On $\mathbb{Z}_2$-indices for ground states of fermionic chains
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 1905.11556
\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{amscd,amssymb,amsmath,latexsym,enumerate}
\usepackage[mathscr]{euscript}
\usepackage{epsfig}
%,graphics,graphicx}
\usepackage{fancybox}
\usepackage{verbatim}
%\usepackage{MnSymbol}
\usepackage{mathdots}
\usepackage{color}
\newcommand{\red}{\textcolor[rgb]{0.90,0.00,0.00}}
\newcommand{\blue}{\textcolor[rgb]{0.00,0.00,0.99}}
%
\newcommand{\erase}[1]{\red{$\overline{\rule{0pt}{1pt}\smash[t]{\text{\color{black}#1}}}$}}
%
\newcommand{\mpcomment}[1]{\marginpar{\scriptsize{\rosso{#1}}}}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\textheight 22truecm
\textwidth 17truecm
\oddsidemargin -0.5truecm
\evensidemargin 0truecm
\topmargin -1cm
\usepackage{xcolor}
\definecolor{MyBlue}{cmyk}{1,0.13,0,0.63}
\definecolor{MyGreen}{cmyk}{0.91,0,0.88,0.52}
\newcommand{\mylinkcolor}{MyBlue}
\newcommand{\mycitecolor}{MyGreen}
\newcommand{\myurlcolor}{black}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{%
bookmarksnumbered=true,bookmarksopen=false,%
plainpages=false,% necessary to prevent duplicate page identifiers
linktocpage=true,%
colorlinks=true,breaklinks=true,%
linkcolor=\mylinkcolor,citecolor=\mycitecolor,urlcolor=\myurlcolor,%
pdfpagelayout=OneColumn,%
pageanchor=true,%
}
\title{On $\mathbb{Z}_2$-indices for ground states of fermionic chains}
\author{Chris Bourne$^1$, Hermann Schulz-Baldes$^2$
\thanks{email:
\texttt{chris.bourne@tohoku.ac.jp, schuba@mi.uni-erlangen.de}}
\\
{\small $^1$ AIMR, Tohoku University, Sendai, and RIKEN iTHEMS, Wako, Japan}
\\
{\small $^2$ Department Mathematik, FAU Erlangen-N\"urnberg, Germany}
}
%\vspace{.5cm}
\date{\today}
\newtheorem{theo}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{proposi}[theo]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theo]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{coro}[theo]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{defini}[theo]{Definition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theo]{Remark}
\newtheorem{example}[theo]{Example}
\newcommand{\BM}{{\mathbb B}}
\newcommand{\CM}{{\mathbb C}}
\newcommand{\NM}{{\mathbb N}}
\newcommand{\RM}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{\SM}{{\mathbb S}}
\newcommand{\TM}{{\mathbb T}}
\newcommand{\ZM}{{\mathbb Z}}
\newcommand{\PM}{{\mathbb P}}
\newcommand{\LM}{{\mathbb L}}
\newcommand{\KM}{{\mathbb K}}
\newcommand{\HM}{{\mathbb H}}
\newcommand{\DM}{{\mathbb D}}
\newcommand{\GM}{{\mathbb G}}
\newcommand{\UM}{{\mathbb U}}
\newcommand{\WM}{{\mathbb W}}
\newcommand{\FM}{{\mathbb F}}
\newcommand{\IM}{{\mathbb I}}
\newcommand{\Aa}{{\cal A}}
\newcommand{\Ee}{{\cal E}}
\newcommand{\Pp}{{\cal P}}
\newcommand{\PP}{{\bf P}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{{\bf Q}}
\newcommand{\HH}{{\bf H}}
\newcommand{\UU}{{\bf U}}
\newcommand{\pp}{{\bf p}}
\newcommand{\BB}{{\bf B}}
\newcommand{\NN}{{\bf N}}
\newcommand{\EE}{{\bf E}}
\newcommand{\Bb}{{\cal B}}
\newcommand{\Dd}{{\cal D}}
\newcommand{\Ff}{{\cal F}}
\newcommand{\Gg}{{\cal G}}
\newcommand{\Ww}{{\cal W}}
\newcommand{\Uu}{{\cal U}}
\newcommand{\Vv}{{\cal V}}
\newcommand{\Ss}{{\cal S}}
\newcommand{\Oo}{{\cal O}}
\newcommand{\Tr}{\mbox{\rm Tr}}
\newcommand{\Tt}{{\cal T}}
\newcommand{\Rr}{{\cal R}}
\newcommand{\Nn}{{\cal N}}
\newcommand{\Mm}{{\cal M}}
\newcommand{\Cc}{{\cal C}}
\newcommand{\Jj}{{\cal J}}
\newcommand{\Ii}{{\cal I}}
\newcommand{\Ll}{{\cal L}}
\newcommand{\Qq}{{\cal Q}}
\newcommand{\Kk}{{\cal K}}
\newcommand{\Hh}{{\cal H}}
\newcommand{\Maj}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny Maj}}}
\newcommand{\cor}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny cor}}}
\newcommand{\av}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny av}}}
\def\essinf{\mathop{\rm ess\,inf}}
\def\esssup{\mathop{\rm ess\,sup}}
\newcommand{\Zh}{{\widehat{Z}}}
\newcommand{\one}{{\bf 1}}
\newcommand{\nul}{{\bf 0}}
\newcommand{\inv}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny inv}}}
\newcommand{\up}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny upp}}}
\newcommand{\TR}{{\rm Tr}}
\newcommand{\ev}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny ev}}}
\newcommand{\odd}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny od}}}
\newcommand{\bound}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny bd}}}
\newcommand{\per}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny per}}}
\newcommand{\SF}{{\rm SF}}
\newcommand{\Ch}{{\rm Ch}}
\newcommand{\Exp}{{\rm Exp}}
\newcommand{\Ind}{{\rm Ind}}
\newcommand{\Ker}{{\rm Ker}}
\newcommand{\Ran}{{\rm Ran}}
\newcommand{\Mat}{{\rm Mat}}
\newcommand{\sgn}{{\rm sgn}}
\newcommand{\Sig}{{\rm Sig}}
\newcommand{\diag}{{\rm diag}}
\newcommand{\GFunc}{f_{\mbox{\rm\tiny Ind}}}
\newcommand{\FFunc}{f_{\mbox{\rm\tiny Exp}}}
\newcommand{\tFFunc}{\tilde{f}_{\mbox{\rm\tiny Exp}}}
\newcommand{\ii}{{i}}
\newcommand{\redu}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny red}}}
\newcommand{\ph}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny ph}}}
\newcommand{\ess}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny ess}}}
\newcommand{\sym}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny sym}}}
\newcommand{\GNS}{{\mbox{\rm\tiny GNS}}}
\newcommand{\fraka}{{\mathfrak a}}
\newcommand{\frakb}{{\mathfrak b}}
\newcommand{\frakbtilde}{\tilde{\mathfrak b}}
\newcommand{\frakc}{{\mathfrak c}}
\newcommand{\frakd}{{\mathfrak d}}
\newcommand{\frakn}{{\mathfrak n}}
%%%CB macros
\def\calT{\mathcal{T}}
\def\calC{\mathcal{C}}
\def\calL{\mathcal{L}}
\def\calO{\mathcal{O}}
\def\calK{\mathcal{K}}
\def\calB{\mathcal{B}}
\def\calH{\mathcal{H}}
\def\calD{\mathcal{D}}
\def\calF{\mathcal{F}}
\def\calA{\mathcal{A}}
\def\calN{\mathcal{N}}
\def\calP{\mathcal{P}}
\def\calM{\mathcal{M}}
\def\calJ{\mathcal{J}}
\def\calS{\mathcal{S}}
\def\calE{\mathcal{E}}
\def\calQ{\mathcal{Q}}
\def\calV{\mathcal{V}}
\def\calW{\mathcal{W}}
\def\calU{\mathcal{U}}
\def\calG{\mathcal{G}}
\newcommand{\ol}{\overline}
\newcommand{\wh}{\ensuremath{\widehat}}
\newcommand{\wt}{\ensuremath{\widetilde}}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\vspace{.5cm}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{abstract}
For parity-conserving fermionic chains, we review how to associate $\mathbb{Z}_2$-indices
to ground states in finite systems with quadratic and higher-order interactions
as well as to quasifree
ground states on the infinite CAR algebra.
It is shown that the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued
spectral flow provides a topological obstruction for two systems to have
the same $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index.
A rudimentary definition of a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label for
a class of parity-invariant and pure ground states of the one-dimensional infinite CAR algebra
is also provided. Ground states with differing phase labels cannot be connected without a closing
of the spectral gap of the infinite GNS Hamiltonian.
\hfill
MSC2010: 81T75, 81V70, 58J30
\end{abstract}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% 81V70 Quantum Theory - Many-body theory; quantum Hall effect
% 81T75 Quantum Theory - Noncommutative geometry methods
% 47A53 (Semi-) Fredholm operators; index theories
% 58J30 Spectral flows
\tableofcontents
\section{Introduction}
Rigorous analysis of condensed matter systems using topological methods has made substantial progress in
the past 10--15 years. Topological insulators and superconductors
have shown that invariants from differential topology (and their extensions in noncommutative geometry)
give rise to stable and novel physical phenomena, see~\cite{PS} for references.
\vspace{0.2cm}
There have also been significant developments in the analytical understanding of gapped ground states of
many-body spin systems and their relation to topological order.
Improved Lieb--Robinson bounds and the area law for the decay of entanglement entropy~\cite{Hastings07}
are among many
non-trivial results concerning properties of uniformly gapped ground states
of frustration-free spin systems~\cite{BMNS, BN, BO, OgataIII}. See~\cite{NSY18} for a comprehensive review.
In dimensions greater than one, where braiding may occur, analytic results are much harder to obtain,
though important examples such as Kitaev's toric code~\cite{KitAnyon} can be treated within the
framework of frustration-free ground states. Newer methods for higher-dimensional spin systems
are also in development~\cite{Cha18}. There has also been several results concerning
stability of topological invariants such as the Hall conductance in interacting
fermion systems~\cite{BBDRF1,BBDRF2,BDRF18,GMP, HM, MonacoTeufel}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
There have been efforts in the physics community to connect these
two areas of topological physics via the study of interacting topological phases.
While a precise characterisation of interacting phases
remains in development, following a proposal of Kitaev, it is currently
expected that symmetry protected topological (SPT) phases of gapped ground states are described
using a generalised cohomology theory~\cite{FreedHopkins, SSR,Xiong18}. Roughly speaking,
such theories construct a homotopy group of deformation
classes of invertible topological field theories or
short-range entangled states with specified additional input, {\it e.g.} symmetries and dimension.
For the case of fermions, which we focus on in this manuscript, $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded tensor networks
provide a convenient toolset to construct such field theories, see~\cite{BWH, FPEPS, KTY18, TurzilloYou}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
The goals of this paper are much more modest. Our aim is to review the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index
associated to one-dimensional fermionic ground states considered by Kitaev~\cite{Kit}
as an indication of Majorana fermions at the boundary of one-dimensional superconducting wires.
This $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label is now regarded as the one-dimensional SPT phase of
gapped and parity-symmetric fermionic systems without additional symmetries. While some
properties of infinite systems and the thermodynamic limit
can be obtained by a careful treatment of finite systems,
rigourous studies of infinite fermionic systems directly are less common.
One reason is that ground states in infinite systems are generally understood via techniques
from operator algebras and, as such, require a more involved framework.
\vspace{0.2cm}
The $\mathbb{Z}_2$-indices for ground states of finite fermionic chains
with quadratic and higher-order interactions are first reviewed. We also consider
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-indices for quasifree ground states
of infinite systems, which generalise the finite-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index.
The exposition on quasifree ground states is closely related to
work by Araki, Evans and Matsui on the $XY$-chain and the phase transition of the
$2$-dimensional Ising model~\cite{Araki,ArakiEvans, ArakiMatsui85}.
Many have noted
that the quadratic finite Kitaev chain is the same as the quantum Ising chain under the Jordan--Wigner
transform. But a more systematic treatment on the connections between spin chains in quantum
statistical mechanics and fermionic gapped ground state phases, particularly in infinite systems,
appears to be absent in the literature.
As such, these concepts are reviewed in detail.
\vspace{0.2cm}
A key connection is also shown between the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-ground state
index and the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow recently studied
in~\cite{CPS}. (Let us stress that the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow is \emph{unrelated} to the spectral
flow of the quasiadiabatic evolution of ground states \cite{NSY18}, see Section \ref{sec:Z_2_prelims}.)
Indeed for finite quadratic chains and quasifree ground states of the CAR algebra,
the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow is shown to encode the topological obstruction
for two Hamiltonians to have the same $\mathbb{Z}_2$-ground state index.
For systems with periodic or anti-periodic boundary conditions, this topological obstruction can be detected
via the insertion of a flux quanta through a local cell and the associated $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow.
Finite chains with twisted boundary conditions as studied in~\cite{TwistedKitaev}
also provide an example.
We remark that fermionic interactions with periodic or anti-periodic boundary conditions
become highly non-local if one takes the Jordan--Wigner transformation and considers
the corresponding bosonic Hamiltonian. Therefore, such Hamiltonians will in general violate the Local Topological Quantum
Order condition used in~\cite{MZ, MN18} to show stability of a ground state gap.
\vspace{0.2cm}
One of the motivations to study flux insertions is
to analyse topological properties of Hamiltonians and their ground states.
By connecting
flux insertion to $\mathbb{Z}_2$-spectral flow, an index-theoretic construction,
the topological nature of the ground states under consideration becomes manifest.
Flux insertion has also been used in higher-dimensional systems to construct
a many-body index for charge transport~\cite{BBDRF2} as well as show the stability of the Hall conductance
under interactions~\cite{BBDRF1}.
These observations open a potential pathway to study
topological invariants of higher dimensional interacting systems of fermions
by inserting (non-abelian) monopoles as in \cite{CSBMonopole,DS}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
While much of the manuscript is review, we do provide a candidate for a
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-index of pure, gapped and parity-invariant ground states on
the one-dimensional infinite CAR algebra that can be used as a phase label.
To the best of our knowledge, the
construction is new, though it heavily relies on the split property of one-dimensional
ground states~\cite{Matsui01, Matsui13}
as well as the infinite Jordan--Wigner
transform~\cite[Chapter 6.5]{EvansKawahigashi}. The use of the split property as
a tool to characterise ground state SPT phases was first noted by Ogata~\cite{OgataTRS}.
Results from~\cite{NSY18} give tools to show basic stability properties of this index, including invariance under
a $C^1$-path of uniformly gapped Hamiltonians satisfying extra compatibility conditions.
We also show that if two gapped ground states have differing phase labels,
then the spectral gap of the infinite GNS Hamiltonian must close for paths of
ground states connecting the two systems. This gives us some confidence that the suggested
phase label is a useful one.
\subsection*{Outline}
Section \ref{sec:prelim} gives a brief summary of the operator algebra approach to fermionic ground states and the
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow.
The paper is then divided into 2 relatively distinct parts corresponding to
finite and infinite chains, where the characterisation of the ground state changes from the
lowest-energy eigenvector to the operator algebraic definition.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Section \ref{sec:finite_quadratic} considers finite chains with Hamiltonians quadratic
in the creation and annihilation operators. In this setting, the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index is
defined as the homotopy type of a Bogoliubov transformation that diagonalises the
Hamiltonian. The example of the Kitaev Hamiltonian is studied in detail. While the ground state $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index
can in principle be defined for any positive quadratic Hamiltonian, it is in general much
easier to compute for closed chains with periodic or anti-periodic boundary
conditions. For chains with open boundary conditions, different phases can be
differentiated by
the existence or non-existence of Majorana boundary states.
We also show that the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow gives a topological
obstruction for two Hamiltonians to have the same $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index.
The Martingale method is also used to show a uniformly bounded ground state energy gap
for a large class of model Hamiltonians. For the case of closed chains, the
insertion of a flux can close this gap and implement a non-trivial
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow.
The Kitaev chain with twisted boundary conditions is such an example.
\vspace{0.1cm}
Higher order interactions on finite chains are studied in Section \ref{sec:higher_order}.
A $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index for higher order interactions cannot be directly defined, but
one can instead consider the ground state parity or Hamiltonians
that can be connected to quadratic systems by a $C^1$-path with a uniformly bounded ground state gap.
We mostly focus on the solvable Kitaev Hamiltonian with a quartic interaction
studied in~\cite{KST}.
We consider a closed chain, where a local $\pi$-flux will induce a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase
change of ground states with a uniformly bounded ground state energy gap.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Section \ref{sec:quasifree_intro} considers infinite systems
and ground states of the CAR algebra that come from quasifree dynamics, where
equivalence of quasifree states is determined by a Hilbert-Schmidt condition.
This condition is used to derive a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index map for Bogoliubov
transformations between systems with different quasifree dynamics. This infinite $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index
gives a natural generalisation of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index defined for finite quadratic chains.
As in the finite-dimensional case,
the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow gives a topological obstruction for two ground states
to have the same index. In particular, a non-trivial $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow between
gapped quasifree ground states will cause the ground state gap of the infinite GNS Hamiltonian to close.
\vspace{0.1cm}
Finally, a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index is defined in Section \ref{sec:general_Z2} for a class of pure and parity-invariant states of
the CAR algebra of a one-dimensional lattice.
We first review the Jordan--Wigner transform and show how for quasifree states the
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-index is connected to the purity of the ground state of the Pauli algebra of spins.
This example then motivates our more general definition of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label,
which we show is well-defined for pure states satisfying the split property.
The new $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index does not arise as a skew-adjoint Fredholm operator with a
$\ZM_2$-index in general, but the two
indices coincide when they are both defined.
Elementary
properties of this new $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index are then shown, in particular that the
ground state gap must close on paths
connecting ground states of differing phase label. We conclude with some comments on
future research directions.
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:prelim}
\subsection{Ground states of fermionic systems}
We will assume some familiarity with the $C^*$-algebraic approach to quantum statistical
mechanics. A standard
reference is~\cite{BR1, BR2}. An overview of modern techniques can be found in~\cite{NSY18}.
We first recall the CAR algebra for general (potentially infinite) systems.
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a separable Hilbert space. The CAR algebra
$A^\mathrm{car}(\calH)$ is the $C^*$-algebra generated by the
identity and elements $\fraka(v)$, $v\in \calH$ such that
$v\mapsto \fraka(v)$ is anti-linear and with anti-commutation relations
\begin{align*}
&\{ \fraka(v_1) , \fraka(v_2) \} \;=\; 0 \; ,
&&\{ \fraka(v_1), \fraka(v_2)^* \} \;=\; \langle v_1, v_2 \rangle_{\calH} \; .
\end{align*}
If $\calH = \ell^2(\Lambda)$ for $\Lambda$ a countable set, then by taking the
standard basis $\{\delta_j\}_{j \in \Lambda}$ of $\ell^2(\Lambda)$, we can
simplify the definition of $A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda =A^\mathrm{car}(\ell^2(\Lambda))$
as the universal $C^*$-algebra generated by the elements $\{ \fraka_{j}\}_{j\in \Lambda}$ with
$\{\fraka_j , \fraka_k\} = 0$ and
$\{\fraka_j , \fraka_k^*\} = \delta_{j,k} \,\one$, see~\cite[Section 5.2.2]{BR2} for example.
\vspace{0.2cm}
If $\Lambda' \subset \Lambda$ there is a natural embedding
$A^\mathrm{car}_{\Lambda'} \subset A^\mathrm{car}_{\Lambda}$.
In particular, if we let $\mathcal{P}_0(\Lambda)$ denote the set of
finite subsets of $\Lambda$, there is the quasilocal structure
$$
A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda \;\cong \; \overline{ (A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda)_\mathrm{loc.} }^{\,C^*} \; , \qquad
(A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda)_\mathrm{loc.} \;=\; \bigcup_{X \in \mathcal{P}_0(\Lambda)} A^\mathrm{car}_X \;.
$$
%
The CAR algebra $A^\mathrm{car}(\calH)$ comes equipped with the parity automorphism $\Theta$ defined by
%
$$
\Theta(\fraka(v))\; =\; -\fraka(v)\;,
\qquad
\Theta(\fraka(v)^*) \;=\; -\fraka(v)^*\;,
\qquad v\in \calH\;.
$$
%
One has $\Theta^2= \mathrm{Id}$. If $\calH = \ell^2(\Lambda)$, then by the
quasilocal structure $\Theta$ is the unique extension of the
automorphism $\Theta_X$, $X \in \mathcal{P}_0(\Lambda)$, such that
$$
\Theta_X(a) \;=\; \Pp \, a\, \Pp\; , \qquad \Pp = (-1)^{\sum_{j\in X} \fraka_j^* \fraka_j } \;
$$
for all $a \in A^\mathrm{car}_X$, see Section \ref{subsec:finite_parity}. The parity gives a
decomposition $A^\mathrm{car}(\calH) \cong A^\mathrm{car}(\calH)^0 \oplus A^\mathrm{car}(\calH)^1$,
where $\Theta(a) = (-1)^j a$ for $a \in A^\mathrm{car}(\calH)^j$. Elements in
$A^\mathrm{car}(\calH)^0$ and $A^\mathrm{car}(\calH)^1$ are called even and odd respectively.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Let us now restrict our attention to $\calH = \ell^2(\Lambda)$ and $A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda$.
An \emph{interaction} $\Phi$ for a fermionic lattice is a map
$\Phi : \mathcal{P}_0(\Lambda) \to A_\Lambda^\mathrm{car}$ such that
$\Phi(X)^* = \Phi(X)$ for all $X \in \mathcal{P}_0(\Lambda)$. An interaction is called even
if its range is in $(A_\Lambda^\mathrm{car})^0$.
{Even} interactions are
much better behaved with respect to Lieb--Robinson bounds, see~\cite{BSP,NSY17}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Given an interaction $\Phi$ and a finite set $X$, one can define the
local Hamiltonian
$$
\mathbf{H}_X^\Phi \;=\; \sum_{Y \subset X} \Phi(Y) \; .
$$
An even interaction $\Phi$ is called frustration-free if $\Phi$
has finite range and for all $X \in\mathcal{P}_0(\Lambda)$
$$
\inf\,\sigma(\mathbf{H}_X^\Phi) \;=\; \sum_{Y \subset X} \inf\, \sigma(\Phi(Y)) \; .
$$
That is, the ground state of $\mathbf{H}_X^\Phi$ is simultaneously a ground state
of all $\Phi(Y)$, $Y\subset X$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
While one can only define the Hamiltonian of an interaction on finite subsets,
the infinite system can be studied by examining the dynamics generated by the Hamiltonian
$$
\beta_t^X( a) \;=\; e^{\ii t \mathbf{H}_X} a e^{-\ii t \mathbf{H}_X} \; , \qquad t \in \mathbb{R} \,,\;\;
a \in A^\mathrm{car}_X \; .
$$
As $X $ converges to $\Lambda$, one can guarantee that $\beta_t^X$ converges to a strongly continuous automorphism
$\beta_t \in \mathrm{Aut}(A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda)$ for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$ if the interaction $\Phi$ satisfies the
(fermionic) Lieb--Robinson bound~\cite{NSY17,BSP}. To obtain such bounds, we require the set
$\Lambda$ to have a metric and our interaction to have mild decay properties as the distance between
points increases. If $\Lambda = \mathbb{Z}^\nu$ and
the interaction is finite range with a uniform bound on the coefficients,
then the automorphism $\beta_t$ exists
for all $t\in \mathbb{R}$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Let us now fix an infinite dynamics, {\it i.e.} a strongly continuous map
$\beta: \mathbb{R} \to \mathrm{Aut}(A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda)$.
A state is a positive and continuous linear functional
$\omega: A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda\to \mathbb{C}$ such that
$\omega( \one_{A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda} ) = \one_\mathbb{C}$.
Let $\delta$ be the generator of the dynamics $\beta$. Then
$\omega$ is by definition a ground state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda$ with respect to $\beta$ if
\begin{equation} \label{eq:GS_defn}
-\ii \, \omega\big( a^* \delta(a) \big) \;\geq\; 0\; , \quad
a \in \mathrm{Dom}(\delta) \; .
\end{equation}
The set of ground states with respect to a fixed action $\beta$ forms a convex and
compact set with respect to the weak $\ast$-topology.
\vspace{0.1cm}
One can also consider the GNS triple $( \pi_\omega, \mathfrak{h}_\omega, \Omega_\omega)$
associated to a ground state $\omega$. Equation \eqref{eq:GS_defn} implies that
$\omega\circ \beta_t = \omega$ for all $t\in \mathbb{R}$. Therefore, there is a unitary
operator $U_{\beta_t}$ on $\mathfrak{h}_\omega$ such that
$\pi_\omega\circ \beta = \mathrm{Ad}_{U_{\beta_t}} \circ \pi_\omega$. Hence we obtain
a $1$-parameter group of unitaries acting on $\mathfrak{h}_\omega$. Thus,
applying Stone's theorem, there is a self-adjoint operator $h_\omega$ such that
$$
e^{\ii t h_\omega} \pi_\omega(a) e^{-\ii th_\omega} \;=\; \pi_\omega( \beta_t(a) ) \; , \qquad
e^{\ii t h_\omega} \Omega_\omega \;=\; \Omega_\omega \; ,
$$
which implies that $\Omega_\omega$ is a $0$-energy eigenvector for $h_\omega$.
Furthermore, Equation \eqref{eq:GS_defn} implies that $h_\omega \geq 0$ so $\Omega_\omega$ is
a minimal eigenvector for $h_\omega$.
\begin{defini}
A ground state $\omega$ on $(A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda, \beta)$ is called gapped if
there is a constant $\gamma>0$ such that $\sigma(h_\omega)\cap (0,\gamma) = \emptyset$.
\end{defini}
For a unique ground state $\omega$, the property of being gapped is equivalent (see {\it e.g.}~\cite{Matsui13}) to the condition that there is a $\gamma>0$ such that
$$
-\ii \, \omega\big( a^* \delta(a) \big) \;\geq\; \gamma
\big( \omega(a^*a) - | \omega(a)|^2 \big) \; , \qquad a \in (A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda)_\mathrm{loc.} \; .
$$
\begin{proposi}[\cite{NSY17}] \label{prop:finite_uniform_gap_gives_GNS_gap}
Let $X\in \mathcal{P}_0(\Lambda)$ and $\mathbf{H}_X^\Phi$ be a finite-range Hamiltonian
satisfying a Lieb--Robinson bound. If the spectral gap between lowest-energy eigenvalue of
$\mathbf{H}_X^\Phi$ and the next-lowest eigenvalue is \emph{uniformly bounded} in $|X|$,
then the weak $\ast$-limit of the finite-volume ground states is a
gapped ground state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda$.
\end{proposi}
Suppose that $\omega$ is a $\Theta$-invariant state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda$,
namely $\omega \circ \Theta = \omega$.
Then there exists a self-adjoint unitary $\Sigma$ on the GNS space $\mathfrak{h}_\omega$ with
the properties
\begin{align*}
&\Sigma \pi_\omega(a)\Sigma \;=\; \pi_\omega(\Theta(a)) \; ,
&&\Sigma \,\Omega_\omega \;=\; \Omega_\omega \; .
\end{align*}
Furthermore, we can decompose the GNS space
$$
\mathfrak{h}_\omega \;=\; \mathfrak{h}_\omega^0 \oplus \mathfrak{h}_\omega^1 \; , \qquad
\mathfrak{h}_\omega^i \;=\; \frac{1}{2}(1+(-1)^i \Sigma)\mathfrak{h}_\omega \;=\;
\overline{\pi_\omega((A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda)^i) \Omega_\omega } \; .
$$
If the system is finite and $\omega_X$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_X$ is given by
$\omega_X(a) = \langle \psi | a | \psi \rangle$, then $\omega_X$
is parity invariant if $|\psi\rangle$ is even or odd under $\Pp$.
In particular, a parity-invariant
state on $A^\mathrm{car}_X$ need not come from only even lowest-energy eigenvectors.
\subsection{The \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{Z}_2$}--valued spectral flow} \label{sec:Z_2_prelims}
We now review the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow defined in~\cite{CPS} as a
real analogue of the $\mathbb{Z}$-valued spectral flow defined by Atiyah--Patodi--Singer~\cite{APS}
and developed by Phillips~\cite{Phillips}. The $\mathbb{Z}$-valued spectral flow gives a concrete
expression for the isomorphism $\pi_1( \mathrm{Fred}_\ast^\mathrm{sa}(\calH_\mathbb{C})) \cong \mathbb{Z}$ with
$\mathrm{Fred}_\ast^\mathrm{sa}(\calH_\mathbb{C})$ the self-adjoint Fredholm operators on a
complex Hilbert space and with essential spectrum above and below $0$. In contrast,
the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow measures the isomorphism
$\pi_1(\mathrm{Fred}_{\ast}^\mathrm{sk}(\calH_\mathbb{R})) \cong \mathbb{Z}_2$ with
$\mathrm{Fred}_{\ast}^\mathrm{sk}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$ the skew-adjoint Fredholm operators
on a real Hilbert space with essential spectrum above and below the real axis.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Unfortunately, the term `spectral flow' already appears in the study of stability
properties of gapped ground states~\cite{NSY18}. This spectral flow is distinct from
the spectral flow considered by Atiyah--Patodi--Singer and Phillips.
In this work, we will only focus on the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow and
to reduce ambiguity will always include the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ in the
terminology.
\subsection*{Finite dimensions}
Let $\mathbb{R}^N$ be a real finite-dimensional Hilbert space with
$T_0$ and $T_1$ invertible skew-adjoint matrices.
By standard results in linear algebra, there exists an invertible matrix
$A \in \mathrm{GL}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ such that $T_1 = A T_0 A^*$. The
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow detects if the orientation of the
eigenvectors are inverted along the straight-line path connecting $T_0$ to $T_1$.
\begin{defini}
Let $T_0$ and $T_1$ be invertible skew-adjoint operators on a finite-dimensional real
Hilbert space and let $T_1 = A T_0 A^*$ with invertible $A$. The $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral
flow of the straight-line path is given by
$$
\mathrm{Sf}_2( t\in [0,1]\mapsto (1-t) T_0 + t T_1) \;=\; \mathrm{sgn}\,\mathrm{det}(A)
\;\in\;\ZM_2=\{-1,1\} \; .
$$
It is also simply denoted by $\mathrm{Sf}_2( T_0,T_1)$.
\end{defini}
%\vspace{0.1cm}
While the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow is defined on a real Hilbert space,
we can also consider operators on complex Hilbert spaces that respect a fixed real structure.
\begin{remark} \label{rk:Z2_spec_flow_explanation}
{\rm
Let us give more justification for the name $\mathbb{Z}_2$-spectral flow. In the case of
a complex Hilbert space, the
$\mathbb{Z}$-valued spectral flow counts the eigenvalue crossings though $0$ (with
sign) of
paths of self-adjoint matrices or Fredholm operators.
In the case of skew-adjoint matrices and Fredholm operators on real Hilbert spaces,
there is a symmetry of the spectrum about the real axis, $\overline{\sigma(T)} = \sigma(T)$.
In particular, any eigenvalue
crossings through $0$ will be double degenerate and the $\mathbb{Z}$-valued spectral
flow will vanish. Instead the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow measures if
there is a parity change of the eigenvectors at the double degenerate
crossing points. See~\cite{CPS} for more information.
}
\hfill $\diamond$
\end{remark}
\subsection*{Infinite dimensions}
We follow the approach of~\cite[Section 5-6]{CPS}. Fix a separable and
real Hilbert space $\calH_\mathbb{R}$. A \emph{complex structure} on a real Hilbert
space is a skew-adjoint unitary
$$
J \in \mathcal{B}(\calH_\mathbb{R}) \; , \qquad J^* \;=\; -J \; , \qquad J^2 \;=\; -\one_\calH \; .
$$
We define the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow via a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index map on
pairs of skew-adjoint unitaries. To set notation, given the real Hilbert space
$\calH_\mathbb{R}$, we let $\mathcal{O}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$ be the orthogonal operators
on $\calH_\mathbb{R}$,
$\mathcal{K}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$ be the compact operators and
$\mathcal{Q} = \mathcal{B}(\calH_\mathbb{R})/ \mathcal{K}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$ the Calkin algebra.
\begin{proposi}[\cite{CPS}, Proposition 5.2] \label{prop:Z_2_unitary_map}
Consider the space
$$
\mathcal{J}(\calH_\mathbb{R}) \;=\;
\big\{ (J_0,J_1) \in \mathcal{O}(\calH_\mathbb{R}) \,:\, J_i^* \;=\; -J_i \, , \; \|J_0 - J_1\|_{\mathcal{Q}} < 2 \big\} \;
$$
with the norm topology. The map
$$
\mathcal{J}(\calH_\mathbb{R}) \ni (J_0,J_1) \; \mapsto \;
\mathrm{Ind}_2(J_0, J_1) \;=\; (-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\, \mathrm{dim}\,\mathrm{Ker}(J_0 + J_1)}
\; \in \mathbb{Z}_2 \;
$$
is continuous.
\end{proposi}
The above proposition is stated in~\cite{CPS} with the bound $\|J_0 - J_1\|_{\mathcal{Q}} < \tfrac{1}{2}$,
but we note that the result holds for $\|J_0 - J_1\|_{\mathcal{Q}} <2$, see~\cite[Proposition 4.3]{BCLR}
or~\cite[Section 5]{DSBW} for a proof.
\vspace{0.2cm}
If $\calH_\mathbb{R}$ is finite-dimensional, then any pair of complex structures
$(J_0,J_1)$ is an element of $\mathcal{J}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$ and
$$
(-1)^{\frac{1}{2} \mathrm{dim}\,\mathrm{Ker}(J_0 + J_1)} \;=\; \mathrm{sgn}\,\mathrm{det}(A) \; , \qquad
J_1 \;=\; A J_0 A^* \;.
$$
Therefore the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index map recovers the finite-dimensional
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Now consider a norm-continuous path $[0,1]\ni t\mapsto T_t \in \mathrm{Fred}_{\ast}^\mathrm{sk}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$
with $T_0$ and $T_1$ invertible. One can consider the path $J_t = T_t|T_t|^{-1}$, where if $T_{t_0}$ has a
non-trivial kernel, $J_{t_0}$ is completed by an arbitrary complex structure on its kernel to give a path of complex
structures in $\mathcal{B}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$. The path $J_t$ is not continuous
in $\mathcal{B}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$ but \emph{is} continuous in $\mathcal{Q}$. The $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index
map from Proposition \ref{prop:Z_2_unitary_map} is now used to define the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow.
\begin{defini}
Let $\{T_t\}_{t\in [0,1]}$ be a norm-continuous path in $\mathrm{Fred}_\ast^\mathrm{sk}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$
with $T_0$ and $T_1$ invertible. Let $J_t = T_t|T_t|^{-1}$ and partition the interval $0=t_0 < t_1 < \cdots < t_n = 1$
such that
$\| J_{t_j} - J_{t_{j-1}} \|_\mathcal{Q} < 2$. The $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow
is given by
$$
\mathrm{Sf}_2(t\in [0,1]\mapsto T_t) \;=\;
(-1)^{\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{1}{2}\, \mathrm{dim}\,\mathrm{Ker}( J_{t_{j-1}} + J_{t_j} )}\;\in\;\ZM_2=\{-1,1\} \;.
$$
\end{defini}
\vspace{0.1cm}
Let us list the key properties of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow.
\begin{theo}[\cite{CPS}]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] The map $\mathrm{Sf}_2$ is independent of the choice of partition in the definition.
\item[{\rm (ii)}] {\rm (Concatenation)} If $\{T_t\}_{t\in[0,1]}$ and $\{T_t\}_{t\in [1,2]}$ are continuous paths in
$\mathrm{Fred}_\ast^\mathrm{sk}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$ with invertible endpoints, then
$$
\mathrm{Sf}_2(t\in [0,2]\mapsto T_t) \;=\; \mathrm{Sf}_2( t\in [0,1]\mapsto T_t)\, \times \, \mathrm{Sf}_2( t\in [1,2]\mapsto T_t ) \; .
$$
\item[{\rm (iii)}] {\rm (Homotopy invariance)} Let $\{T_t\}_{t\in[0,1]}$ and $\{\tilde{T}_t\}_{t\in[0,1]}$ be continuous paths in
$\mathrm{Fred}_{\ast}^\mathrm{sk}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$ with invertible endpoints such that $T_0 = \tilde{T}_0$ and $T_1 = \tilde{T}_1$.
If the two paths are connected by a continuous homotopy leaving endpoints fixed, then
$\mathrm{Sf}_2(t\in [0,1]\mapsto T_t) = \mathrm{Sf}_2(t\in [0,1]\mapsto \tilde{T}_t)$.
\item[{\rm (iv)}] The map $\mathrm{Sf}_2$ on loops in $\mathrm{Fred}_{\ast}^\mathrm{sk}(\calH_\mathbb{R})$ is a homotopy
invariant and induces an isomorphism $\pi_1(\mathrm{Fred}_{\ast}^\mathrm{sk}(\calH_\mathbb{R})) \cong \mathbb{Z}_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theo}
\vspace{0.1cm}
Lastly, let us note that there is also an isomorphism
$\pi_1(\mathrm{Fred}_{\ast}^\mathrm{sk}(\calH_\mathbb{R}))\cong KO^{-2}(\mathrm{pt})$~\cite{ASSkew}.
Hence the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow also has a $K$-theoretic interpretation.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Finite quadratic chains} \label{sec:finite_quadratic}
\subsection{Basic setup} \label{sec:basic_setup}
In this section, $\Lambda$ will denote a finite set with cardinality $|\Lambda|$.
We consider the fermionic Fock space
$\Ff_\Lambda=\Ff(\mathbb{C}^{|\Lambda|})$ of antisymmetric tensors in the full Fock space
$\bigoplus_n ( \mathbb{C}^{|\Lambda|})^{\otimes n}$.
For any $j\in\Lambda$, the creation and annihilation operators, $\fraka_j^*$ and $\fraka_j$,
satisfy the anticommutation relations
%
$$
\{\fraka_j^*,\fraka_i\}\;=\;\delta_{i,j}\,\one
\;,
\qquad
\{\fraka_j,\fraka_i\}\;=\;0
\;.
$$
%
A standard way to rewrite the Fock space is
%
$$
\Ff(\mathbb{C}^{|\Lambda|})
\;\cong\;
\hat{\otimes}_{j\in\Lambda}\Ff(\ell^2(\{j\}))
\;\cong\;
\CM^2\hat{\otimes}\cdots\hat{\otimes}\CM^2
\; .
$$
%
Here $\hat\otimes$ is the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded tensor product of $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded vector
spaces, where for $V \cong V^0 \oplus V^1$ and $W \cong W^0 \oplus W^1$,
$V\hat\otimes W$ is $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded with
$$
(V\hat\otimes W)^0 \;\cong\; V^0 \otimes W^0 \oplus V^1 \otimes W^1 \; , \qquad
(V\hat\otimes W)^1 \;\cong \; V^0 \otimes W^1 \oplus V^1 \otimes W^0 \; .
$$
Returning to the fermionic Fock space,
$\Ff(\ell^2(\{j\}))=\CM^2$ consists of two states, one is the empty and one
the occupied state given by $|\Omega_j\rangle$ and $\fraka_j^*|\Omega_j\rangle$
respectively. The vacuum of the whole chain is then $|\Omega\rangle=\hat{\otimes}_{j\in\Lambda}|\Omega_j\rangle$.
\vspace{.2cm}
For the time being, we will restrict ourselves to Hamiltonians on $\Ff_\Lambda=\Ff(\mathbb{C}^{|\Lambda|})$
that are quadratic in the creation and annihilation operators, {\it i.e.}
$$
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda \;=\; \sum_{j,k \in \Lambda} h_{j,k}\fraka_j^* \fraka_k \;+\; \tilde{h}_{j,k} \fraka_{j}\fraka_{k} \;+\; \mathrm{Adjoint}\;.
$$
There there is a Bogoluibov--de Gennes (BdG) representation of this Hamiltonian.
Introducing the column vectors $\fraka=(\fraka_j)_{j\in\Lambda}$ and $\fraka^*=(\fraka_j^*)_{j\in\Lambda}$
one then has the formal equation
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-BdGRep}
\HH_\Lambda
\;=\;
\frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix} \fraka^* & \fraka \end{pmatrix}
H_\Lambda
\begin{pmatrix}
\fraka \\ \fraka^*
\end{pmatrix}
\; +\; \mathrm{Tr}(h)\, \one_{\Ff_\Lambda}
\;.
\end{equation}
%
We will neglect the constant $\mathrm{Tr}(h)\, \one_{\Ff_\Lambda}$ as it is, at most,
a shift in energy.
The BdG Hamiltonian $H_\Lambda$ acts on the particle-hole space $\Hh_\ph=\ell^2(\Lambda)\otimes \CM^2$
and automatically has the (even) particle-hole symmetry (PHS)
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-BdGsymmetry}
K^*\,\overline{H_\Lambda}\,K
\;=\;
-H_\Lambda \;, \qquad K=\one \otimes \sigma_1
\;,
\end{equation}
%
This means, in particular, that the off-diagonal entry of the BdG Hamiltonian
is an anti-symmetric matrix.
Suppose that $\phi\in\Hh_\ph$ is a non-vanishing zero-energy eigenvector of $H_\Lambda$.
Such a vector $\phi$ necessarily satisfies
$K\overline{\phi}=\phi$ (after a phase was absorbed). Associated to this vector is an operator
%
$$
\frakb_\phi
\;=\;
\phi^t
\begin{pmatrix}
\fraka \\ \fraka^*
\end{pmatrix}
\;,
$$
%
where $\phi^t=(\overline{\phi}\,)^*$ is the transpose. The operator $\frakb_\phi$
is self-adjoint and squares to $\one$ if $\|\phi\|=1$. Thus $\frakb_\phi$ is a so-called Majorana operator.
By construction, it commutes with $\HH_\Lambda$. For kernels with degeneracy, Majorana
operators can be constructed for each zero-energy state.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Bogoliubov transformation}
\label{sec-Bogoliobov}
We recall methods for diagonalising quadratic Hamiltonians by canonical transformations
following standard treatments, {\it e.g.} \cite{BR} or \cite{DS3}. The PHS \eqref{eq-BdGsymmetry}
of the Hamiltonian can be interpreted as follows: $\ii\,H$ is in the Lie algebra of the group
%
$$
\Gg\;=\;\left\{A\in \mbox{\rm GL}(\Hh_{\mbox{\tiny\rm ph}})\, : \, K^*\, \overline{A}\,K=A\right\}
\;.
$$
%
Let $\Uu_\ph =\Gg\cap \mathcal{U}(\Hh_{\mbox{\tiny\rm ph}})$ denote the unitaries in this group:
%
$$
\Uu_\ph \;=\;\left\{W\in \mbox{\rm GL}(\Hh_{\mbox{\tiny\rm ph}})\, : \, W^*=W^{-1}\;,\;\;
K^*\,\overline{W}\,K=W\right\}
\;.
$$
%
We remark that the group $\Uu_\ph$ is naturally isomorphic to the orthogonal matrices
on the \emph{real} Hilbert space $\calH_\ph^\mathbb{R} = \{ \psi \in \calH_\ph\,:\, K \ol{\psi} = \psi \}$.
Namely, for $\mathcal{O}_n$ the set of $n\times n$ real and orthogonal matrices
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CU_phC_is_On}
C^*\,\Uu_\ph \,C\;=\;
\mathcal{O}_{2L}
\;,
\qquad
C\;=\;
2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\begin{pmatrix}
\one & \ii\,\one \\
\one & -\ii\,\one
\end{pmatrix}
\;
\end{equation}
by means of relations $C^*=C^{-1}$ and $C^TC=K$ with $K$ as in \eqref{eq-BdGsymmetry}.
Now, given $W\in\Uu_\ph$, one can define
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-Bogtrafo}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frakd \\
\frakd^*
\end{pmatrix}
\;=\;
W
\begin{pmatrix}
\fraka \\
\fraka^*
\end{pmatrix}
\;.
\end{equation}
%
The particular form of $W$ assures that $\frakd$ and $\frakd^*$ are indeed mutually adjoint and that the
CAR relations for $\frakd$ and $\frakd^*$ hold.
A standard question is now whether \eqref{eq-Bogtrafo} can be implemented by a unitary opertor
${\bf U}_W$ on Fock space in the sense that
%
$$
\frakd\;=\;{\bf U}_W^*\, \fraka\, {\bf U}_W
\;.
$$
%
(Note that ${\bf U}_W$ is not quadratic in $\fraka$.) For a finite system, this is always possible,
but in infinite dimension one has to impose a condition. It is sufficient to require off-diagonal
entries of $W$ to be Hilbert-Schmidt~\cite{ShaleStinespring,NNS}. Then the unitary ${\bf U}_W$ is called a
Bogoliubov transformation, while $W$ is usually called the associated canonical transformation.
Hence $\Uu_\ph$ is also called the group of canonical transformations.
\vspace{.2cm}
Now, suppose that $|\Lambda| =L<\infty$ and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda$ has the eigenvalues
$\{E_1,E_2,\ldots, E_L\}$ with $0\leq E_1 \leq \cdots \leq E_L$ (taking a shift if necessary to
ensure that all eigenvalues are non-negative).
Then the BdG Hamiltonian $H_\Lambda$ can be diagonalised by a
canonical transformation $W \in \Uu_\ph$, see e.g.~\cite{BR, DS3},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-Hdiag0}
W\, H_\Lambda\, W^*
\;=\;
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
E & 0\\
0 & -E
\end{array}\right)
\;, \qquad
E \;=\; \begin{pmatrix} E_{1} & & \\ & \ddots & \\ & & E_{L} \end{pmatrix}\;.
\end{equation}
%
Using this particular canonical transformation, one has
%
\begin{align}
{\bf H}_\Lambda
\;
&=\;
\frac{1}{2}\;
\begin{pmatrix}
\fraka^* & \fraka
\end{pmatrix}
W^*WH_\Lambda
W^*W
\begin{pmatrix}
\fraka \\ \fraka^*
\end{pmatrix}
\nonumber
\\
\label{eq-Hdiag}
& =\;
\frac{1}{2}\;
\begin{pmatrix}
\frakd^* & \frakd
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
E & 0\\
0 & -E
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frakd \\ \frakd^*
\end{pmatrix}
\\
& =\;
\frac{1}{2}\;
\UU_W^*
\begin{pmatrix}
\fraka^* & \fraka
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
E & 0\\
0 & -E
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\fraka \\ \fraka^*
\end{pmatrix}
\UU_W
\;.
\nonumber
\end{align}
Rewriting Equation \eqref{eq-Hdiag} using the CAR operations,
$$
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda \;=\; \sum_{j\in\Lambda} E_j\left( \frakd_j^* \frakd_j - \frakd_j\frakd_j^* \right) \;=\;
\sum_{j\in\Lambda} E_j \left(2\frakd_j^*\frakd_j - 1\right) \;.
$$
Therefore, because $E_j\geq 0$, any vector that is eliminated by all the $\frakd_j$
with $E_j > 0$
is a ground state of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda$. In particular, if
$\frakd_1\frakd_2\cdots\frakd_L | \psi \rangle$ is non-zero, then it is
a non-trivial ground state of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda$. Using Lemma \ref{lem-vanishing}
below, it can be shown that such non-zero vectors exist.
%In particular, because
%$\binom{\frakd}{\frakd^*} = W\binom{\fraka}{\fraka^*}$ and $W$ is unitary,
%then after checking consistency with the parity operator (cf. Lemma \ref{lem-vanishing}),
%$\frakd_1\frakd_2\cdots\frakd_L | \Omega \rangle$ is non-zero for
%$|\Omega\rangle$ the fermionic vacuum, that is, $\fraka_j | \Omega\rangle = 0$ for all $j \in \Lambda$.
%%
\subsection{Majorana representation}
%By taking a unitary transformation, one can make the link between
%canonical transformations and real Hilbert spaces more explicit.
Recall Equation \eqref{eq:CU_phC_is_On}, where
$C^* \Uu_\ph C\;=\; \mathcal{O}_{2L}$.
% Namely,
%for $\mathcal{O}_n$ the set of $n\times n$ real and orthogonal matrices,
%%
%$$
%C^*\,\Uu_\ph \,C\;=\;
% \mathcal{O}_{2L}
%\;,
%\qquad
%C\;=\;
%2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\begin{pmatrix}
%\one & \ii\,\one \\
%\one & -\ii\,\one
%\end{pmatrix}
%\;
%$$
%%
%by means of relations $C^*=C^{-1}$ and $C^TC=K$ with $K$ as in \eqref{eq-BdGsymmetry}.
Let us extend this idea slightly and include a phase factor.
Define
%
$$
\frakb_{2j-1}
\;=\;
%\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (
e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_j+
e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_j^*
%)
\;,
\qquad
\frakb_{2j}
\;=\;
%\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(
-\ii\,e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_j+
\ii\,e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_j^*
%)
\;,
$$
%
for all $j\in\Lambda$. They satisfy the Clifford relations
%
$$
\frakb_j^*\;=\;\frakb_j
\;,
\qquad
\{\frakb_j,\frakb_i\}\;=\;2\,\delta_{i,j}\,\one
\;,
$$
%
and one readily checks
%
\begin{align}
\label{eq-Crel}
&
\frakb_{2j-1}\frakb_{2j}
\;=\;
2\,
\ii(-\fraka_{j}^*\fraka_j+\tfrac{1}{2}\one)
\;,
\nonumber
\\
&
\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}-\frakb_{2j-1}\frakb_{2j+2}
\;=\;
2\,
\ii(\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_j+\fraka_{j}^*\fraka_{j+1})
\;,
\\
&
\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}+\frakb_{2j-1}\frakb_{2j+2}
\;=\;
2\,
\ii(e^{\ii\theta}\fraka_{j+1}\fraka_{j}+e^{-\ii\theta}\fraka_{j}^*\fraka_{j+1}^*)
\;.
\nonumber
\end{align}
%
This also implies
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-Crel2}
\ii\,\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}
\;=\;
-\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_j-\fraka_{j}^*\fraka_{j+1} + e^{\ii\theta}\fraka_{j}\fraka_{j+1}+ e^{-\ii\theta}\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j}^*
\;.
\end{equation}
We can now write any quadratic Hamiltonian using the operators $\{\frakb_j\}$.
Let $\frakb_\ev=(\frakb_{2j})_{j\geq 1}$
and $\frakb_\odd=(\frakb_{2j-1})_{j\geq 1}$ be the column vectors of Majorana's with even and
odd index respectively with $\frakb=\binom{\frakb_\odd}{\frakb_\ev}$. Then
%
$$
\frakb
\;=\;
2^{\frac{1}{2}}\,C_\theta^*\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\fraka \\ \fraka^*
\end{pmatrix}
\;,
\qquad
C_\theta^*
\;=\;
%\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
2^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}} & e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}
\\
-\ii \,e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}} & \ii\,e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}
\end{pmatrix}
\;=\;
C^*
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}} & 0
\\
0 & e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}
\end{pmatrix}
\;.
$$
%
One now obtains the Majorana representation of the Hamiltonian
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-HamMajoRep}
\HH_\Lambda
\;=\; \sum_{j,k=1}^{2L} \alpha_{j,k} \frakb_j \frakb_k \;=\;
\tfrac{\ii}{2}\,
\frakb^t\,A_\Lambda\,\frakb
\;,
\end{equation}
%
where the transpose $\frakb^t$ is a row vector and $A_\Lambda= -\frac{\ii}{2}\,C^*_\theta\,H_\Lambda\,C_\theta$
is real and skew-symmetric.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Let us consider the diagonalisation of the operator $A_\Lambda= -\frac{\ii}{2}\,C^*_\theta\,H_\Lambda\,C_\theta$.
Following standard treatments, \textit{e.g.}~\cite{BR},
there is an orthogonal
matrix $V \in \calO_{2L}$, $V = C_\theta^* W C_\theta$ for $W \in \Uu_\ph$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-AVdiag}
V A_\Lambda V^* \;=\; \ \begin{pmatrix} 0 & E \\ -E & 0 \end{pmatrix} \; .
\end{equation}
%
Then
\begin{align*}
{\bf H}_\Lambda
\;=\; \frac{\ii}{2}\, \frakb^t V^*V A_\Lambda V^* V \frakb
\;=\; \frac{\ii}{2}\, \frakb^t V^* \begin{pmatrix} 0 & E \\ -E & 0 \end{pmatrix} V \frakb
\;=\; \frac{\ii}{2} \,\frakbtilde^t \begin{pmatrix} 0 & E \\ -E & 0 \end{pmatrix} \frakbtilde \;,
\end{align*}
where $\frakbtilde = V \frakb$ and $\{\frakbtilde_j\}_{j=1}^{2L}$ also satisfy the Clifford relations. Hence
$$
{\bf H}_\Lambda \;=\; \ii\, \sum_{j=1}^L E_j \frakbtilde_{2j-1}\frakbtilde_{2j} \;
$$
and the ground state space of ${\bf H}_\Lambda$ is determined by the $-1$ eigenspaces
of the commuting self-adjoint unitaries $\{\ii \frakbtilde_{2j-1} \frakbtilde_{2j} \}_{j=1}^L$.
These eigenstates can be written out similar to the end of Section \ref{sec-Bogoliobov}.
Furthermore, we note that
$$
\mathrm{dim} \, \Ker(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda) \;=\; \tfrac{1}{2}\, \mathrm{dim}\, \Ker( A_\Lambda) \; .
$$
\subsection{Kitaev's \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{Z}_2$}--index for finite quadratic Hamiltonians}
\label{sec:Z_2_index_def}
\begin{defini}[\cite{Kit}] \label{def:Z_2_index_def}
The Kitaev index of a strictly positive quadratic Hamiltonian $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda = \tfrac{\ii}{2} \frakb^t A_\Lambda \frakb$ is defined as the sign of the Pfaffian
$$
j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda) \;=\; \mathrm{sgn}\, \mathrm{Pf}(A_\Lambda) \; .
$$
\end{defini}
Diagonalising the Hamiltonian as in \eqref{eq-AVdiag} and using properties of the Pfaffian,
$$
\mathrm{Pf}(A_\Lambda) \;=\; \mathrm{det}(V) \,\, \mathrm{Pf} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & E \\ -E & 0 \end{pmatrix}
\;=\; \mathrm{det}(V) \, \prod_{j=1}^L E_j \; .
$$
If $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda$ is strictly positive (so $H_\Lambda$ has a
spectral gap around $0$), then the Pfaffian is well-defined and its sign is determined by
the sign of $\mathrm{det}(V)$. Furthermore, since $V = C_\theta^*WC_\theta$ for
$W \in \Uu_\ph$ as in \eqref{eq-Hdiag0},
%
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Finite_Z2_index_formulae}
j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda) \;=\; \mathrm{sgn}\, \mathrm{Pf}(A_\Lambda) \;=\; \mathrm{sgn}\,\mathrm{det}(V)
\;=\; \mathrm{sgn}\,\mathrm{det}(W) \; ,
\end{equation}
which implies that $j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda)$ is independent of the parameter $\theta$.
\begin{remark}
{\rm
The Kitaev index is connected to the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow in finite dimensions by
%
\begin{equation}
\label{rk:finite_chain_index_as_sf}
j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda) \;=\; \mathrm{Sf}_2 \big(\ii H_\Lambda, W \ii H_\Lambda W^* \big)
\;=\; \mathrm{Sf}_2 \big( A_\Lambda , V A_\Lambda V^* \big)\; ,
\end{equation}
as $\ii H_\Lambda$ is an invertible operator on the
\emph{real} Hilbert space $\calH_\ph^\mathbb{R} = \{\psi \in \calH_\ph \,:\, K \ol{\psi} = \psi \}$.
\hfill $\diamond$
}
\end{remark}
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:sf_as_Z2_obstruction}
Let $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(1)$ be quadratic
and strictly positive Hamiltonians on $\mathcal{F}(\mathbb{C}^L)$. Then
$j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0)) = j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(1))$ if and only if
$\mathrm{Sf}_2( A_\Lambda(0) , A_\Lambda(1)) = 1$.
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Recall that $j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(k)) = \mathrm{sgn}\, \mathrm{det}(V_k) =
\mathrm{sgn}\, \mathrm{Pf}(A_\Lambda(k))$ with $V_k$ the orthogonal
matrix that diagonalises $A_\Lambda(k)$ for $k=0,\,1$. Because
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(1)$ are strictly positive,
we can homotopy each $E_j$ to $1$ without changing the sign of the Pfaffian.
Having flattened the spectrum of the Hamiltonians, both $A_\Lambda(0)$ and
$A_\Lambda(1)$ will have the diagonal form
$V_k A_\Lambda(k) V_k^* = J = \one_L \otimes i\,\sigma_2$, $k=0,\,1$.
Thus the concatenation property of $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow implies that
$$
\mathrm{Sf}_2( A_\Lambda(0), A_\Lambda(1)) \;=\; \mathrm{Sf}_2( A_\Lambda(0), J) \,\mathrm{Sf}_2(J, A_\Lambda(1)) \; .
$$
Because
$\mathrm{Sf}_2( A_\Lambda(k), J) = \mathrm{sgn}\,\mathrm{det}(V_k) = j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(k))$
for $k=0,\,1$, {\it cf.} Equation~\eqref{rk:finite_chain_index_as_sf},
the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow is non-trivial if and only if $j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0)) \neq j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(1))$.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
We therefore see that the (finite-dimensional) $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow
gives a topological obstruction for two Hamiltonians to have the same $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:Z2_flow_and_degeneracy}
Let $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(1)$ be quadratic and strictly
positive Hamiltonians and suppose $\mathrm{Sf}_2( A_\Lambda(0) , A_\Lambda(1)) = -1$.
Then along the path $[0,1] \ni t \mapsto \mathbf{H}_\Lambda(t)$ connecting the Hamiltonians,
there is some $t_0 \in (0,1)$ such that
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(t_0)$ has a $0$-energy state.
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
To every $t \in [0,1]$ there is an $A_\Lambda(t)$ associated to $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(t)$
by Equation \eqref{eq-HamMajoRep}
and the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow is determined by the path $A_\Lambda(t)$.
If the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow is non-trivial, then
there is some $t_0$ such that $A_\Lambda(t_0)$ has at least a double degenerate
$0$-eigenvalue (see Remark \ref{rk:Z2_spec_flow_explanation}).
Because the eigenvalues of $A_\Lambda$ determine the spectrum of
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda$, in particular
$\mathrm{dim} \, \Ker(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda) = \tfrac{1}{2}\, \mathrm{dim}\, \Ker( A_\Lambda)$,
it follows that $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(t_0)$ has at least one $0$-energy state.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Combining the two previous propositions, if follows that if $j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0)) \neq j(\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(1))$,
then the two Hamiltonians cannot be continuously connected without the appearance of a Majorana
operator from a zero-energy state. We will give an example of a non-trivial $\mathbb{Z}_2$-spectral flow
via a flux insertion in Section \ref{sec:closed_chain_flux}.
\subsection{The parity operator} \label{subsec:finite_parity}
The (fermionic and not spatial) parity operator is defined by
%
$$
\Pp
\;=\;
(-1)^\NN
\;,
$$
%
where $\NN=\sum_{j=1}^L\fraka_j^*\fraka_j$ is the fermionic number operator on the chain
$\Lambda=[1,L]$. It is a self-adjoint unitary:
%
$$
\Pp^2\;=\;\one\;,
\qquad \Pp^*\;=\;\Pp
\;,
$$
%
and hence introduces a grading on the Fock space. Any Hamiltonian that is
an even polynomial in the in the creation and annihilation operators $\fraka_j^*$ and $\fraka_j$
will commute with the parity operator and be of even degree. This includes
higher-order interactions. Indeed, using
%
$$
(-1)^{\fraka_k^*\fraka_k}
\;=\;
e^{\ii\pi \fraka_k^*\fraka_k}
\;=\;
e^{\ii\pi (1-\fraka_k\fraka_k^*)}
\;=\;
-e^{-\ii\pi \fraka_k\fraka_k^*}
\;=\;
-e^{\ii\pi \fraka_k\fraka_k^*}\;,
$$
%
one obtains
%
$$
\Pp\,\fraka_j\,\Pp\;=\;-\,\fraka_j
\;.
$$
%
In this form, the parity symmetry is a subgroup of the U$(1)$-charge conservation symmetry.
As $\frakd_j$,
$\frakb_j$ and $\frakbtilde_j$ are all linear combinations of $\fraka$ and $\fraka^*$'s, one also has
%
$$
\Pp\,\frakd_j\,\Pp\;=\;-\,\frakd_j\;,
\qquad
\Pp\,\frakb_j\,\Pp\;=\;-\,\frakb_j
\;,
\qquad
\Pp\,\frakbtilde_j\,\Pp\;=\;-\,\frakbtilde_j\;,
$$
%
Using \eqref{eq-Crel}, we can express
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-ParRep}
\Pp
\;=\;
\prod_{j=1}^L\,(-1)^{\fraka_j^*\fraka_j}
\;=\;
\prod_{j=1}^L\,(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}(\one+\ii\,\frakb_{2j-1}\frakb_{2j})}
\;=\;
\prod_{j=1}^L\,(-\ii\,\frakb_{2j-1}\frakb_{2j})
\;,
\end{equation}
%
where in the last step it was used that the $\ii\,\frakb_{2j-1}\frakb_{2j}$ are commuting self-adjoint unitaries.
\subsection{The Kitaev model on an open chain}
Let us fix a finite chain $\Lambda = \{1,\ldots,L\}$ and consider the Hamiltonian on
$\Ff_\Lambda$ given by
%
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Kitaev_model}
\HH_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}
\;=\;
\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}\big(-w\,(\fraka_j^*\fraka_{j+1}+\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j})
+\Delta\,\fraka_j\fraka_{j+1}+\overline{\Delta}\,\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j}^*
\big) + \mu \sum_{j=1}^L (\fraka_j^*\fraka_{j}-\tfrac{1}{2})
\;.
\end{equation}
%
Here $w,\mu\in\RM$ and $\Delta=|\Delta|e^{\ii\theta}\in\CM$.
As the operator $\HH_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}$ is quadratic, we can write
the associated BdG Hamiltonian
$H_\Lambda$ on the particle-hole space $\Hh_\ph= \CM^L \otimes \CM^2$:
%
\begin{equation} \label{eq:BdGKitaev_model}
H_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}
\;=\;
\begin{pmatrix}
-w(S+S^*)-\mu &
\overline{\Delta}(S^*-S) \\ \Delta(S-S^*) & w(S+S^*)+\mu
\end{pmatrix}
\;.
\end{equation}
%
Here $S$ is the right shift on $\CM^{L}$ with open boundary conditions:
%
$$
S
\;=\;
\sum_{j=1,\ldots,L-1}
\,|j+1\rangle\langle j|
\;=\;
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & &
\\
1 & \ddots & &
\\
& \ddots & \ddots &
\\
& & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\;.
$$
The BdG Hamiltonian shows that $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}$ models a $p$-wave
interaction.
\subsection*{Case: $w=\Delta=0$ (trivial chain)}
Let us study the Kitaev chain in a few cases where the solutions are explicit.
First, we consider the case $w=\Delta=0$ and so
$$
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit} \;=\; \mu \sum_{j=1}^L (\fraka_j^*\fraka_{j}-\tfrac{1}{2})
\;=\;
\frac{\mu}{2}\;
\sum_{j=1}^{L} \frakb_{2j-1}\frakb_{2j}
\;.
$$
If $\mu\geq 0$, then the energy of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}$ is minimized by any
state $| \psi\rangle$ such that $\fraka_j |\psi\rangle = 0$. Therefore, if $\mu >0$,
fermionic vacuum $|\Omega\rangle$ gives the unique ground state.
\subsection*{Case: $\mu=0$, $w=|\Delta|$ (non-trivial chain and quantum Ising model)}
In the case $\mu=0$ and $\Delta=e^{\ii \theta}w$, the Hamiltonian takes the particularly simple form
in the Majorana representation, namely with \eqref{eq-Crel2}
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-HamMajoChain}
\HH_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}
\;=\; w \sum_{j=1}^{L-1} \big( - \fraka_j^*\fraka_{j+1}-\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j}
+ e^{\ii \theta}\fraka_j\fraka_{j+1}+ e^{-\ii \theta}\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j}^* \big) \;=\;
\ii \,w
\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}
\;.
\end{equation}
The Kitaev Hamiltonian with $w=|\Delta|$ can be directly mapped to the quantum Ising chain via
the Jordan--Wigner transform. Namely, using the notation $\sigma_k^{x/y/z}$ to
denote operators
analogous to the Pauli matrices at site $k \in \{1,\ldots,L\}$, we define
$$
\sigma_j^x \;=\; \Big( e^{-i\pi \sum_{k=1}^{j-1} \fraka_k^* \fraka_k} \Big) \fraka_j^* \; , \qquad
\sigma_j^y \;=\; \Big( e^{ i\pi \sum_{k=1}^{j-1} \fraka_k^* \fraka_k} \Big) \fraka_j \; , \qquad
\sigma_j^z \;=\; 2 \fraka_j^* \fraka_j - \one \; .
$$
Then for $J_x =w$ and $h= \tfrac{\mu}{2}$, the Hamiltonian becomes
$$
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\text{spin} \;=\; -J_x \sum_{j=1}^{L-1} \sigma_j^x \sigma_{j+1}^x - h \sum_{j-1}^L \sigma_j^z\; .
$$
The Hamiltonian $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\text{spin}$ describes a quantum Ising chain.
For completeness, we also recall the inverse Jordan--Wigner transform,
$$
\frakb_{2j-1} \;=\; \Big( \prod_{k=1}^{j-1} \sigma_k^z \Big) \sigma_j^x \; , \qquad
\frakb_{2j} \;=\; \Big( \prod_{k=1}^{j-1} \sigma_k^z \Big) \sigma_j^y\;
$$
which gives the fermionic (Majorana) representation.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Expressing $\HH_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}$ in the Majorana representation, we see that
only Majorana operators on different sites are coupled.
Moreover, each of the summands $\ii \,\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}$ in \eqref{eq-HamMajoChain}
is a self-adjoint unitary and thus allows to introduce a self-adjoint projection on Fock space
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-PjDef}
\PP_j
\;=\;
\tfrac{1}{2}(\one+\ii \,\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1})
\;.
\end{equation}
%
These projections commute $[\PP_j,\PP_i]=0$ and the Hamiltonian can be written as
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-ProjRepMajo}
\HH_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}
\;=\;
w
\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}
(2\,\PP_j-\one)
\;.
\end{equation}
%
Another way to write the Hamiltonian is to build a new pair of creation and annihilation
operators $\{\frakd_j\}_{j=1}^{L-1}$ from the pair $\frakb_{2j}$ and $\frakb_{2j+1}$:
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-frakaDef}
\frakd_j\;=\;
\tfrac{1}{2}
(\frakb_{2j}+\ii\,\frakb_{2j+1})\;,
\qquad
\frakd_j^*\;=\;
\tfrac{1}{2}(\frakb_{2j}-\ii\,\frakb_{2j+1})\;,
\end{equation}
%
or more explicitly
%
\begin{align}
&
\frakd_j\;=\;
\tfrac{\ii}{2}\big(-e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\fraka_{j}+e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{j}^* +e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\fraka_{j+1}+e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{j+1}^* \big)
\;,
\label{eq-frakaDef1}
\\
&
\frakd_j^*\;=\;
\tfrac{\ii}{2}\big(-e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\fraka_{j}+e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{j}^* -e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\fraka_{j+1}-e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{j+1}^* \big)
\;.
\label{eq-frakaDef2}
\end{align}
%
These operators satisfy again the CAR's:
%
$$
\{\frakd_j^*,\frakd_i\}\;=\;\delta_{i,j}\,\one
\;,
\qquad
\{\frakd_j,\frakd_i\}\;=\;0
\;,
$$
%
and using
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-CTildeAtilde}
\ii\,\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}
\;=\;
2\,\frakd^*_j\frakd_j-
%\tfrac{1}{2}
\one
\end{equation}
%
allow to write the Hamiltonian as
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-HamOsci}
\HH_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}
\;=\;
w
\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}
(2\,\frakd_j^*\frakd_j-\one)
\;, \qquad
\PP_j
\;=\;
\frakd_j^*\frakd_j
\;.
\end{equation}
%
Let us refer to this as the quantum Ising Kitaev Hamiltonian.
Another key property of $\HH_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}$ in the non-trivial region
are the two ``dangling'' Majorana operators $\frakb_1$ and $\frakb_{2L}$ on the finite chain $\Lambda=[1,L]$,
which influence the degeneracy of the spectrum.
We set
%
$$
\frakd_\bound\;=\;
\tfrac{1}{2}(\frakb_{2L}+\ii\,\frakb_{1})\;,
\qquad
\frakd_\bound^*\;=\;
\tfrac{1}{2}(\frakb_{2L}-\ii\,\frakb_{1})\;.
$$
%
which also satisfy the CAR's (together with the other $\frakd_j$). In terms of the initial creation and annihilation operators,
%
\begin{align*}
&
\frakd_\bound\;=\;
\tfrac{\ii}{2}\big(-e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\fraka_{L}+e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{L}^* +e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\fraka_{1}+e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{1}^* \big)
\;,
\\
&
\frakd_\bound^*\;=\;
\tfrac{\ii}{2}\big(-e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\fraka_{L}+e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{L}^* -e^{\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\,\fraka_{1}-e^{-\ii\frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{1}^* \big)
\;.
\end{align*}
%
Again one can define $\PP_\bound=\frakd_\bound^*\frakd_\bound$ and, as in \eqref{eq-CTildeAtilde},
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-CTildeAtildeBound}
\ii\,\frakb_{2L}\frakb_{1}
\;=\;
2\,\frakd^*_\bound\frakd_\bound-\one
\;.
\end{equation}
Turning our attention to the ground state space, we see that for $w\geq 0$,
$\frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle$ will minimize the energy.
However, if
$\frakd_\bound \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle$ is non-zero, then
it is also a ground state. Furthermore, as these states have different parity
(as $\frakd_\bound$ is odd), then this shows the ground state space will have a double
degeneracy.
We will show that for every $L$, either
$\frakd_\bound^* \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle$
or $\frakd_\bound \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle$ is non-zero
and, along with $\frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle$, completely
characterise the ground state space.
\subsection*{An orthonormal basis in Fock space}
\label{sec-ONB}
Let us now use the the new CAR operators $\{ \frakd_j\}_{j\in \Lambda}$ to
characterise a basis for the fermionic Fock space $\mathcal{F}_\Lambda$ that solves
the quantum Ising/Kitaev Hamiltonian \eqref{eq-HamOsci}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
First let us rewrite the parity operator using
$\{\frakd_j\}_{j\in\Lambda}$. Starting from
Equation \eqref{eq-ParRep},
%
$$
\Pp
\;=\;
(\ii\,\frakb_{2L}\frakb_{1})\prod_{j=1}^{L-1}\,(-\ii\,\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1})
\;=\;
(\ii\,\frakb_{2L}\frakb_{1})\prod_{j=1}^{L-1}\,(-1)^{\frakd_j^*\frakd_j}
\;=\;
(\ii\,\frakb_{2L}\frakb_{1})\prod_{j=1}^{L-1}\,(\one-2\,\frakd_j^*\frakd_j)
\;,
$$
%
and finally using \eqref{eq-CTildeAtildeBound}
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-ParityRewrite}
\Pp
\;=\;
-(\one-2\,\frakd_\bound^*\frakd_\bound)\prod_{j=1}^{L-1}\,(\one-2\,\frakd_j^*\frakd_j)
\;.
\end{equation}
%
It ought to be stressed that for this to hold one has to use $\frakd_\bound=\tfrac{1}{2}(\frakb_{2L}+\ii\,\frakb_{1})$ and is {\it not} allowed to exchange $\frakb_{2L}$ and $\frakb_{1}$, which is equivalent to exchanging $\frakd_\bound$ with $\frakd_\bound^*$. This would produce a sign change.
For occupation numbers $i_\bound,i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\in\{0,1\}$, let us introduce the states
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-OccStates0}
| 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\;=\;
2^{\frac{L-1}{2}}\,
\frakd_1^{(i_{1})}\cdots\frakd_{L-1}^{(i_{L-1})} | \Omega\rangle
\;,
\end{equation}
%
where
%
$$
\frakd_j^{(0)}\;=\;\frakd_j\;,
\qquad
\frakd_j^{(1)}\;=\;\frakd_j^*\;,
$$
%
for $j=1,\ldots,L-1$. The $0$ in the first entry indicates that neither $\frakd_\bound$
nor $\frakd_\bound^*$ is involved. This will be modified later on. The parity of these
states is easily read off of $\Pp\,\frakd_j\,\Pp=-\,\frakd_j$ and $\Pp|\Omega\rangle= | \Omega\rangle$
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-OccStatesPar}
\Pp\,| 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\;=\;
(-1)^{L-1}| 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\;.
\end{equation}
%
Now one can obtain states of parity $(-1)^L$ by either applying $\frakd_\bound$ or $\frakd_\bound^*$ to these states. However, the following result shows that one of the outcomes vanishes.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-vanishing}
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $\langle 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}| 0;i'_1,\ldots,i'_{L-1}\rangle=\delta_{i_1,i'_1}\cdots \delta_{i_{L-1},i'_{L-1}}$
\item[{\rm (ii)}]
If $L+\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}i_j=0\;\mbox{\rm mod}\,2$, then
%
$$
\frakd_\bound | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\,=\,0\;,
\qquad
\|\frakd^*_\bound | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\|\,=\,1
\;.
$$
\item[{\rm (iii)}]
If $L+\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}i_j=1\;\mbox{\rm mod}\,2$, then
%
$$
\frakd_\bound^* | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\,=\,0
\;,
\qquad
\|\frakd_\bound | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\|\,=\,1
\;.
$$
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\noindent {\bf Proof.} (i) We focus on the diagonal case $i_j=i'_j$. Then let us start with the following algebraic manipulation:
%
\begin{align*}
\|\,| 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\|^2
&
\;=\;
2^{L-1}\,
\langle
\frakd_1^{(i_{1})}\cdots\frakd_{L-1}^{(i_{L-1})} \Omega|
\frakd_1^{(i_{1})}\cdots\frakd_{L-1}^{(i_{L-1})}\Omega\rangle
\\
&
\;=\;
2^{L-1}\,
\langle
\Omega|
(\frakd_1^{(i_{1})})^*\frakd_1^{(i_{1})}\cdots(\frakd_{L-1}^{(i_{L-1})})^*\frakd_{L-1}^{(i_{L-1})}\Omega\rangle
\;,
\end{align*}
%
because each $(\frakd_j^{(i_{j})})^*\frakd_j^{(i_{j})}$ commutes with $\frakd_k^{(i_{k})}$.
Now due to \eqref{eq-HamOsci}, each factor $(\frakd_j^{(i_{j})})^*\frakd_j^{(i_{j})}$ is
either $\PP_j$ or $\one-\PP_j$, pending on whether $i_j=0$ or $i_j=1$. Hence let us set
$\PP_j^{(0)}=\PP_j$ and $\PP_j^{(1)}=\one-\PP_j$. Then
%
$$
\|\,| 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\|^2
\;=\;
2^{L-1}\,
\langle
\Omega|
\PP_1^{(i_1)}\cdots \PP_{L-1}^{(i_{L-1})}
| \Omega\rangle
\;.
$$
%
Now these projections commute and one can check using \eqref{eq-frakaDef1} and \eqref{eq-frakaDef2}
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-PjDef1}
\PP_j^{(i_j)}| \Omega\rangle
\;=\;
\tfrac{1}{2}(\one+(1-2i_j)\,e^{-\ii\theta} \,\fraka_{j}^*\fraka_{j+1}^*)| \Omega\rangle
\;
\end{equation}
%
and so $\langle \Omega | \PP_j^{(i_j)}| \Omega\rangle = \tfrac{1}{2}$ independently of
the value of $i_j$. Iterating on this idea, $\|\,| 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\|^2 = 1$,
which shows the claim.
%Replacing this inductively in the above and using that the factors with $\fraka_{j}^*\fraka_{j+1}^*$ vanish (independently of the value of $i_j$) because their adjoints act on the vacuum, this shows the claim.
\vspace{.1cm}
(ii) On the one hand, one has \eqref{eq-OccStatesPar} so that
%
$$
\Pp\,\frakd_\bound | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\;=\;
(-1)^L\,\frakd_\bound | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\;.
$$
%
On the other hand, due to the CAR's,
$\frakd_j^*\frakd_j\frakd_j^{(i_j)} = i_j\,\frakd_j^{(i_j)}$
and using Equation \eqref{eq-ParityRewrite}
%
\begin{align*}
\Pp\,
\frakd_\bound | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
&
\;=\;
-\,(\one-2\,\frakd_\bound^*\frakd_\bound)\prod_{j=1}^{L-1}\,(\one-2\,\frakd_j^*\frakd_j)
\frakd_\bound | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\\
&
\;=\;
-\,(\one-2\,\frakd_\bound^*\frakd_\bound)\frakd_\bound
\prod_{j=1}^{L-1}\,(\one-2\,\frakd_j^*\frakd_j)
| 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\\
&
\;=\;
-\,(\one-2\,\frakd_\bound^*\frakd_\bound)\frakd_\bound \prod_{j=1}^{L-1}\,(-1)^{i_j}
| 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\\
&
\;=\;
-\,\frakd_\bound
(-1)^{\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}i_j}
| 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\;.
\end{align*}
%
Hence if $L+\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}i_j$ is even, $\frakd_\bound | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle=0$. Now
%
\begin{align*}
\|\,\frakd_\bound^* | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\|^2
&
\;=\;
\langle 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1} | \frakd_\bound \frakd_\bound^* | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\\
&
\;=\;
\langle 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1} | (\one-\frakd_\bound^*\frakd_\bound) | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\\
&
\;=\;
\|\, | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\|^2
\;.
\end{align*}
%
The claim (iii) follows in the same manner.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{.2cm}
Given the above lemma, let us now define the states
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-OccStates1}
|1;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\;=\;
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\frakd^*_\bound\,|0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\;\;
&
\mbox{\rm if }L+\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}i_j\;\mbox{\rm even}\;,
\\
\frakd_\bound\,|0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\;\;
&
\mbox{\rm if } L+\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}i_j\;\mbox{\rm odd}\;.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
%
The parity of these states is given by
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-OccStatesPar1}
\Pp\,|1;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\;=\;
(-1)^L
\,|1;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\;.
\end{equation}
%
Comparing with \eqref{eq-OccStatesPar}, one sees that the first entry $i_\bound$ in
$|i_\bound;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle$ indicates a parity change.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:Kit_open_eigenbasis}
The set $\big\{|i_\bound;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\,:\,i_\bound,i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\in\{0,1\}\big\}$ is an orthogonal basis of $\Ff_\Lambda$.
\end{proposi}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\noindent {\bf Proof.} Due to Lemma~\ref{lem-vanishing}, it only remains to prove the following orthogonality relations:
%
$$
\langle 1;i'_1,\ldots,i'_{L-1} | 0;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\;=\;0
\;,
\qquad
\langle 1;i'_1,\ldots,i'_{L-1} | 1;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle
\;=\;\delta_{i_1,i'_1}\cdots \delta_{i_{L-1},i'_{L-1}}
\;.
$$
%
The first claim follows because the two states have different parity. The second one is based on Lemma~\ref{lem-vanishing}(i) and an argument as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-vanishing}(ii).
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Let us also note that by the relation $(2\frakd_j^* \frakd_j - \one) \frakd_j^{(i_j)} = (-1)^{ i_j + 1}\frakd_j^{(i_j)}$ with
$i_j \in \{0,1\}$ the occupation number, we deduce from Equation \eqref{eq-HamOsci} that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit} | i_\bound;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle \;=\;
w \Big( \sum_{j=1}^{L-1} (-1)^{i_j + 1} \Big) | i_\bound;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle \;.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, the orthonormal basis
$\big\{|i_\bound;i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\rangle\,:\,i_\bound,i_1,\ldots,i_{L-1}\in\{0,1\}\big\}$
diagonalises the quantum Ising/Kitaev Hamiltonian \eqref{eq-HamOsci}. In particular, the
ground state space of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}$ is spanned by
$| 0; 0,\ldots,0 \rangle$ and $| 1; 0,\ldots,0 \rangle$.
\subsection{The Kitaev model on a closed chain}
\label{sec-KitaevClosedChain}
The previous analysis on the Kitaev Hamiltonian was for systems with open boundary
conditions. We can close up the chain with periodic or anti-periodic boundary conditions by heuristically
choosing $\fraka_{L+1} = \pm \fraka_1$. Let us now consider the case of periodic and anti-periodic boundary
conditions. This leads to the Hamiltonian
%
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{H}^\mathrm{Kit}_\Lambda(\pm)
\;&=\;
\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}\big(-w\,(\fraka_j^*\fraka_{j+1}+\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j})
+\Delta\,\fraka_j\fraka_{j+1}+\overline{\Delta}\,\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j}^*
\big) + \mu \sum_{j=1}^L (\fraka_j^*\fraka_{j}-\tfrac{1}{2}) \\
&\qquad \pm \big( -w(\fraka_L^*\fraka_1 + \fraka_1^*\fraka_L) + \Delta\fraka_L\fraka_1 + \ol{\Delta}\fraka_1^*\fraka_L^* \big)
\;.
\end{align*}
Clearly in the `trivial phase' $w=\Delta =0$, then the Hamiltonian is the same as the
trivial Hamiltonian with open boundary conditions and, hence, has the ground state
$| \Omega\rangle$ for $\mu >0$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
In the non-trivial regime $\mu=0$ and $\Delta=e^{\ii \theta}w$, the
Majorana representation of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\pm)$ is as
in \eqref{eq-HamMajoChain} with the supplementary summand $\ii w\frakb_{2L}\frakb_{1}$
which has to be evaluated as in \eqref{eq-Crel2}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Per_aPer_Kitaev}
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\pm) \;=\;
\ii w\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} \;\pm \;\ii w \, \frakb_{2L}\frakb_{1} \; .
\end{equation}
Assuming non-negative $w$,
the ground state space of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\pm)$ is
built from the $-1$ eigenstates of the commuting
even self-adjoint unitaries $\{\ii \,\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}\}_{j=1}^{L-1}$ and the
$\mp 1$ eigenstate of $\ii\, \frakb_{2L}\frakb_1$,
$$
\calH_\mathrm{GS}^\pm \;\cong\;
\frac{1}{2}(1\mp \ii \frakb_{2L}\frakb_1) \prod_{j=1}^{L-1} \frac{1}{2}(1- \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}) \cdot \mathcal{F}(\mathbb{C}^L) \; .
$$
Like the open chain, we can characterise the ground state space by the new CAR operators
\begin{align*}
&\frakd_j \;=\; \frac{1}{2}( \frakb_{2j} +\ii \frakb_{2j+1}) \; ,
&&\frakd_{\bound}^\pm \;=\; \frac{1}{2}( \frakb_{2L} \pm \ii \frakb_{1}) \; , \\
&\ii \,\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} \;=\; 2\frakd_j^*\frakd_j - 1 \; ,
&&\pm \ii \, \frakb_{2L}\frakb_1 \;=\; 2(\frakd_{\bound}^\pm)^* \frakd_{\bound}^\pm - 1 \; .
\end{align*}
In particular $\Ran(\frakd_j)$ is a subspace of the $-1$ eigenspace of
$\ii \,\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}$ and $\Ran(\frakd_{\bound}^\pm)$ is a subspace
of the $\mp 1$ eigenspace of $\ii \,\frakb_{2L}\frakb_1$. To ensure that
the ground state space is characterised, we just need to make sure these spaces are
non-trivial. But indeed
\begin{align*}
&\frakd_j \; = \; \frac{\ii }{2}( -e^{\ii \frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_j + e^{-\ii \frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_j^* +
e^{\ii \frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{j+1} + e^{-\ii \frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{j+1}^*) \; ,
&&\frakd_{\bound}^\pm \; = \; \frac{\ii }{2}( -e^{\ii \frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_L + e^{-\ii \frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_L^* \pm
e^{\ii \frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{1} \pm e^{-\ii \frac{\theta}{2}}\fraka_{1}^*) \; ,
\end{align*}
and so $\frakd_j | \Omega\rangle$ and $\frakd_{\bound}^\pm | \Omega\rangle$ are non-zero.
Like the open chain, we again need to account for the parity operator, where the following
lemma plays an analogous role to Lemma \ref{lem-vanishing}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:closed_chain_basis_cases}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] If $L$ is even, then $\frakd_\bound^+ \frakd_1\cdots\frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle = 0$ and
$\frakd_\bound^- \frakd_1\cdots\frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle \neq 0$.
\item[{\rm (ii)}] If $L$ is odd, then $\frakd_\bound^- \frakd_1\cdots\frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle = 0$ and
$\frakd_\bound^+ \frakd_1\cdots\frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle \neq 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Let us consider the vectors $\frakd_\bound^\pm \frakd_1\cdots\frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle$.
Because $\frakd_j$ and $\frakd_\bound^\pm$ are odd operators, it follows that
$$
\Pp\, \frakd_\bound^\pm \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1} | \Omega\rangle \;=\;
(-1)^{L} \,\frakd_\bound^\pm \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1} \Pp | \Omega\rangle \;=\;
(-1)^{L} \, \frakd_\bound^\pm \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1} | \Omega\rangle \; .
$$
On the other hand, let us recall
$$
\Pp \;=\; \prod_{j=1}^{L}(-\ii \frakb_{2j-1}\frakb_{2j}) \;=\; (\ii \frakb_{2L}\frakb_1) \prod_{j=1}^{L-1} ( -\ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1})
\;=\; \pm \big( 2(\frakd_\bound^\pm)^* \frakd_\bound - 1\big) \prod_{j=1}^{L-1}\big( 1- 2\frakd_j^* \frakd_j\big) \; .
$$
Computing the parity,
\begin{align*}
\Pp \, \frakd_\bound^\pm \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1} | \Omega\rangle \;&=\;
\pm \big( 2(\frakd_\bound^\pm)^* \frakd_\bound - 1\big) \prod_{j=1}^{L-1}\big( 1- 2\frakd_j^* \frakd_j\big) \,
\frakd_\bound^\pm \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1} | \Omega\rangle \\
&=\; \pm \big( 2(\frakd_\bound^\pm)^* \frakd_\bound - 1\big) \frakd_\bound^\pm \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1} | \Omega\rangle \\
&=\; \mp\, \frakd_\bound^\pm \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1} | \Omega\rangle \; .
\end{align*}
Therefore if $L$ is even, then we have that
$\frakd_\bound^+ \frakd_1\cdots\frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle$ is both even and
odd. Thus it must be $0$. Similarly, if $L$ is odd,
$\frakd_\bound^- \frakd_1\cdots\frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle$ is even and odd
and so must vanish.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Lemma \ref{lem:closed_chain_basis_cases} can be used to prove the following special case of Proposition \ref{prop:closed_chain_GS_generic} below.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:per_aper_Kit_GS}
If $L$ is even, a ground state of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\pm)$ is given by
$$
| \psi_\pm \rangle \;=\; \begin{cases} \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1} |\Omega\rangle\, , & \fraka_{L+1} \,=\, \fraka_1\, , \\
\frakd_\bound^- \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle \, , & \fraka_{L+1} \,=\, -\fraka_1 \, \end{cases}.
$$
If $L$ is odd, a ground state of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\pm$ is given by
$$
| \psi_\pm \rangle \;=\; \begin{cases} \frakd_\bound^+ \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1} |\Omega\rangle\, , & \fraka_{L+1} \,=\, \fraka_1\, , \\
\frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle \, , & \fraka_{L+1} \,=\, -\fraka_1 \, \end{cases}.
$$
In particular, $\Pp |\psi_\pm \rangle = \mp | \psi_\pm \rangle$.
\end{proposi}
It is true that for $w>0$ the ground states specified in Proposition \ref{prop:per_aper_Kit_GS} are
unique, see~\cite{TwistedKitaev} for example. To prove such a statement
requires constructing an eigenbasis as in Proposition \ref{prop:Kit_open_eigenbasis}.
\subsection*{Connection to index on canonical transformations}
Unlike the case of open boundary conditions, the Kitaev model on the closed chain
does not have a double degenerate ground state. However, one can still differentiate
between different `phases' using the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index from Definition \ref{def:Z_2_index_def}.
\hspace{0.2cm}
First consider the trivial Hamiltonian, namely $w=0$:
$$
\HH_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\pm) \;=\; \mu \sum_{j=1}^L (\fraka_j^*\fraka_j -\tfrac{1}{2})
\;=\; \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix} \fraka^* & \fraka \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \mu & 0 \\ 0 & -\mu \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} \fraka \\ \fraka^* \end{pmatrix}
\; .
$$
Hence the BdG Hamiltonian $H_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\pm)$ is already in diagonal form and it does not depend
on the sign, so the canonical
transformation is $W = \one_{2L}$ and
$$
j( \HH_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\pm) ) \;=\; \mathrm{sgn}\,\mathrm{det}(\one) \;=\; 1 \; ,
\qquad
\mbox{for }w=0\;.
$$
\vspace{0.1cm}
Consider now the (orthogonal) shift operator
\begin{equation} \label{eq:per_antiper_shift}
(V_\pm \frakb)_j = \begin{cases} \frakb_{j+1}, & 1\leq j\leq 2L-1\,, \\ \pm \frakb_1, & j=2L\,, \end{cases} \qquad
\mathrm{det}(V_\pm) = \mp 1 \; .
\end{equation}
Recall the Kitaev Hamiltonian with periodic or anti-periodic boundary conditions
from Equation \eqref{eq:Per_aPer_Kitaev}. We compute that
$$
{\bf H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\pm) \;=\;
\ii w \sum_{j=1}^{L-1} \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} \pm \ii w \, \frakb_{2L}\frakb_1 \\
\;=\; \frac{\ii w}{2} \, \frakb^t V_\pm^* \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \one \\ -\one & 0 \end{pmatrix} V_\pm \frakb
$$
Therefore, we see that $V_\pm$ diagonalises the skew-symmetric matrix $A_\Lambda(\pm)$
in the Kitaev chain with periodic or anti-periodic boundary conditions.
%
%Suppose that $V_\pm$ diagonalises the skew-symmetric matrix $A_\Lambda(\pm)$.
%Then
%$$
% {\bf H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\pm)
%\;=\; \frac{\ii}{2} \frakb^t V_\pm^*V_\pm A_\Lambda(\pm) V_\pm^* V_\pm \frakb
% \;=\; \frac{\ii}{2} \frakb^t V_\pm^* \begin{pmatrix} 0 & E \\ -E & 0 \end{pmatrix} V_\pm \frakb
% \;=\; \ii \sum_{j=1}^{L-1} E_j \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} \pm \ii E_L \frakb_{2L}\frakb_1 \; .
%$$
%Thus the shift operator $V_\pm$ is the orthogonal transformation of the Kitaev chain
%with periodic/anti-periodic boundary conditions provided that $w = E_j$ for all $j$.
Because $\mathrm{det}(V_\pm) = \mp 1$, we see that the periodic and anti-periodic
chains have different phase labels.
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-KitaevIndNonTrivial}
j( \HH_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\pm) ) \;=\; \mathrm{det} (V_\pm) \;=\; \mp 1 \; ,
\qquad
\mbox{for }\mu=0\;.
\end{equation}
%
Furthermore, this
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-index can be detected by the
parity of the ground state $|\psi_\pm \rangle$ from Proposition \ref{prop:per_aper_Kit_GS}.
The matrix $V_-$ can be connected
to the identity via a continuous path. This path can then be used to connect the
anti-periodic Kitaev chain to the trivial chain.
\subsection{Other examples} \label{subsec:Other_examples}
Here we study some non-translation invariant interactions and ground states.
This also prepares the ground for the study of a flux insertion through a chain, which
merely consists of a modification of a few matrix elements.
\subsection*{Double-sided chain}
The basic Hamiltonian is the following
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{H}_{[-L,L]} \; &= \; \sum_{j=-L}^{L-1} w_j \big[ -(\fraka_j^* \fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_j ) +
(e^{i\theta}\fraka_j \fraka_{j+1} + e^{-i\theta}\fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_j^*) \big]
\; + \; \sum_{j=-L}^{L} \mu_j ( \fraka_j^*\fraka_j - \tfrac{1}{2}) \\
&=\; \sum_{j=-L}^{L-1} w_j \,\ii\, \frakb_{2j} \frakb_{2j+1} + \sum_{j=-L}^{L} \tfrac{\mu_j}{2} \,\ii\, \frakb_{2j-1}\frakb_{2j} \; ,
\qquad w_j \, , \, \mu_j \in \mathbb{R} \, \text{ for all } \, j \; .
\end{align*}
One can roughly think of $\{\ii \, \frakb_{2j} \frakb_{2j+1}\}_{j=-L}^{L-1}$ as
playing the role of a spin site and $\{\ii \, \frakb_{2j-1}\frakb_{2j}\}_{j=-L}^L$ specifying
an external field. In particular, for $|\mu_j|$ small, the sign of $w_j$
determines the `spin-orientation' of the ground state space at site $j$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent {\bf Case: $w_j = 0$ for all $j$} \\
If there are only the diagonal terms $\mu_j ( \fraka_j^*\fraka_j - \tfrac{1}{2})$, the ground state
space is determined
by the sign of $\mu_j$ at each site. If $\mu_j >0$, then the vacuum $| \Omega_j\rangle$ at site $j$ will be the ground state
of $\mu_j ( \fraka_j^*\fraka_j - \tfrac{1}{2})$. If $\mu_j < 0$, then $\fraka_j^*| \Omega_j\rangle$ is the
ground state with energy $\frac{\mu_j}{2}$. One can describe the total ground state as a product of the ground state at each site.
To write this down, we assume $\mu_j \neq 0$ and
introduce $s_{\mu_j} = 0$ if $\mu_j >0$ and $s_{\mu_j} = 1$ if $\mu_j <0$.
Then the ground state is
$$
| \psi \rangle \; = \; \prod_{j=-L}^L (\fraka_j^*)^{s_{\mu_j}} | \Omega \rangle \; .
$$
%
If $\mu_{k_1}= \cdots = \mu_{k_m} =0$ for some $m\geq 1$, then
$$
\big\{ \fraka_{k_j}^* |\psi\rangle\big\}_{j=1}^m
\;,
\qquad
\mbox{with }\;
| \psi \rangle \; = \; \prod_{\substack{ j=-L, \\ j \neq k_l}}^L (\fraka_j^*)^{s_{\mu_j}} | \Omega \rangle \;,
$$
are all ground states and so there is an extra degeneracy.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent {\bf Case: $\mu_j = 0$ and $w_j\neq 0$ for all $j$} \\
This corresponds to the non-periodic Kitaev (quantum Ising) chain
$$
\mathbf{H}_{[-L,L]} \; = \; \sum_{j=-L}^{L-1} w_j \,\ii\, \frakb_{2j} \frakb_{2j+1} \; , \qquad
[ \mathbf{H}_{[-L,L]}, \frakb_{2L} ] \; =\; [ \mathbf{H}_{[-L,L]}, \frakb_{-2L-1} ] \;=\; 0 \; .
$$
Let us assume for the time being that $w_j \neq 0$ for all $j$. Then the ground state space at site $j$ is spanned
by the $\pm 1$ eigenspace of the self-adjoint unitary $i \frakb_{2j} \frakb_{2j+1}$ depending on the
sign of $w_j$. Using again $s_{w_j}$ to be $0$ or $1$ if $w_j$ is positive or negative,
one can write down ground states explicitly via the operators $\{\frakd_j\}_{j=-L}^{L-1}$,
\begin{align*}
&\frakd_j \;=\; \tfrac{1}{2}( \frakb_{2j} + (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \ii \frakb_{2j+1} )\; ,
&&(2 \frakd_j^* \frakd_j - 1) \; =\; (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} \; , \\
&\{ \frakd_i^*, \frakd_j\} \;=\; \delta_{i,j}\, \one\; , &&\{\frakd_i, \frakd_j\} \;=\; 0\; .
\end{align*}
Indeed, one has
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dbl_sided_spin_simple}
\mathbf{H}_{[-L,L]} \; = \; \sum_{j=-L}^{L-1} (-1)^{s_{w_j}} w_j \, (2\frakd_j^*\frakd_j -1) \; ,
\end{equation}
where all coefficients in the sum are now positive. Analogous to the case of the
Kitaev chain on the one-sided chain with open boundary conditoins, the vector
$$
| \psi \rangle = \prod_{j=-L}^{L-1} \frakd_j | \Omega \rangle
$$
is a non-zero ground state with energy $\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} (-1)^{s_{w_j}+1} w_j$.
Because $\frakd_j$ is odd for all $j$,
we have that $\mathcal{P}| \psi \rangle = | \psi \rangle$.
Now $\mathbf{H}_{[-L,L]}$ commutes with $\frakb_{-2L-1}$ and $\frakb_{2L}$
and this leads to a degeneracy of the ground state space that will be investigated next.
Let us consider the boundary operator
$\frakd_\bound = \frac{1}{2}( \frakb_{2L} + \ii \frakb_{-2L-1})$ which satisfies the CAR relations
with the other $\frakd_j$ operators. Either $\frakd_\bound | \psi \rangle$ or
$\frakd_\bound^* | \psi \rangle$ is also a ground state of the Hamiltonian
({\it cf.} Lemma \ref{lem-vanishing}) that is, moreover, odd.
To determine which one should be used, let us first note that
$$
\mathcal{P} \;=\; \prod_{j=-L}^L (-\ii \frakb_{2j-1} \frakb_{2j} )
\;=\; \ii \frakb_{2L} \frakb_{-2L-1} \prod_{j=-L}^{L-1} (-\ii \frakb_{2j} \frakb_{2j+1})
\;=\; (2 \frakd_\bound^* \frakd_\bound -1) \prod_{j=-L}^{L-1} (-1)^{s_{w_j}} (1 - 2\frakd_j^* \frakd_j) \; .
$$
Let $i_\bound \in\{0,1\}$ be the occupancy number $\frakd_\bound$, {\it i.e.}
$\frakd_\bound^{(0)} = \frakd_\bound$, $\frakd_\bound^{(1)} = \frakd_\bound^\ast$.
Then $\mathcal{P} \frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} | \psi \rangle = - \frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} |\psi \rangle$.
This will be compared with
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P}\, \frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} | \psi \rangle \;&=\;
(2 \frakd_\bound^* \frakd_\bound -1) \prod_{j=-L}^{L-1} (-1)^{s_{w_j}} (1 - 2\frakd_j^* \frakd_j) \,
\frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} \frakd_{-L}\cdots \frakd_{L-1} | \Omega \rangle \\
&=\; (2 \frakd_\bound^* \frakd_\bound -1) \frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} \prod_{j=-L}^{L-1} (-1)^{s_{w_j}} (1 - 2\frakd_j^* \frakd_j) \,
\frakd_{-L}\cdots \frakd_{L-1} | \Omega \rangle \\
&=\; (-1)^{1+ i_\bound} \frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} \Big( \prod_{j=1}^{L-1} (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \Big) \frakd_{-L}\cdots \frakd_{L-1} | \Omega \rangle \\
&=\; (-1)^{1+ i_\bound} (-1)^{\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} s_{w_j} } \, \frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} | \psi \rangle \; .
\end{align*}
Suppose that there are $M$ sites with $w_j < 0$.
If $M$ is odd, then $\frakd_\bound^* |\psi \rangle$ is a ground state and
$\frakd_\bound |\psi \rangle = 0$. If $M$ is even, then
$\frakd_\bound |\psi \rangle$ is a ground state and $\frakd_\bound^* |\psi \rangle =0$.
We then see that if we change the orientation of a \emph{single} spin site, $w_{j_0} \mapsto - w_{j_0}$,
then the ground state space changes.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\noindent {\bf Case: $\mu_j = 0$, $w_{j_1}=\cdots = w_{j_k}=0$ for $k< 2L$} \\
We now consider the more degenerate case, where some of the spin coefficients
$\{w_{j_i}\}_{i=1}^k$ are zero with $k < 2L$.
Let $Z = \{j_1, \ldots, j_k\}\subset [-L,L]\cap \mathbb{Z}$ be the set of labels for the $0$-coefficient
spin-sites. Then the Hamiltonian can be written
$$
\mathbf{H}_{[-L,L]} \;=\; \sum_{\substack{ j \in [-L,L]\cap \mathbb{Z}, \\ j \notin Z}} w_j \,\ii\, \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} \, .
$$
The techniques of the previous section still apply.
In particular, we still have that
\begin{align*}
&\mathbf{H}_{[-L,L]} \; = \; \sum_{\substack{ j \in [-L,L]\cap \mathbb{Z}, \\ j \notin Z}} (-1)^{s_{w_j}} w_j \, (2\frakd_j^*\frakd_j -1) \; ,
&&\frakd_j \;=\; \frac{1}{2}( \frakb_{2j} + (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \ii \frakb_{2j+1} )\; ,
\end{align*}
and the vector
$$
| \psi \rangle = \prod_{\substack{ j \in [-L,L]\cap \mathbb{Z}, \\ j \notin Z}} \frakd_j | \Omega \rangle
$$
is a ground state. We now consider the extra degeneracy, where
the commuting family of self-adjoint unitaries
$\{\ii \, \frakb_{2j} \frakb_{2j+1}\}_{j\in Z}$ commute with the Hamiltonian and also the
ground state projection. Therefore, the vectors
$\big\{ \frac{1}{2} (\frakb_{2j} + \ii \frakb_{2j+1} )| \psi \rangle \big\}_{j \in Z}$ are also
a family of linearly independent ground states.
As previously, either $\frakd_\bound | \psi \rangle$ or
$\frakd_\bound^* | \psi \rangle$ is another ground state. Therefore in total we have
a $(k+2)$-fold degeneracy with $k = |Z|$.
\subsection*{Closed chain}
The Hamiltonian of study will again be the (non-trivial) Kitaev chain but without
translation invariance of interactions,
\begin{align} \label{eq:non-periodic-closed-Kitaev}
\mathbf{H}_L \;&=\; \sum_{j=1}^{L-1} w_j \big[ -(\fraka_j^* \fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_j ) +
(e^{i\theta}\fraka_j \fraka_{j+1} + e^{-i\theta}\fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_j^*) \big] \nonumber \\
&\qquad \quad +
w_L\big[ -(\fraka_L^* \fraka_{1} + \fraka_1^*\fraka_L) + (e^{i\theta}\fraka_L\fraka_1 + e^{-i\theta}\fraka_1^*\fraka_L^*) \big] \nonumber \\
&=\; \sum_{j=1}^{L-1} w_j \, \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} +
w_L\, \ii \frakb_{2L} \frakb_1 \; .
\end{align}
We again let $s_{w_j}$ be such that $(-1)^{s_{w_j}} w_j$ is non-negative.
As previously, the
ground state is given by the $(-1)^{s_{w_j}+1}$ eigenspaces of the commuting self-adjoint
unitaries $\{\ii \, \frakb_{2j} \frakb_{2j+1}\}_{j=1}^{L-1}$ and $\ii \, \frakb_{2L} \frakb_1$.
We again characterise the ground state space by the operators
$\{\frakd_j\}_{j=1}^{L-1}$ and $\frakd_\bound$, where
\begin{align*}
&\frakd_j \;=\; \frac{1}{2}( \frakb_{2j} + (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \ii \frakb_{2j+1} )\; ,
&&\frakd_\bound \;=\; \frac{1}{2}( \frakb_{2L} + (-1)^{s_{w_L}} \ii \frakb_{1} )\; , \\
&(2 \frakd_j^* \frakd_j - 1) \; =\; (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} \; ,
&&(2 \frakd_\bound^* \frakd_\bound - 1) \; =\; (-1)^{s_{w_L}} \ii \frakb_{2L}\frakb_{1} \; ,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{H}_{L} \; = \; \sum_{j=-L}^{L-1} (-1)^{s_{w_j}} w_j (2 \frakd_j^*\frakd_j - \one)
+ (-1)^{s_{w_L}} w_L (2 \frakd_\bound^* \frakd_\bound - \one) \;
\end{equation*}
with each coefficient $\{(-1)^{s_{w_j}} w_j\}_{j=1}^L$ strictly positive.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:closed_chain_GS_generic}
Let $s_P = \sum_{j=1}^L s_{w_j}$ be the number of spin sites with negative orientation.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] If $L$ and $s_P$ have the same parity, then
$\frakd_0\cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle$ is a ground state of $\mathbf{H}_L$.
\item[{\rm (ii)}] If $L$ and $s_P$ have different parity, then
$\frakd_\bound \frakd_1 \cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle$ is a ground
state of $\mathbf{H}_L$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Again let $i_\bound\in \{0,1\}$
be the occupancy number, that is, $\frakd_\bound^{(0)} = \frakd_\bound$ and
$\frakd_\bound^{(1)} = \frakd_\bound^*$.
We note that $\frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} \frakd_1 \cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle$ has
parity $(-1)^{L}$. We also use that
$$
\Pp \;=\; \ii \frakb_{2L}\frakb_1 \prod_{j=1}^{L-1} (-\ii \,\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}) \;=\;
(-1)^{s_{w_L}} (2\frakd_\bound^*\frakd_\bound - 1) \prod_{j=1}^{L-1} (-1)^{s_{w_j}} (1-2\frakd_j^*\frakd_j) \; ,
$$
so
\begin{align*}
\Pp \, \frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} \frakd_1 \cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle \;&=\;
(-1)^{s_{w_L}} (2\frakd_\bound^*\frakd_\bound - 1) \prod_{j=1}^{L-1} (-1)^{s_{w_j}} (1-2\frakd_j^*\frakd_j) \,
\frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} \frakd_1 \cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle \\
&=\; \Big( (-1)^{s_{w_L}+i_\bound+1} \prod_{j=1}^{L-1} (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \Big) \,
\frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} \frakd_1 \cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle \\
&=\; (-1)^{i_\bound+1+s_P} \, \frakd_\bound^{(i_\bound)} \frakd_1 \cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle \; .
\end{align*}
Now, if $L$ and $s_P$ are even, then
$\frakd_\bound \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle$ will have even and odd parity
and so will vanish. Hence $\frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle$ minimises
the term $(-1)^{s_{w_L}}2w_L \,\frakd_\bound^*\frakd_\bound $ and gives a ground state.
If $L$ is even and $s_P$ odd, then
$\frakd_\bound \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle$ has consistent
parity (the term with $\frakd_\bound^*$ does not) and so will minimise $\mathbf{H}_L$.
If $L$ is odd and $s_P$ even, then
$\frakd_\bound \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}| \Omega\rangle$ is again non-zero and
hence is a ground state.
If $L$ and $s_P$ are odd, then $\frakd_\bound \frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle$
will have odd and even parity and so must be zero. Hence
$\frakd_1\cdots \frakd_{L-1}|\Omega\rangle$ is a ground state.
\hfill $\Box$
\subsection{Ground state gap}
The Hamiltonians that we have considered so far are given by sums of commuting
projections. For such models, it is relatively straight-forward to show that the
Hamiltonian has a uniformly
bounded ground state energy gap. For more general situations, a common technique
to show a uniformly bounded ground state energy gap is to employ the Martingale
method~\cite[Section 5]{NSY17}.
In order to introduce the method, in this section we will show how it can be applied to the simple models
we have considered thus far.
\subsection*{Double-sided chain}
Let us consider the case of the spin chain with nearest-neighbour interactions. For convenience, we would
like the ground state energy to be $0$, so take the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation} \label{eq:spinH_normalised}
\mathbf{H}_{[-L,L]} \;=\; \sum_{j=-L}^{L-1} \ii w_j\, \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} - E_G \,\one\; , \qquad
E_G \;=\; \sum_{j=-L}^{L-1} (-1)^{s_{w_j}+1} w_j \; , \qquad w_j \;\neq\; 0 \; .
\end{equation}
Let us first define a sequence of Hamiltonians $\{\mathbf{H}_n\}_{n=0}^L \subset (A_{[-L,L]\cap\mathbb{Z}}^\mathrm{car})^0$
where $\mathbf{H}_0 = 0$ and
$$
\mathbf{H}_n \;=\; \sum_{j=-n}^{n-1} w_j( \ii \, \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} + (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \one) \; .
$$
Thus we have a non-decreasing sequence of non-negative Hamiltonians such that the
kernels $\mathcal{G}_n = \Ker( \mathbf{H}_n )$ form a non-increasing sequence of subspaces
$$
\mathcal{F}(\mathbb{C}^{2L+1}) \;=\; \mathcal{G}_0 \;\supset \;\mathcal{G}_1 \;\supset \cdots
\supset\; \mathcal{G}_L \;=\; \mathcal{H}_\text{GS} \; .
$$
Now let $h_n = \mathbf{H}_n - \mathbf{H}_{n-1}$ and let $g_n$ be the kernel projection
of $h_n$. In this case, using Equation \eqref{eq:dbl_sided_spin_simple},
$$
h_n \;=\; 2(-1)^{s_{w_{-n}}} w_{-n} \, \frakd_{-n}^* \frakd_{-n} + 2(-1)^{s_{w_{n-1}}} w_{n-1} \frakd_{n-1}^* \frakd_{n-1} \; .
$$
Hence $\frakd_{-n}\frakd_{n-1} \cdot \mathcal{F}(\mathbb{C}^{2L+1})$ is the ground state space of $h_n$.
Alternatively, the kernel is determined by the $(-1)^{s_{w_{-n}}+1}$ and $(-1)^{s_{w_{n-1}}+1}$-eigenspaces
of $i\frakb_{-2n}\frakb_{-2n+1}$ and $i\frakb_{2n-2}\frakb_{2n-1}$. Hence
\begin{align*}
h_n \;&=\; (-1)^{s_{w_{-n}}} w_{-n} \big(1 + (-1)^{s_{w_{-n}}} \ii \frakb_{-2n}\frakb_{-2n+1} \big)
+ (-1)^{s_{w_{n-1}}} w_{n-1} \big( 1+ (-1)^{s_{w_{n-1}}} \ii \frakb_{2n-2}\frakb_{2n-1} \big) \\
&=\; (-1)^{s_{w_{-n}}} \frac{ w_{-n}}{2} P_{(-1)^{s_{w_{-n}}}} + (-1)^{s_{w_{n-1}}} \frac{ w_{n-1}}{2} P_{(-1)^{s_{w_{n-1}}}} \\
&\geq \; \gamma_n ( \one - g_n )\; , \qquad\qquad\qquad \gamma_n = \mathrm{min}\big\{ \tfrac{|w_{-n}|}{2}, \tfrac{|w_{n-1}|}{2} \big\} \; ,
\end{align*}
where $P_{\pm 1}$ is the projection onto the $\pm 1$ eigenspace.
If we take $\gamma = \mathrm{min}_j \big\{ \tfrac{|w_{-j}|}{2}\} >0$, then for any
$0 \leq n \leq L$, $h_n \geq \gamma (\one - g_n )$.
Next let us introduce the projections
\begin{align*}
&E_n \;=\; \begin{cases} \one - P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_1)} \, , & n = 0 \, , \\ P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_n)} - P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_{n+1})} \, , & 1 \leq n \leq L-1 \, \\
P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_L)} \, , & n = L \end{cases} \; , &&E_n E_m \;=\; \delta_{n,m} E_n \; ,
&&\sum_{n=1}^L E_n \;=\; \one \; .
\end{align*}
In this case, one has explicitly
\begin{align*}
E_n \; = \; \begin{cases} \one - \frac{1}{2} \big( 1 - (-1)^{s_{w_{-1}}} \ii \frakb_{-2}\frakb_{-1} \big) \, , & n = 0 \, , \\
\one - \frac{1}{2}\big( 1- (-1)^{s_{w_{-n-1}}} \ii \frakb_{-2n-2} \frakb_{-2n-1} \big)
\frac{1}{2} \big( 1- (-1)^{s_{w_n}} \ii \frakb_{2n}\frakb_{2n+1} \big) \, , & 1 \leq n \leq L-1 \, , \\
% \prod\limits_{j=-n}^{n-1} \frac{1}{2} \big( 1 - (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} \big) -
% \prod\limits_{j=-n-1}^{n} \frac{1}{2} \big( 1 - (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} \big)\, , & 1 \leq n \leq L-1 \, , \\
\prod\limits_{j=-L}^{L-1} \frac{1}{2} \big( 1 - (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} \big) \, , & n=L \end{cases} \; .
\end{align*}
Similarly, we have that $g_{n+1} = P_{\Ker(h_{n+1})}$ can be written as
$$
g_{n+1} \;=\; \tfrac{1}{2} \big( 1 - (-1)^{s_{w_{-n-1}}} \ii \frakb_{-2n-2}\frakb_{-2n-1} \big) \,
\tfrac{1}{2} \big( 1 - (-1)^{s_{w_{n}}} \ii \frakb_{2n}\frakb_{2n+1} \big) \; .
$$
One can then check that $[E_n, g_{n+1}]=0$ and $E_n g_{n+1} E_n = 0$ for
$0\leq n \leq L-1$.
We therefore satisfy the hypothesis of~\cite[Theorem 5.1]{NSY17}, which
implies the following result.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:uniform_gap_quadratic}
The Hamiltonian from Equation \eqref{eq:spinH_normalised}
{with $\mathrm{min}_{-L\leq j\leq L} \big\{ \tfrac{|w_{-j}|}{2}\} >0$}
uniformly in $L$ has a spectral gap above
the ground state energy that is uniform in the size of the chain $[-L,L]\cap \mathbb{Z}$.
\end{proposi}
Recalling Proposition \ref{prop:finite_uniform_gap_gives_GNS_gap},
Proposition \ref{prop:uniform_gap_quadratic} guarantees that the
infinite volume GNS Hamiltonian $h_\omega$ coming from the weak-$\ast$ limit
of the finite-volume ground states will have a spectral gap above $0$.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\noindent {\bf Case: $\mu_j = 0$ and $w_j =0$ for $j\in Z$, a fixed finite set} \\
Next we consider the case of extra degeneracy in the finite chains. To this end we fix a
set of sites with $w_j=0$ \emph{that will not change as $L$ increases}. That is, we
start with a sufficiently large $L$.
Given such a set $Z$, we enumerate the set $[-L,L]\cap \mathbb{Z} \setminus Z$
by $\{j_1, \ldots, j_{N}\}$ with $j_{i} < j_{i+1}$. This allows to define the sequence
$$
0\;=\; \mathbf{H}_0 \;\leq\; \mathbf{H}_1 \;\leq\; \cdots \;\leq\; \mathbf{H}_N \;=\; \mathbf{H}_{[-L,L]} \; ,
$$
where
$$
\mathbf{H}_n \;=\; \sum_{j = j_1}^{j_n} w_j \big( \ii \, \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} + (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \one \big) \; .
$$
Again suppose that there is a strictly positive $0 < \gamma$ with $\gamma < \mathrm{min}\{ \frac{|w_j|}{2} \,:\, w_j \neq 0 \}$.
As in the non-degenerate case,
we define $h_n = \mathbf{H}_n - \mathbf{H}_{n-1}$, $g_n = P_{\Ker(h_n)}$ and
\begin{align*}
&E_n \;=\; \begin{cases} \one - P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_1)} \, , & n = 0 \, , \\ P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_n)} - P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_{n+1})} \, , & 1 \leq n \leq N-1 \, , \\
P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_L)} \, , & n = N \, , \end{cases} \; &&E_n E_m \;=\; \delta_{n,m} E_n \; ,
&&\sum_{n=1}^N E_n \;=\; \one \; .
\end{align*}
Note that in the degenerate picture, $P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_1)}$ is a larger projection than in the case
$w_j \neq 0$ for all $j$. However, one can still follow the previous method of
argument without issue, where
we have that $h_n \geq \gamma (\one - P_{\Ker(h_n)})$,
$[E_n, g_{n+1}]=0$ and $E_n g_{n+1} E_n = 0$ for
$0\leq n \leq N-1$.
Therefore the Martingale method applies again, which will ensure that in the thermodynamic
limit $L \to \infty$ (which implies $N\to \infty$), the infinite volume ground state is gapped.
\vspace{0.1cm}
The system with $w_j = 0$ for a fixed finite set is the same as the system with $w_j\neq 0$
up to a finite-rank operator. Hence the GNS representations of the infinite volume
ground states will
be unitarily equivalent ({\it cf.}~\cite[Example 6.2.56]{BR2}).
\subsection*{Closed chain}
Finally we study the ground state gap of the Hamiltonian
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{H}_L \;&=\;
\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} w_j \big( \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} + (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \one \big) +
w_L \big(\ii \frakb_{2L} \frakb_1 + (-1)^{s_{w_L}}\one \big) \; ,
\quad s_{w_j} = \begin{cases} 0 \, , & w_j \,\geq\, 0 \, , \\ 1 \, , & w_j \,< \, 0\; , \end{cases}
\end{align*}
where again $0 < \gamma \leq \frac{1}{2} |w_j|$ for all $j$.
Because the details of the proof are
very similar to the case of the open chain, some details will be skipped.
\vspace{0.2cm}
We define the sequence of non-negative Hamiltonians $\{\mathbf{H}_n\}_{n=0}^L$
with $\mathbf{H}_0 = 0$,
$\mathbf{H}_L$, as before and
$$
\mathbf{H}_n \;=\; \sum_{j=1}^{n} w_j \big( \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} + (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \one \big) \; ,
\qquad 1 \; \leq n \; \leq \; L-1 \; .
$$
The operators of interest for the Martingale method are
$h_n = \mathbf{H}_n - \mathbf{H}_{n-1}$, $g_n = P_{\Ker(h_n)}$, where in this case
$$
h_n \;=\; \begin{cases} w_1\big( \ii \frakb_2\frakb_3 + (-1)^{s_{w_1}} \one \big) \, , & n\,=\, 1\, , \\
w_1\big( \ii \frakb_{2n}\frakb_{2n+1} + (-1)^{s_{w_n}} \one \big) \, , & 2\,\leq\,n\,\leq\, L-1\, , \\
w_L\big( \ii \frakb_{2L}\frakb_{1} + (-1)^{s_{w_L}} \one \big)\, , & n\,=\, L\, , \end{cases} \; \qquad
g_n \;=\; \frac{1}{2} \big( \one - (-1)^{s_{w_n}} \ii \frakb_{2n} \frakb_{2n+1} \big) \; .
$$
By the Spectral Theorem,
$$
h_n \;=\; \frac{w_n}{2} \big(1+ (-1)^{s_{w_n}} \ii \frakb_{2n}\frakb_{2n+1} \big)
\;=\; \frac{w_n}{2} \big(1- P_{\Ker(h_n)} \big) \;\geq \; \gamma \big( 1- g_n \big) \;
$$
for $0<\gamma \leq \mathrm{min}_j \frac{|w_j|}{2}$.
We also have the family of projections
\begin{align*}
&E_n \;=\; \begin{cases} \one - P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_1)} \, , & n = 0 \, , \\ P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_n)} - P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_{n+1})} \, , & 1 \leq n \leq L-1 \, \\
P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_L)} \, , & n = L \end{cases} \; , &&E_n E_m \;=\; \delta_{n,m} E_n \; ,
&&\sum_{n=1}^L E_n \;=\; \one \; .
\end{align*}
Again
$$
E_n \;=\; \begin{cases} \one - \frac{1}{2}\big( \one - (-1)^{s_{w_1}} \ii \frakb_2 \frakb_3 \big) \,,\, & n\,=\, 0\, , \\
P_{\Ker(\mathbf{H}_n)} \big( \one - g_{n+1} \big) \, , & 1\, \leq \, n \,\leq\, L-1 \, , \\
\Big( \prod_{j=1}^{L-1} \big( \one - (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} \big) \Big)
\big( \one - (-1)^{s_{w_j}} \ii \frakb_{2L}\frakb_{1}\big) \, , & n\,=\, L \, \end{cases}\;
$$
and it is straight-forward to check that $[E_n, g_{n+1}]=0$ and $E_n g_{n+1} E_n = 0$ for
$0\leq n \leq L-1$. Thus the hypotheses of the Martingale method are satisfied and
one has the following.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:closed_chain_uniform_gap}
The Hamiltonian in Equation \eqref{eq:non-periodic-closed-Kitaev} has a spectral gap
above the ground state energy that is uniform in the length $L$ of the chain.
\end{proposi}
\subsection{Flux insertion and \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{Z}_2$}--valued spectral flow} \label{sec:closed_chain_flux}
Recall from \eqref{rk:finite_chain_index_as_sf} on page \pageref{rk:finite_chain_index_as_sf}
that the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index for
quadratic chains can be interpreted as a (finite-dimensional) $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral
flow between skew-symmetric matrix $A_\Lambda$ (or equivalently $\ii H_\Lambda$) and
its diagonalisation. Here we further investigate such applications
of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow by considering a flux insertion in
closed fermionic chains.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Let us first note that we can immediately use the concatenation properties of the
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow to establish a path between the Kitaev (or quantum Ising) model with periodic and anti-periodic
chains. Namely, for $V_\pm$ as in Equation \eqref{eq:per_antiper_shift},
$$
{\mathrm{Sf_2}(V_+ A_\Lambda V_+^*, \, V_- A_\Lambda V_-^*)} \;=\;
{\mathrm{Sf_2}(V_+ A_\Lambda V_+^*, \, A_\Lambda)} \,
{\mathrm{Sf}_2( A_\Lambda, \, V_- A_\Lambda V_-) }
\;=\; \mathrm{det}(V_+) \, \mathrm{det}(V_-) \;=\; -1\;,
$$
and so the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow is non-trivial. This result is also immediate from
Proposition \ref{prop:sf_as_Z2_obstruction}, though we would like
to show this in a more physically meaningful way.
\vspace{0.2cm}
We insert a flux term into the closed chain that plays the role of switching the
boundary conditions from periodic to anti-periodic. Such a system was previously
studied in~\cite{TwistedKitaev}.
The Hamiltonian is
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\alpha)
\;&=\;
\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}\big(-w\,(\fraka_j^*\fraka_{j+1}+\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j})
+\Delta\,\fraka_j\fraka_{j+1}+\overline{\Delta}\,\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j}^*
\big) + \mu \sum_{j=1}^L (\fraka_j^*\fraka_{j}-\tfrac{1}{2}) \\
&\qquad + \big( -w(e^{-\ii \alpha}\fraka_L^*\fraka_1 + e^{\ii \alpha}\fraka_1^*\fraka_L) +
\Delta e^{{\ii \alpha}}\fraka_L\fraka_1 + \ol{\Delta} e^{{-\ii \alpha}}\fraka_1^*\fraka_L^* \big)
\;.
\end{align*}
One clearly has that $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(0) = \mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(+)$ and
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\pi) = \mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(-)$.
In the case $w=\Delta=0$, the Hamiltonian is constant throughout the
deformation of $\alpha$ and, hence, will have no $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow.
In the case $\Delta=e^{\ii \theta}w$ and $\mu=0$, however, one can again
re-write the Hamiltonian in the Majorana representation as
$$
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\alpha) = \ii w \sum_{j=1}^{L-1} \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}
+ \ii w \cos(\alpha)\frakb_{2L}\frakb_1 - \ii w \sin(\alpha) \frakb_{2L}\frakb_2 \; ,
$$
%
where the following identity was used:
%
$$
\frakb_{2L}\frakb_2
\;=\;
\fraka_L^*\fraka_1 - \fraka_1^*\fraka_L - e^{\ii \theta}\fraka_L\fraka_1
+e^{-\ii \theta} \fraka_1^*\fraka_L^*
\;.
$$
The following result also follows from \eqref{eq-KitaevIndNonTrivial} combined with Proposition \ref{prop:sf_as_Z2_obstruction}, but
we provide a separate proof.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:Maj_flux_flow}
The $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow defined by the path $\alpha\in[0,\pi]\mapsto\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\alpha)$ is
non-trivial { in the case $\Delta=e^{\ii \theta}w$ and $\mu=0$.}
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Recalling that the Majorana operators are ordered in column vector
$\frakb=\binom{\frakb_\odd}{\frakb_\ev}$,
the skew-adjoint matrix from $ \mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\alpha)$ is given by
$$
A_\Lambda(\alpha) \;=\;
\frac{w}{2} \begin{pmatrix} & & & & & -\cos(\alpha) \\ & & & -1 & & \\ & & & & -\one_{L-2} & \\
& 1 & & & & \sin(\alpha) \\ & & \one_{L-2} & & & \\
\cos(\alpha) & & & -\sin(\alpha) & & \end{pmatrix}\; .
$$
\begin{comment}
$$
A_\Lambda(\alpha) \;=\;
\frac{w}{2} \begin{pmatrix} & & & & & & & & & -\cos(\alpha) \\ & & & & & -1 & & & & \\ & & & & & & -1 & & & \\
& & & & & & & \ddots & & \\ & & & & & & & & -1 & \\ & 1 & & & & & & & & \sin(\alpha) \\ & & 1 & & & & & & & \\
& & & \ddots & & & & & & \\ & & & & 1 & & & & & \\ \cos(\alpha) & & & & & -\sin(\alpha) & & & & \end{pmatrix}\; .
$$
\end{comment}
In particular, one can connect $A_\Lambda(\pi) = V A_\Lambda(0) V^*$, where
$$
V
\;=\;
\begin{pmatrix} & & & 1 \\ & & U & \\ & -U & & \\ 1 & & & \end{pmatrix} \;,
\qquad
U
\;=\;
\begin{pmatrix} & & 1 \\ & \iddots & \\ 1 & & \end{pmatrix} \in \calO_{L-1}\; .
$$
Then
$$
\mathrm{Sf}_2(\alpha\in[0,\pi]\mapsto A_\Lambda(\alpha))
\;=\;
\mathrm{sgn}\,\mathrm{det}(V) \;=\; -1 \;,
$$
as required.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
As the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow is non-trivial, one expects a double degenerate level crossing at the
midpoint of the path. Indeed, the Hamiltonian is
$$
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\tfrac{\pi}{2}) \;=\; \ii w\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} -\ii w \frakb_{2L} \frakb_2
\;=\; \ii w\sum_{j=2}^{L-1} \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1} + \ii w\frakb_2(\frakb_3 + \frakb_{2L})\; .
$$
One can then check that $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\tfrac{\pi}{2})$ commutes with the anti-commuting
self-adjoint unitaries $\frakb_1$ and $\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\frakb_3 - \frakb_{2L})$. Hence
if $|\psi\rangle$ is a ground state of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}(\tfrac{\pi}{2})$, then so is
$\frakb_1| \psi\rangle$ and $\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\frakb_3 - \frakb_{2L})|\psi \rangle$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
By Proposition \ref{prop:closed_chain_uniform_gap},
$\mathbf{H}_L(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}_L(\pi)$ are known to have a uniformly bounded ground state gap.
Therefore, the ground state energy gap of $\mathbf{H}_L(\alpha)$ goes to $0$ as $\alpha \to \frac{\pi}{2}$.
\begin{remark} \label{rk:Z2_flow_in_any_flux}
{\rm
We can readily extend Proposition \ref{prop:Maj_flux_flow} to say that a flux insertion that changes
the orientation of any single spin site $i\frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}$ will give a non-trivial $\mathbb{Z}_2$-spectral flow.
Thus, while there are many examples of Hamiltonians on the closed chain with a uniformly bounded
ground state gap (Proposition \ref{prop:closed_chain_uniform_gap}), this gap can be closed by a
local perturbation. One reason for this behaviour is that
a fermionic Hamiltonian on a closed chain becomes
highly non-local under the Jordan--Wigner transformation, which is often utilized in proofs of
the stability of the ground state energy gap.
}
\hfill $\diamond$
\end{remark}
\noindent {\bf Flux insertion in two cells} \\
Here we briefly show that adding a magnetic flux through two unit cells does
not substantially change the system.
The Hamiltonian is
\begin{align*}
\tilde{\mathbf{H}}_{L}(\alpha) \;&=\; w\sum_{j = 2}^{L-1} \big[ -( \fraka_j^* \fraka_{j+1} +
\fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_j) + \fraka_j \fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_{j+1} \big] \\
&\quad + w\big[ -(e^{\ii \alpha} \fraka_L^* \fraka_1 + e^{-\ii \alpha}\fraka_1^* \fraka_L) +
e^{\ii \alpha}\fraka_L \fraka_1 + e^{-\ii \alpha} \fraka_1^* \fraka_L^* \big] \\
&\quad + w\big[ -(e^{-\ii \alpha} \fraka_1^* \fraka_2 + e^{\ii \alpha}\fraka_2^* \fraka_1) +
e^{\ii \alpha}\fraka_1 \fraka_2 + e^{-\ii \alpha} \fraka_2^* \fraka_1^* \big] \; ,
\end{align*}
where for simplicity we have set the phase factor $\theta=0$.
In the Majorana representation
\begin{align*}
\tilde{\mathbf{H}}_{L}(\alpha) \;&=\; w\sum_{j=2}^{L-1} \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}
+ w\big(\cos(\alpha) \ii \frakb_L\frakb_1 - \sin(\alpha)\ii \frakb_L \frakb_2\big)
+ w \big( \cos(\alpha) \ii \frakb_2\frakb_3 + \sin(\alpha) \ii \frakb_1 \frakb_3 \big) \\
&=\; w\sum_{j=2 }^{L-1} \ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}
+ \ii w\frakb_1\big( \sin(\alpha)\frakb_3 - \cos(\alpha)\frakb_L\big)
+ \ii w \frakb_2 \big( \cos(\alpha) \frakb_3 + \sin(\alpha) \frakb_L \big) \; .
\end{align*}
A careful check shows that for any $\alpha$ the operators $\ii \frakb_1 ( \sin(\alpha)\frakb_3 - \cos(\alpha)\frakb_L)$
and $\ii \frakb_2 ( \cos(\alpha) \frakb_3 + \sin(\alpha) \frakb_L )$ are commuting
self-adjoint unitaries that also commute with the other terms $\ii \frakb_{2j}\frakb_{2j+1}$ in
the Hamiltonian. Hence the ground state space can be explicitly characterised by the
$-1$ eigenstate of each self-adjoint unitary in the sum.
\vspace{0.2cm}
We can again define the CAR operators
$$
\frakd_j \;=\; \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2} \big( \frakb_1 + \ii (\sin(\alpha)\frakb_3 - \cos(\alpha) \frakb_L) \big) \, , & j \,=\, 1 \, , \\
\frac{1}{2} \big( \frakb_{2j} + \ii \frakb_{2j+1} \big) \, , & 2 \,\leq\, j \,\leq\, L-1\, ,\, \\
\frac{1}{2} \big( \frakb_2 + \ii (\cos(\alpha)\frakb_3 + \sin(\alpha)\frakb_L) \big) \, , & j \,=\, L \,
\end{cases} \; .
$$
Then the Hamiltonian can once again be written as
$$
\tilde{\mathbf{H}}_{L}(\alpha) \;=\; w\sum_{j=1}^{L} (2 \frakd_j^* \frakd_j - 1)
$$
and so any ground state must look like $\prod_j \frakd_j | \psi \rangle$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
While the specific characterisation of the ground state space depends $\alpha$, the key spectral
properties of $\tilde{\mathbf{H}}_{L}(\alpha)$ do not. In particular,
the Martingale method used to show the ground state gap of
$\tilde{\mathbf{H}}_{L}(0)$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{H}}_{L}(\pi)$ in
Proposition \ref{prop:closed_chain_uniform_gap} also remains valid
along the deformation.
\vspace{0.2cm}
In this case, we have that $j(\tilde{\mathbf{H}}_{L}(0)) = j(\tilde{\mathbf{H}}_{L}(\pi)) = -1$
and the ground state gap remains uniformly bounded along
the path $\tilde{\mathbf{H}}_L(\alpha)$ connecting the two Hamiltonians.
As is perhaps to be expected of a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-invariant, changing
the orientation of a single spin site will cause a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase change. But simultaneously changing
the orientation of two spin sites can be done without closing the ground state gap.
{This also follows by inserting the two fluxes consecutively and applying
the concatenation property of the $\ZM_2$-valued spectral flow.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%55555%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Higher order interactions on finite chains} \label{sec:higher_order}
\subsection{Gapped ground states in finite volume systems}
Let us now turn or attention to even interactions on finite chains that need not be quadratic.
We say that two finite-volume Hamiltonians
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(1)$ are in the same gapped phase if
there is a $C^1$-path of finite volume Hamiltonians
$s\in[0,1]\mapsto \{\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(s)\}_\Lambda$ connecting
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(1)$ and with the property that there is a
spectral gap above the ground state energy of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(s)$ for all $s$ that is
\emph{uniform} in $|\Lambda|$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
In this section, we consider Hamiltonians with higher-order interactions and paths
between gapped Hamiltonians where the ground state gap may close, indicating
that such Hamiltonians have distinct topological phase labels. As in the case of
quadratic interactions, one way we will induce such gap closings is via a local flux insertion.
\subsection*{Parity and gap closing}
We note a result that is mathematically simple but
has important physical consequences.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:opp_parity_gives_gap_closing}
Let $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(1)$ be
parity-symmetric Hamiltonians on the fermionic Fock space $\mathcal{F}_\Lambda$
with $\Lambda$ finite. Suppose $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(1)$
have unique ground states with opposite parity. Then the ground state gap
will close along any continuous
path $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(s)$ connecting $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(1)$
with the property that $\Pp \mathbf{H}_\Lambda(s) \Pp = \mathbf{H}_\Lambda(s)$ for all $s \in[0,1]$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Provided that we include multiplicity, we can take a continuous enumeration of
the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j(s)\}$ of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(s)$, where each
$\lambda_j:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous~\cite[Chapter 2, {\S}5]{Kato}.
Because the ground state eigenvalues of the Hamiltonians at the end points of
the path have opposite parity and we restrict to parity-symmetric paths,
$\Pp \mathbf{H}_\Lambda(s) \Pp = \mathbf{H}_\Lambda(s)$, there must
be at least one $s_0 \in (0,1)$ such that the lowest energy eigenvalue projection at $s_0$
is discontinuous. Such a discontinuity must come from a double degeneracy or
crossing of eigenvalues.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
We remark that while the previous statement is mathematically trivial, it can be
applied to finite volume Hamiltonians with arbitrarily large interaction terms.
The much more non-trivial question for finite volume systems is to find
a physically interesting pair of Hamiltonians with unique ground states
with opposite parity.
A large and important class of such Hamiltonians can be constructed using
fermionic matrix product states of even and odd parity~\cite{BWH}.
Another more involved question is to what extent
an index derived from the parity of ground state eigenvectors still makes sense in the infinite volume limit.
\subsection{The interacting Kitaev chain}
Here we summarise the key results of~\cite{KST}. Starting from the
Kitaev Hamiltonian $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}$ from Equation \eqref{eq:Kitaev_model},
one adds a quartic interaction term with damping parameter $K\geq 0$,
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int} \;&=\; \sum_{j=1}^{L-1}\big[-w(\fraka_j^* \fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_j) +
\Delta\,\fraka_j\fraka_{j+1}+\overline{\Delta}\,\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j}^* \big] \\
&\quad - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^L \mu_j (\fraka_j^* \fraka_j - 1) + K \sum_{j=1}^{L-1}(2\fraka_j^*\fraka_j -1)(2\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j+1}-1)\; .
\end{align*}
We note that the term $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j} \mu_j (\fraka_j^* \fraka_j - 1)$ is now negative. We do
this to better align our results with~\cite{KST} as the map $\mu_j \to -\mu_j$ does change the
spectrum of the Hamiltonian (though the ground state in the trivial case
$K=w = \Delta=0$ is now spanned by the occupied state rather than the vacuum).
\vspace{0.2cm}
We can again consider the spin-chain analogue of the interacting chain.
Recalling the Jordan--Wigner transformation,
\begin{align*}
&\sigma_j^x \;=\; \Big( e^{-i\pi \sum_{k=1}^{j-1} \fraka_k^* \fraka_k} \Big) \fraka_j^* \; , \qquad
\sigma_j^y \;=\; \Big( e^{ i\pi \sum_{k=1}^{j-1} \fraka_k^* \fraka_k} \Big) \fraka_j \; , \qquad
\sigma_j^z \;=\; 2 \fraka_j^* \fraka_j - \one \; , \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad
\frakb_{2j-1} \;=\; \Big( \prod_{k=1}^{j-1} \sigma_k^z \Big) \sigma_j^x \; , \qquad
\frakb_{2j} \;=\; \Big( \prod_{k=1}^{j-1} \sigma_k^z \Big) \sigma_j^y\; ,
\end{align*}
the interacting chain maps to the XYZ chain in a magnetic field
$$
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\text{spin} \;=\; \sum_{j=1}^{L-1}\big( -J_x \sigma_j^x \sigma_{j+1}^x - J_y \sigma_j^y\sigma_{j+1}^y
+ J_z \sigma_j^z \sigma_{j+1}^z \big) - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^L \mu_j \sigma_j^z \; ,
$$
with $J_x = (w+\Delta)/2$, $J_y = (w-\Delta)/2$, $J_z = K$.
See~\cite{Baxter} for properties and analysis on the XYZ chain and related models.
\vspace{0.2cm}
One of the key achievements of~\cite{KST} is that on a certain line in the parameter space,
the Hamiltonian $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}$ becomes frustration-free (that is, the ground state
simultaneously minimises each interaction term).
\begin{theo}[\cite{KST}] \label{thm:Interacting_GS}
Let $\Delta \in \mathbb{R}$, $\mu_2=\mu_3=\cdots =\mu_{L-1} = \mu_e$ and $\mu_1=\mu_L = \tfrac{\mu_e}{2}$ with
$\mu_e = 4\sqrt{K^2+wK + \frac{w^2-\Delta^2}{4}}$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}$ has an explicit frustration-free and double degenerate ground state.
\item[{\rm (ii)}] There is a $C^1$-path $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(t)$ such that
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0) = \mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{Kit}$, the quadratic Hamiltonian
from Equation \eqref{eq:Kitaev_model},
and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(2K) = \mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}$, the quartic Hamiltonian.
\item[{\rm (iii)}] For all $t\geq 0$, $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(t)$ has a double degenerate ground state.
\item[{\rm (iv)}] For all $t\geq 0$, $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(t)$ has a spectral gap above the ground state
energy that is uniform in $|\Lambda|$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theo}
As noted in~\cite{KST}, the equation for $\mu_e$ from Theorem \ref{thm:Interacting_GS}
that ensures the interacting Kitaev chain
has a frustration-free ground state has a direct analogue for the XYZ chain in a magnetic
field, {\it cf.}~\cite{KTM82}.
%
\subsection{Flux insertion and gap closing in the closed chain} \label{sec:closed_interacting_chain}
Let us now insert a local flux into the interacting Kitaev chain.
Our analysis closely follows~\cite[Appendix D]{TwistedKitaev}, who considered the
interacting Kitaev chain with
twisted boundary conditions.
We add periodic boundary conditions to the Hamiltonian with a local flux,
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}(\alpha) \; &=\; -w(e^{-\ii \alpha}\fraka_1^* \fraka_2 + e^{\ii \alpha} \fraka_2^* \fraka_1)
+ w( e^{\ii \alpha} \fraka_1 \fraka_2 + e^{-\ii \alpha} \fraka_2^* \fraka_1^*) \\
&\quad + \sum_{j=2}^{L-1} \big( -w( \fraka_j^* \fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_j) + w( \fraka_j \fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_{j+1} ) \big) \\
&\quad -w(\fraka_L^*\fraka_1 + \fraka_{1}^*\fraka_L) + w(\fraka_L\fraka_1 + \fraka_1^*\fraka_L^*)
- \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^L \mu_j (\fraka_j^* \fraka_j -1) \\
&\quad + K \sum_{j=1}^{L-1}(2\fraka_j^*\fraka_j -1)(2\fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j+1}-1)
+ K(2\fraka_L^* \fraka_L - 1)(2\fraka_1^*\fraka_1 - 1) \; .
\end{align*}
We choose a local flux to emphasise
that highly local perturbations in closed chains are capable of closing a
uniformly bounded ground state gap in the closed chain. This is in direct contrast to typical properties
of ground states with Local Topological Quantum Order, where small perturbations
will not close the ground state gap~\cite{MZ,MN18}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
We write the Hamiltonian as a sum $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}(\alpha) = \sum_{j=1}^L h_j(\alpha)$,
where
\begin{align*}
h_1(\alpha) \;&=\; w(-e^{-\ii \alpha}\fraka_1^* \fraka_2 - e^{\ii \alpha} \fraka_2^* \fraka_1
+ e^{\ii \alpha} \fraka_1 \fraka_2 + e^{-\ii \alpha} \fraka_2^* \fraka_1^*) \\
&\quad - \frac{\mu_e}{2}( \fraka_1^* \fraka_1 + \fraka_{2}^*\fraka_{2}-1) +
K ( 2\fraka_1^*\fraka_1 -1)(2\fraka_{2}^* \fraka_{2} -1 ) \; , \\
h_j \;&=\; w( -\fraka_j^* \fraka_{j+1} - \fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_j + \fraka_j \fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_{j}^* ) \\
&\quad - \frac{\mu_e}{2}( \fraka_j^* \fraka_j + \fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_{j+1}-1) +
K ( 2\fraka_j^*\fraka_j -1)(2\fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_{j+1} -1 ) \; , \quad 2 \leq j \leq l-1 \;
\end{align*}
and lastly
\begin{align*}
h_L \;&=\; w( -\fraka_L^* \fraka_{1} - \fraka_{1}^* \fraka_L + \fraka_L \fraka_{1} + \fraka_{1}^* \fraka_{L}^* ) \\
&\quad - \frac{\mu_e}{2}( \fraka_L^* \fraka_L + \fraka_{1}^*\fraka_{1}-1) +
K ( 2\fraka_L^*\fraka_L -1)(2\fraka_{1}^* \fraka_{1} -1 ) \; .
\end{align*}
To study the flux insertion, we first explicitly solve the ground state space of
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}(\alpha)$ at the end points $\alpha = 0$ and $\alpha=\pi$.
To assist our computations on the closed chain, we first determine the ground state
space of the Hamiltonian with open boundary conditions
$\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} h_j(\alpha)$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
When $\alpha = 0$ and $\mu_j$ are as in Theorem \ref{thm:Interacting_GS}, the ground states of
the open chain are
computed in~\cite{KST} as the pair
$$
A_{L,\alpha=0}^{\pm} | \Omega \rangle \; :=\; (1 \pm \beta\fraka_1^*)(1 \pm \beta\fraka_2^*) \cdots (1 \pm \beta\fraka_L^*) | \Omega\rangle \; ,
\quad \beta^2 \;=\; \cot(\tfrac{\theta}{2}) \; , \; \; \theta \;=\; \arctan(\tfrac{2w}{\mu_e}) \in [0,\pi] \; .
$$
We note that
$\mathcal{P} A_{L,\alpha=0}^{\pm} | \Omega \rangle =A_{L,\alpha=0}^{\mp} | \Omega \rangle$ for
$\mathcal{P}$ the parity operator.
\vspace{0.2cm}
For the case of $\alpha = \pi$.
We can follow the same basic analysis as in~\cite{KST}, where we find that any state of the form
$$
(1\pm \beta \fraka_1^*)( 1 \mp \beta\fraka_2^*)\, p(\fraka_3^*, \ldots, \fraka_{L}^*) | \Omega \rangle
$$
is a ground state of $h_1(\pi)$, where $p(\fraka_3^*, \ldots, \fraka^{*}_{L})$ is a (non-zero) polynomial.
Because the states $(1 \pm \beta \fraka_2^*)\cdots(1\pm \beta \fraka_L^*)| \Omega\rangle$
minimise $\{h_j\}_{j=2}^{L-1}$, we have that
$$
A_{L,\alpha=\pi}^{\pm} | \Omega \rangle \; :=\; (1 \mp \beta \fraka_1^*)(1 \pm \beta \fraka_2^*)( 1 \pm \beta \fraka_3^*) \cdots
(1 \pm \beta \fraka_L^*) | \Omega \rangle
$$
gives a double degenerate and frustration-free ground state for
$\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} h_j(\pi)$
with $\mathcal{P} A_{L,\alpha=\pi}^{\pm} | \Omega \rangle = A_{L,\alpha=\pi}^{\mp} | \Omega \rangle$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Let us now consider the closed chain $\sum_{j=1}^L h_j(\alpha)$.
We first note that any state of the form
$(1\pm \beta \fraka_L^*)(1\pm \fraka_1^*) p(\fraka_2^*,\ldots,\fraka_{L-1}^*)| \Omega\rangle$ will
minimise $h_L$.
When $\alpha =0,\pi$, the ground state can be solved provided that we take
the coefficients $\mu_1=\mu_2=\ldots=\mu_L = \mu_e$ from Theorem \ref{thm:Interacting_GS}.
%Recalling the ground states with open boundary conditions
%\begin{align*}
% | \Psi_{\pm}^{\alpha=0} \rangle \;&=\; (1 \pm \beta\fraka_1^*)(1 \pm \beta\fraka_2^*) \cdots
% (1 \pm \beta\fraka_L^*) | \Omega\rangle \;=: \; A_{L,\alpha=0}^{\pm} | \Omega \rangle \; , \\
% | \Psi_{\pm}^{\alpha=\pi} \rangle \;&=\; (1 \mp \beta\fraka_1^*)(1 \pm \beta\fraka_2^*) \cdots
% (1 \pm \beta\fraka_L^*) | \Omega\rangle \;=: \; A_{L,\alpha=\pi}^{\pm} | \Omega \rangle \; ,
%\end{align*}
%which will minimise $\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} h_j(\alpha)$ at $\alpha=0, \pi$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent {\bf Ground state at $\alpha=0$} \\
We first note that any (normalised) linear combination of
$A_{L,\alpha=0}^{\pm} | \Omega \rangle$ will also give a ground state of $\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}h_j(0)$.
Therefore, we compute
\begin{align*}
A_{L,\alpha=0}^+ - A_{L,\alpha=0}^- \;&=\; \big(A_{L-1,\alpha=0}^{+} + A_{L-1,\alpha=0}^{-}\big) (1+\beta \fraka_L^*)
- 2A_{L-1,\alpha=0}^- \\
&=\; (1+\beta \fraka_L^*) \big(A_{L-1,\alpha=0}^{+} + A_{L-1,\alpha=0}^{-}\big) - 2A_{L-1,\alpha=0}^- \\
&=\; (1+\beta \fraka_L^*)(1+\beta \fraka_1^*)\cdots (1+\beta\fraka_{L-1}^*) -
(1-\beta \fraka_L^*) (1-\beta \fraka_1^*) \cdots (1-\beta\fraka_{L-1}^*) \; ,
\end{align*}
which shows that (the normalisation of)
$A_{L,\alpha=0}^{+} | \Omega \rangle - A_{L,\alpha=0}^{-} | \Omega \rangle$ is a
frustration-free ground state of
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}(0)$ on the closed chain. The linearly independent vector
$A_{L,\alpha=0}^{+} | \Omega \rangle + A_{L,\alpha=0}^{-} | \Omega \rangle$ is not a ground state as it
does not minimise $h_L$, something that is verified by direct computation.
In particular,
$\Pp (A_{L,\alpha=0}^{+} | \Omega \rangle - A_{L,\alpha=0}^{-} | \Omega \rangle)
= -(A_{L,\alpha=0}^{+} | \Omega \rangle - A_{L,\alpha=0}^{-} | \Omega \rangle)$ and the ground state is odd.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent {\bf Ground state at $\alpha=\pi$} \\
Again we consider normalised linear combinations
of $A_{L,\alpha=\pi}^{\pm} | \Omega \rangle$, where we have that
\begin{align*}
A_{L,\alpha=\pi}^+ + A_{L,\alpha=\pi}^{-} \;&=\; \big( A_{L-1,\alpha=\pi}^+ - A_{L-1,\alpha=\pi}^-\big)(1+\beta \fraka_L^*)
+ 2 A_{L-1,\alpha=\pi}^{-} \\
&=\; (1- \beta \fraka_L^*)\big( A_{L-1,\alpha=\pi}^+ - A_{L-1,\alpha=\pi}^-\big) + 2 A_{L-1,\alpha=\pi}^{-} \\
&=\; (1-\beta\fraka_L^*)(1-\beta\fraka_1^*)(1+\beta\fraka_2^*)\cdots(1+\beta\fraka_{L-1}^*) \\
&\quad + (1+\beta\fraka_L^*)(1+\beta\fraka_1^*)(1-\beta\fraka_2^*)\cdots (1-\beta \fraka_{L-1}^*) \; .
\end{align*}
Hence, the normalisation of
$A_{L,\alpha=\pi}^{+} | \Omega \rangle + A_{L,\alpha=\pi}^{-} | \Omega \rangle$ is a
frustration-free ground
state of $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}(\pi)$ on the closed chain with even parity.
In contrast, the
vector $A_{L,\alpha=\pi}^{+} | \Omega \rangle - A_{L,\alpha=\pi}^{-} | \Omega \rangle$ does not
minimise $h_L(\pi)$ and so is not a ground state.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Because the interacting Kitaev chain with flux has a unique
ground state at the endpoints $\alpha=0,\pi$ but with
opposite parity, we can apply Lemma \ref{lem:opp_parity_gives_gap_closing} and
obtain that the ground state gap closes along the path
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(\alpha)$. As we will show in Proposition \ref{prop:closed_chain_GS_path},
this is despite the fact that the endpoints have a uniformly bounded ground state gap and
we take a local flux only.
%Indeed, the example highlights the large differences between
%studying systems with open or closed boundary conditions.
\subsection*{Connection to Kitaev's $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index}
%Let us now prove an analogue of Proposition \ref{prop:GS_path_quartic} for the closed chain.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:closed_chain_GS_path}
The Hamiltonians $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}(\pi)$ can be connected
to quadratic Hamiltonians by a $C^1$-path along which the ground state gap is uniformly bounded.
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Similar to the case of Theorem \ref{thm:Interacting_GS}, we write an explicit path
connecting the interacting and
non-interacting Hamiltonians.
For $\alpha=0$, recalling the constant
$\theta = \arctan(\tfrac{2w}{\mu_e})$ and using the notation
$\frakn_j = \fraka_j^* \fraka_j$, we take the following path
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0,t)=\sum_{j=1}^L h_j(0,t)$,
where for $1\leq j \leq L-1$,
\begin{align*}
h_j(0,t) \;&=\; -\fraka_j^*\fraka_{j+1} - \fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_j + (1+t)\sin(\theta)(\fraka_j \fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_j^*)
- (1+t) \cos(\theta)(1- \frakn_j - \frakn_{j+1}) \\
&\quad + \frac{t}{2} (2 \frakn_j - 1)(2 \frakn_{j+1} - 1) + 1+ \frac{t}{2} \;
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
h_L(0,t) \;&=\; -\fraka_L^*\fraka_{1} - \fraka_{1}^*\fraka_L + (1+t)\sin(\theta)(\fraka_L \fraka_{1} + \fraka_{1}^* \fraka_L^*)
- (1+t) \cos(\theta)(1- \frakn_L - \frakn_{1}) \\
&\quad + \frac{t}{2} (2 \frakn_L - 1)(2 \frakn_{1} - 1) + 1+ \frac{t}{2} \; .
\end{align*}
We see that $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0,0)$ is the quadratic Hamiltonian on a closed chain
studied in Section \ref{subsec:Other_examples} (up to a scaling of the
constants) and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0,2K)$ is the
interacting chain with ground state energy shifted to $0$.
A direct computation gives that
\begin{align*}
h_j( 0, t) \;&=\; Q_jQ_j^* + (1+t) Q_j^* Q_j \\
Q_j \;&=\; \begin{cases}
\cos(\tfrac{\theta}{2})\big( -\fraka_j^*(1-\frakn_{j+1}) + \fraka_{j+1}^*(1-\frakn_j) \big)
- \sin(\tfrac{\theta}{2}) \big( \fraka_j\frakn_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1} \frakn_j \big)\, , & j \,\leq \, L-1\, \\
\cos(\tfrac{\theta}{2})\big( -\fraka_L^*(1-\frakn_{1}) + \fraka_{1}^*(1-\frakn_L) \big)
- \sin(\tfrac{\theta}{2}) \big( +\fraka_L \frakn_{1} + \fraka_{1} \frakn_L \big)\, & j\,=\,L
\end{cases} \; ,
\end{align*}
which implies that $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0,t) \geq \mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0,0)$ for all $t\geq 0$.
Furthermore,
$Q_j A_{L,\alpha=0}^{\pm} | \Omega \rangle = Q_j^* A_{L,\alpha=0}^{\pm} | \Omega \rangle =0$, so
$A_{L,\alpha=0}^{+} | \Omega \rangle - A_{L,\alpha=0}^{-} | \Omega \rangle$ is a
$0$-energy ground state
throughout the path. Because the ground state energy gap is uniformly bounded at $t=0$
by Proposition \ref{prop:closed_chain_uniform_gap}, the inequality
$\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0,t) \geq \mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0,0)$ then ensures that the ground
state gap is uniformly bounded for all $t\geq 0$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
The case of $\alpha=\pi$ follows the same argument. In particular, we take
$h_j(\pi,t) = h_j(0,t)$ for $j\geq 2$ and
\begin{align*}
h_1(\pi,t) \;&=\; \fraka_1^*\fraka_2 + \fraka_2^*\fraka_1 + (1+t)\sin(\theta)(-\fraka_1\fraka_2 - \fraka_2^* \fraka_1^*)
- (1+t) \cos(\theta)(1- \frakn_1 - \frakn_2) \\
&\quad + \frac{t}{2} (2 \frakn_1 - 1)(2 \frakn_2 - 1) + 1+ \frac{t}{2} \; .
\end{align*}
Similarly, we take
$$
Q_1 \;=\; \cos(\tfrac{\theta}{2})\big( \fraka_1^*(1-\frakn_2) + \fraka_2^*(1-\frakn_1) \big)
+ \sin(\tfrac{\theta}{2}) \big( \fraka_1\frakn_2 - \fraka_2 \frakn_1 \big) \; .
$$
and $Q_j$ the same as $\alpha=0$ for $j\geq 2$.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Using the homotopy from Proposition \ref{prop:closed_chain_GS_path}, we can consider the path
\begin{equation} \label{eq:easy_sf_path}
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0,2K) \; \xrightarrow{t} \; \mathbf{H}_\Lambda(0,0) \; \xrightarrow{\alpha} \;
\mathbf{H}_\Lambda(\pi, 0) \;\xrightarrow{t} \; \mathbf{H}_\Lambda(\pi,2K) \;
\end{equation}
which connects $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}_\Lambda^\mathrm{int}(\pi)$
on the closed chain. Because there is no changes in the ground state space along
the paths indexed by $t$, there can not be any $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral
flow along these paths. By contrast, the path indexed by $\alpha$ will have a non-trivial
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow as discussed in Remark \ref{rk:Z2_flow_in_any_flux}.
Therefore by the
concatenation properties of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow, we
obtain the following.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:closed_chain_taut_spec_flow}
The path of Hamiltonians given in Equation \eqref{eq:easy_sf_path} gives rise to
a non-trivial
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow. In particular, the ground state
gap closes at a point along the path and the
ground state becomes doubly degenerate.
\end{proposi}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%55555%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Quasifree ground states of the infinite CAR algebra} \label{sec:quasifree_intro}
The remainder of the paper considers infinite systems and ground states of the CAR algebra
$A^\mathrm{car}(\calH)$ over an infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space $\calH$.
We are particularly interested
in \emph{pure} ground states, which cannot be written as a convex combination of
other states. A state $\omega$ is pure if and only if its
GNS representation $\pi_\omega$ is irreducible \cite[Theorem 2.3.19]{BR1}. A key difference to CAR algebras
over finite dimensional $\calH$ is that different pure states $\omega_0$ and $\omega_1$ of
$A^\mathrm{car}(\calH)$ can give \emph{inequivalent} GNS representations, so there is
no unitary $U:\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_0} \to \mathfrak{h}_{\omega_1}$ intertwining the
representations. This can be used to distinguish pure ground states.
\vspace{0.2cm}
For this section, we will restrict to quasifree states on $A^\mathrm{car}(\calH)$ as they are
more simple to work with. To determine criteria for pure quasifree states to be equivalent,
it is useful to work with the \emph{self-dual} CAR algebra introduced by Araki~\cite{Araki},
where equivalence of representations of quasifree states can be reduced to a Hilbert-Schmidt condition
({\it cf.} Theorem \ref{thm:Araki_quasifree} below). A more detailed introduction to quasifree states
of the CAR algebra and their basic properties can be found in~\cite[Chapter 6]{EvansKawahigashi}.
\subsection{Quasifree states of the self-dual CAR algebra}
\label{sec-QFonSFCAR}
Let us fix a separable complex Hilbert space
$\mathcal{H}$ and a real structure $\Gamma$, namely an anti-unitary involution. Typically we will be interested in the
case that $\mathcal{H} = \calH_{\ph} = \ell^2(\Lambda) \otimes \mathbb{C}^2$ is a Nambu space with
$\Lambda$ countable and particle-hole involution $\Gamma = \mathcal{C}(\one \otimes \sigma_1)$ with
$\mathcal{C}$ complex conjugation.
The self-dual CAR algebra $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma)$
is the $C^*$-algebra generated by $\one$ and $\frakc(v)$ for $v\in \calH$ such that
$v\mapsto \frakc(v)$ is linear and with relations
$$
\frakc(v)^* \;=\; \frakc(\Gamma v) \; , \qquad \{\frakc(v)^*,\frakc(w)\} \;=\; \langle v,w \rangle_{\calH}\; .
$$
The self-dual CAR algebra is also graded with parity automorphism $\Theta$ such
that $\frakc(v)$ is odd for all $v\in \calH$.
One recovers the more familiar CAR algebra by means of a \emph{basis projection},
which is a projection $E$ on $\calH$ such that $E + \Gamma E \Gamma = \one_\calH$.
Given a basis projection, there is a graded isomorphism
$\phi: A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH) \rightarrow A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma)$ which on
generators is given by
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-fraks}
\fraka^*(Ev) \; \mapsto \frakc(Ev) \; \; , \qquad \fraka(Ev) \;\mapsto\; \frakc(\Gamma Ev) \; .
\end{equation}
%
In the case $\calH_{\ph} \cong \ell^2(\Lambda)\otimes \mathbb{C}^2\cong \ell^2(\Lambda)\oplus \ell^2(\Lambda)$ with $\Gamma = \mathcal{C}(\one \otimes \sigma_1)$, then
analogous to the case of the usual CAR algebra, we can choose the canonical basis
of $\calH_\ph$ and so $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH_{\ph},\Gamma )$ is
the universal $C^*$-algebra generated by the
elements $\{\frakc(j,k)\}_{(j,k)\in \Lambda\times\Lambda}$ satisfying the relations
$$
\frakc(j,k)^* \;=\; \frakc(k,j) \; , \qquad \{\frakc(j_1,k_1)^*,\frakc(j_2,k_2)\} \;=\; 2\,\delta_{j_1,j_2} \, \delta_{k_1,k_2} \; .
$$
%
In the case of $\calH_\ph$, the basis projection $\tilde E(u_1, u_2) = u_1$ is of particular interest
as $\tilde{E}\,\calH_{\ph}=\ell^2(\Lambda)$
and \eqref{eq-fraks} leads to a concrete form of the isomorphism
$\phi: A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda\to A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH_{\ph},\Gamma )$ given by
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-fraks2}
\phi(\fraka_j) \;=\; \frakc(j,0) \;, \qquad
\phi^{-1}(\frakc(j,k)) \;=\; \fraka_j + \fraka_k^* \;.
\end{equation}
\begin{theo}[\cite{Araki}] \label{thm:Araki_quasifree}
Let $E$ be a basis projection on $\calH$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] There is a quasifree state $\omega_E$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma)$
with
$$
\omega_E \big(\frakc(u)^* \frakc(v)\big) \;=\; \langle u, Ev \rangle_{\calH} \;
$$
which is extended to $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma)$ by the formulas
\begin{align*}
&\omega_E (\frakc(v_1)\cdots \frakc(v_{2n+1})) \;=\; 0 \; , \\
&\omega_E (\frakc(v_1)\cdots \frakc(v_{2n})) \;=\; (-1)^{n(n-1)/2} \sum_{\sigma} (-1)^{\sigma}
\prod_{j=1}^n \omega_E \big( \frakc(v_{\sigma(j)}) \frakc(v_{\sigma(j+n)}) \big) \;
\end{align*}
where the sum is over permutations $\sigma$ such that
$$
\sigma(1) < \sigma(2) < \ldots < \sigma(n) \; , \qquad \sigma(j) < \sigma(j+n) \; , \qquad j\;=\; 1,\ldots, n \; .
$$
\item[{\rm (ii)}] The state $\omega_E$ is pure and $\Theta$-invariant. In particular,
the GNS representation $(\mathfrak{h}_E, \pi_E, \Omega_E)$ associated to $\omega_E$ is irreducible.
\item[{\rm (iii)}]
Let $E_0$ and $E_1$ be basis projections on $\calH$. The following statements
are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (1)}] The states $\omega_{E_0}$ and $\omega_{E_1}$ are unitarily equivalent.
\item[{\rm (2)}] The operator $E_0 - {E}_1$ is in the ideal of Hilbert-Schmidt operators.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theo}
The state $\omega_E$ is called the \emph{Fock state} associated to a basis projection $E$.
From the state $\omega_{E}$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma )$,
we can use the isomorphism
$\phi: A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH) \rightarrow A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma )$
from Equation \eqref{eq-fraks} to
get a state $\omega_E \circ \phi$ on $A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH)$.
In a slight abuse of notation, we will also denote this state by $\omega_{E}$ and call it a quasifree state on
$A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH)$.
Given two basis projections $E_0$ and $E_1$ on a separable and infinite dimensional $\mathcal{H}$,
the corresponding CAR algebras
$A^\mathrm{car}(E_0\calH)$ and $A^\mathrm{car}(E_1\calH)$ are abstractly
isomorphic by the universal property of the infinite CAR algebra~\cite[Theorem 5.2.5]{BR2}.
Theorem \ref{thm:Araki_quasifree} then gives a sufficient and necessary condition
for the irreducible GNS representations $\pi_{E_0}$ and $\pi_{E_1}$ to be unitarily equivalent.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Following~\cite[Section 6.6]{EvansKawahigashi}, let us us give some some further
justification as to why $\omega_E$ is called a Fock state.
Given a basis projection $E$ on $\calH$,
let $(\mathfrak{h}_E, \pi_E, \Omega_E)$ be the GNS triple of $A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH)$.
Setting $\bigwedge^0 E\calH =\mathbb{C}\Omega_E$, the one-dimensional space spanned by the
cyclic vector $\Omega_E$, one can identify
\begin{equation} \label{eq:GNS_Fock}
\mathfrak{h}_E \;\cong \; \bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty \bigwedge\nolimits^{\! n} E\calH \; .
\end{equation}
Under this equivalence, the GNS representation of $A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH)$ can be written as
$$
\pi_E( \fraka^*(v) )\, u_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge u_n \;=\; v \wedge u_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge u_n \; , \quad
\qquad v \, , \; u_j \in E\calH \; .
$$
That is, the cyclic vector $\Omega_E$ acts as the fermionic vacuum in the GNS space.
\subsection{Quasifree dynamics and BdG Hamiltonians}
\label{sec-QuasifreeDynBdG}
Let us now consider ground states $\omega$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma)$
with respect to a strongly continuous $\mathbb{R}$-action
$\beta:\mathbb{R} \to \mathrm{Aut}(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma))$ with
generator $\delta$, namely states satisfying $-\ii\, \omega( a^* \delta(a)) \geq 0$ for all $a\in \mathrm{Dom}(\delta)$.
\begin{defini}
The dynamics $\beta:\mathbb{R} \to \mathrm{Aut}(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma))$
is called quasifree if $\beta_t(\frakc(v)) = \frakc( e^{\ii H t}v)$ for
any $\frakc(v) \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma)$ and where $H=H^*$ is
an operator on $\calH$ such that $\Gamma H \Gamma = -H$.
\end{defini}
The self-adjoint operator $H$ on $\calH$ that generates the quasifree dynamics
$\beta$ plays the role of the Bogoliubov--de Gennes Hamiltonian in infinite
systems, and will be referred to as the BdG Hamiltonian.
Again, this operator comes with a natural particle-hole symmetry. Thus quasifree
dynamics play an analogous role to quadratic interactions.
\begin{proposi}[\cite{EvansKawahigashi}, Proposition 6.37] \label{prop:gappedBdG_gappedGS}
Let $\beta:\mathbb{R} \to \mathrm{Aut}(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma))$ be a
quasifree dynamics with BdG Hamiltonian $H$. If $0 \notin \sigma(H)$, then the
Fock state $\omega_{E}$ associated to the spectral projection $E=\chi_{(0,\infty)}(H)$ is
the unique ground state for the dynamics $\beta$. Furthermore, the
GNS Hamiltonian $h_\omega$ on $\mathfrak{h}_{E}$
has a spectral gap above $0$.
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
The particle-hole symmetry of $H$ implies that $\Gamma E \Gamma = \one_\calH - E$,
so $E$ is a basis projection.
The proof that $\omega_{E}$ is a ground state comes from the cited proposition. To show
the spectral gap, we use the presentation of $\mathfrak{h}_{E}$ as
a Fock space from Equation \eqref{eq:GNS_Fock}. In particular, the
GNS Hamiltonian $h_\omega$ can be written as the the second quantisation
of the BdG Hamiltonian $H$ restricted to antisymmetric tensors on $E \calH$.
Because there is a strictly positive spectral gap around $0$ of $\sigma(H)$ and
$h_\omega$ comes from the restriction of $H$ to the positive spectral projection $E$,
its second quantisation is strictly positive. Hence there is
some $\gamma >0$ such that $\sigma(h_\omega)\cap (0,\gamma) = \emptyset$.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Proposition \ref{prop:gappedBdG_gappedGS} shows that any BdG Hamiltonian
$H$ on the Nambu space $(\calH,\Gamma)$ with a spectral gap at $0$ gives rise to a
basis projection $E = \chi_{(0,\infty)}(H)$ and a gapped pure ground state
$\omega_{E}$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma)\cong A^\mathrm{car}(E \calH)$.
This process is reversible: given a basis projection $E$ on $\calH$, one can define a
gapped BdG Hamiltonian $H = 2E - \one$. The quasifree state $\omega_E$ will then
be the unique ground state for the quasifree dynamics generated by $H$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Given two quasifree actions $\beta^{(0)}$ and $\beta^{(1)}$ on
$A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma)$ arising from gapped BdG Hamiltonians
$H_0$ and $H_1$ on $\calH$, one has two basis projections $E_0$ and
$E_1$. It is known that the two ground state representations $\pi_{E_0}$
and $\pi_{E_1}$ are equivalent if and only if $E_0 - E_1$ is
Hilbert-Schmidt. Let us further investigate this issue by
defining the skew-adjoint real unitary operators
$$
J_k \;=\; \ii H_k |H_k|^{-1} \;=\; \ii (2 E_k - \one ) \; , \qquad
J_k^* \;=\; -J_k \; , \qquad J_k^2 \;=\; -\one \; , \qquad \Gamma J_k \Gamma \;=\; J_k \; .
$$
Hence, the operators $J_k$ define a complex structure on the real Hilbert
space $\calH^\Gamma_\mathbb{R} = \{ v \in \calH \, :\, \Gamma v = v \}$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
We now make use of the following elementary fact.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:On_transitive_on_J}
The orthogonal group acts transitively on the complex structures on a real Hilbert space.
\end{lemma}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\noindent {\bf Proof.} If $J$ is a complex structure on a real Hilbert space
$\Hh_\RM$, it extends by linearity to a complex linear operator on the
complexification $\Hh_\CM=\Hh_\RM\otimes\CM$ which is denoted
by the same letter $J$. It is real in the sense that $J$ is equal to $\overline{J}=\Cc J\Cc$.
This complexifation is skew-adjoint and unitary,
so that $i J$ is a selfadjoint unitary on $\Hh_\CM$. By the spectral theorem
and the reality of $J$, there is thus a projection $P$ on $\Hh_\CM$ such
that $i J=2P-\one$ and $\overline{P}=\one-P$.
Let $\Phi:\ell^2(\NM)\to\Hh_\CM$ be a frame for $P$, namely
$\Phi\Phi^*=P$ and $\Phi^*\Phi=\one$. Here $\ell^2(\NM)$ is a complex
Hilbert space equipped with complex conjugation $\Cc$ (entry-wise).
Then $J=i(\Phi\Phi^*-\overline{\Phi}\,\overline{\Phi}^*)$ and
$\Phi^*\overline{\Phi}=0$. Now set
$V=2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\big(\Phi+\overline{\Phi},i\overline{\Phi}-i\Phi\big)$
which is real and unitary from $\ell^2(\NM)\oplus\ell^2(\NM)$ to $\Hh_\CM$.
Moreover, one checks
%
$$
J
\;=\;
V\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \one \\ -\one & 0
\end{pmatrix}
V^*
\;.
$$
%
This is a normal form for $J$. Now given two complex structures
$J_0,J_1$, there are two associated orthogonals
$V_0,V_1:\ell^2(\NM)\oplus\ell^2(\NM)\to\Hh_\CM$. Set $W=V_1V_0^*$.
This is an orthogonal on $\Hh_\CM$ which hence restricts to $\Hh_\RM$ as a
linear opertor. One then has $J_1=WJ_0W^*$ which implies the claim.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:On_transitive_on_J} to the complex structures
$J_k = i(2E_k - \one)$ with $k=0,\,1$,
there exists a unitary $W \in \mathcal{U}(\calH)$ with properties
$$
J_1 \;=\; W J_0 W^* \; , \qquad W^*W \;=\; WW^* \;=\; \one \; , \qquad \Gamma W \Gamma = W \; .
$$
Hence $W$ is the infinite dimensional analogue of the canonical transformations
in Section \ref{sec-Bogoliobov} and so we continue to call such unitaries canonical
transformations.
In order for $W$ to give a Bogoluibov transformation on the second quantised Fock space
$\mathcal{F}(E_0\calH) \to \mathcal{F}(E_1 \calH)$, the representations $\pi_{E_0}$
and $\pi_{E_1}$ must be equivalent,
which occurs if and only if
$[J_0, W]$ is Hilbert-Schmidt.
%\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{example} \label{ex:inf_Kitaev_chain}
{\rm
(Kitaev chain):
Let us briefly show how Theorem \ref{thm:Araki_quasifree} applies to the Kitaev chain on
the infinite lattice $\Lambda = \mathbb{Z}$. To make the formulas a little simpler and as
a preparation for another example in Section~\ref{sec:Z_2_index_as_sf}, let us choose
the parameter $\Delta=-\ii w$. Then the Kitaev Hamiltonian on a
finite region $[a,b]\cap \mathbb{Z}$ becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-KitaevMuw1}
\mathbf{H}_{[a,b]}^\mathrm{Kit}(\mu,w)
\;=\; -\,w\sum_{j=a}^{b-1} \big[ \fraka_j^* \fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_j
\;+\;\ii \fraka_{j}\fraka_{j+1} -\ii \fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_j^* \big] + \mu \sum_{j=a}^b \big( \fraka_j^* \fraka_j - \tfrac{1}{2}\big) \; .
\end{equation}
%
The local Hamiltonians $\mathbf{H}_{[a,b]}^\mathrm{Kit}(\mu,w)$ give the infinite Kitaev chain
which will be studied via
the quasifree dynamics generated by BdG Hamiltonian $H_\mathbb{Z}$ defined on
$\calH_\ph = \ell^2( \mathbb{Z}) \otimes \mathbb{C}^2$. As in \eqref{eq:BdGKitaev_model},
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-KitaevMuw2}
H^\mathrm{Kit}_\mathbb{Z}(\mu,w) \;=\; \begin{pmatrix} -w(S+S^*) - \mu & -\ii w(S^*-S) \\ -\ii w(S^*-S) & w(S+S^*) + \mu \end{pmatrix} \; ,
\end{equation}
with $S$ the unilateral shift operator on $\ell^2(\mathbb{Z})$.
\vspace{0.1cm}
As in the case of finite chains, one expects a difference between the trivial region $w=0$ and
the non-trivial region $\mu=0$. To compare these systems let us consider the unitary
$$
W \;=\; \frac{\ii }{2} \begin{pmatrix} (\one +S) & \ii(\one -S) \\ \ii (\one -S) & -(\one +S) \end{pmatrix}\; , \qquad W^*W \;=\; WW^* \;=\; \one \; ,
\qquad \Gamma W \Gamma \;=\; W \; ,
$$
which has the property
$$
W \begin{pmatrix} -\mu & 0 \\ 0 & \mu \end{pmatrix} W^* \;=\;
-\frac{\mu}{2} \begin{pmatrix} (S+S^*) & \ii(S^* -S) \\ \ii(S^*- S) & -(S+S^*) \end{pmatrix} \; .
$$
%
Hence $W$ maps the trivial system
$H^\mathrm{Kit}_\mathbb{Z}(\mu, 0)$ to the non-trivial Hamiltonian $H^\mathrm{Kit}_\mathbb{Z}(0,\tfrac{\mu}{2})$.
Passing to the spectrally flattened complex structures, $W (-\ii \sigma_z) W^* = J$ with
$J$ the complex structure associated to the Kitaev chain
$H^\mathrm{Kit}_\mathbb{Z}(0,\tfrac{1}{2})$. We note that $\mathrm{Ad}_W$ plays the role of the Kramers--Wannier
automorphism in the quantum Ising chain.
\vspace{0.1cm}
By Theorem \ref{thm:Araki_quasifree}, the ground states for parameters $(\mu,0)$ and $(0,\frac{\mu}{2})$
are equivalent if and only if
$[-\ii \sigma_z,W]$ is Hilbert-Schmidt. But
this is clearly not the case as $S-\one $ is not Hilbert-Schmidt. Hence, by studying the
GNS representations of the quasifree ground states, one can distinguish
between the trivial and non-trivial region of the infinite Kitaev chain.
\hfill $\diamond$
}
\end{example}
\subsection{Quasifree ground states on the even subalgebra}
The algebras $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma)$ and $A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH)$ are
naturally graded by the parity automorphism $\Theta$. We are most interested in
ground states arising from $\Theta$-invariant interactions, so it is
also natural to consider of representations of Fock
states restricted to the even subalgebra of the CAR algebra.
\vspace{0.2cm}
To align our approach with standard texts, {\it e.g.}~\cite{EvansKawahigashi,ASS}, we set some notation.
If $E_0$, $E_1$ are basis projections with
$E_0-E_1$ Hilbert-Schmidt, let $E_0\wedge (1-E_1)$ be
the spectral projection $\chi_{\{1\}}(E_0-E_1)$, which is finite-rank by the Hilbert-Schmidt
hypothesis~\cite{ArakiEvans}.
\begin{theo}[\cite{ArakiEvans}, Theorem 4] \label{theo:even_GS_condition}
Let $E_0,\,E_1 \in \calB(\calH)$ be basis projections with corresponding Fock states
$\omega_{E_0}$ and $\omega_{E_1}$.
The restrictions of $\omega_{E_0}$ and $\omega_{E_1}$ to the even
subalgebra $A^\mathrm{car}(E_i \calH)^0$ give
rise to equivalent representations if and only if $E_0 - E_1$ is Hilbert-Schmidt and
$\mathrm{dim}\big( E_0 \wedge (\one-E_1) \big)$ is even.
\end{theo}
Let $\beta$ be a quasifree dynamics with BdG Hamiltonian $H=-\Gamma H \Gamma $ on $\calH$ with $0\notin\sigma(H)$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:gappedBdG_gappedGS},
the Fock state $\omega_{E}$ for $E = \chi_{(0,\infty)}(H)$
is the unique ground state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma)$
relative to $\beta$. We now consider the restriction of $\omega_{E}$ to
$A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH,\Gamma)^0 \cong A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH)^0$.
\begin{theo}[\cite{EvansKawahigashi}, Theorem 6.38] \label{thm:even_CAR_GS}
Let $\beta$ be a quasifree dynamics with BdG Hamiltonian $H$ such that $0 \notin \sigma(H)$.
There exists a unique ground state for
$(A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH)^0,\beta)$ if and only if the infimum of the positive part of the spectrum
of $H$ is not an eigenvalue of $H$. If this is the case, the
restriction of $\omega_{E}$ to $A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH)^0$ is the unique ground state.
\vspace{.1cm}
If the infimum of the positive spectrum of $H$ is an eigenvalue
$\lambda$ with eigenprojection $E^\lambda$, then an extremal ground state of
$(A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH)^0, \beta)$ is either the restriction of
$\omega_{E}$ to $A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH)^0$ or
the quasifree state $\omega_\nu$ constructed from the basis projection
$E - P_\nu + \Gamma P_\nu \Gamma$,
where $E^\lambda \nu = \nu$ and $P_\nu (v) = \langle \tfrac{\nu}{\|\nu\|} ,v\rangle \tfrac{\nu}{\|\nu\|}$.
The representations of the states $\{\omega_\nu\}_{\nu \in \mathrm{Ran}(E^\lambda)}$
are all equivalent and disjoint from the
restriction of $\omega_{E}$ to $A^\mathrm{car}(E\calH)^0$.
\end{theo}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%55555%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{The index map on canonical transformations}
This section uses an index map for canonical transformations on infinite systems to assign a
topological phase label to quasifree ground states and BdG Hamiltonians. This index was previously studied by
Araki~\cite{Araki}, Araki--Evans \cite{ArakiEvans} and Carey--O'Brien~\cite{COB}. A similar exposition to ours
can be found in~\cite{Reyes-Lega}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
For the sake of concreteness, let us fix a countable set $\Lambda$
and the Nambu space $\calH_\ph = \ell^2(\Lambda) \otimes \mathbb{C}^2$ with
particle-hole involution $\Gamma = \mathcal{C}(\one \otimes \sigma_1)$. The results below can
readily be adapted to the case of an arbitrary separable Hilbert space with real structure.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Let $E$ be a basis projection on $\calH_\ph$ and $J = \ii (2E-\one)$ a skew-adjoint
unitary such that $\Gamma J \Gamma = J$. In particular, $J$ is well-defined on the
real subspace $\calH^{\Gamma}_\mathbb{R} = \{v \in\calH_\ph \,:\, \Gamma v = v\}$.
If $\tilde{E}$ is another basis projection giving rise to another $\tilde{J}$, there is a unitary $W\in \mathcal{U}(\calH_\ph)$,
$\Gamma W \Gamma = W$ such that $\tilde{J} = WJW^*$, see Lemma~\ref{lem:On_transitive_on_J}.
One obtains a Bogoliubov transformation $\mathbf{U}_W$ on $\mathcal{F}(\ell^2(\Lambda))$
and the two representations
$\pi_E$ and $\pi_{\tilde{E}}$ of $A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda$ are equivalent if and only
if $[W, J] \in \mathcal{L}^2(\calH_\ph)$, the ideal of Hilbert-Schmidt operators~\cite{ShaleStinespring,NNS}.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{COB}]
Let $E$ be a basis projection and $J = \ii (2E-\one)$ a complex structure on $\calH_{\mathbb{R}}^{\Gamma}$.
Define
$$
\calU_J(\calH_\ph, \Gamma) \;=\; \big\{W \in \calU(\calH_{\ph})\,:\, \Gamma W \Gamma = W ,\,\,
[J,W] \in \calL^2(\calH_{\ph}) \big\}\; .
$$
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] If $W\in \calU_J(\calH_\ph,\Gamma)$, then $\frac{1}{2}(J + WJW^*)$ is Fredholm.
\item[{\rm (ii)}] The Banach Lie group $\calU_J(\calH_\ph,\Gamma)$ has the same homotopy type
as the group $\varinjlim \calO_{2n}/\calU_n$.
In particular, $\pi_0(\calU_J(\calH_\ph,\Gamma)) \cong \ZM_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Given $W \in \calU_J(\calH_\ph,\Gamma)$, $\| J - WJW^* \|_\mathcal{Q} = 0$ and so
we can apply the continuous
index map from Proposition \ref{prop:Z_2_unitary_map}.
\begin{proposi}[\cite{COB, DSBW, BCLR}] \label{prop:bog_transform_Z2_index}
For $W \in \calU_J(\calH_\ph,\Gamma)$ the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index of
Proposition \ref{prop:Z_2_unitary_map},
$$
j_J(W) \;=\; \mathrm{Ind}_2(J, WJW^*) \;=\; (-1)^{ \frac{1}{2}\, \mathrm{dim}\, \Ker(J + WJW^*) } \; ,
$$
induces an isomorphism of $\pi_0(\calU_J(\calH_\ph,\Gamma))$ to $\ZM_2$.
\end{proposi}
Note that $j_J(W)=j_J(W^*)$ and that $j_{VJV^*}(VWV^*)=j_J(W)$
for any canonical transformation $V=\Gamma V\Gamma$.
The index map from Proposition~\ref{prop:bog_transform_Z2_index}
requires a choice of complex structure $J$, which is equivalent
to a choice of basis projection on $\calH_\ph$.
By imposing stronger conditions on the unitaries, one can
remove the necessity of making a choice of complex structure.
\begin{proposi}
Let $W \in \mathcal{U}(\calH_\ph)$ satisfy $\Gamma W \Gamma = W$.
Then $W \in \calU_J(\calH_\ph,\Gamma)$
for \emph{any} complex structure
$J = \ii (2E-\one)$ if and only if
$W+\one$ or $W-\one$ is Hilbert-Schmidt. In this particular situation,
$j_J(W)$ is independent of $J$.
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
The equivalence is shown in \cite[Theorem 8]{Araki}. For the second claim, let $J'=VJV^*$ be
another complex structure. Then $j_{J'}(W)=j_J(V^*WV)$ and $s\in[0,1]\mapsto (V^s)^*WV^s$ is a
path in $\mathcal{U}_J(\calH_\ph,\Gamma)$ along which the index does not change
by Proposition~\ref{prop:bog_transform_Z2_index}, so that $j_J(V^*WV)=j_J(W)$.
\hfill $\Box$
\begin{remark}
{\rm
For $W \in \calU_J(\calH_\ph,\Gamma)$,
one can consider the path of skew-adjoint Fredholm operators
$$
[0,1] \ni t \mapsto J_t \;=\; (1-t) J + t WJ W^* \; , \qquad t \in [0,1] \; .
$$
Then
$$
j_J(W) \;=\; (-1)^{ \frac{1}{2}\, \mathrm{dim}\, \Ker( J + WJW^*) }
\;=\; {\mathrm{Sf}_2(t\in [0,1] \mapsto (1-t)J + t WJ W^* )}
$$
%
by the definition of $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow.
\hfill $\diamond$
}
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
{\rm
Let us consider the case of $J =\ii \sigma_3$.
Then any $W \in \calU_{\ii \sigma_3}(\calH_\ph, \Gamma)$ has the form
$$
W \;=\; \begin{pmatrix} u & v \\ \ol{v} & \ol{u} \end{pmatrix}\; , \qquad
v \in \calL^2(\ell^2(\Lambda))\; , \qquad
u\, \text{ Fredholm.}
$$
In this case, the expression for the index map
$j_{i\sigma_3} :\calU_{\ii \sigma_3}(\calH_\ph,\Gamma) \to \mathbb{Z}_2$ can be written more simply. Namely,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:inf_index_def}
j_{i\sigma_3} (W) \;=\; (-1)^{\mathrm{dim}\, \Ker(u) }\; .
\end{equation}
%
For a finite lattice $\Lambda$,
any unitary $W = \Gamma W \Gamma \in \calU(\calH_\ph)$ will be in the group
$\calU_{\ii \sigma_3}(\calH_\ph, \Gamma)$. In this case,
$j_{i\sigma_3}(W) = \mathrm{sgn}\,\mathrm{det}(W)$, so the index map in Equation \eqref{eq:inf_index_def}
provides a generalisation of Kitaev's index from Section \ref{sec:Z_2_index_def} to infinite chains.
\vspace{0.1cm}
Suppose that $\Lambda$ is countably infinite and
let $P \in \calB(\ell^2(\Lambda))$ be a finite rank projection. Define
$$
W_P \;=\; \begin{pmatrix} 1-P & P \\ P & 1-P \end{pmatrix}\; .
$$
It is immediate that $W_P \in \calU_{\ii \sigma_3}(\calH_\ph,\Gamma)$ and, furthermore,
$j_{i\sigma_3}(W_P) = (-1)^{\dim(P)}$.
\hfill $\diamond$
}
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
{\rm
As the previous example shows, one can construct canonical transformations on
$\calH_\ph$ that are non-trivial for \emph{any} countable lattice $\Lambda$. In particular,
taking $\Lambda = \mathbb{Z}^\nu$ for any $\nu \geq 1$, we obtain non-trivial
indices in any lattice dimension.
In contrast, the strong topological phase associated to free-fermionic Hamiltonians with
even particle-hole symmetry is non-trivial only in certain dimensions~\cite{GSB}. Hence, the above index
map is \emph{distinct} from the strong topological phase.
\vspace{0.1cm}
We can conclude from this discussion that the index map on Bogoliubov transformations
is in general a coarser invariant for topological superconductors as it is unable to
distinguish dimension in infinite systems. This result is not so surprising since, while the index
has a $K$-theoretic interpretation, it does not arise as a pairing with
a Dirac element as is the case for strong topological phases~\cite{GSB}.
\hfill $\diamond$
}
\end{remark}
\subsection{A \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{Z}_2$}--index on pairs of BdG Hamiltonians}
\label{sec-IndBdGPairs}
Next the index map $j_J:\calU_J(\calH_\ph, \Gamma) \to \mathbb{Z}_2$ is used to
write an explicit $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index between a pair of quasifree dynamics
with gapped BdG Hamiltonians. The definition works for BdG Hamiltonians over an arbitrary countable
set $\Lambda$ and is thus not restricted to dimension $1$. As before, our constructions
readily extend to an arbitrary complex Hilbert space $\calH$ with real structure $\Gamma$.
\begin{defini}
Let $H_k$, $k=0,1$, be a pair of gapped BdG Hamiltonians
on $\calH_\ph$ coming from quasifree dynamics on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\calH_\ph,\Gamma)$
and satisfying $0 \notin \sigma( H_k )$. Suppose that the positive energy spectral projections
$E_k = \chi_{(0,\infty)}(H_k)$ are such that
$E_0 - E_1$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator. Then index of the pair of gapped BdG Hamiltonians is
defined by
%
$$
j(H_0, H_1) \;=\; (-1)^{ \frac{1}{2}\, \mathrm{dim}\, \Ker( J_0 + J_1 )}
\;=\; (-1)^{ \mathrm{dim} \, ( E_0 \wedge (1- E_1 ) ) } \; ,
$$
%
where $J_k = \ii H_k | H_k|^{-1}$.
\end{defini}
Let us note that for $j(H_0,H_1)$ to be defined, the ground
states $\omega_{E_0}$ and $\omega_{E_1}$ for $A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda$ are
unitarily equivalent by Theorem~\ref{thm:Araki_quasifree}(iii).
The index $j(H_0,H_1)$ is a re-writing of the index on canonical transformations.
More precisely, because the orthogonal group acts transitively on the space of complex structures by Lemma~\ref{lem:On_transitive_on_J},
there exists a $W \in \calU_{J_0}(\calH_\ph,\Gamma)$ such that $J_1 = W J_0 W^*$, and then
$j(H_0,H_1) = j_{J_0}(W)$. The index also coincides with the index
from \cite{ArakiEvans} which is reproduced in Equation (6.10.9) of \cite{EvansKawahigashi}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
The index map is a homomorphism by Proposition \ref{prop:bog_transform_Z2_index};
so if $j(H_0,H_1)$ and
$j(H_1,H_2)$ are well-defined, then
$$
j(H_0,H_2) \;=\; j(H_0,H_1) \; j(H_1,H_2) \; .
$$
By Theorem~\ref{theo:even_GS_condition}, the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index
encodes whether the restriction of the states $\omega_{E_k}$
to the even subalgebra $(A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda)^0$ give rise to equivalent
representations.
\subsection{Connections to \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{Z}_2$}--valued spectral flow}
\label{sec:Z_2_index_as_sf}
Let $\beta$ be a quasifree dynamics with BdG Hamiltonian $H$ such that $0 \notin \sigma_\mathrm{ess}(H)$.
Then
$\ii H$ defines a skew-adjoint Fredholm operator
on the real Hilbert space $\calH_{\mathbb{R}}^{\Gamma}$. Therefore, Fredholm paths $t\in[0,1]\mapsto \ii H(t)$ of BdG Hamiltonians
give paths of skew-adjoint Fredholm operators on $\calH_{\mathbb{R}}^{\Gamma}$. For paths
with invertible (gapped)
endpoints, then
one can
consider $\mathrm{Sf}_2(t\in[0,1]\mapsto \ii H(t))$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
We now prove an infinite-dimensional analogue of Proposition \ref{prop:sf_as_Z2_obstruction}.
\begin{proposi}
\label{prop-sf_as_Z2_obstruction2}
Let $H_0$ and $H_1$ be invertible BdG Hamiltonians on
$\calH_\ph$ with $j(H_0, H_1)$ well-defined.
Then for any continuous path of self-adjoint Fredholm operators
$H_t$ connecting $H_0$ and $H_1$,
$$
j(H_0,H_1)
\;=\;
\mathrm{Sf}_2(t\in[0,1]\mapsto \ii H_t )
\;.
$$
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Let $J_0= iH_0|H_0|^{-1}$ and $J_1 = iH_1 |H_1|^{-1}$.
As $\| J_0 - J_1 \|_\mathcal{Q} =0$,
one can take the trivial partition of $[0,1]$ in the definition of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-spectral flow,
and so
$$
\mathrm{Sf}_2(t\in[0,1]\mapsto \ii H_t ) \;=\;
(-1)^{ \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{dim}\,\Ker ( J_0 + J_1 )} \; =\; j(H_0,H_1) \; ,
$$
completing the proof.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
There is also an infinite-dimensional analogue of Proposition \ref{prop:Z2_flow_and_degeneracy}.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:quasifree_sf_gap_close}
Let $H_0$ and $H_1$ be invertible BdG Hamiltonians on
$\calH_\ph$ with $j(H_0,H_1)$ well-defined.
If $j(H_0,H_1)=-1$, then
for any continuous path of self-adjoint and particle-hole symmetric Fredholm operators $H(t)$
connecting $H_0$ and $H_1$,
there is some $t_0 \in (0,1)$ such that $H(t_0)$ has a double degenerate kernel.
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
The assumptions ensure
that $\mathrm{Sf}_2(t\in[0,1]\mapsto \ii H(t))$ is well-defined and non-trivial.
Therefore
there is at least one $t_0 \in (0,1)$ such that $\Ker( \ii H(t_0)) = \Ker( H(t_0))$
is even-dimensional.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Propositions \ref{prop:quasifree_sf_gap_close} shows
that the index on pairs of BdG Hamiltonians precisely encodes the topological obstruction for two BdG
Hamiltonians to be in the same topological phase.
Let us now consider the relationship between the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index, the
$\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow and gapped ground states on the CAR algebra.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:quasifree_GNS_gap_close}
Let $H_0$ and $H_1$ be invertible BdG Hamiltonians on
$\calH_\ph$ that give gapped ground states $\omega_{E_0}$ and
$\omega_{E_1}$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda$. Let $H(t)$ be any continuous
path of self-adjoint and particle-hole symmetric Fredholm operators
connecting $H_0$ and $H_1$.
Suppose $j(H_0,H_1) = -1$. Then there exists a $t_0 <1$ such that the
path $[0,t_0) \ni t\mapsto \omega_{E_t}$ of ground states of the quasifree dynamics
generated by $H(t)$ as in Proposition \ref{prop:gappedBdG_gappedGS} will not
be uniformly gapped.
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
By Proposition \ref{prop:quasifree_sf_gap_close} there is a smallest $t_0 \in(0,1)$
such that $0 \in \sigma(H(t_0))$. For all $t \in [0,t_0)$, one has has $0 \notin\sigma(H(t))$.
Then we obtain a path of ground states $[0,t_0) \ni t \mapsto \omega_{E_t}$
with $E_{t} = \chi_{(0,\infty)}(H(t))$ by Proposition \ref{prop:gappedBdG_gappedGS}.
For every $t\in [0,t_0)$, the GNS space is
$$
\mathfrak{h}_{E_t} \;\cong \; \bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty \bigwedge\nolimits^{\! n} E_{t}\, \calH_\ph \; ,
\qquad \bigwedge\nolimits^{\! 0} E_{t}\, \calH_\ph \;=\; \mathbb{C}\, \Omega_{E_t} \; ,
$$
and the GNS Hamiltonian $h_{\omega_t}$ is the second quantisation
of $H(t)$ restricted to anti-symmetric tensors on $E_t\, \calH_{\ph}$.
As the spectral gap of $H(t)$ above $0$
goes to $0$ as $t \to t_0$, so too will the spectral gap of $h_{\omega_t}$.
Thus for any $\gamma>0$, one has $\sigma(h_{\omega_t})\cap(0,\gamma)\neq \emptyset$ for
any $t_0 - t$ sufficiently small.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Let us now elaborate on the example of the Kitaev chain on $\ZM$ studied in Section~\ref{sec-QuasifreeDynBdG}
to produce an example of a non-trivial spectral flow, again given by a flux insertion as in the case of the closed
finite chain studied in Sections~\ref{sec-KitaevClosedChain} and \ref{sec:closed_interacting_chain}.
%\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{example}[Flux insertion in infinite Kitaev chain] \label{ex:Kitaev_inf_flux}
{\rm
The Hamiltonian will be a local perturbation of \eqref{eq-KitaevMuw1}. Let us first focus
on the topological phase and thus set $\mu=0$, and for sake of simplicity $w=-1$.
The local perturbation is then given by the flux insertion as in Proposition~\ref{prop:Maj_flux_flow},
but between site $0$ and $1$:
%
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{H}_{[a,b]}^\mathrm{Kit}(\alpha)
\;=\;
&
\sum_{j=a}^{b-1} \delta_{j\not=0}\big( \fraka_j^* \fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_j
+\ii \fraka_{j}\fraka_{j+1} -\ii \fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_j^* \big)
\\
&
\;\;\;+\;
\big(e^{\ii \alpha}\fraka_0^* \fraka_1 + e^{-\ii \alpha}\fraka_1^* \fraka_0
+\ii e^{{-\ii \alpha }}\fraka_0 \fraka_1 -\ii e^{{\ii \alpha}} \fraka_1^*\fraka_0^*
\big)
\; .
\end{align*}
%
Let us note that inserting a half-flux is implemented by an automorphism of $A^\mathrm{car}_\ZM$
%
$$
\gamma_-( \fraka_j) \;=\; \begin{cases} \fraka_j \, , & j \geq 1\, , \\ -\fraka_j\, , & j \leq 0\;, \end{cases}
$$
%
namely one has
%
$$
\mathbf{H}_{[a,b]}^\mathrm{Kit}(\pi)
\;=\;\gamma_-\big(\mathbf{H}_{[a,b]}^\mathrm{Kit}(0)\big)
\;.
$$
%
The BdG Hamiltonian is now given by $H^\mathrm{Kit}_\ZM(\alpha)=S_\alpha+S_\alpha^*$
where the translations with inserted flux are
%
$$
S_\alpha\;=\;
S\otimes\frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \ii \\ \ii & -1 \end{pmatrix}
\,+\,\nu_1(\nu_0)^*\otimes
\frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{-\ii\alpha}-1 & \ii(e^{\ii\alpha}-1)
\\
\ii(e^{-\ii\alpha}-1) & -(e^{\ii\alpha}-1)
\end{pmatrix}
\;.
$$
with $\nu_n$ the partial isometry onto the site $n\in \mathbb{Z}$.
Note that $H^\mathrm{Kit}_\ZM(\alpha)$ is a finite rank perturbation of
\eqref{eq-KitaevMuw2}, which is gapped. Hence the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow
of the path $\alpha\in[0,\pi]\mapsto \ii H^\mathrm{Kit}_\ZM(\alpha)$ is well-defined. It has
been shown by an explicit calculation in~\cite[Section 10]{CPS} that it is equal to $-1$. By Proposition~\ref{prop-sf_as_Z2_obstruction2}
and homotopy invariance of $\mathrm{Sf}_2$,
one hence has $j(H^\mathrm{Kit}_\ZM(0),H^\mathrm{Kit}_\ZM(\pi))=-1$.
\vspace{.1cm}
Now let us consider the topologically trivial phase of the Kitaev chain, namely set $\mu=1$ and $w=\Delta=0$.
As the Hamiltonian has no kinetic part now, the flux insertion does not change the Hamiltonian, that is, $H^\mathrm{Kit}_\ZM(\alpha)=H^\mathrm{Kit}_\ZM(0)$. In particular, $j(H^\mathrm{Kit}_\ZM(0),H^\mathrm{Kit}_\ZM(\pi))=1$.
\vspace{.1cm}
Hence the flux insertion is a test of the topologically non-trivial nature of the ground state.
In Section~\ref{sec:general_Z2}, it is shown how this concept extends to
systems which are not quasifree.
}
\hfill $\diamond$
\end{example}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:QFGS_path_with_closing}
{\rm
This remark provides further understanding of the GNS-representation spaces along a flux insertion.
Let $(\mathcal{H}, \Gamma)$ be a complex Hilbert space with real structure and consider a
norm-continuous path
of BdG Hamiltonians $H(s)$ such that $0 \notin \sigma(H(s))$ for all $s \in [0,1]\setminus \{s_0\}$.
At the point $s_0\in (0,1)$ let us assume that the $0$-energy eigenspace of $H(s_0)$ is finite
dimensional. Hence one has a continuous path of Fredholm BdG Hamiltonians with a
gap-closing point at $s_0$. We now consider the family of $\mathbb{R}$-actions on
$A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\mathcal{H},\Gamma)$ given by
$$
\alpha_{s,t}( \frakc(v) ) \;=\; \frakc\big( e^{i t H(s)} v \big) \; , \qquad t \in \mathbb{R}\; , \quad s \in [0,1]\; .
$$
Example \ref{ex:Kitaev_inf_flux} is a special case of the above setting.
\vspace{0.1cm}
Applying Proposition \ref{prop:gappedBdG_gappedGS}, outside of the point $s_0$, the dynamics
$\alpha_s$ has a unique pure ground state $\omega_s$ constructed by the basis projection
$E_s = \chi_{(0,\infty)}(H(s))$ with the GNS space
$\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_s} = \bigoplus_n \bigwedge^n E_s \mathcal{H}$.
\vspace{0.1cm}
At the crossing point $s_0$,
let $E_0 = \chi_{\{0\}}(H(s_0))$ and $E_+ = \chi_{(0,\infty)}(H(s_0))$. Then
one can decompose the CAR algebra
$A^\mathrm{car}_\mathrm{sd}(\mathcal{H}, \Gamma) \simeq A^\mathrm{car}(E_0\mathcal{H}) \,\hat\otimes\, A^\mathrm{car}(E_+ \mathcal{H})$ with
$A^\mathrm{car}(E_0\mathcal{H})$ finite-dimensional. Given an arbitrary state $\omega_0$
on $A^\mathrm{car}(E_0 \mathcal{H})$, then by~\cite[Proposition 6.37]{EvansKawahigashi}
$$
\omega( a_0 a_1) \;=\; \omega_0(a_0) \, \omega_{E_+}( a_1 ) \; , \qquad
a_0 \in A^\mathrm{car}(E_0 \mathcal{H})\; , \quad a_1 \in A^\mathrm{car}(E_+ \mathcal{H})
$$
will be a ground state of the dynamics $\alpha_{s_0}$. In particular, by the tensor
product structure, the GNS triple of this ground state is given by
$$
( \pi_{\omega_{s_0}}, \mathfrak{h}_{\omega_{s_0}}, \Omega_{\omega_{s_0}} ) \; \cong \;
\big( \pi_{0} \hat\otimes \one_{\mathfrak{h}_{E_+}} + \one_{\mathfrak{h}_0}
\hat\otimes \pi_{E_+}, \, \mathfrak{h}_0 \hat\otimes \mathfrak{h}_{E_+}, \,
\Omega_0 \hat\otimes \Omega_{E_+} \big)\,,
$$
with $(\pi_0, \mathfrak{h}_0, \Omega_0)$ the (unique) GNS triple of the
finite dimensional algebra $A^\mathrm{car}(E_0\mathcal{H})$ and state $\omega_0$.
In particular, as $\mathfrak{h}_0$ is finite-dimensional, there is some $N$ such
that $\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_{s_0}} \cong \mathbb{C}^{N} \hat\otimes \,\mathfrak{h}_{E_+}$.
}
\hfill $\diamond$
\end{remark}
%
The relative $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index provides a topological obstruction
for a pair of quasifree ground states to be connected such that the corresponding infinite GNS
Hamiltonian retains a spectral gap above $0$. This closely aligns with the heuristic
physical picture of a (relative) topological or SPT phase of parity-symmetric
gapped ground states in the fermionic setting. The next task is to consider
ground states that are not quasifree.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%55555%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{A \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{Z}_2$}--index for pure gapped ground states} \label{sec:general_Z2}
In this section, we define a candidate $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label for one-dimensional
ground states that are not necessarily quasifree.
The constructions rely heavily on the Jordan--Wigner transform and, as such, are
restricted to the one-dimensional lattice $\mathbb{Z}$.
\vspace{0.1cm}
The interactions are assumed to be even (parity-preserving), finite range and with the
property that for $X\subset \mathbb{Z}$ finite
\begin{equation} \label{eq:interaction_bound_assumption}
\sup_{j\in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{{X\ni j}} \frac{\| \Phi(X)\|}{|X|} \;<\; \infty \;.
\end{equation}
Note that Equation \eqref{eq:interaction_bound_assumption} is satisfied for any
finite range Hamiltonian with uniformly bounded $\Phi$, {\it e.g.} a translation invariant finite range Hamiltonian.
All states on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ considered here are assumed to be
parity invariant, $\omega \circ \Theta = \omega$ for $\Theta$.
This ensures the existence of a self-adjoint unitary $\Sigma$ on $\mathfrak{h}_\omega$ such
that $\Sigma \Omega_\omega = \Omega_\omega$ and a decomposition
$$
\mathfrak{h}_\omega \;=\; \mathfrak{h}_\omega^0 \oplus \mathfrak{h}_\omega^1 \; , \qquad
\mathfrak{h}_\omega^i \;=\; \frac{1}{2}(1+(-1)^i \Sigma)\mathfrak{h}_\omega \;=\;
\overline{\pi_\omega((A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^i) \Omega_\omega } \; .
$$
%
Interactions satisfying the bound \eqref{eq:interaction_bound_assumption} also
satisfy a Lieb--Robinson bound and so the automorphism
$\beta: \mathbb{R} \to \mathrm{Aut}(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})$ given by
$$
\beta_t( a) \;=\; \lim_{N\to\infty} e^{\ii t \mathbf{H}_N} a e^{-\ii t\mathbf{H}_N} \; , \qquad
\mathbf{H}_N = \sum_{X \subset [-N,N]\cap \mathbb{Z}} \Phi(X) \;
$$
exists for any $t\in \mathbb{R}$ \cite[Theorem 3.5]{NSY18}.
In this section, ground states on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ will always be with respect to this dynamics.
\subsection{The Jordan--Wigner transform} \label{subsec:JordanWigner}
In order to apply techniques from spin-chains to fermionic systems, one needs to clearly understand
the way to pass between the two in the infinite volume limit. This will be established by
the Jordan--Wigner transform, so we now restrict to the one-dimensional lattice
$\Lambda=\mathbb{Z}$.
The basic references here are~\cite[Example 6.2.14]{BR2} and~\cite[Chapter 6.5]{EvansKawahigashi}.
\vspace{0.1cm}
For one-dimensional fermionic interactions that are even, there are three $C^*$-algebras of interest in the infinite volume limit: the fermion algebra
$A_\mathbb{Z}^\mathrm{car}= \varinjlim A^\mathrm{car}_{[-a,b]\cap \mathbb{Z}}$, the Pauli algebra
$A^{P}_{\ZM}= \bigotimes_\mathbb{Z} M_2(\mathbb{C})$ given by the $C^*$-algebraic closure
of the tensor algebra generated by the spin matrices at each site,
and a crossed product algebra $\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z} = A_\mathbb{Z}^\mathrm{car} \rtimes_{\gamma_-} \mathbb{Z}_2$,
where the (outer) action of $\mathbb{Z}_2$ is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gamma_-_defn}
\gamma_- ( \fraka_j) \;=\; \begin{cases} \fraka_j \, , & j \geq 1\, , \\ - \fraka_j\, , & j \leq 0 \end{cases}\; .
\end{equation}
One can abstractly characterise $\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$ as the $C^*$-algebra generated by
$A_\mathbb{Z}^\mathrm{car}$ and the self-adjoint unitary $T$ such that $Ta = \gamma_{-}(a)T$ for
any $a \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$. The grading $\Theta$ of $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ extends
to a grading on $\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$ by defining $\Theta(T) = T$.
\vspace{0.1cm}
There is a $\ast$-embedding of the Pauli algebra $A^{P}_{\ZM}$ in $\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$ by the
map
\begin{align*}
&\sigma_j^x \; \mapsto \; TS_j(\fraka_j+\fraka_j^*) \; , &&\sigma_j^y \; \mapsto \; \ii \,TS_j (\fraka_j - \fraka_j^*) \; ,
&&\sigma_j^z \;\mapsto \; 2\fraka_j^* \fraka_j - \one \; ,
\end{align*}
where
$$
S_j \;=\; \begin{cases} \prod_{i=1}^{j-1} \sigma_i^z \, , & j \,\geq \, 1\, , \\ \one \, , & j \,=\, 1 \\
\prod_{i=j}^0 \sigma_i^z \, , & j \,\leq\, 0 \end{cases} \; .
$$
Thus, both $A_\mathbb{Z}^\mathrm{car}$ and the Pauli algebra $A^{P}_{\ZM}$
can be embedded within a larger algebra $\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$.
\vspace{0.1cm}
To better compare $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ and $A^{P}_{\ZM}$ embedded within $\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$,
let us give the Pauli algebra a grading, where at each site $j \in \mathbb{Z}$, $\sigma_j^z$ is even
and $\sigma_j^x, \,\sigma_j^y$ are odd. This gives a decomposition $A^{P}_{\ZM} = (A^{P}_{\ZM})^0 \oplus (A^{P}_{\ZM})^1$ and
ensures that the embedding $A^{P}_{\ZM} \hookrightarrow \widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$ is graded.
Using the decomposition of $\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$,
$$
\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z} \;\cong \; (\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z})^0 \,\oplus \, (\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z})^1
\;\cong \; \big( ( A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0 \,\oplus \, T(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0 \big)
\,\oplus\, \big( (A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^1 \,\oplus\, T(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^1 \big) \; ,
$$
one then has the following equivalences of algebras and vector spaces respectively,
\begin{align*}
(A^{P}_{\ZM})^0 \;\cong\; (A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0 \; , \qquad (A^{P}_{\ZM})^1 \;\cong\; T (A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^1 \; .
\end{align*}
Lastly, let us note that, for half-infinite systems where $\Lambda = \mathbb{N}$,
the automorphism $\gamma_-$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{N}$ is the identity automorphism
and one can naturally identify
$\widehat{A}_\mathbb{N} \cong A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{N} \cong A^P_\mathbb{N}$ as
graded algebras, where $A^P_\mathbb{N} = \bigotimes_\mathbb{N} M_2(\mathbb{C})$.
\subsection*{States under the Jordan--Wigner transform}
Having analyzed the connections between $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ and $A^{P}_{\ZM}$, let
us now discuss links between states on these algebras.
Any $\Theta$-invariant state $\omega$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ has a restriction
$\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0}$. If $\omega$ is pure, then this restriction is
pure as well~\cite[Lemma 6.23]{EvansKawahigashi}.
One can extend $\omega$ to a state $\hat\omega$ on $\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$ by
setting $\hat{\omega}(a_0 + Ta_1 ) = \omega(a_0)$ where $a_0,a_1\in {A}^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$.
This provides a state $\omega^P$ on the Pauli
algebra $A^{P}_{\ZM} \subset \widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$ as the restriction of $\hat{\omega}$.
Because $(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0 \cong (A^{P}_{\ZM})^0$, the state
$\omega^P |_{(A^{P}_{\ZM})^0}$ of $(A^{P}_{\ZM})^0$ is pure if $\omega$ is so, but
$\omega^P$ itself need not be pure.
\begin{theo}[\cite{EvansKawahigashi}, Theorem 6.25] \label{thm:car_even_state_equivalence}
Let $\omega$ be a pure $\Theta$-invariant state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$. Then
$\omega^P$, the restriction of $\hat{\omega}$ to $A^{P}_{\ZM}$, is not pure if and only if the following two conditions hold:
%
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $\omega$ and $\omega \circ \gamma_-$ are equivalent states on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$,
\item[{\rm (ii)}] $\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0}$ and $\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0} \circ \gamma_-$
are not equivalent states on $(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$.
\end{enumerate}
%
If $\omega^P$ is not pure, then it is a mixture of $2$ inequivalent pure states.
\end{theo}
Let us now specialise Theorem~\ref{thm:car_even_state_equivalence} to a quasifree pure $\Theta$-invariant state.
Let $E$ be a basis projection on $\Hh_\ph=\ell^2(\ZM)\otimes\CM^2$.
Then the quasifree state $\omega_{E}$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\ZM$ is pure and $\Theta$-invariant.
To know if $\omega^P_{E}$ is pure or not,
by Theorem \ref{thm:car_even_state_equivalence}, we need to compare the states
$\omega_{E}$ and $\omega_{E} \circ \gamma_-$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ and $(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$ with
the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-action $\gamma_-$ from Equation \eqref{eq:gamma_-_defn}.
For this purpose it is useful to introduce the operator
\begin{equation} \label{eq:theta_operator_defn}
\theta_- \;:\; \ell^2(\mathbb{Z}) \;\to\; \ell^2(\mathbb{Z}) \; , \qquad
\theta_- e_j \;=\; \begin{cases} e_j \, , & j \, \geq\, 1 \, , \\ - e_j \, , & j \, \leq \, 0 \, \end{cases} \;
\end{equation}
with $\{e_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}$ the canonical basis of $\ell^2(\mathbb{Z})$. We also denote by
$\theta_-$ the diagonal extension $\theta_- \otimes \one_{\mathbb{C}^2}$
to $\calH_\ph$. Then $\theta_- E \theta_-$ is a basis projection and
$$
\omega_{\theta_- E \theta_-}(a) \;=\; \omega_{E}\circ\gamma_- (a) \; , \qquad a \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z} \; .
$$
By Theorem~\ref{theo:even_GS_condition}, the restrictions of $\omega_{E}$ and
$\omega_{E} \circ \gamma_-$ give equivalent representations of
$(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$ if and only if
$E - \theta_- E \theta_-$ is Hilbert-Schmidt and
$\mathrm{dim}\big(\theta_- E \theta_- \wedge (1- E) \big)$ is even.
On the other hand, by the last
item of Theorem~\ref{thm:Araki_quasifree}, $E - \theta_- E \theta_-$ is Hilbert-Schmidt if and only if
$\omega_E$ and $\omega_E\circ\gamma_-$ are equivalent. Therefore one concludes from Theorem~\ref{thm:car_even_state_equivalence}:
\begin{coro} \label{coro:car_even_state_equivalence}
Let $E$ be a basis projection and $\omega_{E}$ be the corresponding pure, $\Theta$-invariant and
quasi\-free state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$. If $\omega_E$ is equivalent to $\omega_E\circ\gamma_-$,
then for $J=i(2E-1)$:
%
$$
\omega^P_{E}\;\;\mbox{\rm pure}
\quad
\Longleftrightarrow
\quad
\mathrm{dim}\big( \theta_- E \theta_- \wedge (1- E) \big)\;\;\mbox{\rm even}
\quad
\Longleftrightarrow
\quad
j_J(\theta_- )\,=\,1
\;.
$$
with $j_J$ the index map on canonical transformations from Proposition~\ref{prop:bog_transform_Z2_index}.
\end{coro}
\subsection{Ground states of the \texorpdfstring{$XY$}--Hamiltonian}
This section gives a detailed review of results on the ground states of
the $XY$-Hamiltonian on the lattice $\mathbb{Z}$, based on the work of
Araki and Matsui~\cite{ArakiMatsui85} which is also described in detail in
\cite[Chapter 6-7]{EvansKawahigashi}. The $XY$-Hamiltonian reduces
to the Kitaev chain and quantum Ising model for special values of the input parameters, and the
exposition motivates how we deal with more general fermionic chains in
Section \ref{subsec:split_prop} and \ref{subsec:general_Z2}.
While the $XY$-Hamiltonian is typically defined on the Pauli algebra $A^{P}_{\ZM}$, we will work on
the larger algebra $\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$, where one can pass between fermionic and
spin-chain descriptions without issue.
\vspace{0.2cm}
The Hamiltonian, written using the fermion operators, is defined on the local region
$[a,b]\cap \mathbb{Z}$ as
%
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fermionic_XY}
\mathbf{H}_{[a,b]}^{XY} \;=\; \sum_{j=a}^{b-1} \big[ -(\fraka_j^* \fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^*\fraka_j)
+\rho( \fraka_j\fraka_{j+1} + \fraka_{j+1}^* \fraka_{j}^*) \big] \;+ \;\mu \sum_{j=a}^b (\fraka_j^* \fraka_j -\tfrac{1}{2} \one) \; .
\end{equation}
%
with $\rho, \,\mu \in \mathbb{R}$. Note that we use a different scaling of the parameters
to~\cite{ArakiMatsui85} in order to better align with the rest of the paper.
The Hamiltonian $\mathbf{H}_{[a,b]}^{XY}$ conserves parity and can be
written in terms of the Pauli operators:
%
\begin{equation} \label{eq:spin_XY}
\mathbf{H}_{[a,b]}^{XY}
\;=\;
\sum_{j=a}^{b-1} \big[ (1+\rho)\sigma_j^x \sigma_{j+1}^x
+ (1-\rho)\sigma_j^y \sigma_{j+1}^y \big] \,+ \,\mu \sum_{j=a}^b \sigma_j^z \; .
\end{equation}
Comparing with \eqref{eq:Kitaev_model} shows that $\mathbf{H}_{[a,b]}^{XY}$ with $\rho=1$ recovers the
Kitaev with $w=\Delta=1$. For the parameters $(\mu,\rho) = (0,\pm 1)$, the $XY$-Hamiltonian reduces to the
quantum Ising chain.
\vspace{0.2cm}
The $XY$-Hamiltonian gives the BdG Hamiltonian on $\calH_\ph = \ell^2(\mathbb{Z})\otimes \mathbb{C}^2$,
$$
H_\mathbb{Z}^{XY} \;=\; -2\begin{pmatrix} S + S^* - \mu & \rho(S-S^*) \\ -\rho(S-S^*) & -(S+S^*-\mu) \end{pmatrix} \; ,
$$
with $S$ the bilateral shift operator.
One can check using the Fourier transform that
for $\mu=0$ and $\rho\neq 0, \pm 1$, $\sigma(H_\mathbb{Z}^{XY} ) = [-2,-2\rho]\cup [2\rho,2]$
or $[-2\rho,2]\cup [2,2\rho]$ with constant multiplicity $4$.
If $(\mu,\rho) =(0,1)$, then
$\sigma(H_\mathbb{Z}^{XY}) = \{\pm 4\}$. We also note
that if $(\mu,\rho)\neq(0, \pm 1)$, then the point spectrum $\sigma_p(H_\mathbb{Z}^{XY}) = \emptyset$~\cite{ArakiMatsui85}.
In particular, for $(\mu,\rho)$ such that $0 \notin \sigma(H_\mathbb{Z}^{XY})$,
Proposition \ref{prop:gappedBdG_gappedGS} applies and says that for
$E = \chi_{(0,\infty)}(H_\mathbb{Z}^{XY})$, $\omega_{E}$ is the unique
ground state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$, the representation
$\pi_{E}$ is irreducible and the infinite GNS Hamiltonian is also gapped.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Let us also consider
the ground states on the even subalgebra $(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$, where
Theorem \ref{thm:even_CAR_GS} applies. Specifically, in the case of
$(\mu,\rho)\neq (0,\pm 1)$, the restriction of $\omega_{E}$ to $(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$
is the unique ground state. If $(\mu,\rho)=(0,\pm 1)$, then $\sigma(H_\mathbb{Z}^{XY}) =
\{\pm 4\}$ and each eigenvalue has infinite multiplicity. If
$\{\nu_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}$ are mutually orthogonal eigenvectors of
$+4$, they each give basis projections $E - P_{\nu_j} + \Gamma P_{\nu_j} \Gamma$
with $P_{\nu_j} (v) = \langle \tfrac{\nu_j}{\|\nu_j\|} ,v\rangle \tfrac{\nu_j}{\|\nu_j\|}$. Therefore an arbitrary ground state of
$(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$ is a convex combination of
the restrictions of $\omega_{E}$ and $\omega_{\nu_j}$.
The GNS representations associated to $\omega_{\nu_j}$ are
all equivalent. Hence, if ground states are counted up to equivalence of GNS
representations, then $\mathbf{H}^{XY}$ has two distinct ground states
for $(\mu,\rho)=(0,\pm 1)$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
We have so far shown that the number of ground states of the
even subalgebra $(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$ in the
infinite volume limit depends on the parameters $(\mu,\rho)$ in the $XY$-Hamiltonian.
In particular, the case $(\mu,\rho) = (0, 1)$ which has $2$ distinct ground states coincides with the
infinite Kitaev chain with $w=\Delta=1$.
However, at the level of ground states of $(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$ in the region
$(\mu,\rho)\neq (0,\pm 1)$, we currently cannot distinguish between what is considered
the trivial region, $|\mu|\geq \tfrac{1}{2}$ or $\rho=0$ and $|\mu|<\frac{1}{2}$, with the non-trivial region
$|\mu|<\tfrac{1}{2}$ and $\rho\neq 0$. These regions can be distinguished by
looking at ground states of the Pauli algebra
$A^{P}_{\ZM}$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Suppose $0 \notin\sigma(H^{XY}_\mathbb{Z})$ and let $\omega$ be the pure ground
state of the $XY$-chain on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$.
As previously explained, one obtains a state $\omega^P$ on $A^{P}_{\ZM}$ by
extending $\omega$ to $\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$ and then restricting to $A^{P}_{\ZM}$.
Theorem \ref{thm:XY_soln} below analyses the purity of $\omega^P$ based on
Corollary~\ref{coro:car_even_state_equivalence} and the following:
\begin{proposi}[\cite{ArakiMatsui85}, Lemma 4.5] \label{prop:graded_XY_states}
Recall that $(\mu,\rho)$ are the parameters in $\mathbf{H}^{XY}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] If either $|\mu|=\tfrac{1}{2}$ or $|\mu|<\tfrac{1}{2}$ and $\rho=0$, then
$E - \theta_- E \theta_-$ is not Hilbert-Schmidt.
\item[{\rm (ii)}] If either $|\mu|>\tfrac{1}{2}$ or $(\mu,\rho) = (0,\pm 1)$, then
$E - \theta_- E \theta_-$ is Hilbert-Schmidt and
$\mathrm{dim}\big( \theta_- E \theta_- \wedge (1- E) \big)$ is even.
\item[{\rm (iii)}] If $|\mu|<\tfrac{1}{2}$ and $\rho \neq 0$, then $E - \theta_- E \theta_-$ is Hilbert-Schmidt and
$\mathrm{dim}\big( \theta_- E \theta_- \wedge (1- E) \big)$ is odd.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposi}
\begin{theo}[\cite{BR2}, Example 6.2.56; \cite{ArakiMatsui85}, Theorem 1] \label{thm:XY_soln}
The number of extremal (and thus pure)
ground states of the
$XY$-Hamiltonian on the Pauli algebra $A^{P}_{\ZM}$ is as follows
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $1$ if $|\mu|\geq \tfrac{1}{2}$ or if $|\mu|<\tfrac{1}{2}$ and $\rho=0$,
\item[{\rm (ii)}] $2$ if $|\mu|< \tfrac{1}{2}$, $\rho\neq 0$ and $(\mu,\rho)\neq (0,\pm 1)$.
The grading automorphism $\Theta$ on $A^{P}_{\ZM}$ maps between these ground states.
\item[{\rm (iii)}] $\infty$ if $(\mu,\rho) = (0, \pm 1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theo}
In the quantum Ising region $(\mu,\rho) =(0,\pm 1)$, there are $4$ ground states up to unitary equivalence.
Namely, for $\nu_j$
any $+4$-eigenvector of $H_\mathbb{Z}^{XY}$,
the states $\omega_{E}$ and $\omega_{\nu_i}$
both split into a
sum of two extremal ground states $\omega_{E}^j$ and $\omega_{\nu_i}^j$,
$j\in \{0,1\}$ such that $\omega_{E}^0 \circ \Theta = \omega_{E}^1$
and $\omega_{\nu_j}^0 \circ \Theta = \omega_{\nu_j}^1$ with $\Theta$ the grading on $A^{P}_{\ZM}$.
\vspace{0.1cm}
To summarise our discussion, one obtains a richer characterisation of the ground states of the
infinite $XY$-chain by considering both $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ and
the Pauli algebra $A^{P}_{\ZM}$ (or, equivalently, studying the states
$\omega$ and $\omega\circ \gamma_-$ restricted to the even subalgebra $(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$).
\subsection{The split property} \label{subsec:split_prop}
The split property has its roots
in algebraic quantum field theory~\cite{DL84} but was adapted to
fermion and spin chains by Matsui~\cite{Matsui01, Matsui13}.
More recently, the application of the split property to the analytic
approach to SPT phases has been developed by
Ogata {\it et al.}~\cite{OgataTRS, OgataReflection, OgataTasaki}. A long range
version of~\cite{OgataTRS} is given by Moon~\cite{Moon19}.
Given a subset $\Lambda \subset \mathbb{Z}$
with complement $\Lambda^c = \mathbb{Z}\setminus \Lambda$ and
a $\Theta$-invariant state $\omega$, one introduces the product state of the restrictions by
$$
\omega_\Lambda \otimes_F \omega_{\Lambda^c}(A_1 A_2) \;=\;
\omega_\Lambda(A_1) \,\omega_{\Lambda^c}(A_2) \; , \qquad
A_1 \in A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda \; , \; A_2 \in A^\mathrm{car}_{\Lambda^c} \; , \;
A_1 A_2 \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z} \; .
$$
To briefly indicate why $\omega_\Lambda \otimes_F \omega_{\Lambda^c}$ is a state,
first note that for $A_1 \in A^\mathrm{car}_\Lambda$, $A_2 \in A^\mathrm{car}_{\Lambda^c}$
and $A_1 A_2 \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$, one always has that
$A_2^* A_1^* A_1 A_2 = A_1^* A_1 A_2^* A_2$ and so
$$
\omega_\Lambda \otimes_F \omega_{\Lambda^c}\big((A_1 A_2)^* A_1 A_2\big)
\;=\; \omega_\Lambda \otimes_F \omega_{\Lambda^c}(A_1^* A_1 A_2^* A_2)
\;=\; \omega_\Lambda(A_1^* A_1) \, \omega_{\Lambda^c}(A_2^*A_2) \; ,
$$
which will be positive as $\omega_\Lambda$ and $\omega_{\Lambda^c}$ are states.
%
\vspace{0.2cm}
We will mainly use $\Lambda=\NM$ and then denote
$\omega_R= \omega_\NM$ and $\omega_L=\omega_{\NM^c}$.
These are states on $A^\mathrm{car}_L = A^\mathrm{car}_{(-\infty,0]\cap\mathbb{Z}}$ and
$A^\mathrm{car}_R= A^\mathrm{car}_{[1,\infty)\cap\mathbb{Z}}=A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{N}$.
Recall that $2$ states $\omega_0,\,\omega_1$ on a $C^*$-algebra $A$ are quasiequivalent if
there is an isomorphism $\rho: \pi_{\omega_0}(A)'' \to \pi_{\omega_1}(A)''$ with
$\rho\circ \pi_{\omega_0}(a) = \pi_{\omega_1}(a)$ for all $a \in A$~\cite[Section 2.4.4]{BR1}.
Pure states are either disjoint or unitarily equivalent~\cite{DixC},
so if two pure states are quasiequivalent they are necessarily unitarily equivalent.
\begin{defini}
A $\Theta$-invariant state $\omega$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ satisfies the split property
if $\omega$ is quasiequivalent to $\omega_L \otimes_F \omega_R$.
\end{defini}
The following proposition is stated in~\cite[page 6]{Matsui13} without proof. We provide a
proof based on~\cite[Proposition 2.2]{Matsui01}.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:PureSplit_Type1}
Let $\omega$ be a pure $\Theta$-invariant state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$.
Then $\omega$ satisfies the split property if and only if
$\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_L)''$ and $\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_R )''$ are
type I von Neumann algebras.
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Suppose that $\omega$ is pure, $\Theta$-invariant and quasiequivalent to $\omega_L\otimes_F \omega_R$.
Then the restrictions $\omega_L$ and $\omega_R$ are also $\Theta$-invariant. Therefore
$\omega_L \otimes_F \omega_R (a_L a_R) = \omega_L(a_L^0) \omega_R(a_R^0)$ as any
odd part of $a_L$ and $a_R$ will vanish. Therefore there is an ungraded tensor decomposition
$\omega \sim_{qe} \omega_L \otimes \omega_R$ and because $\omega$ is pure, it is type I.
Therefore $\omega_L$ and $\omega_R$ must also be type I as a non type I tensor product cannot
be type I.
\vspace{.1cm}
%Let $(\pi_\omega, \mathfrak{h}_\omega, \Omega_\omega)$ be the GNS
%triple of $\omega$.
Now suppose that $\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_R )''$ is type I.
Let $\mathfrak{h}_R = \overline{\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_R)\Omega_\omega}$ and $\pi_R(A^\mathrm{car}_R)$ the restriction of $\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_R)$
to $\mathfrak{h}_R$.
Because $\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_R )''$ is a type I factor, the center of
$\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_R)''$ is trivial and
any subrepresentation of $\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_R)$ is
quasiequivalent to $\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_R)$ itself.
This implies that
$\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_R)$ and $\pi_R(A^\mathrm{car}_R)$ are
quasiequivalent and, hence, $\pi_R(A^\mathrm{car}_R)''$ is a type I factor.
\vspace{.1cm}
Next, recall~\cite[Chapter V, Theorem 1.31]{Takesaki1}, where given a
type I factor $M$ on a separable Hilbert space $\calH_0$ with commutant $M'$, there are
separable Hilbert spaces $\calH_1$ and $\calH_2$ with a unitary
$W: \calH_0 \to \calH_1 \otimes \calH_2$ such that
$$
W M W^{-1} \;=\; \calB(\calH_1) \otimes \one_{\calH_2} \; , \qquad
W M' W^{-1} \;=\; \one_{\calH_1} \otimes \calB( \calH_2) \; .
$$
Using this result, the state $\omega$ of $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ is
equivalent to a state $\phi_L \otimes \phi_R$. Because $\omega$ is
$\Theta$-invariant, so are $\phi_L$ and $\phi_R$, and so
$\phi_L$ and $\phi_R$ are quasiequivalent to $\omega_L$ and $\omega_R$
respectively. Hence $\omega$ is quasiequivalent to $\omega_L \otimes_F \omega_R$.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{.2cm}
For spin systems, a factor state on the left and right chains
imply a locality property of $\omega$ away from
the boundary, \cite[Corollary 2.6.11]{BR1} or \cite[Proposition~2.1]{Matsui01}.
\vspace{.2cm}
There are many one-dimensional models whose ground states do not satisfy the
split property. For example, adapting the results in~\cite[Section 16]{Wassermann}
to our setting, the ground state of the $XY$-Hamiltonian from Equation \eqref{eq:fermionic_XY}
with parameters $(\mu,\rho) = (0,0)$ generates a type III${}_1$-representation.
However, there is an important connection between gapped ground states
and the split property in one-dimensional systems.
\begin{theo}[Corollary 1.9 in \cite{Matsui13}] \label{thm:gapped_implies_split_property}
Let $\mathbf{H}$ be a one-dimensional $\Theta$-invariant finite range Hamiltonian
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gapped_fr_Ham}
\mathbf{H} \;=\; \sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z}} \Phi_j \; , \qquad
\Phi_j \in A^\mathrm{car}_{[j-r,j+r]\cap\mathbb{Z}} \; , \qquad
\Theta(\Phi_j) \;=\; \Phi_j \; , \qquad
\| \Phi_j \| \;\leq\; C \;
\end{equation}
and satisfying the bound \eqref{eq:interaction_bound_assumption}.
If $\omega$ is a gapped ground state of $H$, then
$\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_L)''$ and $\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_R )''$ are
type I von Neumann algebras. In particular, if $\omega$ is pure, then
it satisfies the split property.
\end{theo}
The relationship between the split property and gapped ground states is a
one-dimensional phenomena and the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:gapped_implies_split_property}
relies on the Jordan--Wigner transform and the area law for the decay of
entanglement entropy in spin chains.
Results in higher dimensional spin systems have been considered using a
weaker notion of the split property, see~\cite{Cha18}.
\subsection{The \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{Z}_2$}--phase label} \label{subsec:general_Z2}
The next aim is to distinguish different gapped ground states of fermionic Hamiltonians, ideally via
a topological phase label. To this end, we again utilize the following decomposition obtained from the
Jordan--Wigner transform, see Section~\ref{subsec:JordanWigner}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq-AhatDecomp}
&\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z} \;=\; A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z} \rtimes_{\gamma_-}\mathbb{Z}_2
\;\cong \; A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z} \,\oplus\, T \,A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z} \; ,
&&A^{P}_{\ZM} \;\cong\; (A^{P}_{\ZM})^0 \oplus (A^{P}_{\ZM})^1 \;\cong\; (A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z} )^0 \,\oplus\, T(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z} )^1 \; .
\end{align}
Here $\gamma_-$ is the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-action from Equation \eqref{eq:gamma_-_defn}.
One can extend any state $\omega$ on
$A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ to a state on $\widehat{A}_\mathbb{Z}$ and then
restrict to a state $\omega^P$ on $A^{P}_{\ZM}$.
If one starts with a $\Theta$-invariant and pure state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$,
by Theorem \ref{thm:car_even_state_equivalence} the purity of $\omega^P$ depends on
the representations of $\omega$ and $\omega\circ\gamma_-$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$
and $(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$. In the quasifree case, this obstruction can be
expressed in terms of a Hilbert-Schmidt condition and a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index on canonical transformations.
Let us now consider
this question for more general states. The next results do not need $\omega$ to be a ground state.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:split_gives_quasequiv}
Let $\omega$ be a $\Theta$-invariant state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ that
satisfies the split property. Then $\omega$ is quasiequiva\-lent to $\omega\circ \gamma_-$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
If $\omega$ is $\Theta$-invariant then so are the restrictions $\omega_L$ and $\omega_R$
to the subalgebras $A^\mathrm{car}_L$ and $A^\mathrm{car}_R$. Furthermore, we observe
that
\begin{align*}
&\gamma_- \big|_{A^\mathrm{car}_{L}} \;=\; \Theta \big|_{A^\mathrm{car}_{L}} \; ,
&&\gamma_- \big|_{A^\mathrm{car}_{R}} \;=\; \mathrm{Id}_{A^\mathrm{car}_R} \; ,
\end{align*}
and so
$$
\omega_{L} \otimes_F \omega_{R} (\gamma_-(a_L a_R)) \;=\; \omega_L(\gamma_-(a_L))\, \omega_R(\gamma_-(a_R)) \;=\;
\omega_L(\Theta(a_L))\, \omega_R(a_R) \;=\; \omega_{L} (a_L)\, \omega_R(a_R) \; .
$$
That is, $\omega_L \otimes_F \omega_R \circ \gamma_- = \omega_L \otimes_F \omega_R$.
Therefore by Corollary 2.3.17 of \cite{BR1}, there is a unitary $W \in \mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_L \otimes_F \omega_R})$ such that
$W\Omega_{\omega_L \otimes_F \omega_R} = \Omega_{\omega_L \otimes_F \omega_R}$ and
$W \pi_{\omega_L \otimes_F \omega_R}(a) W^* = \pi_{\omega_L \otimes_F \omega_R}(\gamma_-(a))$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Because $\omega_L\otimes_F \omega_R$ is quasiequivalent to $\omega$, there is an
isomorphism
$\varphi: \pi_{\omega_L\otimes_F \omega_R}(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})'' \to \pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})''$
such that $\varphi(\pi_{\omega_L\otimes_F \omega_R}(a)) = \pi_\omega(a)$ for all $a \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$.
Let us now consider the map $\varphi\circ \mathrm{Ad}_W$ which has the property that
$$
\varphi( W \pi_{\omega_L\otimes_F \omega_R}(a) W^*) \;=\; \varphi( \pi_{\omega_L\otimes_F\omega_R}(\gamma_-(a))) \;=\;
\pi_\omega( \gamma_-(a)) \;=\; \pi_{\omega\circ\gamma_-}(a) \; , \qquad a \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z} \; .
$$
Hence $\varphi \circ \mathrm{Ad}_W$ gives
an isomorphism
$\pi_{\omega_L\otimes_F\omega_R}(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})'' \cong \pi_{\omega\circ\gamma_-}(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})''$
that implements a quasiequivalence between $\omega_L\otimes_F \omega_R$ and $\omega\circ \gamma_-$.
Because quasiequivalence is transitive, $\omega$ is quasiequivalent to $\omega \circ \gamma_-$.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Let us now assume that $\omega$ is pure and $\Theta$-invariant.
In particular, $\pi_\omega(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})'' = \mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{h}_\omega)$
and the GNS space is graded by a self-adjoint
unitary $\Sigma$.
If, moreover, $\omega$ is
equivalent to $\omega \circ \gamma_-$,
there exists a unitary $V \in \mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{h}_\omega)$
such that $\pi_\omega(\gamma_-(a)) = V \pi_\omega(a)V^*$. It turns out that this
unitary can be either even or odd.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:equiv_unitary_graded}
Let $\omega$ be a pure $\Theta$-invariant state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ equivalent
to $\omega \circ \gamma_-$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] The states
$\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0}$ and $\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0} \circ \gamma_-$
are equivalent (that is, $\omega^P$ is pure)
if and only if there is a self-adjoint unitary $V_0 \in \pi_\omega((A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0)''$
such that $\pi_\omega(\gamma_-(a)) = V_0 \pi_\omega(a)V_0^*$ for all $a \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$.
\item[{\rm (ii)}] If $\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0}$ and $\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0} \circ \gamma_-$
are not equivalent (that is, $\omega^P$ is not pure), then
there exists a unitary $V_1 \in \pi_\omega((A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^1)''$
such that $\pi_\omega(\gamma_-(a)) = V_1 \pi_\omega(a)V_1^*$ for all $a \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$.
Furthermore, $\omega^P$ is a mixture of two inequivalent pure states.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposi}
We note that there is a large overlap between the above proposition and~\cite[Proposition 6.3]{Matsui13}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
(i) Given the state $\omega$, one can identify the GNS space
$\mathfrak{h}_{\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0}}$ of its restriction to the even algebra with
$\mathfrak{h}_\omega^0 = \overline{\pi_\omega((A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0)\Omega_\omega} \cong \frac{1}{2}(1+{\Sigma})\mathfrak{h}_\omega$. Because
$\omega$ is $\Theta$-invariant and pure, $\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0}$
is pure~\cite[Lemma 6.23]{EvansKawahigashi}. In particular,
the states $\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0}$ and
$\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0} \circ \gamma_-$ on $(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$ will
be equivalent if and only if there is a self-adjoint unitary
$V=V_0\in \pi_\omega((A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0)''$ implementing
$\gamma_-$ on $\mathfrak{h}_\omega^0$, \textit{i.e.} ${\Sigma} V {\Sigma} = V$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
For part (ii), let us fix some $j\in\mathbb{N}$ and set $Z_j = \fraka_j + \fraka_j^*$
which is an odd self-adjoint unitary in $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$.
By~\cite[Lemma 6.27]{EvansKawahigashi} (applied with $U=Z_j$ and $\beta=\gamma_-$),
the pure state $\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0}$ on $(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0$ is equivalent to
$\omega |_{(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0} \circ \gamma_- \circ \mathrm{Ad}_{Z_j}$.
Therefore there is some $\tilde{W} \in \pi_\omega((A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0)''$ such that
$\mathrm{Ad}_{\tilde{W}}$ implements $\gamma_- \circ \mathrm{Ad}_{Z_j}$ on
$\mathfrak{h}_\omega^0\cong \frac{1}{2}(1+{\Sigma})\mathfrak{h}_\omega$. Because
$(\gamma_- \circ \mathrm{Ad}_{Z_j})^2 = \mathrm{Id}$, for an appropriate phase we
can take $W = e^{i\phi}\tilde{W}$ self-adjoint with $\mathrm{Ad}_W$ implementing
$\gamma_-\circ \mathrm{Ad}_{Z_j}$ on the GNS space.
We then compute that
\begin{align*}
\pi_\omega(Z_j)W \pi_\omega(a) W \pi_\omega(Z_j) \;&=\; \pi_\omega (\mathrm{Ad}_{Z_j} \circ \gamma_- \circ \mathrm{Ad}_{Z_j}(a) )
\;=\; \pi_\omega( \gamma_-(a) ) \; , \quad a \in (A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^0 \; .
\end{align*}
Once again, because $\gamma_-^2 =\mathrm{Id}$, the operator $\pi_\omega(Z_j)W$ is
self-adjoint up to a phase. In particular, $\pi_\omega(Z_j)W = e^{i\nu} W \pi_\omega(Z_j)$
for some $\nu$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
We now consider odd elements, where we compute that, for $a_1 \in (A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^1$,
\begin{align} \label{eq:odd_conjugation_gamma-}
\pi_\omega(Z_j)W \pi_\omega(a_1) W \pi_\omega(Z_j) \;&=\;
e^{i\nu} W \pi_\omega( Z_j a_1) W \pi_\omega(Z_j)
\;=\; e^{i\nu} \pi_\omega( \gamma_- \circ \mathrm{Ad}_{Z_j} (Z_j a_1) ) \pi_\omega(Z_j) \nonumber \\
&=\; e^{i\nu} \pi_\omega( \gamma_-(a_1) Z_j) \pi_\omega(Z_j)
\;=\; e^{i\nu} \pi_\omega(\gamma_-(a_1)) \; ,
\end{align}
where we have used that $Z_j a_1$ is even and our results on even elements.
Because Equation \eqref{eq:odd_conjugation_gamma-} is true for all odd elements,
we have that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:odd_conjugation_Zj}
\pi_\omega(Z_j)W \pi_\omega( Z_j) W \pi_\omega(Z_j) \;=\;
e^{i\eta} \pi_\omega( \gamma_-(Z_j) ) \;=\; e^{i\eta} \pi_\omega( Z_j) \; .
\end{equation}
Because the left-hand side of Equation \eqref{eq:odd_conjugation_Zj} is self-adjoint,
so must be the right-hand side, which implies that $e^{i\eta} = \pm 1$.
If $e^{i\eta} = 1$ we are done and can take the unitary
$V_1 = \pi_\omega(Z_j) W \in \pi_\omega((A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^1)''$.
If $e^{i\eta} = -1$, then instead we consider $\pi_\omega(Z_j) W \Sigma$, where
for any $a \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ with homogeneous grading $|a| \in \{0,1\}$,
\begin{align*}
\pi_\omega(Z_j) W \Sigma \pi_\omega( a) \Sigma W \pi_\omega(Z_j)
\;&=\; (-1)^{|a|} \pi_\omega(Z_j) W \pi_\omega(a) W \pi_\omega(Z_j) \\
\;&=\; (-1)^{|a|} (-1)^{|a|} \pi_\omega( \gamma_-(a) ) \;=\; \pi_\omega( \gamma_-(a) ) \; .
\end{align*}
Thus $V_1 =\pi_\omega(Z_j) W \Sigma \in \pi_\omega((A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^1)''$ gives
the required result.
The last statement is Theorem \ref{thm:car_even_state_equivalence}.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
For completeness, let us now construct the corresponding states $\omega^P$ on $A^{P}_{\ZM}$ in the two settings of Proposition \ref{prop:equiv_unitary_graded}. If
for $i=0$ or $i=1$ there is an element $V_i \in \pi_\omega((A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^i)''$
such that $\pi_\omega(\gamma_-(a)) = V_i \pi_\omega(a)V_i^*$, then
recalling the decomposition~\eqref{eq-AhatDecomp} of $A^{P}_{\ZM}$, one can
define a representation $\pi:A^{P}_{\ZM} \to \mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{h}_\omega)$ by
$$
\pi( a_0 + T a_1 ) \;=\; \pi_\omega(a_0) + V_i \,\pi_\omega(a_1)\; , \qquad
a_j \in (A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^j \; .
$$
We then set
$$
\omega^P( Q) \;=\; \langle \Omega_\omega, \, \pi(Q) \Omega_\omega \rangle_{\mathfrak{h}_\omega}
\;=\; \langle \Omega_\omega, \, \pi_\omega(a_0) \Omega_\omega \rangle_{\mathfrak{h}_\omega}
+ \langle \Omega_\omega, \, V_i \pi_\omega(a_1) \Omega_\omega \rangle_{\mathfrak{h}_\omega} \;, \quad
Q \;=\; a_0+Ta_1 \in A^{P}_{\ZM} \; .
$$
For the even unitary $V_0$, the second term in $\omega^P( Q)$ will vanish as
$\Omega_\omega$ is even and $V_0 \pi_\omega(a_1) \Omega_\omega$ odd.
By~\cite[Proposition 6.3 (ii)]{Matsui13}, $\omega^P$ is the unique $\Theta$-invariant
pure state on $A^{P}_{\ZM}$ coming from the state $\omega$ on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$.
If the unitary $V_1$ is odd, then the second term does not vanish and $\omega^P$ is
a sum of two states.
\vspace{.2cm}
Let us now define a $\ZM_2$-phase label for a class of pure $\Theta$-invariant
states on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ that are not necessarily quasifree.
The definition distinguishes the two cases considered in Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv_unitary_graded}.
Recall that $\Sigma$ is the implementation of the parity $\Theta$ in the GNS representation.
\begin{defini}
\label{def-GenZ2}
Let $\omega$ be a pure $\Theta$-invariant state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$
that is equivalent to $\omega \circ \gamma_-$.
Further let $V \in \pi_\omega((A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})^i)''$ be a
unitary such that $\pi_\omega(\gamma_-(a)) = V \pi_\omega(a)V^*$ for all
$a \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$. Then a $\ZM_2$-phase label of $\omega$
is assigned by $ j(\omega) = (-1)^{i}\in\ZM_2$ with $i=0,1$ as above,
namely ${\Sigma} V {\Sigma} = (-1)^i V$.
\end{defini}
Let us make some first comments on this definition. First, we note that
any $V$ implementing $\gamma_-$ on $\mathfrak{h}_\omega$ has indeed homogeneous parity
by Proposition \ref{prop:equiv_unitary_graded}. Such a unitary $V$ is determined up to
unitary equivalence and, because $\pi_\omega$ is irreducible,
any other operator $U VU^*$ implementing $\gamma_-$ is the same as $V$ up to a
complex scalar of modulus one. Hence the parity of all unitaries implementing
$\gamma_-$ is constant and thus the phase-label is well-defined.
Moreover, Lemma \ref{lem:split_gives_quasequiv} implies that the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase
label is well-defined for pure and $\Theta$-invariant states that satisfy the split property. In particular,
the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label is defined
for any pure gapped ground state of a Hamiltonian for the form considered in Theorem~\ref{thm:gapped_implies_split_property}.
Moreover, for quasifree states the $\ZM_2$-phase label is linked to a $\ZM_2$-valued Fredholm index.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:index_link}
Let $E$ be a basis projection and $\omega_E$ the corresponding pure, $\Theta$-invariant and
quasifree state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$.
If $\omega$ is equivalent to $\omega \circ \gamma_-$, then for $J=\ii (2E-1)$
and $\theta_-$ the diagonal extension of \eqref{eq:theta_operator_defn},
%
$$
j(\omega_E)\;=\;j_J(\theta_-)
\;.
$$
%
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:car_even_state_equivalence}, $\omega_E^P$ is pure in case (i) of
Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv_unitary_graded} and not pure in case (ii).
These cases correspond to $j(\omega_E)=1$ and $j(\omega_E)=-1$ respectively.
Therefore Corollary~\ref{coro:car_even_state_equivalence} implies the claim.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Recalling Example \ref{ex:Kitaev_inf_flux} in the quasifree setting, the automorphism
$\gamma_-$ can be implemented by inserting a local half-flux through a Hamiltonian.
Because the index $j(\omega)$ is a comparison between the state $\omega$ and
the `half-flux-inserted state' $\omega \circ \gamma_-$, if $j(\omega) = -1$, this indicates
that a flux insertion induces a change in the ground state. In the quasifree
setting, such a change of the ground state is detected by the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral
flow.
\vspace{0.2cm}
We now consider some basic stability properties of the phase label. The following is a simple
application of standard properties of the GNS representation of pure states.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:weak_automorphic_equivalence}
Let $\omega_0$ and $\omega_1$ be pure $\Theta$-invariant states on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$
equivalent to $\omega_0 \circ \gamma_-$ and $\omega_1 \circ \gamma_-$ respectively. Suppose that there is an automorphism
$\eta \in \mathrm{Aut}(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})$ commuting with
$\Theta$ and $\gamma_-$ and such that $\omega_1 = \omega_0 \circ \eta$. Then $j(\omega_0) = j(\omega_1)$.
\end{proposi}
The hypothesis that $\eta$ commutes
with $\Theta$ and $\gamma_-$ is quite strong, though it is sufficient to assume that
$\eta$ commutes with $\Theta$ and leaves $A^\mathrm{car}_L$ and $A^\mathrm{car}_R$ invariant.
Proposition~\ref{prop:weak_automorphic_equivalence} combined with the following remark shows that
the $\ZM_2$-phase label is perturbatively stable, for example, when weak interactions are added to a quasifree system.
\begin{remark} \label{rk:C1_aut_equiv}
{\rm
Examples of such automorphisms $\eta$ of $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ that satisfy the
hypothesis of Proposition \ref{prop:weak_automorphic_equivalence} can be constructed using
the quasilocal structure of $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ and the quasiadiabatic evolution
(also called the spectral flow) of uniformly gapped $C^1$-interactions~\cite{NSY18}. In particular,
let us consider a path of local Hamiltonians for all $X \subset \mathbb{Z}$ finite, where
$$
\mathbf{H}_X (s) \;=\; \mathbf{H}_X + \Phi_X(s) \;
$$
and the path satisfies several assumptions.
First,
the ground state gap of $\mathbf{H}_X (s)$ is required to be uniformly bounded for all $s\in [0,1]$.
Furthermore, $\Phi_X(s) \in \mathcal{B}_F$ for all $s\in [0,1]$ and $X \in \mathcal{P}_0(\mathbb{Z})$, where
$\mathcal{B}_F$ is the space of strongly $C^1$-interactions satisfying~\cite[Assumption 6.12]{NSY18}
with the additional property that $\Theta( \Phi_X(s)) = \Phi_X(s)$ \emph{and} $\gamma_-( \Phi_X(s)) = \Phi_X(s)$
for all $s \in [0,1]$. If these assumptions are satisfied, then the results in~\cite[Section 6-7]{NSY18}
(adapted to the fermionic case, where the property $\Theta( \Phi_X(s)) = \Phi_X(s)$
is crucial)
guarantee the existence of an automorphism $\eta_s^\Phi$ in the infinite-volume limit
that maps between the ground states on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ with the
property that $\Theta \circ \eta^\Phi_s = \eta^\Phi_s \circ \Theta$ and
$\gamma_- \circ \eta^\Phi_s = \eta^\Phi_s \circ \gamma_-$ for all $s\in [0,1]$.
\vspace{0.1cm}
To summarise, if $j(\omega)$ is well-defined and comes from the thermodynamic
limit of a finite-volume Hamiltonian $ \mathbf{H}_X (0)$ with gapped ground state, then
$j(\omega \circ \eta^\Phi_s) = j(\omega)$ for all $s \in [0,1]$.
While this result shows an important stability property of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label,
the assumption that $\gamma_-( \Phi_X(s)) = \Phi_X(s)$ is somewhat artificial.
Given a $\Theta$-invariant interaction $\Phi$, one can consider
$\tilde{\Phi} = \frac{1}{2}\big( \Phi + \gamma_-(\Phi) \big)$ which is $\gamma_-$-invariant,
but it is
interesting to investigate to what degree the $\gamma_-$-invariant assumption can be lessened.
One may be able to use a construction similar to~\cite{OgataTRS} in order to work with
paths of interactions that need not be $\gamma_-$-invariant.
\hfill $\diamond$
}
\end{remark}
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:cts_unitaries_same_index}
Let $\omega_0$ be a pure and $\Theta$-invariant state on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$
that is equivalent to $\omega_0 \circ \gamma_-$. Suppose that
there is a path of states $\{\omega_s\}_{s\in [0,1]}$ with an
associated family of Hilbert spaces $\{\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_s}\}_{s\in [0,1]}$, as well as
unitaries $\{U_s \}_{s\in[0,1]}$ such that
$U_s : \mathfrak{h}_{\omega_0} \rightarrow \mathfrak{h}_{\omega_s}$.
Then, $j(\omega_s) = j(\omega_0)$ for all $s \in [0,1]$.
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Given such a path of unitaries, for any $A_s \in \mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_s})$ there is an
operator $A_0 \in \mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_0})$ such that
$A_s = U_s A_0 U_s^*$. We can therefore define a representation
$\pi_{\omega_s} = \mathrm{Ad}_{U_s}\circ \pi_{\omega_0}$. Because $\pi_{\omega_0}$ is
irreducible, so is $\pi_{\omega_s}$. Furthermore,
for $V_s = U_s V_0 U_s^*$, $\Sigma_s = U_s \Sigma_0 U_s^*$ one has
\begin{align*}
&V_s \pi_{\omega_s}(a) V_s \;=\; \pi_{\omega_s}(\gamma_-(a)) \; ,
&&\Sigma_s \pi_{\omega_s}(a) \Sigma_s \;=\; \pi_{\omega_s}(\Theta(a)) \; ,
\end{align*}
so that
$$
\Sigma_s V_s \Sigma_s \;=\; U_s \Sigma_0 V_0 \Sigma_0 U_s^* \;=\; (-1)^{|V_0|} V_s \; .
$$
Thus for all $s\in [0,1]$, $j(\omega_s)$ is well-defined with $j(\omega_s) = j(\omega_0)$.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Results from~\cite{NSY18} guarantee that our $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index is stable under strongly $C^1$-paths
of interactions that are $\Theta$-symmetric, $\gamma_-$-symmetric and satisfy~\cite[Assumption 6.12]{NSY18}.
In particular, if two pure gapped ground states $\omega_0$ and $\omega_1$ have different indices,
$j(\omega_0)= - j(\omega_1)$, these ground states cannot be connected by such a path. Similarly,
by Proposition \ref{prop:cts_unitaries_same_index} there cannot be family of unitaries
of unitaries connecting $\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_0}$ and $\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_1}$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Let us now state a stability result of the $\ZM_2$-phase label in the quasifree setting.
\begin{proposi} \label{prop:Fred_path_index_invariant}
Let $(\calH, \Gamma)$ be a complex Hilbert space with real structure. Let
$H_0$ and $H_1$ be gapped BdG Hamiltonians on $\calH$ with quasifree
ground states $\omega_{E_0}$ and $\omega_{E_1}$ such that
$j(\omega_{E_0})$ and $j(\omega_{E_1})$ are well-defined. Suppose that
$H_0$ and $H_1$ can be connected by a norm-continuous path of self-adjoint Fredholm
operators $[0,1]\ni t \mapsto H_t$ such that $\Gamma H_t \Gamma = -H_t$ for
all $t\in [0,1]$. Then $j(\omega_{E_0}) = j(\omega_{E_1})$.
\end{proposi}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
By the assumptions on the path $H_t$, the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow
$\mathrm{Sf}_2( iH_t)$ is well-defined. In particular, there is a partition
$0= t_0 < t_1 < \ldots < t_n =1$ such that
$\mathrm{Ind}_{2}( J_{t_j}, J_{t_{j+1}}) = (-1)^{\frac{1}{2} \Ker( J_{t_j} + J_{t_{j+1}} )}$
is well-defined for $J_{t_j} = i H_{t_j}|H_{t_j}|^{-1}$ (with an arbitrary complex
structure on $\Ker(H_{t_j})$ if needed). Now Proposition \ref{prop:index_link}
implies that
$$
j(\omega_{E_0}) \;=\; j_{J_{t_0}} (\theta_-) \;=\; \mathrm{Ind}_2( J_{t_0}, \theta_- J_{t_0} \theta_- ) \;
$$
with $\theta_-$ the diagonal extension of \eqref{eq:theta_operator_defn}.
Recalling the concatenation and invariance properties of $\mathrm{Ind}_2$, in particular
$$
\mathrm{Ind}_2(J_{t_j}, J_{t_{j+1}}) \;=\; \mathrm{Ind}_2(J_{t_{j+1}}, J_{t_{j}}) \;=\;
\mathrm{Ind}_2( V J_{t_j} V^*, V J_{t_{j+1}}V^*)
$$
for any unitary $V$ with $\Gamma V \Gamma = V$,
we compute
\begin{align*}
j(\omega_{E_0}) \;&=\; \mathrm{Ind}_2( J_{t_0}, \theta_- J_{t_0} \theta_- ) \\
&=\; \mathrm{Ind}_2(J_{t_0}, J_{t_1}) \cdots \mathrm{Ind}_2( J_{t_{n-1}}, J_{t_n} )
\, \mathrm{Ind}_2( J_{t_n}, \theta_- J_{t_n} \theta_- ) \,
\mathrm{Ind}_2(\theta_- J_{t_n} \theta_-, \theta_- J_{t_{n-1}} \theta_- ) \\
&\qquad \times \cdots \mathrm{Ind}_2(\theta_- J_{t_1} \theta_- , \theta_- J_{t_0} \theta_- ) \\
&=\; \mathrm{Ind}_2( J_{t_n}, \theta_- J_{t_n} \theta_- )
\\
& =\; j(\omega_{E_1} ) \;
\end{align*}
as all other terms cancel.
\hfill $\Box$
\vspace{0.2cm}
Proposition \ref{prop:Fred_path_index_invariant}, in comparison with
Proposition \ref{prop:cts_unitaries_same_index}, shows that in special cases
we can take paths of ground states such that the GNS spaces are not unitarily equivalent,
but where the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label remains constant. Furthermore,
recalling Proposition \ref{prop:quasifree_GNS_gap_close}, if the path $iH_t$ from
Proposition \ref{prop:Fred_path_index_invariant} has a non-trivial $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued
spectral flow,
then the spectral gap of the GNS Hamiltonians will close. Therefore, we see that
in special cases the index $j(\omega)$ is invariant on paths that can close the
ground state gap.
%Hamiltonians and the associated quasifree dynamics will not change the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase
%label.
\subsection{Changes in the \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{Z}_2$}--phase label}
In Section \ref{subsec:general_Z2} we introduced a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label for
a class of pure and $\Theta$-invariant states on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ and
showed some basic stability properties of this label. In this
section, we wish to consider to consider paths of ground states that are capable of
accommodating a change in the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label. The following example
from the quasifree setting gives some motivation.
\begin{example}
{\rm
Recall the example of the non-interacting but infinite Kitaev chain
$\mathbf{H}^\mathrm{Kit}(\mu, w)$ from Example \ref{ex:inf_Kitaev_chain}.
Using our results on flux insertion from Example \ref{ex:Kitaev_inf_flux} or
alternatively using Proposition \ref{prop:graded_XY_states}, in the region
$w=0$ and $|\mu|> \frac{1}{2}$, then the unique quasifree ground state
$\omega_{E}$ is such that $j(\omega_{E}) = 1$.
If $\mu = 0$ and $w \neq 0$, then $j(\omega_{E}) = -1$.
\vspace{0.1cm}
Recall that the BdG Hamiltonians $H^\mathrm{Kit}_\mathbb{Z}(\mu, 0)$
and $H^\mathrm{Kit}_\mathbb{Z}(0, w)$ can be related by the unitary
$$
W \;=\; \frac{\ii }{2} \begin{pmatrix} (\one +S) & \ii(\one -S) \\ \ii (\one -S) & -(\one +S) \end{pmatrix}\; , \qquad W^*W \;=\; WW^* \;=\; \one \; ,
\qquad \Gamma W \Gamma \;=\; W \; ,
$$
but where $W$ does \emph{not} give rise to a unitary operator between
GNS spaces. Thus the two systems can be connected, but in a way where
singularities emerge.
}
\hfill $\diamond$
\end{example}
This motivates the following definition.
\begin{defini} \label{def:GS_path}
Let $A$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra.
Two ground states $(\omega_0,\beta_0)$ and $(\omega_1,\beta_1)$
on $A$ are said to be connected by path of ground states if
there is a family of $\mathbb{R}$-actions $\{\beta_s\}_{s\in[0,1]}$
and states $\{\omega_s\}_{s\in[0,1]}$ on $A$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] For all $s\in [0,1]$, $\omega_s$ is a ground state for $\beta_s$.
\item[{\rm (ii)}] There is at most a finite set $S_C = \{s_1,\ldots, s_N\} \subset (0,1)$
such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (a)}] for all $a \in A$, the map
$[0,1] \setminus S_C \ni s \mapsto \| \pi_{\omega_s}(a)\| \in [0,\infty)$ is continuous;
\item[{\rm (b)}] if $h_{\omega_s}$ is the generator of the dynamics $\beta_s$ on
$\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_s}$, the map $[0,1]\setminus S_C \ni s \mapsto \|(z - h_{\omega_s})^{-1} \|$
is continuous for all $z\in \mathbb{C}\setminus \mathbb{R}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
If $\tau$ is an automorphism of $A$, then the family of states $\{\omega_s\}_{s\in[0,1]}$ is said to be
$\tau$-invariant if $\omega_s \circ \tau = \omega_s$ for all $s\in [0,1]$.
\end{defini}
Let us further comment on this definition.
For the case $A = A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$, a strongly continuous family
of actions $\beta_s: \mathbb{R} \to \mathrm{Aut}(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})$
and ground states satisfying part (i) of Definition \ref{def:GS_path} can be obtained by
using the quasilocal structure of $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$ and results from (amongst others)~\cite{NSY18}.
Condition (ii) is stronger, but allows us to study paths of operators over the
different GNS spaces. Indeed, for all $a\in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$,
the map $s \mapsto \pi_{\omega_s}(a)$ defines a continuous section of
a $C^*$-bundle $p:B \to [0,1]\setminus S_C$ with fibres
$p^{-1}(s) \cong \pi_{\omega_s}(A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z})$,
\textit{cf.}~\cite[Appendix C]{Williams}.
By~\cite[Theorem 2]{BeckusBel},
condition (ii)(b) is equivalent to the spectral edges of
$\sigma(h_{\omega_s})$ being continuous in $s$ outside
the finite points $S_C = \{s_1,\ldots,s_N\}$. The set $S_C$ can be thought of as the points
where the spectral gaps of $h_{\omega_s}$ close. At best, one expects a fractional H\"{o}lder continuity
of the spectral edges when a gap closes and condition (ii) requires that such gap closings
happen at most finitely many times. See~\cite{BeckusBel} for more details on the
continuity of spectral edges at gap closing points.
\begin{example}
{\rm
Consider a path of local and parity-symmetric Hamiltonians,
$$
\mathbf{H}(s) \;=\; \sum_{X \subset \mathbb{Z}\;{\rm finite}} \Phi(X, s) \; , \quad s \in [0,1] \; ,
$$
where the interactions $s \mapsto \Phi(X,s)$ are sufficiently smooth and local so
that the interaction satisfies a Lieb--Robinson bound for all $s \in [0,1]$.
Therefore by~\cite[Theorem 3.5]{NSY18}, one obtains a dynamics
$$
\alpha_{s,t} \;=\; \lim_{X \to \mathbb{Z}} \mathrm{Ad}_{e^{it \mathbf{H}_X(s)}} , \; \quad s \in [0,1] \; ,
\quad t \in \mathbb{R} \; .
$$
We also
require the Hamiltonians at the end points, $\mathbf{H}(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}(1)$, to be such that the
weak $\ast$-limit of the finite-volume ground states gives a unique ground state for the
dynamics on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$. Similarly, the weak $\ast$-limit of the
finite volume ground states for all $s\in [0,1]$ will give a $\Theta$-invariant path of ground states
$\{\omega_s\}_{s\in [0,1]}$ of $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$.
If the end points of the path of ground states satisfy the split property, \textit{e.g.}
$\mathbf{H}(0)$ and $\mathbf{H}(1)$ are gapped interactions satisfying the
conditions of Theorem \ref{thm:gapped_implies_split_property}, then the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase
label $j(\omega_0)$ and $j(\omega_1)$ can be defined. Thus, if
$j(\omega_0) \neq j(\omega_1)$ the path of finite-volume Hamiltonians
$\mathbf{H}(s)$ and corresponding path of ground states $\{\omega_s\}_{s\in [0,1]}$
can potentially model this $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label change.
\hfill $\diamond$
}
\end{example}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:symm_breaking}
Let $\omega_0$ and $\omega_1$ be $\Theta$-invariant ground states on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$
and suppose that $j(\omega_0)$ and $j(\omega_1)$ are well-defined with
$j(\omega_0) \neq j(\omega_1)$.
Then $\omega_0$ and $\omega_1$ cannot be connected by a {$\Theta$-invariant} path of
pure ground states satisfying the split property and without discontinuities.
\end{lemma}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Let us suppose the contrary, so there is a family $\{\omega_s\}_{s\in[0,1]}$ connecting
$\omega_0$ and $\omega_1$ with each $\omega_s$ a $\Theta$-invariant
pure ground state satisfying the
split property.
By Lemma \ref{lem:split_gives_quasequiv}, $\omega_s$ is
equivalent to $\omega_s \circ \gamma_-$ for all $s\in[0,1]$. Let $V_s$ and $\Sigma_s$ be
the unitaries implementing $\gamma_-$ and $\Theta$ respectively on $\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_s}$.
By the continuity of the map $s \mapsto \pi_{\omega_s}(\gamma_-(a)) = V_s \pi_{\omega_s}(a)V_s^*$
for all $a \in A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$,
the map $s \mapsto V_s$ is also continuous. By the same argument, $s\mapsto \Sigma_s$ is
continuous and, furthermore, $\Sigma_s \Omega_s = \Omega_s$ for all $s\in[0,1]$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:equiv_unitary_graded}, $V_s$ has homogeneous parity for
all $s\in[0,1]$, namely
$\Sigma_s V_s \Sigma_s = (-1)^{|V_s|}V_s$ with $|V_s| \in\{0,1\}$ being the parity.
In particular, ${\Sigma}_s V_s \Omega_s = (-1)^{|V_s|} V_s \Omega_s$.
By the hypothesis, one also has
${\Sigma}_0 V_0 \Omega_0 = \sigma V_0 \Omega_0$ and ${\Sigma}_1 V_1 \Omega_1 = -\sigma V_1 \Omega_1$
for a sign $\sigma$. Thus there is at least one point $s_0$ with a neighbourhood $U\subset (0,1)$
such that $\Sigma_s V_s$ is a self-adjoint (resp. skew-adjoint) unitary
for $s<s_0$ and $\Sigma_s V_s$ is a skew-adjoint (resp. self-adjoint) unitary for $s>s_0$.
But such a change would violate the continuity of the section $\Sigma_s V_s$.
\hfill $\Box$
\begin{theo} \label{thm:GS_gap_close_general}
Let $\omega_0$ and $\omega_1$ be pure $\Theta$-invariant and gapped ground states on $A^\mathrm{car}_\mathbb{Z}$
(in particular, $j(\omega_0)$ and $j(\omega_1)$ are well-defined).
Suppose that $j(\omega_0)\neq j(\omega_1)$.
Let $\{\omega_s\}_{s\in[0,1]}$ be a $\Theta$-invariant path of ground states connecting $\omega_0$
and $\omega_1$. Then there is at least one $s_0 \in (0,1)$ such that $\omega_{s_0}$ cannot
come from the ground state of a $\Theta$-invariant and gapped interaction of the form \eqref{eq:gapped_fr_Ham}.
\vspace{.1cm}
If the path of ground states is constructed from a uniformly bounded
path of interactions $\Phi(s)$ satisfying \eqref{eq:gapped_fr_Ham} pointwise,
then the spectral gap of the infinite
GNS Hamiltonian $h_{\omega_s}$ above $0$ will close along the path.
\end{theo}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
By Lemma \ref{lem:symm_breaking}, there is a $s_0\in (0,1)$ such that
either $\omega_{s_0}$ is not pure or $\omega_{s_0}$ is not split (or both).
\vspace{.1cm}
If $\omega_{s_0}$ is pure and not split, then $\pi_{\omega_{s_0}}(A^\mathrm{car}_R)''$
is not a type I factor. By the contrapositive of
Theorem \ref{thm:gapped_implies_split_property}, $\omega_{s_0}$ cannot come
from the ground state of a gapped, finite-range and parity-symmetric fermionic interaction.
If the path of ground sates is constructed from a uniformly bounded
path of interactions $\Phi(s)$ satisfying \eqref{eq:gapped_fr_Ham} pointwise,
then only the gap hypothesis of Theorem \ref{thm:gapped_implies_split_property} fails.
At the endpoints, $h_{\omega_0}$ and $h_{\omega_1}$
have a spectral gap above $0$.
Because
the spectral edges of the infinite GNS Hamiltonian are continuous outside a
gap closing point~\cite[Theorem 2]{BeckusBel},
the spectral gap above $0$ of $h_{\omega_s}$ must therefore close as $s\to s_0$.
\vspace{.1cm}
If $\omega_{s_0}$ is not pure, then there is a decomposition
$\omega_{s_0} = c_a \omega_a + c_b \omega_b$. Consider then the
GNS representations of $\omega_a$ and $\omega_b$ with
cyclic vectors $\Omega_{\omega_a}$ and $\Omega_{\omega_b}$ which can
be embedded within $\mathfrak{h}_{\omega_{s_0}}$. Because
$\omega_{s_0}$ is a ground-state,
both $\Omega_{\omega_a}$ and $\Omega_{\omega_b}$ are $0$-energy
eigenvectors of the GNS Hamiltonian $h_{\omega_{s_0}}$. As the
state is not pure, these eigenvectors are distinct and the spectrum is
degenerate at $0$. Because the endpoints $h_{\omega_0}$ and $h_{\omega_1}$
have non-degenerate $0$-energy spectrum with a non-zero spectral gap,
the continuity of the spectral edges outside gap closing points implies that
for any $\gamma>0$ one can find a sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ such
that $\sigma(h_{\omega_{s_0-\varepsilon}})\cap (0,\gamma)$ is non-empty.
\hfill $\Box$
\subsection{Concluding remarks}
We have defined a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index for
one-dimensional many-body fermionic gapped ground states.
While some basic properties of this index have been studied,
let us list some additional questions that we
hope to investigate further in future work.
\begin{enumerate}
\item As already stated, Propositions \ref{prop:weak_automorphic_equivalence}, \ref{prop:cts_unitaries_same_index}
and Remark \ref{rk:C1_aut_equiv}
have shown stability properties of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index, though the assumptions
are quite strong. A more systematic treatment similar to recent studies of $\mathbb{Z}_2$-indices
of ground states of spin chains satisfying the split property with time-reversal or reflection
symmetry~\cite{ Moon19, OgataTRS, OgataReflection} will
hopefully give more optimised results.
Similarly, the definition of a path of gapped ground states is quite rigid and
a result similar to Theorem \ref{thm:GS_gap_close_general} may hold for a weaker notion of
a path of ground states.
\item If one takes a half-infinite lattice $\mathbb{N}$, then $\gamma_- = \mathrm{Id}$ and the
phase label is trivial. Hence, a different method to define the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase
label is required in half-infinite chains. For one-dimensional spin systems, the left and right degeneracy of edge
ground states in half-infinite chains is a complete invariant of the $C^1$-classification of
frustration-free and
translation invariant interactions~\cite{OgataIII}. One can similarly investigate such a
characterisation in fermionic systems. Furthermore, if a connection between
edge states in half-infinite systems with the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label
for $\mathbb{Z}$-lattices can be established, this would give an interesting bulk-boundary correspondence in
the interacting setting.
\item For the case of quasifree ground states on the full discrete line, the insertion of a flux
quanta leads to a non-trivial $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow if the ground state is topologically non-trivial.
The $\ZM_2$-phase label $j(\omega)$ extends this probing of the state $\omega$ to a wider class of ground states,
even though only the ``half-flux added'' state is used and not the flux insertion itself.
This flux insertion
was studied numerically in an interacting finite chain in \cite{TwistedKitaev} and the same behavior
of level crossing was found for the many-body states. For an infinite chain, the flux insertion
implemented as in Section~\ref{sec:closed_chain_flux} leads to a path of Hamiltonians and dynamics that fits into
the framework of Definition~\ref{def:GS_path}, but much more is actually expected to hold, see
Remark~\ref{rem:QFGS_path_with_closing}.
To show a Fredholm-like property for flux insertion for an interaction chain is an interesting open
problem. If so, one could introduce a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-spectral
flow of the infinite GNS Hamiltonian. A more systematic study of such a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-flow
would give a more clear picture of an index-theoretic interpretation of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-phase label.
Such a viewpoint offers possible future directions for the studies of
phase labels and invariants of interacting systems using
flux insertions and higher-dimensional analogues.
\item We have considered an operator algebraic formulation of gapped one-dimensional
fermionic ground states associated with parity conserving Hamiltonians. A natural extension is to consider fermionic
SPT phases for other symmetries and group actions. It was shown by
Ogata~\cite[Appendix B]{OgataTRS} and more recently in~\cite{OgataSPT} that
for $G$-symmetric ground states of spin chains with the split property, there is a
projective representation of $G$ on a GNS space whose cohomology class is
invariant under the quasiadiabatic evolution of gapped
symmetric Hamiltonians. We would expect a similar result to hold in the fermionic case
that takes into account the parity symmetry. This has already been studied for fermionic
matrix product states~\cite{BWH, FK, KTY18, TurzilloYou}.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{.5cm}
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements:} This work is supported by the DFG and
the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI), MEXT, Japan. CB is
supported by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists (No. 19K14548) and thanks
Nick Bultinck, Hosho Katsura and Yoshiko Ogata for helpful discussions.
Both authors thank the Erwin Schr\"{o}dinger Institute program Bivariant K-Theory in Geometry and
Physics and HSB the Institut-Mittag-Leffler for hospitality and support during the production of this work.
Finally, we thank the referee for a careful reading and whose comments have
greatly improved the manuscript.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
\bibitem{Araki}
H.~Araki, {\sl On quasifree states of {${\rm CAR}$} and {B}ogoliubov automorphisms},
Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. \textbf{6}, 385--442 (1970/71).
\bibitem{ArakiEvans}
H. Araki, D. E. Evans, {\sl On a {$C^{\ast} $}-algebra approach to phase transition in the two-dimensional {I}sing model}.
Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{91}, no. 4, 489--503 (1983).
\bibitem{ArakiMatsui85}
H. Araki, T. Matsui, {\sl Ground states of the $XY$-model}, Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{101}, 213--245 (1985).
\bibitem{APS}
M. F. Atiyah, V. Patodi, I. M. Singer, {\sl Spectral asymmetry and Riemannian geometry, III}.
Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., \textbf{79}, 71--99 (1976).
\bibitem{ASSkew}
M. F. Atiyah, I. M. Singer. {\sl Index theory for skew-adjoint Fredholm operators}. {Inst. Hautes \'{E}tudes Sci. Publ. Math.},
\textbf{37}, 5--26 (1969).
\bibitem{ASS} J.~Avron, R.~Seiler, B.~Simon, {\sl The index of a pair of projections}, J. Funct. Anal., {\bf 120}, 220--237 (1994).
\bibitem{BBDRF1}
S. Bachmann, A. Bols, W. De Roeck, M. Fraas, {\sl Quantization of conductance in gapped interacting
systems}, Ann. Henri Poincar\'{e}, \textbf{19}, no. 3, 695--708 (2018).
\bibitem{BBDRF2}
S. Bachmann, A. Bols, W. De Roeck, M. Fraas, {\sl A many-body index for quantum charge transport},
Comm. Math. Phys., online first (2019).
\url{https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03537-x}
\bibitem{BDRF18}
S. Bachmann, W. De Roeck, M. Fraas, {\sl The adiabatic theorem and linear response theory for
extended quantum systems}, Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{361}, no. 3, 997--1027 (2018).
\bibitem{BMNS}
S. Bachmann, S. Michalakis, B. Nachtergaele, R. Sims, {\sl Automorphic equivalence of gapped
phases of quantum lattice systems}, Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{309}, no. 3, 835--871 (2012).
\bibitem{BN} S.~Bachmann, B.~Nachtergaele, {\sl On gapped phases with a continuous symmetry and boundary operators},
J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 154}, 91--112 (2014).
\bibitem{BO}
S. Bachmann, Y. Ogata, {\sl {$C^1$}-classification of gapped parent {H}amiltonians of quantum spin chains},
Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{338}, no. 3, 1011--1042 (2015).
\bibitem{Baxter}
R. J. Baxter, {\sl Exactly solved models in statistical mechanics}. (Academic Press, Inc. [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers],
London, 1982).
\bibitem{BeckusBel}
S. Beckus, J. Bellissard, {\sl Continuity of a the spectrum of a field of self-adjoint operators},
Ann. Henri Poincar\'{e}, \textbf{17}, 3425--3442 (2016).
\bibitem{BR} J.~P.~Blaizot, G. Ripka, {\sl Quantum Theory of Finite Fermi Systems}, (MIT Press, Boston, 1985).
\bibitem{BCLR}
C. Bourne, A. L. Carey, M. Lesch, A. Rennie, {\sl The KO-valued spectral flow for
skew-adjoint Fredholm operators}, arXiv:1907.04981 (2019).
\bibitem{BR1}
O. Bratelli, D. R. Robinson, {\sl Operators Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 1},
2nd edition, (Springer, Berlin, 1997).
\bibitem{BR2} O. Bratelli, D. R. Robinson, {\sl Operators Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 2},
2nd edition, (Springer, Berlin, 1997).
\bibitem{BSP} J.-B. Bru, W. de Siqueira Pedra, {\sl Lieb-Robinson Bounds for Multi-Commutators and Applications to Response Theory}, (Springer Briefs in Mathematical Physics 13, 2017).
\bibitem{BWH} N.~Bultinck, D.~J~Williamson, J.~Haegeman, F.~Verstraete, {\sl Fermionic matrix product states and one-dimensional topological phases}, Phys. Rev. B, {\bf 95}, 075108 (2017).
\bibitem{FPEPS}
N. Bultinck, D. J. Williamson, J. Haegeman, F. Verstraete, {\sl Fermionic projected entangled-pair states and topological phases},
J. Phys. A, \textbf{51}, 025202 (2017).
\bibitem{Reyes-Lega}
J. S. Calder\'{o}n-Garc\'{i}a, A. F. Reyes-Lega, {\sl Majorana fermions and orthogonal complex structures},
Modern Phys. Lett. A, \textbf{33}, no. 14, 1840001, 12 pages (2018).
\bibitem{COB}
A. L. Carey, D. M. O'Brien, {\sl Automorphisms of the infinite-dimensional {C}lifford algebra and the {A}tiyah-{S}inger mod {$2$}\ index},
Topology, \textbf{22}, 437--448 (1983).
\bibitem{CPS} A.~L.~Carey, J.~Phillips, H.~Schulz-Baldes, {\sl Spectral flow for skew-adjoint Fredholm operators},
J. Spec. Theory, \textbf{9}, no. 1, 137--170 (2019).
\bibitem{CSBMonopole}
A. L. Carey, H. Schulz-Baldes, {\sl Spectral flow of monopole insertion in topological insulators},
Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{370}, no. 3, 895--923 (2019).
\bibitem{Cha18}
M. Cha, P. Naaijkens, B. Nachtergaele, {\sl On the stability of charges in infinite quantum spin systems},
Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{373}, 219--264 (2020).
%online first (2019). \url{https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03630-1}
\bibitem{DS} G.~De~Nittis, H.~Schulz-Baldes, {\sl Spectral flows associated to flux tubes},
Ann. Henri Poincar\'{e}, {\bf 17}, 1--35 (2016).
\bibitem{DS3} G.~De~Nittis, H.~Schulz-Baldes, {\sl The non-commutative topology of two-dimensional dirty superconductors},
J. Geometry and Physics, \textbf{124}, 100--123 (2018).
\bibitem{DixC}
J. Dixmier, {\sl $C^*$-Algebras}, (North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1977).
\bibitem{DSBW}
N. Doll, H. Schulz-Baldes, N. Waterstraat, {\sl Parity as $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued spectral flow},
Bull. London Math. Soc., \textbf{51}, 836--852 (2019).
\bibitem{DL84}
S. Doplicher, R. Longo, {\sl Standard and split inclusions of von Neumann algebras}.
Invent. Math., \textbf{75}, 493--536 (1984).
\bibitem{EvansKawahigashi}
D. E. Evans, Y. Kawahigashi, {\sl Quantum Symmetries and Operator Algebras}, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998).
\bibitem{FK}
L. Fidkowski, A. Kitaev, {\sl Topological phases of fermions in one dimension},
Phys. Rev. B, \textbf{83}, 075103 (2011).
\bibitem{FreedHopkins}
D. S. Freed, M. J. Hopkins, {\sl Reflection positivity and invertible topological phases},
Geom. Topol., to appear,
arXiv:1604.06527.
\bibitem{GMP}
A.~Giuliani, V.~Mastropietro, M.~Porta, {\sl Universality of the Hall conductivity in interacting electron systems}, Comm. Math. Phys. \textbf{349}, no. 3, 1107--1161 (2017): .
\bibitem{GSB}
J. Gro{\ss}mann and H. Schulz-Baldes, {\sl Index pairings in presence of symmetries with applications
to topological insulators}, Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{343}, no. 2, 477--513 (2016).
\bibitem{KTY18}
A. Kapustin, A. Turzillo, M. You, {\sl Spin topological field theory and fermionic matrix product states},
Phys. Rev. B, \textbf{98}, 125101 (2018).
\bibitem{Hastings07}
M. B. Hastings, {\sl An area law for one-dimensional quantum systems}, J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp.,
no. 8, P08024, 14 pages (2007).
\bibitem{HK}
M.~B.~Hastings, T.~Koma, {\sl Spectral gap and exponential decay of correlations}, Comm. Math. Phys., {\bf 265}, 781--804 (2006).
\bibitem{HM}
M. B. Hastings, S. Michalakis, {\sl Quantization of Hall conductance for interacting electrons on a torus},
Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{334}, 433--471 (2015).
\bibitem{Kato}
T. Kato, {\sl Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators}, 2nd edition, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1976).
\bibitem{KST}
H. Katsura, D. Schuricht, M. Takahashi. {\sl Exact ground states and topological
order in interacting Kitaev/Majorana chains}. Phys. Rev. B, \textbf{92}, 115137 (2015).
\bibitem{TwistedKitaev}
K. Kawabata, R. Kobayashi, N. Wu, H. Katsura.
{\sl Exact zero modes in twisted Kitaev chains}. Phys. Rev. B, \textbf{95}, 195140 (2017).
\bibitem{Kit} A.~Kitaev, {\sl Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires}, Physics-Uspekhi, {\bf 44}, 131 (2001).
\bibitem{KitAnyon}
A. Kitaev, {\sl Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond}, Ann. Physics, \textbf{321}, no. 1,
2--111 (2006).
\bibitem{KTM82}
J.~Kurmann, H.~Thomas, G.~M\"{u}ller, {\sl Antiferromagnetic long-range order in the anisotropic
quantum spin chain}, Physica A, {\bf 112}, 235 (1982).
\bibitem{Matsui01}
T. Matsui, {\sl The split property and symmetry breaking of the quantum spin chain},
Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{218}, 393--416 (2001).
\bibitem{Matsui13}
T. Matsui, {\sl Boundedness of entanglement entropy and split property of quantum spin chains},
Rev. Math. Phys., \textbf{26}, no. 9, 1350017 (2013).
\bibitem{MZ}
S. Michalakis, J. P. Zwolak, {\sl Stability of frustration-free {H}amiltonians},
Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{322}, no. 2, 277--302 (2013).
\bibitem{MonacoTeufel}
D. Monaco, S. Teufel, {\sl Adiabatic currents for interacting fermions on a lattice},
Rev. Math. Phys., \textbf{31}, no. 3, 1950009 (2019).
\bibitem{Moon19}
A. Moon, {\sl Automorphic equivalence preserves the split property},
J. Funct. Anal., \textbf{277}, no. 10, 3653--3672 (2019).
%arXiv:1903.00944 (2019).
\bibitem{MN18}
A. Moon, B. Nachtergaele, {\sl Stability of gapped ground state phases of spins and fermions in one dimension},
J. Math. Phys., \textbf{59}, 091415 (2018).
\bibitem{NSY17}
B.~Nachtergaele, R.~Sims, A.~Young, {\sl Lieb--Robinson bounds, the spectral flow, and stability of the
spectral gap for lattice fermion systems}, in Mathematical Problems in Quantum Physics, Vol. 717 of
Contemp. Math., (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 2018).
\bibitem{NSY18}
B.~Nachtergaele, R.~Sims, A.~Young, {\sl Quasi-locality bounds for quantum lattice systems. Part 1. Lieb--Robinson
bounds, quasi-local maps, and spectral flow automorphisms}, J. Math. Phys., \textbf{60}, 061101 (2019).
\bibitem{NNS} P.~T.~Nam, M.~Napiorkowski, J.~P.~Solovej, {\sl Diagonalization of bosonic quadratic
Hamiltonians by Bogoliubov transformations}, J. Funct. Anal., {\bf 270}, 4340--4368 (2016).
\bibitem{OgataIII}
Y. Ogata, {\sl A class of asymmetric gapped {H}amiltonians on quantum spin chains and its characterization {III}},
Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{352}, no. 3, 1205--1263 (2017).
\bibitem{OgataTRS}
Y. Ogata, {\sl A $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index of symmetry protected topological phases with time reversal
symmetry for quantum spin chains}, Comm. Math. Phys., online first (2019).
\url{https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03521-5}
\bibitem{OgataReflection}
Y. Ogata, {\sl A $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index of symmetry protected topological phases with reflection symmetry for quantum spin chains},
arXiv:1904.01669 (2019).
\bibitem{OgataSPT}
Y. Ogata, {\sl A classification of pure states on quantum spin chains satisfying the split
property with on-site finite group symmetries}, arXiv:1908.08621 (2019).
\bibitem{OgataTasaki}
Y. Ogata, H. Tasaki, {\sl Lieb-Schultz-Mattis type theorems for quantum spin chains without continuous symmetry},
Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{372}, 951--962 (2019).
\bibitem{Phillips}
J. Phillips, {\sl Self-adjoint Fredholm operators and spectral flow}.
Canad. Math. Bull., \textbf{39}, 460--467 (1996).
\bibitem{PS} E.~Prodan, H. Schulz-Baldes, {\sl Bulk and Boundary Invariants for Complex Topological Insulators: From K-Theory to Physics}, (Springer International, Cham, 2016).
\bibitem{ShaleStinespring}
D. Shale, W. F. Stinespring, {\sl Spinor representations of infinite orthogonal groups},
J. Math. Mech., {\bf 14}, 315--322 (1965).
\bibitem{SSR}
K. Shiozaki, H. Shapourian, S. Ryu, {\sl Many-body topological invariants in fermionic symmetry-protected topological phases:
Cases of point group symmetries}, Phys. Rev. B, \textbf{95}, 205139 (2017).
\bibitem{Takesaki1}
M. Takesaki, {\sl Theory of Operator Algebras I}, (Springer, Berlin, 2002).
\bibitem{TurzilloYou}
A. Turzillo, M. You, {\sl Fermionic matrix product states and one-dimensional short-range entangled phases
with antiunitary symmetries}, Phys. Rev. B, \textbf{99}, 035103 (2019).
\bibitem{Wassermann}
A. Wassermann, {\sl Operator algebras and conformal field theory. {III}. {F}usion of positive energy representations of
{${\rm LSU}(N)$} using bounded operators}, Invent. Math., \textbf{133}, no. 3, 467--538 (1998).
\bibitem{Williams}
D. P. Williams, {\sl Crossed Products of $C^*$-algebras}, (American Mathematical Society, Rhode Island, 2007).
\bibitem{Xiong18}
C. Z. Xiong, {\sl Minimalist approach to the classification of symmetry protected topological phases},
J. Phys. A, \textbf{51}, no. 44, 445001, 71 pages (2018).
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}