4
$\begingroup$

Cross-posted at MMSE.

In Fu and Kane's paper from 2006, the authors define the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ invariant for time-reversal invariant topological insulators as an obstruction to Stoke's theorem, $$ \begin{equation} \nu=\frac{1}{2\pi}\left[\oint_{\partial\text{HBZ}}\mathrm{d}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{k})-\int_{\text{HBZ}}\mathrm{d}^2\mathbf{k}F(\mathbf{k})\right]\text{(mod 2)}, \end{equation} $$ where $\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{k})=\sum_{n,\sigma}\langle u_{n,\sigma}(\mathbf{k})|\mathrm{i}\nabla|u_{n,\sigma}(\mathbf{k})\rangle$ and $F=\nabla\times\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{k})$ (where $|u_{n,\sigma}(\mathbf{k})\rangle$s are the periodic Bloch functions). The integrals are evaluated over half of the Brillouin zone. This formula is not gauge invariant and the authors impose a time reversal constraint on the periodic Bloch functions, $$ \begin{equation} |u_{n,\uparrow}(-\mathbf{k})\rangle=\Theta|u_{n,\downarrow}(\mathbf{k})\rangle \end{equation} $$ $$ \begin{equation} |u_{n,\downarrow}(-\mathbf{k})\rangle=-\Theta|u_{n,\uparrow}(\mathbf{k})\rangle \end{equation}. $$ However, I do not understand how this fixes the gauge. I can always define the new Bloch states,

$$ \begin{equation} |u_{n,\uparrow}(\mathbf{k})\rangle'=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta_{\mathbf{k}}}|u_{n,\uparrow}(\mathbf{k})\rangle \end{equation} $$ $$ \begin{equation} |u_{n,\downarrow}(\mathbf{k})\rangle'=\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\theta_{-\mathbf{k}}}|u_{n,\downarrow}(\mathbf{k})\rangle \end{equation} $$ which satisfies the gauge constraint for any arbitrary choice of $\theta_{\mathbf{k}}$. The Berry connection gets modified to, $$ \begin{equation} \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{k})\rightarrow\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{k})+\nabla(\theta_{\mathbf{k}}-\theta_{-\mathbf{k}}). \end{equation} $$ If I choose a $\theta$ that has a singularity in only one-half of the Brillouin zone, it can change the value of $\nu$ by 1. My question is, do we need any additional constraints on the Bloch functions to define $\nu$ unambiguously modulo 2? Thank you!

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ I may be misunderstanding you, but if $\theta_\mathbf k$ is singular at some $\mathbf k_0$ then $\theta_\mathbf k -\theta_{-\mathbf k}$ is singular at both $\mathbf k_0$ and $-\mathbf k_0$, no? $\endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    Commented Oct 10, 2023 at 0:23
  • $\begingroup$ @J.Murray Indeed there will be a singularity at $\mathbf{k}_0$ and $-\mathbf{k}_0$, however only one of them will lie inside the HBZ, therefore when you integrate over the HBZ, the singularity at $\mathbf{k}_0$ will contribute and change the value of $\nu$ by 1. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 10, 2023 at 1:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suppose I don't really understand the question. To which term in your first expression is your gauge transformation meant to contribute? $F$ is gauge invariant, and the gradient of a scalar function vanishes under a closed loop integral. Are you imagining that your $\theta$'s have some kind of branch cut singularity that intersects the integration path? $\endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    Commented Oct 10, 2023 at 3:14
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I'm trying to understand what happens when $\theta$ has a branch cut. For example, if we choose $\theta=\arctan(y/x)$, the integral of $\nabla\theta$ around a contour encircling the origin will give us 1. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 10, 2023 at 13:11
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, the integral around a contour encircling the origin will give us $2\pi$. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 10, 2023 at 14:11

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

As you have mentioned, upon a gauge transformation, we have \begin{equation} \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{k})\rightarrow\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{k})+\nabla(\theta_{\mathbf{k}}-\theta_{-\mathbf{k}}). \end{equation} so $\nu$ is changed by \begin{align} \Delta\nu & =\frac{1}{2\pi}\oint_{\partial\text{HBZ}}\nabla(\theta_{\mathbf{k}}-\theta_{-\mathbf{k}})\\ & = 2\cdot \frac{1}{2\pi}\oint_{\partial\text{HBZ}}\nabla\theta_{\mathbf{k}} \end{align} where the loop integral is the winding of $\theta_{\bf k}$ and yield integer multiple of $2\pi$ thus $\Delta \nu$ gives 0 mod 2.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.