• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,721 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Compute $Z_2$ Invariant of 2D Topological Insulators without Computing the Eigenstates

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

For 2D Time-Reversal Invariant systems ($T H(\vec{k}) T^{-1} = H(-\vec{k}) $), there is a formula by Fu-Kane-Mele in order to determine whether the system belongs to either one of distinct topological phases: simple insulator or topological insulator. The formula can be found in this first paper from 2005 (see also arXiv:cond-mat/0607699) for instance.

All the formulas I have found so far to compute this $\mathbb{Z}_2$ index require that one computes the eigenstates of $H(\vec{k})$ first. Then, for example, one has to count the zeros of a certain Pfaffian of some overlap matrix of the states with the time-reversed states, or compute certain integrals of the Berry-curvature and connection over part of the BZ. But still, one has to know the eigenstates in order to proceed.

However, in order to compute the Chern number, for example, one only has to know the projectors onto the occupied states.

So my question is: suppose that all I am given is the Hamiltonian ($H(\vec{k})$, in the form of some $N\times N$ Hermitian matrix with entries which are continuous functions over the BZ) so that there is no clear way to compute eigenfunctions, is there a direct formula that gives the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ invariant index from the entries of $H(\vec{k})$? If not, is there a formula that uses only the projector onto the occupied states, $P(\vec{k})$?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-02 12:49 (UTC), posted by SE-user PPR
asked Feb 28, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by PPR (135 points) [ no revision ]
Perhaps you should change the title of this question, since it is pretty vague in the actual form. I think you always need to know the wave-function to compute the topological invariant, the reason is partially explained there: physics.stackexchange.com/a/70074/16689

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-02 12:49 (UTC), posted by SE-user FraSchelle
What is difficult about computing the eigenstates of $H(k)$? The Fu-Kane formula expressing the $Z_2$ invariant in terms of parity eigenvalues is quite easy to use, since you just need to diagonalize the Hamiltonian at the high symmetry points, instead of doing an integral over the whole Brillouin zone. Even the Hamiltonian can not be diagonalized analytically, you can always do it numerically.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-02 12:49 (UTC), posted by SE-user Meng Cheng
@MengCheng, I believe that is misleading. Indeed the formula uses the overlap matrix only in the 4 TRIM symmetric points, but it relies crucially on the relative difference in sign between these points (the continuous selection of the branch of the square root), for which you need to know the Hamiltonian at least also on a continuous path between TRIMs. I am not so interested in numerical analysis, and in general I cannot diagonalize my Hamiltonian because I don't want to assume anything about its particular form besides its size and time-reversal symmetry.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-02 12:49 (UTC), posted by SE-user PPR

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights