|SASA¯\ket{\tilde{\psi}}_{A\bar{A}}=\sum_{S_{A},S_{\bar{A}}}\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^{D}M^{(N_{A})}_{S_{A}\alpha\beta}M^{(N_{\bar{A}})}_{S_{\bar{A}}\beta\alpha}\ket{S_{A}S_{\bar{A}}} (53)

A Schmidt decomposition on |ψAA¯\ket{\psi}_{A\bar{A}} gives the entanglement spectrum {λj2}\{\lambda^{2}_{j}\} between AA and A¯\bar{A}, which amounts to a singular value decompostion,

MSAαβ(NA)MSA¯βα(NA¯)=jUSAjλjVSA¯j,M^{(N_{A})}_{S_{A}\alpha\beta}M^{(N_{\bar{A}})}_{S_{\bar{A}}\beta\alpha}=\sum_{j}U_{S_{A}j}\lambda_{j}V^{*}_{S_{\bar{A}}j}, (54)

where

SAUSAjUSAk=δjk,SA¯VSA¯jVSA¯k=δjk,\sum_{S_{A}}U_{S_{A}j}U^{*}_{S_{A}k}=\delta_{jk},~{}~{}\sum_{S_{\bar{A}}}V^{*}_{S_{\bar{A}}j}V_{S_{\bar{A}}k}=\delta_{jk}, (55)

and λj0\lambda_{j}\geq 0. Note that UU depends on NAN_{A}, and we do not explicitly show the dependence in the notation. Also note that the UU here is not to be confused with the U(n)U^{(n)} in Eq. (51). The entanglement entropy between AA and A¯\bar{A} is

SA=jλj2log(λj2).S_{A}=-\sum_{j}\lambda^{2}_{j}\log(\lambda^{2}_{j}). (56)

Repeating the same procedure with NAN_{A} substituted by NBN_{B} or NA+NBN_{A}+N_{B} gives the entanglement entropy SBS_{B} or SABS_{AB}. We thus obtain the mutual information I(A:B)=SA+SBSABI(A:B)=S_{A}+S_{B}-S_{AB}. For later convenience, we further truncate the physical dimension of M(NA)M^{(N_{A})} using the Schmidt vectors USAjU_{S_{A}j},

M~S~Aαβ(NA)=SAUSAS~AMSAαβ(NA),\tilde{M}^{(N_{A})}_{\tilde{S}_{A}\alpha\beta}=\sum_{S_{A}}U^{*}_{S_{A}\tilde{S}_{A}}M^{(N_{A})}_{S_{A}\alpha\beta}, (57)

where we have restricted the index S~A\tilde{S}_{A} such that

λS~A>ϵ,S~A,\lambda_{\tilde{S}_{A}}>\epsilon,~{}~{}\forall\tilde{S}_{A}, (58)

given an error threshold ϵ>0\epsilon>0. The physical dimension is truncated to d~(NA)\tilde{d}^{(N_{A})}, the number of Schmidt coefficients {λj}\{\lambda_{j}\} larger than a threshold ϵ\epsilon. By virtue of the singular value decomposition, the truncation only keeps the Schmidt vectors with Schmidt values larger than ϵ\epsilon. Again, the truncation can be done for any M(n)M^{(n)} with 1nN1\leq n\leq N, by substituting the NAN_{A} above with nn.

Given the coarse-grained tensor M~(n)\tilde{M}^{(n)} and NA,NB,NCN_{A},N_{B},N_{C}, we are ready to construct the coarse-grained tripartite state as a MPS with three sites,

|ψ~A~B~C~=S~A,S~B,S~CαβγM~S~Aαβ(NA)M~S~Bβγ(NB)M~S~Cγα(NC)|S~AS~BS~C.\ket{\tilde{\psi}}_{\tilde{A}\tilde{B}\tilde{C}}=\sum_{\tilde{S}_{A},\tilde{S}_{B},\tilde{S}_{C}}\sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\tilde{M}^{(N_{A})}_{\tilde{S}_{A}\alpha\beta}\tilde{M}^{(N_{B})}_{\tilde{S}_{B}\beta\gamma}\tilde{M}^{(N_{C})}_{\tilde{S}_{C}\gamma\alpha}\ket{\tilde{S}_{A}\tilde{S}_{B}\tilde{S}_{C}}. (59)

This is the state that is used to compute EP(A:B)E_{P}(A:B) and SR(A:B)S_{R}(A:B) in the main text. The whole renormalization procedure is summarized in Fig. 6.

Refer to caption

Refer to caption

Refer to caption

Refer to caption

Refer to caption

Refer to caption
Figure 6: Coarse-graining of the periodic uniform matrix product state. (a) The original MPS as the ground state of the spin chain Hamiltonian, Eq. (47). (b) The eigenvalue decomposition of the nn-th power of the transfer matrix TnT^{n}, Eq. (50). (c) The coarse-grained tensor M(n)M^{(n)} as a tensor for nn sites, Eq. (51). (d) The Schmidt decomposition of the coarse-grained MPS with respect to AA and its complement A¯\bar{A} with nn and n¯=Nn\bar{n}=N-n sites, respectively, Eq. (54). (e) Truncation of physical dimensions of the coarse-grained MPS tensors, Eq. (57). (f) The final state |ψ~\ket{\tilde{\psi}} in Eq. (59).

Appendix D Gradient optimization for EPE_{P}

We consider a tripartite state |ψABC\ket{\psi}_{ABC} where CC is further split into CLC_{L} and CRC_{R}, C=CLCR\mathcal{H}_{C}=\mathcal{H}_{C_{L}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{C_{R}}. Since |ψABCLCR\ket{\psi}_{ABC_{L}C_{R}} is a purification of the reduced density matrix ρAB\rho_{AB}, all states of the form

|ψ(UCLCR)=UCLCR|ψABCLCR\ket{\psi(U_{C_{L}C_{R}})}=U_{C_{L}C_{R}}\ket{\psi}_{ABC_{L}C_{R}} (60)

gives purifications of ρAB\rho_{AB}, where UCLCRU_{C_{L}C_{R}} is a unitary operator on CLCRC_{L}C_{R}. Assume that the optimal purification can be achieved with the prescribed Hilbert space HCLH_{C_{L}} and HCRH_{C_{R}}, then

EP(A:B)=minUCLCRSACL:BCR(|ψ(UCLCR)).E_{P}(A:B)=\min_{U_{C_{L}C_{R}}}S_{AC_{L}:BC_{R}}(\ket{\psi(U_{C_{L}C_{R}})}). (61)

We will find the minimum by a gradient optimization. The gradient optimization requires the gradient of the objective function over the argument. To compute the gradient, we first express the reduced density matrix ρACL\rho_{AC_{L}} as

ρACL=TrBCRρ,\rho_{AC_{L}}=\operatorname{Tr}_{BC_{R}}\rho, (62)

where

ρ=UCLCR|ψψ|UCLCR.\rho=U_{C_{L}C_{R}}\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}U^{\dagger}_{C_{L}C_{R}}. (63)

The entanglement entropy is

SACL:BCR=TrACL(ρACLlogρACL),S_{AC_{L}:BC_{R}}=-\operatorname{Tr}_{AC_{L}}(\rho_{AC_{L}}\log\rho_{AC_{L}}), (64)

where ρACL\rho_{AC_{L}} depends on UCLCRU_{C_{L}C_{R}} by Eqs. (62), (63).

Let ss be the label for a step of the gradient optimization. Initially at s=0s=0 we have

UCLCR(s=0)=𝟏CLCR,U_{C_{L}C_{R}}(s=0)=\mathbf{1}_{C_{L}C_{R}}, (65)

which amounts to picking the original state |ψABCLCR\ket{\psi}_{ABC_{L}C_{R}} as the purification. At each step of gradient optimization, We perform an update of UCLCRU_{C_{L}C_{R}} of the form

UCLCR(s+1)=eiΘCLCRδtUCLCR(s),U_{C_{L}C_{R}}(s+1)=e^{i\Theta_{C_{L}C_{R}}\delta t}U_{C_{L}C_{R}}(s), (66)

where ΘCLCR\Theta_{C_{L}C_{R}} is an Hermitian operator on CLCR\mathcal{H}_{C_{L}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{C_{R}} and δtΘCLCR1\delta t||\Theta_{C_{L}C_{R}}||\ll 1. Up to higher order terms in δt\delta t, the change in the entanglement entropy SACL:BCRS_{AC_{L}:BC_{R}} is

δSACL:BCR\displaystyle\delta S_{AC_{L}:BC_{R}} =TrACL(δρACLlogρACL)\displaystyle=-\operatorname{Tr}_{AC_{L}}(\delta\rho_{AC_{L}}\log\rho_{AC_{L}})
=iδtTrACL(TrBCR([ΘCLCR,ρ])logρACL)\displaystyle=-i\delta t\operatorname{Tr}_{AC_{L}}(\operatorname{Tr}_{BC_{R}}([\Theta_{C_{L}C_{R}},\rho])\log\rho_{AC_{L}})
=iδtTr([ΘCLCR,ρ]logρACL𝟏BCR)\displaystyle=-i\delta t\operatorname{Tr}([\Theta_{C_{L}C_{R}},\rho]\log\rho_{AC_{L}}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{BC_{R}})
=iδtTr(ΘCLCR[ρ,logρACL𝟏BCR])\displaystyle=-i\delta t\operatorname{Tr}(\Theta_{C_{L}C_{R}}[\rho,\log\rho_{AC_{L}}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{BC_{R}}])
=δtTrCLCR(ΘCLCRECLCR),\displaystyle=\delta t\operatorname{Tr}_{C_{L}C_{R}}(\Theta_{C_{L}C_{R}}E_{C_{L}C_{R}}), (67)

where

ECLCR=iTrAB([ρ,logρACL𝟏BCR]).E_{C_{L}C_{R}}=-i\operatorname{Tr}_{AB}([\rho,\log\rho_{AC_{L}}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{BC_{R}}]). (68)

In the first line we have differentiated Eq. (64) and used TrACL(δρACL)=0\operatorname{Tr}_{AC_{L}}(\delta\rho_{AC_{L}})=0 since TrACLρACL1\operatorname{Tr}_{AC_{L}}\rho_{AC_{L}}\equiv 1, in the second line we have used the Heisenberg evolution of density matrix ρ\rho and traced out BCRBC_{R}, in the third line we have rearranged the tracings into an overall tracing on the full Hilbert space, in the fourth line we have used the cyclic property of trace, and in the last line we have rearranged the tracing.

If we use the gradient descent algorithm, we choose ΘCLCR\Theta_{C_{L}C_{R}} to be

ΘCLCR=ECLCR.\Theta_{C_{L}C_{R}}=-E_{C_{L}C_{R}}. (69)

In order to determine δt\delta t, we perform a line search to find the δt\delta t that minimizes SACL:BCRS_{AC_{L}:BC_{R}}, given the update rule Eq. (66) and the gradient direction Eq. (69). We then obtain UCLCR(s+1)U_{C_{L}C_{R}}(s+1) which can be substituted into Eq. (63) and Eq. (68) to compute the gradient direction ECLCRE_{C_{L}C_{R}} for the next step of the update. The gradient optimization goes so on and so forth, until the norm of gradient ECLCR||E_{C_{L}C_{R}}|| is smaller than some tolerance η\eta. In a typical gradient descent optimization, the error is quadratic in the norm of gradient. In this work we choose η=104\eta=10^{-4} such that the error in EP(A:B)E_{P}(A:B) is small compared to the finite-size corrections. In practice, we use the nonlinear conjugate gradient (NLCG) method instead of the simple gradient descent. The search direction ΘCLCR\Theta_{C_{L}C_{R}} in NLCG is a suitable linear combination of the gradient and the search direction in the previous step of iteration.

The computation of Eq. (68) is the most expensive step in the optimization. Given the tripartite state |ψA~B~C~\ket{\psi}_{\tilde{A}\tilde{B}\tilde{C}} in Fig. 6, we follow the steps below to compute Eq. (68). First, we contract the tensor network in Fig. 6, resulting in a three-leg tensor in Fig. 7, where we have omitted the tilde to simplify the notation. Then we split the leg CC into CLC_{L} and CRC_{R} as prescribed by the decomposition of the Hilbert space. In order to find logρACL\log\rho_{AC_{L}}, we first do the Schmidt decomposition with respect to ACLAC_{L} and BCRBC_{R}, as shown in Fig. 7. Then logρACL\log\rho_{AC_{L}} can be represented by Fig. 7. The density matrix ρ\rho is shown in Fig. 7. We can then compute TrAB(ρ(logρACL𝟏BCR))\operatorname{Tr}_{AB}(\rho(\log\rho_{AC_{L}}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{BC_{R}})) by contracting the tensor network in fig, 7. Finally, Eq. (68) can be computed by

ECLCR=i[TrAB(ρ(logρACL𝟏BCR))h.c.],E_{C_{L}C_{R}}=-i[\operatorname{Tr}_{AB}(\rho(\log\rho_{AC_{L}}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{BC_{R}}))-h.c.], (70)

where h.c.h.c. denotes the Hermitian conjugate of TrAB(ρ(logρACL𝟏BCR))\operatorname{Tr}_{AB}(\rho(\log\rho_{AC_{L}}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{BC_{R}})).

Refer to caption

Refer to caption

Refer to caption

Refer to caption

Refer to caption
Figure 7: Computation of the gradient Eq. (68). (a) Given a bipartition C=CLCR\mathcal{H}_{C}=\mathcal{H}_{C_{L}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{C_{R}}, reshape the state |ψ\ket{\psi} into a rank 4 tensor. (b) The Schmidt decomposition of the state |ψ\ket{\psi} bipartite into ACLAC_{L} and BCRBC_{R}. (c) The density matrix ρ\rho of the state |ψ\ket{\psi}.(d) The logarithm of the reduced density matrix ρACL\rho_{AC_{L}}. (e) The first term in the square bracket of Eq. (70).

Appendix E Different subregion sizes

First, we argue that g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) will be independent of the sizes of AA and BB in the thermodynamic limit. In the thermodynamic limit, the quantum spin chain is described by a 1+1D conformal field theory (CFT). As shown in Refs. [14, 11], the UV divergences in 2EP(A:B)2E_{P}(A:B), SR(A:B)S_{R}(A:B), and I(A:B)I(A:B) are of the same form – they scale with the UV cutoff Λ\Lambda as

2EP(A:B),SR(A:B),I(A:B)cCFT3logΛ.2E_{P}(A:B),S_{R}(A:B),I(A:B)\sim\frac{c^{{\textsl{\tiny CFT}}}}{3}\log\Lambda. (71)

The UV divergences in the quantities g(A:B)2EP(A:B)I(A:B)g(A:B)\equiv 2E_{P}(A:B)-I(A:B) and h(A:B)SR(A:B)I(A:B)h(A:B)\equiv S_{R}(A:B)-I(A:B) should therefore cancel, making them scale-invariant. In a conformal field theory a scale-invariant quantity is also conformally invariant. In 1+1D, a change in the length of the regions can be implemented by conformal transformations, which includes rescaling the space with arbitrary local weights. Therefore, in a CFT, g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) do not depend on the sizes of AA and BB. We then expect that on the lattice, g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) also do not depend on the sizes of AA and BB, once the thermodynamic limit is taken.

We study how g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) depend on subregion sizes using the O’Brien-Fendley model at λ=0.3\lambda=0.3. It is in the Ising universality class but has larger finite-size effect than the Ising model, and we can see the finite-size corrections in g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) more easily. We fix ratios (rA,rB,rC)=(NA/N,NB/N,NC/N)(r_{A},r_{B},r_{C})=(N_{A}/N,N_{B}/N,N_{C}/N) that determine the relative sizes and then take the thermodynamic limit NN\rightarrow\infty. Results with different ratios are shown in Fig. 8.


Refer to caption

Refer to caption
Figure 8: g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) for the O’Brien-Fendley model [34] with λ=0.3\lambda=0.3 In brackets we show the relative size ratios (rA,rB,rc)(r_{A},r_{B},r_{c}) of regions A,B,CA,B,C and we use a sequence of increasing system sizes 36N8436\leq N\leq 84. We use bond dimensions 18D2618\leq D\leq 26 and truncated MPS physical dimensions d~A=d~B=64\tilde{d}_{A}=\tilde{d}_{B}=64 and d~CL=d~CR=12\tilde{d}_{C_{L}}=\tilde{d}_{C_{R}}=12. Lines show linear extrapolations of the data points.

In Fig. 8, the intercept of the lines with the vertical axis shows the extrapolation of g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) to the thermodynamic limit. We see that both g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) converge to independent values regardless of subregion sizes. The slight differences in the values of extrapolation is caused by linearly fitting the data points with 1/N21/N^{2}, whereas the finite-size corrections scale in a more complicated way.

Appendix F Multipartite entanglement for gapped systems

In this section, we study gg and hh for 1D gapped systems in more detail. First and foremost. we assume that the ground state in the thermodynamic limit can be represented as a MPS with finite bond dimension DD, and that the multipartite entanglement quantities of the ground state can be extracted from the MPS. This assumption is, however, not rigorous proven. Despite tremendous success of infinite MPS algorthms which have been widely used to study general 1D gapped systems, it has only been rigorously proven that local properties can be captured by a MPS with finite bond dimension [39]. Therefore, the argument below should be taken as rigorous only for the gapped systems whose ground state can be exactly represented as a MPS. For a general gapped system, the argument below should be taken as heuristic rather than exact.

F.1 Fixed-point MPS

We begin with translation invariant MPS in the thermodynamic limit. Such a state flows toward fixed-point MPS under coarse-graining [28, 29, 41]. We will show that a fixed-point MPS is a SOTS for any contiguous tripartition. In particular, the MPS is a triangle state if it is injective, which corresponds to no long-range order. Therefore, in the thermodynamic limit the MPS has h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0, and if the MPS is injective then also g(A:B)=0g(A:B)=0.

We consider a periodic uniform MPS (puMPS) with NN sites. Each site has a dd-dimensional degree of freedom with associated rank-3 tensor MM with shape d×D×Dd\times D\times D, where DD is the bond dimension. We denote by MsiM_{s_{i}}, where sis_{i} indexes the dd physical basis states on the ii-th site, a D×DD\times D matrix.

In puMPS representation, the many-body ground state may be written in terms of NN identical rank-3 tensors MM:

|ψ(M)=s1s2snTr(Ms1Ms2Msn)|s1s2sn,\displaystyle{\big{|}{\psi(M)}\big{\rangle}}=\sum_{s_{1}s_{2}\cdots s_{n}}\operatorname{Tr}\big{(}M_{s_{1}}M_{s_{2}}\cdots M_{s_{n}}\big{)}\ket{s_{1}s_{2}\cdots s_{n}}, (72)

The puMPS representation is invariant under a local similarity transformation AiSMsiS1A_{i}\rightarrow SM_{s_{i}}S^{-1} for all sis_{i} and an invertible SS. As before, we define a transfer matrix derived from the matrices above

Tαγ,βδ=sMsαβ(Msγδ)\displaystyle T_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}=\sum_{s}M_{s\alpha\beta}(M_{s\gamma\delta})^{*} (73)

shown graphically in Fig. 5. The grouping of the indices indicates that we will treat the four-index tensor formed by the contraction instead as a D2×D2D^{2}\times D^{2} matrix with legs grouped as αγ\alpha\gamma and βδ\beta\delta. We then denote the product of nn adjacent transfer matrices Tαγ,βδnT^{n}_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}.

For ground states of gapped spin systems, as nn\rightarrow\infty, Tαγ,βδnT^{n}_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta} approaches a fixed-point transfer matrix Tαγ,βδfpT^{\text{fp}}_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}. In other words, by coarse-graining more sites, the corresponding transfer matrix converges to a single tensor which represents the renormalization fixed point. Such fixed-point tensors exhibit interesting properties shown in Refs. 28 and 29. We briefly review those properties and then use them to show that h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0 for any contiguous tripartition of a MPS in the thermodynamic limit.

Suppose |ψ\ket{\psi} is short-range correlated. Correlation functions of observables on two sites separated by LL sites must decay to zero as exp(L/ξ)\exp(-L/\xi) where ξ\xi is the correlation length. As observed in Ref. 28, by considering the Jordan normal form of Tαγ,βδT_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}, it can be seen that short-range correlation requires that Tαγ,βδT_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta} must have a non-degenerate largest eigenvalue. By using the similarity transformation, the canonical form introduced in Ref. 29 can be imposed so that the corresponding right eigenvector of Tαγ,βδT_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta} is |ΦR=α|αα\ket{\Phi_{R}}=\sum_{\alpha}\ket{\alpha\alpha} and the corresponding left eigenvector is |ΦL=βλβ|ββ\ket{\Phi_{L}}=\sum_{\beta}\lambda_{\beta}\ket{\beta\beta} where βλβ=1\sum_{\beta}\lambda_{\beta}=1. In that case, the fixed-point tensor is given by

(Tfp)αγ,βδ=|ΦRΦL|=αβδγλβδα,γδβ,δ\displaystyle(T^{\text{fp}})_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}=\ket{\Phi_{R}}\bra{\Phi_{L}}=\sum_{\alpha\beta\delta\gamma}\lambda_{\beta}\delta_{\alpha,\gamma}\delta_{\beta,\delta} (74)

In this canonical form, it is easy to read off what the coarse-grained matrices Msαβ(fp)M^{\text{(fp)}}_{s\alpha\beta} defined in Eq. (52) could be by using two physical indices jLjL and jRjR instead of just one (ss):

M(jL)(jR)αβ(fp)\displaystyle M^{\text{(fp)}}_{(jL)(jR)\alpha\beta} =δ(jL)αδ(jR)βλα\displaystyle=\delta_{(jL)\alpha}\delta_{(jR)\beta}\sqrt{\lambda_{\alpha}} (75)

This matrix is shown in graphical tensor notation in Fig. 9 (a). We may interpret this matrix as follows. The indices jLjL and jRjR label basis vectors of the coarse-grained physical Hilbert space cg\mathcal{H}_{\text{cg}} composed of two degrees of freedom cg=LR\mathcal{H}_{\text{cg}}=\mathcal{H}_{L}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{R} such that dim(cg)D2\dim(\mathcal{H}_{\text{cg}})\leq D^{2}. Consider a fixed-point MPS composed of matrices M(jL)(jR)αβ(fp)M^{\text{(fp)}}_{(jL)(jR)\alpha\beta}. By connecting Kronecker deltas of adjacent sites, say sites kk and k+k^{+}, it can be seen that this state is a tensor product of bipartite states shared by R\mathcal{H}_{R} of site kk and L\mathcal{H}_{L} of site k+k^{+} with Schmidt coefficients {λα}\{\sqrt{\lambda_{\alpha}}\}. With any contiguous tripartition the fixed-point MPS is clearly a triangle state. Thus g(A:B)=0g(A:B)=0 for short-range correlated MPS in the thermodynamic limit.

Refer to caption
Figure 9: Fixed-point MPS matrices. Solid lines connect indices which are related by a Kronecker delta. (a) M(jL)(jR)αβ(fp)M^{\text{(fp)}}_{(jL)(jR)\alpha\beta} for short-range correlated fixed-point states (given in Eq. (75)). (b) Mi(jL)(jR)α~(α~L)β~(β~R)(fp)M^{\text{(fp)}}_{i(jL)(jR)\tilde{\alpha}(\tilde{\alpha}L)\tilde{\beta}(\tilde{\beta}R)} for long-range correlated fixed-point states (given in Eq. (76)).

More generally, a long-range correlated state, such as a superposition of macroscopically different ground states, may be described by a transfer matrix with degenerate largest eigenvalue, allowing for some nonzero correlation even at infinite separation. It is shown in Ref. 29 that by similarity transformations, the D×DD\times D matrices {Msαβ}\{M_{s\alpha\beta}\} may be put in block-diagonal form so that each eigenvalue corresponds to an orthogonal subspace of the DD-dimensional virtual space. Each block may then be put in canonical form as in Eq. (74). Suppose the largest eigenvalue is mm-fold degenerate. The fixed-point transfer matrix then has mm blocks satisfying Eq. (74). The corresponding generalization of Eq. (75) can be seen most easily by introducing a physical index ii which indexes the orthogonal subspace and using a pair of labels instead of just one for each virtual index α(α~,α~L)\alpha\rightarrow(\tilde{\alpha},\tilde{\alpha}L) and β(β~,β~R)\beta\rightarrow(\tilde{\beta},\tilde{\beta}R):

Mi(jL)(jR)α~(α~L)β~(β~R)(fp)\displaystyle M^{\text{(fp)}}_{i(jL)(jR)\tilde{\alpha}(\tilde{\alpha}L)\tilde{\beta}(\tilde{\beta}R)} =δiα~δα~β~δ(jL)(α~L)δ(jR)(β~R)λα~(α~L)\displaystyle=\delta_{i\tilde{\alpha}}\delta_{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\beta}}\delta_{(jL)(\tilde{\alpha}L)}\delta_{(jR)(\tilde{\beta}R)}\sqrt{\lambda_{\tilde{\alpha}(\tilde{\alpha}L)}} (76)

For a fixed value of i=α=βi=\alpha=\beta, then, the matrix reduces to the form of Eq. (75) and the interpretation as a product of bipartite states holds. We may then interpret the overall matrix in Eq. (76) to mean that the many-body state is sum of mm states, each described by Eq. (75). A many-body state defined by such matrices is therefore a SOPS. With any contiguous tripartition the fixed-point state is thus a SOTS and h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0.

In conclusion, we have shown that a translation invariant MPS flows to a fixed-point MPS which is a SOPS in the thermodynamic limit. By Lemma 11, such a state has h(A:B)=0h(A:B)=0 for all contiguous tripartitions. If the MPS is short-range correlated, then the fixed-point MPS is further simplified to a triangle state, which has g(A:B)=h(A:B)=0g(A:B)=h(A:B)=0 for all contiguous tripartitions.

F.2 Translation invariant MPS at finite sizes

One can go further to bound g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) where the sizes of AA and BB are taken to be finite. The aim of this section is to show that they are exponentially close (in terms of the lengths of AA and BB) to the fixed-point values. This essentially follows from the continuity of EP(A:B)E_{P}(A:B), SR(A:B)S_{R}(A:B) and I(A:B)I(A:B) with respect to the density matrices. Let ρAB\rho_{AB} and σAB\sigma_{AB} be two density matrices on the Hilbert space AB\mathcal{H}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{B}, where the dimensions of A/B\mathcal{H}_{A/B} is dA/Bd_{A/B}. Let Δ(ρAB,σAB)=(1/2)|ρABσAB|\Delta(\rho_{AB},\sigma_{AB})=(1/2)|\rho_{AB}-\sigma_{AB}| denote the trace distance between ρAB\rho_{AB} and σAB\sigma_{AB} where |A|=TrAA|A|=\operatorname{Tr}\sqrt{A^{\dagger}A}. Then if Δ(ρAB,σAB)ϵ\Delta(\rho_{AB},\sigma_{AB})\leq\epsilon and for ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small we have the three theorems below. The continuity of g(A:B)=2EP(A:B)I(A:B)g(A:B)=2E_{P}(A:B)-I(A:B) and h(A:B)=SR(A:B)I(A:B)h(A:B)=S_{R}(A:B)-I(A:B) is then implied by the theorems.

Theorem 18 (Continuity of EPE_{P} [10]).

|EP(ρAB)EP(σAB)|40ϵlogd4ϵlog(4ϵ)|E_{P}(\rho_{AB})-E_{P}(\sigma_{AB})|\leq 40\sqrt{\epsilon}\log d-4\sqrt{\epsilon}\log(4\sqrt{\epsilon}), where d=dAdB.d=d_{A}d_{B}.

Theorem 19 (Continuity of SRS_{R} [40]).

|SR(ρAB)SR(σAB)|42ϵlog(min{dA.dB})22ϵlogϵ|S_{R}(\rho_{AB})-S_{R}(\sigma_{AB})|\leq 4\sqrt{2\epsilon}\log(\min\{d_{A}.d_{B}\})-2\sqrt{2\epsilon}\log\epsilon.

Theorem 20 (Continuity of Mutual Information [10]).

|I(ρAB)I(σAB)|3ϵlogd3ϵlogϵ|I(\rho_{AB})-I(\sigma_{AB})|\leq 3\epsilon\log d-3\epsilon\log\epsilon, where d=dAdBd=d_{A}d_{B}.

To be more concrete, we consider a puMPS of NN sites and bond dimension DD and take each of the three regions A,B,CA,B,C to be of size N/3N/3. We use the coarse-graining of the MPS to make a puMPS on three sites (Eq. (59)), where each site represents the coarse-grained Hilbert space of A,BA,B and CC. Note that here no truncation on the physical Hilbert space is used, so the physical dimension of each site is dA=dB=dC=D2d_{A}=d_{B}=d_{C}=D^{2} and the three tensors in Eq. (59) are the same. The puMPS on three sites are related to the original state by local isometries, so the coarse-graining itself does not change any entanglement properties, including EP(A:B),SR(A:B)E_{P}(A:B),S_{R}(A:B) and I(A:B)I(A:B). We now show that the coarse-grained MPS is exponentially close in NN to the fixed-point MPS on three sites, so by continuity of g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B), they are also exponentially close to the their fixed-point values (gfp(A:B)=0g^{\text{fp}}(A:B)=0 for injective MPS and hfp(A:B)=0h^{\text{fp}}(A:B)=0 regardless of injectivity).

First, we assume the MPS is injective and derive a bound on g(A:B)g(A:B). The transfer matrix has a unique eigenvalue 11. Denote the second-largest eigenvalue as λ2<1\lambda_{2}<1. The correlation length is then ξ=1/logλ2\xi=-1/\log\lambda_{2}. The injectivity of the MPS is then equivalent to finite correlation length. The transfer matrix has an eigenvalue decomposition

Tαγ,βδ=Tfp+λ2rαγlβδ+T_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}=T^{\text{fp}}+\lambda_{2}r_{\alpha\gamma}l_{\beta\delta}+\cdots (77)

where rr and ll are the right/left eigenvectors of the eigenvalue λ2\lambda_{2} and \cdots denotes contributions of smaller eigenvalues. Taking large powers of Tαγ,βδT_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}, the \cdots term vanishes faster than the second term, so we will drop the dots. Then we have

Tαγ,βδN/3=Tfp+eN/(3ξ)rαγlβδ.T^{N/3}_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}=T^{\text{fp}}+e^{-N/(3\xi)}r_{\alpha\gamma}l_{\beta\delta}. (78)

We will measure the difference in terms of the norm Aabc=AabcAabc||A_{abc...}||=\sqrt{A_{abc...}A^{*}_{abc...}}, where repeated indices are summed. Then

Tαγ,βδN/3Tfp=eN/(3ξ)Tr(rr)Tr(ll),||T^{N/3}_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}-T^{\text{fp}}||=e^{-N/(3\xi)}\sqrt{\operatorname{Tr}(r^{\dagger}r)\operatorname{Tr}(l^{\dagger}l)}, (79)

which decays exponentially with system size NN. Denote the coarse-grained tensor on A,B,CA,B,C as MM, then

Tαγ,βδN/3=sMsαβ(Msγδ).\displaystyle T^{N/3}_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}=\sum_{s}M_{s\alpha\beta}(M_{s\gamma\delta})^{*}. (80)

Recall that MM can be obtained by an eigenvalue decomposition Eq. (50) and (51). One can use the Rayleigh-Schrodinger perturbation theory to derive the difference between MM and MfpM^{\text{fp}}. Notice that the differences in the eigenvalues and eigenvectors are of order eN/(3ξ)e^{-N/(3\xi)}, and the combination Eq. (51) at most change on the order of eN/(6ξ)e^{-N/(6\xi)} because of the square root in the eigenvalues. Then at large sizes

MMfpO(1)DeN/(6ξ),||M-M^{\text{fp}}||\leq O(1)\cdot De^{-N/(6\xi)}, (81)

Let |ψN\ket{\psi_{N}} be a puMPS with tensor MM on 3 sites, and |ψfp\ket{\psi^{\text{fp}}} be a puMPS with tensor MfpM^{\text{fp}} on 3 sites, then

Δ(|ψNψN|,|ψfpψfp|)O(1)DeN/(6ξ).\Delta(\ket{\psi_{N}}\bra{\psi_{N}},\ket{\psi^{\text{fp}}}\bra{\psi^{\text{fp}}})\leq O(1)\cdot De^{-N/(6\xi)}. (82)

Finally, let ρAB=TrC|ψNψN|\rho_{AB}=\operatorname{Tr}_{C}|\psi_{N}\rangle\langle\psi_{N}| and σAB=TrC|ψfpψfp|\sigma_{AB}=\operatorname{Tr}_{C}|\psi^{\text{fp}}\rangle\langle\psi^{\text{fp}}|. Since the trace distance is monotonic under tracing out a subsystem,

Δ(ρAB,σAB)O(1)DeN/(6ξ).\Delta(\rho_{AB},\sigma_{AB})\leq O(1)\cdot De^{-N/(6\xi)}. (83)

Finally we can derive a bound on g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B),

g(A:B)2|EP(ρAB)EP(σAB)|+|I(ρAB)I(σAB)|g(A:B)\leq 2|E_{P}(\rho_{AB})-E_{P}(\sigma_{AB})|+|I(\rho_{AB})-I(\sigma_{AB})| (84)

and

h(A:B)|SR(ρAB)SR(σAB)|+|I(ρAB)I(σAB)|.h(A:B)\leq|S_{R}(\rho_{AB})-S_{R}(\sigma_{AB})|+|I(\rho_{AB})-I(\sigma_{AB})|. (85)

Upon using the continuity theorems 18, 19, and 20, we see that both g(A:B)g(A:B) and h(A:B)h(A:B) are upper bounded by an exponentially decaying quantity.

For a general MPS we can again decompose it into a sum of superselection sectors which are locally orthogonal. The coarse-graining transformation acts on each of the superselection sectors separately. At finite sizes the state is coarse-grained into a SOTS with an expoentially small correction and therefore h(A:B)h(A:B) is upper bounded by an exponentially small quantity.

F.3 MPS without translation invariance

The requirement of translation invariance above is not essential. As noted in Refs. 28, 29, the coarse graining can be done in a similar way for MPS without translation invariance. Here we briefly review how this is done. Denote the tensor on site kk as M(k)M^{(k)} and the corresponding transfer matrix as T(k)T^{(k)}. It has been shown in Ref. 29 that an injective MPS can be put into the central canonical form, where the (unique) dominant eigenvalue of T(k)T^{(k)} is 11 and the corresponding left/right eigenvectors are Λαγ(k)=λα(k)δαγ\Lambda^{(k)}_{\alpha\gamma}=\sqrt{\lambda^{(k)}_{\alpha}}\delta_{\alpha\gamma} and Λβδ(k+1)=λβ(k+1)δβδ\Lambda^{(k+1)}_{\beta\delta}=\sqrt{\lambda^{(k+1)}_{\beta}}\delta_{\beta\delta}, where αλα(k)=1\sum_{\alpha}\lambda^{(k)}_{\alpha}=1. Note that the left dominant eigenvector of T(k+1)T^{(k+1)} is the same as the right dominant eigenvector of T(k)T^{(k)}. The transfer matrices have the eigenvalue decomposition

Tαγ,βδ(k)=Λβδ(k+1)Λαγ(k)+λ2(k)rβδ(k)lαγ(k)+.T^{(k)}_{\alpha\gamma,\beta\delta}=\Lambda^{(k+1)}_{\beta\delta}\Lambda^{(k)}_{\alpha\gamma}+\lambda^{(k)}_{2}r^{(k)}_{\beta\delta}l^{(k)}_{\alpha\gamma}+\cdots. (86)

We assume that the transfer matrix has a finite gap, λk(2)<1ϵ,k\lambda^{(2)}_{k}<1-\epsilon^{\prime},\forall k for some ϵ>0\epsilon^{\prime}>0. This is equivalent to exponentially decaying correlation functions typical in gapped systems. The coarse-graining amounts to multiplying the transfer matrices in an interval together. If the interval is long enough, then the only remaining part is the multiplication of the first term in the expansion. This gives the coarse-grained tensor on the left of Fig. 9. The resulting state is then a triangle state. Similarly, in the case of a generic MPS one can decompose it into a sum of injective MPS and then apply the coarse-graining to give a SOTS.