We examine the utility of the quadratic pseudospectrum for understanding and detecting states that are somewhat localized in position and energy, in particular, in the context of condensed matter physics. Specifically, the quadratic pseudospectrum represents a method for approaching systems with incompatible observables {Aj∣1 ≤ jd} as it minimizes collectively the errors ‖Ajvλjv‖ while defining a joint approximate spectrum of incompatible observables. Moreover, we derive an important estimate relating the Clifford and quadratic pseudospectra. Finally, we prove that the quadratic pseudospectrum is local and derive the bounds on the errors that are incurred by truncating the system in the vicinity of where the pseudospectrum is being calculated.

Many fields in modern physics are faced with the challenge of trying to glean information from incompatible observables in a system. Although this problem is most closely associated with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, it also commonly manifests in classical systems governed by a wave equation. As an example, consider a point defect in a crystalline lattice that can host localized states.19 For such a system, the most important questions are as follows: (1) What are the energies of the defect states? (2) What are their spatial extents? Unfortunately, these questions correspond to incompatible observables as, in general, the Hamiltonian for a crystal, H, does not commute with the crystal’s position operators, Xj with j = 1, 2, 3, [H, Xj] ≠ 0. Typically, this problem is approached by first finding the spectrum of H over some suitably large volume containing a single defect to find the energies of the defect’s states. If the energy of a defect state, |ψdef⟩, is in a bulk bandgap of the surrounding crystal, a measure of the location and localization of this state can then be determined using moments of the state’s position expectation values, ψdef|Xjn|ψdef. However, when a defect state’s energy is within the extent of the crystal’s bulk bands, this approach is no longer possible as any eigenstate of the Hamiltonian associated with the defect is now a member of a large degenerate subspace. While one can always choose an ortho-normal basis for this subspace {|ψdef⟩, |ψm⟩} and associate one of the basis states with the defect (m indexes the other chosen basis states), it is always possible to construct |ψdef=(1/N)(|ψdef+mam|ψm), which is an equally valid eigenstate of H. Here, N is a normalization constant and am are modal coefficients. Moreover, generically, ψdef|Xjn|ψdefψdef|Xjn|ψdef, i.e., different choices of the defect’s eigenstate will yield different position expectation values. Thus, when the defect state becomes degenerate with the surrounding bulk crystal modes, more sophisticated techniques are required to determine its localization.

One approach for finding an approximate joint eigenspectrum between non-commuting operators is to study the system using pseudospectral methods that do not require directly measuring any of the system’s incompatible observables individually. Intuitively, this approach is based on constructing a single composite operator out of the various eigenvalue problems, (Ajλj)v, for each of the relevant non-commuting operators, Aj, and then analyzing the spectrum (or related aspects) of this composite operator. One example of such a composite operator is the spectral localizer,29 

(1.1)

which combines the underlying eigenvalue equations using a non-trivial Clifford representation, Γj=Γj, Γj2=I, and ΓjΓl = −ΓlΓj for jl. Here, we assume that Aj are Hermitian so that λjR, and thus,

We want to know if Lλ(A1, …, Ad) is singular, and if not, how far it deviates from singular. No matter how close the localizer is to being singular, its spectrum can contain valuable information on a material’s topological properties,29 including the number of Dirac or Weyl points in its spectrum at a given energy46 or on the manner in which edge modes propagate in the presence of strong disorder.39 Note that there has been a subtle shift in the treatment of λj in Eq. (1.1) as compared to its use in an eigenvalue equation. Whereas in an eigenvalue problem, (Ajλj)v = 0, λj is something that is calculated using a known operator (i.e., λj is a dependent variable), in a composite operator, λ is better thought of as an input (i.e., as a set of independent variables).

Even when there is no topology to study, the utility of composite operators is providing for incompatible observables some metric for the inherent uncertainty in joint measurement, given a state whose expectation in these observables is close to λ. For example, at a given λ, the localizer can be used to define the localizer gap of (A1, …, Ad) as

Here, we use σmin(M) to denote the smallest singular value of M. (Mainly, we use this in the case where M is Hermitian, and so σmin(M) is the smallest absolute value of an eigenvalue.) Finally, the localizer can be used to define the Cliffordϵ-pseudospectrum (see Ref. 29, Sec. 1),

which is a closed subset of Rd. When ϵ = 0, this set is known simply as the Clifford spectrum. Those λ that yield small localizer gaps correspond to joint approximate eigenvalues of (A1, …, Ad). Thus, the utility of composite operators and pseudospectral methods can be understood as enabling the simultaneous, but approximate, joint measurement of many incompatible observables. Note, though, that even if λ is a member of the Clifford spectrum of (A1, …, Ad), it does not follow that λj is necessarily an eigenvalue of Aj.

There is a direct connection of the traditional pseudospectrum50,51 with the Clifford pseudospectrum of two Hermitian matrices. For a general square matrix N, its ϵ-pseudospectrum is the set

with the convention that ‖Y−1−1 = 0 in the singular case. Again, this is the spectral norm, and so it is equivalent to say that the ϵ-pseudospectrum of N is the set of complex numbers, where σmin(Nz) is less than ϵ. If N = A1 + iA2 for Hermitian matrices A1 and A2, then the singular values of N − (λ1 + 2) equal the eigenvalues of

We see that the ϵ-pseudospectrum of N becomes the Clifford ϵ-pseudospectrum of (A1, A2) once we identify C with R2.

Traditionally, pseudospectra are displayed by curves, indicating the boundaries of several different ϵ-pseudospectra. These are the level curves of the function

We refer to this as the indicator function for the Clifford pseudospectrum. We prefer to display the indicator function as an image as this is closer to how most synthetic and experimental data are presented in physics. In Fig. 1, we illustrate the two-variable Clifford pseudospectrum for (X, H), the Hamiltonian and position observable for a standard finite Su–Schrieffer–Heeger (SSH) model49 (see, for example, Ref. 2, Sec. 1.1),

(1.2)

with v = 0.7 and w = 1.4. This will have a defect state at each end reflecting its non-trivial K-theory.

FIG. 1.

The Clifford pseudospectrum associated with the two observables defining a basic SSH model. This is shown as the traditional level sets (a) and as an image (b) with artificial color. The value of the indicator function hits zero at eight points, two of which correspond to defect states at zero energy.

FIG. 1.

The Clifford pseudospectrum associated with the two observables defining a basic SSH model. This is shown as the traditional level sets (a) and as an image (b) with artificial color. The value of the indicator function hits zero at eight points, two of which correspond to defect states at zero energy.

Close modal

Previously, the Clifford pseudospectrum has attracted interest due to its close connection with a system’s K-theory,32,33 which can be used to diagnose a material’s topological properties.3,14,20,41,55 When Aj are H and Xi for a crystal, the localizer can be used to determine the crystal’s topology in all (physical) dimensions and every symmetry class, regardless of whether the system exhibits a bulk bandgap.10 Moreover, changes in the system’s topology can only occur when the localizer gap closes, i.e., at λ where μλC(A1,,Ad)=0. However, despite these beneficial properties of the localizer, its structure necessarily increases the computational complexity of solving for the system’s approximate spectrum beyond the complexity of finding the Hamiltonian’s exact spectrum due to the need to tensor the constituent operators with a Clifford representation. (This can be especially problematic in 3D systems where an n-by-n-by-n system’s localizer has size at least 4n3-by-4n3.) The increased computational complexity of the localizer presents two related questions: (1) Given that a wide range of physical systems do not possess non-trivial topology, is there a composite operator that can be used to efficiently solve for approximate joint spectra? (2) Even for systems that exhibit topological behaviors where the localizer might be necessary, can we estimate the size of the localizer gap using the pseudospectrum of a composite operator with the same size as the system’s Hamiltonian?

Here, we establish the physical relevance of the quadratic composite operator,

which can be used to calculate what is called the quadratic pseudospectrum.34 The quadratic pseudospectrum is a collection of sets determined by an indicator function, defined below. The value of this indicator function at λ tells us about how small the variances in all the observables can be for a state centered at λ. By centered, we mean that |ψ⟩ has expectation value λj in the jth observable. The value of the indicator function can be computed in terms of an eigenvalue of Qλ. Moreover, we provide a bound on the maximum difference between the smallest singular values of the quadratic composite operator and the localizer. Finally, we prove a number of results that show that the quadratic pseudospectrum is well-behaved in a number of ways that will enable the development of efficient algorithms for its calculation.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we provide some basic definitions and results for the quadratic pseudospectrum. In particular, we establish the upper bound between the quadratic and Clifford pseudospectra, proving that at λ with sufficiently large quadratic gaps, the localizer gap cannot be zero. In Sec. III, we prove results regarding the error induced by truncating the spatial extent of a physical system. In Sec. IV, we provide some simple examples using small matrices of the behavior of the quadratic and Clifford pseudospectra. In Sec. V, we explain why we cannot ignore the Clifford pseudospectrum, namely, that the localizer contains K-theory, while the quadratic composite operator does not. In Sec. VI, we provide some more physically motivated examples of the behavior of both pseudospectra in physical systems with non-trivial topology. Finally, in Sec. VII, we offer some concluding remarks.

We recall that a unit vector v in Hilbert space determines a probability distribution with respect to a Hermitian matrix (observable) X. We do not need access the full distribution, but only its expectation and variance. This will be enough for us to talk in fuzzy terms about the location of a state or its approximate energy. In the mathematical notation, the expectation is

and the square of the variance is

A more typical expression for these quantities in many fields of physics, using v = |ψ⟩, would be

and

If we cannot find an eigenvector and eigenvalue, we can instead try to make Avλv as small as possible. This “eigen-error” occurs naturally in mathematics so long as v is a unit vector. Assuming also that λ is real, we compute

and we are able to rewrite this expression as

(2.1)

which is the square sum of the variance and the displacement of the expectation from what we were expecting.

As, in general, [Aj, Al] ≠ 0, it is impossible to find exact joint eigenvectors of these operators. The quadratic pseudospectrum instead provides a measurement of how close we can get to a joint eigenvector. The following is built on the ideas in Ref. 44, Sec. 6. This theorem relates physically relevant features of states to matrix computations that allow for reasonably fast numerical algorithms.

Proposition II.1.

Suppose thatA1, …, Adaren-by-nHermitian matrices and thatλis an element ofRd. The following quantities are always equal:

  1. The minimum of
    asvranges over all unit vectors inCn.
  2. The minimum of
    asvranges over all unit vectors inCn.
  3. The smallest singular value of
    (2.2)
  4. The square root of the smallest eigenvalue ofQλ(A1, …, Ad).

Moreover, a unit vector is a right singular vector of (2.2)iff it is an eigenvector ofQλ(A1, …, Ad), iff it minimizes the quantity in (1), and iff it minimizes the quantity in (2).

Proof.
The equality of (1) and (2) follows from (2.1). The equality of (3) and (4) follows from
and the fact that σmin(BB)=(σmin(B))2 for any matrix B. The final part of the argument uses a characterization of the smallest singular value of a matrix B (see Ref. 17, Theorem 8.6.1) as
and the routine calculation

Definition II.2.
Suppose that A1, …, Ad are Hermitian matrices in Mn(C). For every λ=λ1,,λd in Rd, we define the quadratic gap of (A1, …, Ad) at λ as
The quadraticϵ-pseudospectrum of (A1, …, Ad) is defined as the set
When ϵ = 0, this set is known simply as the quadratic spectrum. We call the function
the indicator function of the quadratic pseudospectrum.

The history of the quadradic pseudospectrum is murky. We suspect that many have considered this construction and quickly rejected it when discovering that the quadratic spectrum of a pair of Hermitian operators is very often empty. Indeed, the middle author has been so rash.15 The dissertation57 comes very close to defining the quadratic pseudospectrum (see Ref. 57, Sec. 5.3). The operator Qλ(A1, …, Ad) is seen there and in early work44 on the emergent geometry of D-branes, where it is one possible Hamiltonian for a combined system of a probe and a D-brane. An examination of the proofs in Ref. 29 will reveal that the quadratic pseudospectrum has been around but not emphasized. When looking at joint approximate eigenvalues, as in Ref. 34 or Ref. 29, there are efficient algorithms based on the quadratic pseudospectrum for finding joint approximate eigenvalues. On the other hand, it is very hard to calculate examples of the quadratic pseudospectrum when working by hand. This difficulty in examining examples is probably also a contributing factor in this subject not being explored much earlier.

Some basic results about eigenvectors can be tweaked to work with approximate eigenvectors. The following lemma is an example, a modification of the usual fact that for Hermitian matrices, different eigenspaces are orthogonal. Note there is no sensible interpretation of a subspace of approximate eigenvectors for a fixed scalar. We omit the proof as it is an easy modification of a standard short proof.

Lemma II.3.
Suppose thatAis a Hermitian matrix and thatvandware unit vectors andλμare two real numbers. Then,

A strange thing is that the quadratic spectrum of (A1, …, Ad) is often the empty set. One example of this is worked out in Ref. 15. We find another example now by working out the quadratic pseudospectrum for the matrices from (1.2), as illustrated in Fig. 2.

FIG. 2.

The quadratic pseudospectrum associated with the two observables defining a basic SSH model. This is shown as the traditional level sets (a) and as an image (b) with artificial color. The value of the indicator function is never zero.

FIG. 2.

The quadratic pseudospectrum associated with the two observables defining a basic SSH model. This is shown as the traditional level sets (a) and as an image (b) with artificial color. The value of the indicator function is never zero.

Close modal

We are most interested in the places where the quadratic spectrum is close to or at a local minimum value even if that minimum is not zero. Working with Qλ, we can compute examples of a unit vector v so that

is as small as possible. Note that several lower bounds on the sum of uncertainty have been proven recently,13,35 but the proofs of those results do not indicate how to find unit vectors that cause the sum of uncertainty to be small.

There are instances where one should compute both the Clifford and the quadratic pseudospectra to better understand a system. Here, the relevant observables are generally the Hamiltonian and all the coordinates of position. This is especially true in studying systems such as topological metals where only the quadratic pseudospectrum can distinguish bound states from bulk states. As it is only the Clifford pseudospectrum that sees the K-theory, we need to understand that as well. Our generic argument for the stability of a bound state is as follows. Places where the Clifford gap is large cannot be closed easily by disorder. If a local invariant changes value between two such places, then even after adding some disorder, there will be a location μ between them where μμC=0. The next result shows us μλCμλQ for all λ, and so μμQ0 and there must be a state rather localized around μ, so localized in energy and position. For a topological insulator with no disorder, as in Fig. 7, there is really no need to calculate too much beyond parts of the Clifford pseudospectrum. If a system has heavy disorder or is a topological metal, as in Fig. 10, where we extend a little the analysis from,10 a full analysis will require looking at the Clifford and the quadratic pseudospectra and probably also the local density of states.

Proposition II.4.
IfA1, …, Adare Hermitian matrices inMn(C)andλRd, then
(2.3)

Proof.
Since tensoring by the identity will not alter the spectrum of a matrix,
We also have the estimate
(2.4)
and so
We can again use the Lipschitz continuity of the smallest singular value, and we find that

A difficulty in determining either pseudospectra of a noncommutative d-tuple is that calculating the value at one or more values of λ does not provide much assistance in calculating the value at another value. We do, at least, have a sense of how fast μλC or μλQ can vary, so can limit the number of values of λ that needs to be considered. We know from results in (Ref. 29, Sec. 7) that μλC is Lipschitz with constant 1. We next show that the same is true in the quadratic case.

Proposition II.5.
Suppose thatA1, …, Adare Hermitian matrices inMn(C). Ifλ, μare two elements ofRd, then
where the norm on the right is the Euclideannorm.

Proof.
It is well known that all singular values are Lipschitz in the matrix input A so long as one uses the operator norm to give the metric on the space of m-by-n matrices. For example, one can apply Weyl’s inequality to the eigenvalues of the Hermitian matrix,
Finally,

As the quadratic pseudospectrum should be relatively easier to compute numerically than its sibling, the Clifford pseudospectrum, we want as many shortcuts and optimizations as possible for computing it. In Ref. 30, it was shown that truncating a system spatially had little effect on the Clifford pseudospectrum so long as the truncation happened well away from the probe-point λ = (x, y). Here, we establish a similar bound on the effect spatial truncation can have on the quadratic pseudospectrum.

We will only assume that the first d Hermitian matrices commute with each other. We call these Xj to suggest these are position observables, but that is not important. The last Hermitian matrix we call H.

For simplicity, we will assume always λ = 0. We can form the Hermitian matrix,

which we can think of as Euclidean distance from the origin in the spatial coordinates. In what follows, we make the simplifying assumption that Z is invertible. This just means that our model cannot have a site located at exactly the origin. Since the quadratic pseudospectrum is Lipschitz in position, we can easily work around this, if needed, to get estimates that work without this assumption.

We deal with truncation in two steps. First, we contemplate what can happen to the quadratic pseudospectrum at 0 if we alter how H acts on parts of the Hilbert space far away from the origin. In particular, we set H to act as zero out there using some physical assumption of locality in the system being described. The second step is to deal with the effect of excising that part of the Hilbert space where H is now acting trivially.

The first part is in the following theorem. This will have applications beyond truncation as it tells us that the quadratic pseudospectrum is generally unaffected by defects far away from the “probe” location.

Theorem III.1.
Assume thatX1, …, XdandHare Hermitian matrices of the same size, thatXjcommute with each other, and that
is invertible. IfH0is Hermitian and
(3.1)
for some constantCwithC < 1, then

Proof.
With the above definition of Z, we obtain
and
Multiplying (3.1) by Z on both sides leads to
(3.2)
Thus,
and
so
Thus, we have
This means that
and finally,

Theorem III.2.
Assume thatX1, …, Xdare diagonal matrices andHis a Hermitian matrix, all inMn(C), and set
LetHρdenote the Hilbert subspace ofCncorresponding to standard basis vectors whereZtakes value at mostρ. LetX1ρ,,XdρandHρdenote the compressions toHρ. IfHacts trivially on the complement ofHρ, then

Proof.
The difference between
and
is the addition of many small summands of the form
Each contributes two points to the spectrum, specifically ±j=1dλj12.□

The earlier result on the local nature of the Clifford pseudospectrum, Theorem 7.1 in Ref. 30, is not as strong as Theorem III.1. That bound contains terms ‖[H, Xj]‖ that seem inevitable due to their appearance in Proposition II.4.

Recall that the traditional form of the pseudospectrum arose as a way to investigate a single matrix N that is not normal.50 We can write N in the usual way in terms of two Hermitian matrices,

where X=12(N+N) and Y=i2(NN). The quadratic pseudospectrum

looks for good approximate eigenvectors for X and Y at the same time, while the Clifford pseudospectrum

looks for exact and approximate eigenvectors of A, which might correspond to complex eigenvalues. To see that later claim, note that if we select σx and σy as our Γ matrices, then

Here, we use σx, σy, and σz to denote the usual 2-by-2 Pauli matrices.

The traditional pseudospectrum of a non-normal matrix has been applied in physics to assist with the analysis of lossy systems.21,24,36,40,48

Here, we use the Pauli matrices themselves as our example, so we let

and

In this example,

is nilpotent. Thus, the spectrum of A is just {0}C, and so the Clifford pseudospectrum of (X, Y) has one zero at (0,0)R2. This is one of the few cases for which we can easily calculate by hand both the Clifford and quadratic pseudospectra.

We need the singular values of

(with λ̄=x+iy) and so the square roots of the eigenvalues of

This has a characteristic polynomial (in α)

so the eigenvalues are

We want the square root of the smaller, so we have computed

As to the quadratic pseudospectrum of (X, Y), we need the square root of the smallest eigenvalue of

This has a characteristic polynomial

so the eigenvalues are

We want the square root of the smaller, so we have computed

In this example, the Clifford pseudospectrum has a minimum value of 0, attained at the one point (x, y) = (0, 0). In contrast, the quadratic pseudospectrum has a minimum value of 1 attained on the unit circle. Note that at (0, 0), the difference between the squares of the two pseudospectra is 2, equaling the norm of the commutator of A and B. Thus, the estimate in Proposition II.4 is the best possible, at least for the case of a pair of matrices.

It is interesting to note that the Clifford spectrum of the three Pauli spin matrices is the unit sphere, while the Clifford spectrum of any two of them is a singleton. This is just one of the nonintuitive features of the Clifford spectrum.15 

A slightly larger example is the pair

and

corresponding to the one non-normal matrix,

This has eigenvalues at 0 and approximately ±(1.272 + 0.786i). Figure 3 shows the two pseudospectra for this pair of matrices.

FIG. 3.

Both the (a) and (b) quadratic and (c) and (d) Clifford pseudospectra are shown for the 3-by-3 pair of matrices discussed in Sec. IV B.

FIG. 3.

Both the (a) and (b) quadratic and (c) and (d) Clifford pseudospectra are shown for the 3-by-3 pair of matrices discussed in Sec. IV B.

Close modal

For a third example, we let N = X + iY with

and

Since one of our matrices is real and the other is purely imaginary, this is reminiscent of a model of a 1D system in class D.1,43 Thus, X + iY is real, and there is a Z2 topological index related to this example, which is the sign of the determinant of X + iY29 (see also Sec. V). In this case, the determinant is negative, which means that we can expect one or three eigenvalues on the negative part of the real axis. Figure 4 shows the two pseudospectra for this pair of matrices. The real eigenvalues are ∼−1.7638 and 1.4400, while the complex pair is ∼0.6619 ± 1.2371i.

FIG. 4.

Both the (a) and (b) quadratic and (c) and (d) Clifford pseudospectra are shown for the 4-by-4 pair of matrices discussed in Sec. IV C where one of the matrices is real and the other is purely imaginary.

FIG. 4.

Both the (a) and (b) quadratic and (c) and (d) Clifford pseudospectra are shown for the 4-by-4 pair of matrices discussed in Sec. IV C where one of the matrices is real and the other is purely imaginary.

Close modal

The quadratic pseudospectrum gives a methodology to attack the problem of finding a unit vector v in Rn to minimize

given a fixed pair (x, y) of scalars. Many related questions come to mind, such as optimizing by varying both v and (x, y). One can also seek joint approximate eigenvectors v1, …, vk for 1 < kn and perhaps require these vectors to be orthogonal. The case when k = n is the optimization problem addressed by the JADE algorithm.7 Moreover, when kn, it is possible to combine the quadratic pseudospectrum method with JADE to get a small number of orthogonal joint approximate eigenvectors.34 While this may have applications in physics,37 we are content to have this paper focus on the problems related to a single joint approximate eigenvector.

A slight variation on the last example is more relevant to topological insulators. In a tight-binding model of a 1D system in symmetry class D, we expect a position operator X that is real symmetric (even diagonal) and a Hamiltonian H that is purely imaginary.

In this example, we work with

and

This is reminiscent of an AB phase change in the SSH model. Note that this system has an odd number of sites, in line with previous theory49 and the experiment.38,53

The real matrix X + iH has a negative determinant, so it is not surprising that it has a single real eigenvalue and six conjugate pairs of complex eigenvalues. What is remarkable is that the negative eigenvalue is at the location of the AB phase transition and that it is not easily moved by perturbation.

For the record, the real eigenvalue is ∼−1.1603, while the complex pairs are ∼−2.7876 ± 1.2941i and 2.8020 ± 1.2703i.

Many of the previous examples had apparent symmetries in both the Clifford and quadratic pseudospectra as symmetries in the given matrices tend to lead to symmetries in the pseudospectra. It is hard not to see horizontal and vertical symmetry in all the images in Figs. 1 and 2. These symmetries are a manifestation of the two symmetries in the underlying SSH systems, mirror symmetry and sublattice (chiral) symmetry. That this leads to symmetry with both forms of pseudospectrum is then a consequence of the following theorem.

Theorem IV.1.
Suppose thatA1, …, Adare Hermitian matrices. Suppose thatSis a unitary matrix such thatSAj = AjSfor alljexcept thatSAd = −AdS. Then,
and
forγ = (λ1, λ2, …, λd−1, −λd).

Proof.
Since
and
for the other j, we find that
These two composite matrices are unitarily equivalent, so they have the same eigenvalues.
For the localizer, we first fix some choice of Γj. Note that Γ1, Γ2, …, Γd−1, −Γd is also a representation of the generators of the appropriate Clifford algebra. When d is even, the complex Clifford algebra is isomorphic to M2d(C), which means that these two representations are unitarily equivalent. Indeed, the unitary matrix R = Γ1Γ2⋯Γd−1 satisfies RΓdR = −Γd and RΓjR = Γj for all other j. We now find
and, for the other j,
Therefore,
and this tells us that the spectra of the two localizers are equal.
When d is odd, Γ1, Γ2, …, Γd−1, −Γd is no longer equivalent to the original choice of matrices. However, we can still utilize R, which now gives us RΓdR = Γd and RΓjR = −Γj for all other j. Therefore,
which is good enough, as we are only interested in the absolute values of the eigenvalues.□

For all its advantages, the quadratic pseudospectrum seems to not see K-theory. There are many forms of K-theory, the one most relevant here being the K-theory of C*-algebras, real or complex.45,52 Given a C*-algebra A, for example, the algebra of real or the algebra of complex n-by-n matrices, the various K-theory groups of A can be defined in terms of homotopy classes of some structured class of matrices over A. Since matrices of matrices are essentially just matrices, it is reasonable here to think of homotopy classes within some subclass of matrices.

In the case of complex matrices, one can define K0 by looking at Hermitian invertible matrices. The more standard picture is to look at Hermitian projections, but all that is really needed is keeping a spectral gap around some fixed point. We prefer that fixed point to be zero. Then, we note that a path of invertible matrices cannot move an eigenvalue from positive to negative. Indeed, K0(Mn(C)) is isomorphic to Z, and one can determine which element in Z is represented by an invertible Hermitian matrix by looking at the number of positive eigenvalues it has minus the number of negative eigenvalues (i.e., its signature).

In the case of real matrices, we can define K0 just as in the complex case, and we can define K1 by looking at all invertible matrices. We know that two real invertible matrices of the same size can be connected by a path of invertible matrices if and only if their determinant has the same sign. Once all the formalism is sorted out, one finds that this basic fact leads to the isomorphism K1(Mn(R))Z2. The group K2(Mn(R)) is a bit more exotic, being related to the Pfaffian rather than the determinant. For details, see Ref. 6.

To get a sense of why the quadratic composite operator seems to be unable to detect K-theory, we consider the straight path of systems with Ht as in (1.2) except now with

and

We fix λ = (4, 0), so we are looking at zero energy and at the approximate middle in position. (Staying away from the exact middle eliminates a mirror symmetry that confuses things.) Instead of just looking at the smallest singular value of L(4,0)(X, Ht) and Q(4,0)(X, Ht), we look at the entire spectrum of this composite operator. For an easier comparison, we will actually plot the square root of the (positive) eigenvalues of the quadratic composite operator (Fig. 5).

FIG. 5.

Both the (a) and (b) Clifford and (c) and (d) quadratic pseudospectra are shown for two small Hermitian that represent a small system in class D with a defect induced by a phase change.

FIG. 5.

Both the (a) and (b) Clifford and (c) and (d) quadratic pseudospectra are shown for two small Hermitian that represent a small system in class D with a defect induced by a phase change.

Close modal

Since [Ht, X] is not zero and, indeed, has no null space, there can be no common eigenvectors for Ht and X. Thus, the quadratic pseudospectrum of (X, Ht) is never zero, and so Proposition II.1 tells us that the quadratic composite operator is never singular. Thus, we are looking at a path of invertible matrices and we cannot use it to detect a change of any topological index. See Fig. 6(a).

FIG. 6.

We work along a path from a trivial system at t = 0 to a topological system at t = 1. In (a), we look at the full spectrum of the quadratic composite operator, fixing λ = (4, 0). In (b), we show the spectrum of the localizer. In (c), we show the spectrum of the reduced localizer, ((X − 4) + iHt)Γ.

FIG. 6.

We work along a path from a trivial system at t = 0 to a topological system at t = 1. In (a), we look at the full spectrum of the quadratic composite operator, fixing λ = (4, 0). In (b), we show the spectrum of the localizer. In (c), we show the spectrum of the reduced localizer, ((X − 4) + iHt)Γ.

Close modal

The spectrum of the localizer, shown in Fig. 6(b), is more promising. However, the upward and downward moving eigenvalues appear as if they should somehow cancel out. We explain below that there is a symmetry here in the localizer when d = 2, which is forcing the entire spectrum of the localizer to be symmetric about zero.

Let

be the grading operator for which we have HtΓ = −ΓHt and XΓ = ΓX, reflecting the chiral nature of this system. Let X̃=X4I. We find

which tells us that

Note we are using σx and σy as the default choice of Γ matrices, for reasons we explain in Sec. IV. In addition, we are using perhaps the less-common convention in the concrete interpretation of a tensor of matrices.

We plot the spectrum of this “reduced localizer” in Fig. 6(c). The details of how this spectral imbalance is a proper K-theory invariant can be found in Ref. 32. We mention it here to explain that the positive semidefinite nature of the quadratic composite operator makes it immune to K-theory.

In other symmetry classes, the correct index is found using the sign of the determinant of a matrix that has real elements. Note here that (X̃+iHt)Γ has a real determinant and an odd number of eigenvalues passing from positive to negative would have been reflected in the sign of the determinant. We looked at an example in Sec. IV that corresponded to a symmetry class where the expected index is the Z2 index that can be found using the sign of a determinant of a similar matrix. The details of why this index is a reasonable index are more complicated.16 Again, the fact that the quadratic composite operator is positive means that its determinant is stuck being positive, so it cannot detect this sort of invariant either.

Next, we look at examples of the quadratic spectrum for matrices that represent observables in a physically interesting system. Although our analysis begins with a general two-dimensional lattice, we will later specialize to a specific model that consists of half of the low-energy tight-binding model for HgTe,22,23,42 where the two spin sectors are decoupled.

In a general 2D lattice, there are three observables, the Hamiltonian H and matrices X and Y representing the position. We make the specific choice for the Γ matrices for the Clifford representation to be the Pauli spin matrices. Now, the localizer takes the form

We also can assume that X and Y commute, so (2.4) becomes

(6.1)

and (2.3) becomes

(6.2)

The units for H and for X and Y are not necessarily compatible, so we must introduce a constant κ that represents changing units for measuring position. Mathematically, this just means we compute joint pseudospectra of (κX, κY, H). If κ is too close to zero, the pseudospectra will only really see the system’s energy spectrum. If κ is too large, the pseudospectra will only really see position information.

We illustrate the quadratic and Clifford pseudospectra using the Qi–Wu–Zhang (QWZ) model, a standard model of a Chern insulator.42 The real-space tight-binding model for this lattice consists of a square lattice with a copy of C2 at each site, i.e., a system with two orbitals per lattice site. That is, our Hilbert space is 2(Z2)C2. Thus, our default lattice constant is 1, so working with κX and κY resets the lattice constant to κ in units of the Hamiltonian (in this case, energy). The QWZ tight-binding Hamiltonian is

(6.3)

where t = 1 is the coefficient that sets the scale for the couplings and |mx, my⟩ indexes the lattice site at mx, my. Given the ratio of the on-site energy to the couplings, this particular QWZ lattice is in a non-trivial topological phase with Chern number C = −1,2 and this choice of parameters is chosen to match with the study involving the Bott index in Ref. 31. This lattice’s bulk spectrum is the two intervals between ±1 and ±6.

We impose open boundary conditions and first look at a small system, just 20-by-20 sites. Since ‖[H, X + iY]‖ ≈ 2.79, we expect that unless we set κ to be well less than 1, there will be significant differences between the two pseudospectra. We also do not want κ ≈ 0 since that would cause both pseudospectra to just reflect the system’s energy spectrum. In Fig. 7, we use κ = 0.5. The Clifford pseudospectrum goes to zero near the boundary when at zero energy; this is expected as it is only when an eigenvalue of the localizer crosses zero that we can see a change in index.29 The quadratic pseudospectrum stays relatively large, but still bounded by Eq. (6.2).

FIG. 7.

Here, we look at slices of both flavors of pseudospectra for a very standard Chern insulator model. This is the same model as used in Refs. 29 and 31 and is here on the 20-by-20 lattice. The lattice unit here is set to 0.5, so the model has x and y coordinates in the range −5 to 5. The spectral gap in the bulk Hamiltonian is roughly between −1 and 1.

FIG. 7.

Here, we look at slices of both flavors of pseudospectra for a very standard Chern insulator model. This is the same model as used in Refs. 29 and 31 and is here on the 20-by-20 lattice. The lattice unit here is set to 0.5, so the model has x and y coordinates in the range −5 to 5. The spectral gap in the bulk Hamiltonian is roughly between −1 and 1.

Close modal

Looking at smaller κ will tell us more about edge states that are really localized in energy. However, we need to look at a larger system to avoid the bulk blending into the edges. In Fig. 8, we use κ = 0.05 while examining a 100-by-100 lattice. The two pseudospectra are now much closer to each other.

FIG. 8.

Here, we look at slices of both flavors of pseudospectra for a very standard Chern insulator model. This is the same model as used in Refs. 29 and 31 and is here on the 100-by-100 lattice. The lattice unit here is set to 0.05, so the model has x and y coordinates in the range −2.5 to 2.5.

FIG. 8.

Here, we look at slices of both flavors of pseudospectra for a very standard Chern insulator model. This is the same model as used in Refs. 29 and 31 and is here on the 100-by-100 lattice. The lattice unit here is set to 0.05, so the model has x and y coordinates in the range −2.5 to 2.5.

Close modal

For every choice of x, y, and κ that leads to a small value of μ(x,y,0)Q(κX,κY,H), there is an associated unit vector v. This can be easily computed as an eigenvector of Qλ(κX, κY, H) or as a right singular vector of

as in Proposition II.1. Figure 9 shows the nature of this state for (x, y, E) = (49, 0, 0), which represents a point in the middle of the bottom of the lattice, slightly in from the edge. The system is centered at 0 and extends in both directions from −49.5 to +49.5. This state is computed for various values of κ. As expected, smaller κ results in better localization in energy and more dispersion in position.

FIG. 9.

Edge states for a Chern insulator found with different values of κ in the quadratic pseudospectra. Each panel shows the distribution (large plot) in space and the distribution in energy (small plat) for a state selected as an eigenvalue of Qλ(κX, κY, H) for a fixed value of λ = (x, y, E) = (49, 0, 0) as κ varies.

FIG. 9.

Edge states for a Chern insulator found with different values of κ in the quadratic pseudospectra. Each panel shows the distribution (large plot) in space and the distribution in energy (small plat) for a state selected as an eigenvalue of Qλ(κX, κY, H) for a fixed value of λ = (x, y, E) = (49, 0, 0) as κ varies.

Close modal

Pseudospectral techniques hold promise in the study of topological photonic systems since they can detect K-theory even when a complete bandgap does not exist.10 For example, one can look at a photonic Chern metal, as in Ref. 11.

The quadratic pseudospectrum can also be used to identify localized states (or localized quasi-modes with finite lifetimes) amid the background of a degenerate bulk spectrum. To demonstrate this feature, we use a model of a higher-order topological metal that can exhibit localized corner states despite these states being within the spectral extent of the system’s bulk bands.4,9,10 This lattice’s real-space tight-binding description consists of a square lattice with four sites within each unit cell

(6.4)

which are coupled together so as to obey chiral symmetry. Here, tin and tout are the within and between unit cell coupling strengths, respectively, while the final index, α, in the states |mx, my, α⟩ denotes the specific site within each unit cell.

Previously, the higher-order topological metal lattice has been shown to exhibit topological corner-localized states at E = 0 that are robust to system perturbations, even in the absence of a bulk bandgap at E = 0;10 see also Figs. 10(a)10(c). Here, we instead focus on how the quadratic pseudospectrum can identify the corner-localized states, Figs. 10(d)10(f), despite the degenerate background. In particular, by choosing λ to be at one of the lattice’s corners and at E = 0, the eigenstate corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue of Qλ(X, Y, H) very closely resembles a corner eigenstate that can be found in the lattice’s degenerate subspace at E = 0; see Fig. 10(e). In contrast, choosing λ to be at the lattice’s center (and still at E = 0) yields an eigenstate of Qλ(X, Y, H) that is a superposition of bulk modes (eigenstates of H) localized near λ in both position and energy; see Fig. 10(f).

FIG. 10.

(a) Bulk band structure for a higher-order topological metal with tin = 1 and tout = 3. (b) Local density of states at E = 0 for a finite higher-order topological metal with 30-by-30 unit cells. (c) Clifford pseudospectrum for this system at E = 0 and κ = 0.1. (d) Quadratic pseudospectrum for this system at E = 0 and κ = 0.1. (e) (left) Spatial distribution of the real part of the eigenstate of Qλ(κX, κY, H) corresponding to its minimal singular value for λ chosen to be in the system’s upper right corner and at E = 0. (right) Distribution in energy of the eigenstate. (f) Similar to (e), except for λ chosen to be in the system’s center.

FIG. 10.

(a) Bulk band structure for a higher-order topological metal with tin = 1 and tout = 3. (b) Local density of states at E = 0 for a finite higher-order topological metal with 30-by-30 unit cells. (c) Clifford pseudospectrum for this system at E = 0 and κ = 0.1. (d) Quadratic pseudospectrum for this system at E = 0 and κ = 0.1. (e) (left) Spatial distribution of the real part of the eigenstate of Qλ(κX, κY, H) corresponding to its minimal singular value for λ chosen to be in the system’s upper right corner and at E = 0. (right) Distribution in energy of the eigenstate. (f) Similar to (e), except for λ chosen to be in the system’s center.

Close modal

In conclusion, we have established the necessary definitions and theorems for understanding both the utility of the quadratic composite operator and quadratic pseudospectrum in physical systems and the relationship between the quadratic and Clifford pseudospectra. Moreover, we have proven that the quadratic pseudospectrum is local, which has two important consequences. First, the numerical difficultly in calculating the quadratic pseudospectrum plateaus beyond a certain system size where the error in the calculation incurred through the truncation becomes negligible. Second, this provides us a new tool to related bound states in a large system to bound states in a more easily understood truncated system. This was already possible using the truncation bound known for the localizer in Ref. 30, but the bounds in Sec. III are simpler.

On a more fundamental level, the quadratic composite operator and pseudospectrum represent the most straightforward method for approaching systems with incompatible observables as it both minimizes the eigen-error in the joint approximate spectrum and does not increase the computational complexity of the system. If the system is suspected of possessing non-trivial K-theory, this can then be calculated using the localizer where the quadratic gap is maximized, which will typically coincide with large localizer gaps due to Proposition II.4. Similarly, any topological boundary-localized states that exist in systems with non-trivial K-theory in their bulk can also be found near minima in the system’s quadratic gap. In particular, this may be especially relevant for studying systems whose topology is not yet known to be connected to another pseudospectra, such as non-Hermitian systems that are known to possess non-trivial topology both theoretically5,12,18,26–28,47,54,56 and experimentally.8,25,53,58

T.L. acknowledges the support from the National Science Foundation, Grant No. DMS-2110398. A.C. and T.L. acknowledge the support from the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, an Office of Science User Facility operated for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, and the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program at Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by the National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract No. DE-NA-0003525. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. DOE or the United States Government. F.V. acknowledges the support from the Scientific Computing Innovation Center of UNAH under Project No. PI-063-DICIHT.

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Alexander Cerjan: Formal analysis (equal). Terry A. Loring: Formal analysis (equal). Fredy Vides: Formal analysis (equal).

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

1.
Altland
,
A.
and
Zirnbauer
,
M. R.
, “
Nonstandard symmetry classes in mesoscopic normal-superconducting hybrid structures
,”
Phys. Rev. B
55
(
2
),
1142
1161
(
1997
).
2.
Asbóth
,
J. K.
,
Oroszlány
,
L.
, and
Pályi
,
A.
,
A Short Course on Topological Insulators
, Lecture Notes in Physics (
Springer
,
2016
), Vol. 919, p.
166
.
3.
Bansil
,
A.
,
Lin
,
H.
, and
Das
,
T.
, “
Colloquium: Topological band theory
,”
Rev. Mod. Phys.
88
(
2
),
021004
(
2016
).
4.
Benalcazar
,
W. A.
and
Cerjan
,
A.
, “
Bound states in the continuum of higher-order topological insulators
,”
Phys. Rev. B
101
,
161116
(
2020
).
5.
Bergholtz
,
E. J.
,
Budich
,
J. C.
, and
Kunst
,
F. K.
, “
Exceptional topology of non-Hermitian systems
,”
Rev. Mod. Phys.
93
(
1
),
015005
(
2021
).
6.
Boersema
,
J. L.
and
Loring
,
T. A.
, “
K-theory for real C*-algebras via unitary elements with symmetries
,”
New York J. Math.
22
,
1139
1220
(
2016
).
7.
Cardoso
,
J.-F.
and
Souloumiac
,
A.
, “
Jacobi angles for simultaneous diagonalization
,”
SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.
17
(
1
),
161
164
(
1996
).
8.
Cerjan
,
A.
,
Huang
,
S.
,
Wang
,
M.
,
Chen
,
K. P.
,
Chong
,
Y.
, and
Rechtsman
,
M. C.
, “
Experimental realization of a Weyl exceptional ring
,”
Nat. Photonics
13
(
9
),
623
628
(
2019
).
9.
Cerjan
,
A.
,
Jürgensen
,
M.
,
Benalcazar
,
W. A.
,
Mukherjee
,
S.
, and
Rechtsman
,
M. C.
, “
Observation of a higher-order topological bound state in the continuum
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
125
,
213901
(
2020
).
10.
Cerjan
,
A.
and
Loring
,
T. A.
, “
Local invariants identify topology in metals and gapless systems
,”
Phys. Rev. B
106
(
6
),
064109
(
2022
).
11.
Cerjan
,
A.
and
Loring
,
T. A.
, “
An operator-based approach to topological photonics
,”
Nanophotonics
11
(
21
),
4765
4780
(
2022
).
12.
Cerjan
,
A.
,
Xiao
,
M.
,
Yuan
,
L.
, and
Fan
,
S.
, “
Effects of non-Hermitian perturbations on Weyl Hamiltonians with arbitrary topological charges
,”
Phys. Rev. B
97
(
7
),
075128
(
2018
).
13.
Chen
,
B.
and
Fei
,
S. M.
, “
Sum uncertainty relations for arbitrary N incompatible observables
,”
Sci. Rep.
5
(
1
),
14238
(
2015
).
14.
Chiu
,
C.-K.
,
Teo
,
J. C. Y.
,
Schnyder
,
A. P.
, and
Ryu
,
S.
, “
Classification of topological quantum matter with symmetries
,”
Rev. Mod. Phys.
88
(
3
),
035005
(
2016
).
15.
Debonis
,
P. H.
,
Loring
,
T. A.
, and
Sverdlov
,
R.
, “
Surfaces and hypersurfaces as the joint spectrum of matrices
,”
Rocky Mountain J. Math.
52
(
4
),
1319
1343
(
2022
).
16.
Doll
,
N.
and
Schulz-Baldes
,
H.
, “
Skew localizer and Z2-flows for real index pairings
,”
Adv. Math.
392
,
108038
(
2021
).
17.
Golub
,
G. H.
and
Van Loan
,
C. F.
,
Matrix Computations
, Johns Hopkins Studies in the Mathematical Sciences, 3rd ed. (
Johns Hopkins University Press
,
Baltimore, MD
,
1996
).
18.
Gong
,
Z.
,
Ashida
,
Y.
,
Kawabata
,
K.
,
Takasan
,
K.
,
Higashikawa
,
S.
, and
Ueda
,
M.
, “
Topological phases of non-hermitian systems
,”
Phys. Rev. X
8
(
3
),
031079
(
2018
).
19.
Harrison
,
W. A.
,
Solid State Theory
(
Courier Corporation
,
1980
).
20.
Hasan
,
M. Z.
and
Kane
,
C. L.
, “
Colloquium: Topological insulators
,”
Rev. Mod. Phys.
82
(
4
),
3045
3067
(
2010
).
21.
Komis
,
I.
,
Kaltsas
,
D.
,
Xia
,
S.
,
Buljan
,
H.
,
Chen
,
Z.
, and
Makris
,
K. G.
, “
Robustness versus sensitivity in non-Hermitian topological lattices probed by pseudospectra
,”
Phys. Rev. Res.
4
(
4
),
043219
(
2022
).
22.
König
,
M.
,
Buhmann
,
H.
,
Molenkamp
,
L. W.
,
Hughes
,
T.
,
Liu
,
C.-X.
,
Qi
,
X.-L.
, and
Zhang
,
S.-C.
, “
The quantum spin Hall effect: Theory and experiment
,”
J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.
77
,
031007
(
2008
).
23.
König
,
M.
,
Wiedmann
,
S.
,
Brüne
,
C.
,
Roth
,
A.
,
Buhmann
,
H.
,
Molenkamp
,
L. W.
,
Qi
X. L.
, and
Zhang
S. C.
, “
Quantum spin Hall insulator state in HgTe quantum wells
,”
Science
318
(
5851
),
766
770
(
2007
).
24.
Krejčiřík
,
D.
,
Siegl
,
P.
,
Tater
,
M.
, and
Viola
,
J.
, “
Pseudospectra in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics
,”
J. Math. Phys.
56
(
10
),
103513
(
2015
).
25.
Kremer
,
M.
,
Biesenthal
,
T.
,
Maczewsky
,
L. J.
,
Heinrich
,
M.
,
Thomale
,
R.
, and
Szameit
,
A.
, “
Demonstration of a two-dimensional PT-symmetric crystal
,”
Nat. Commun.
10
(
1
),
435
(
2019
).
26.
Kunst
,
F. K.
,
Edvardsson
,
E.
,
Budich
,
J. C.
, and
Bergholtz
,
E. J.
, “
Biorthogonal bulk-boundary correspondence in non-hermitian systems
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
121
(
2
),
026808
(
2018
).
27.
Lee
,
T. E.
, “
Anomalous edge state in a non-Hermitian lattice
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
116
(
13
),
133903
(
2016
).
28.
Leykam
,
D.
,
Bliokh
,
K. Y.
,
Huang
,
C.
,
Chong
,
Y. D.
, and
Nori
,
F.
, “
Edge modes, degeneracies, and topological numbers in non-Hermitian systems
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
118
(
4
),
040401
(
2017
).
29.
Loring
,
T. A.
, “
K-theory and pseudospectra for topological insulators
,”
Ann. Phys.
356
,
383
416
(
2015
).
30.
Loring
,
T. A.
, “
A guide to the Bott index and localizer index
,” arXiv:1907.11791 (
2019
).
31.
Loring
,
T. A.
and
Hastings
,
M. B.
, “
Disordered topological insulators via C*-algebras
,”
Europhys. Lett.
92
,
67004
(
2010
).
32.
Loring
,
T. A.
and
Schulz-Baldes
,
H.
, “
Finite volume calculation of K-theory invariants
,”
New York J. Math.
23
,
1111
1140
(
2017
).
33.
Loring
,
T. A.
and
Schulz-Baldes
,
H.
, “
The spectral localizer for even index pairings
,”
J. Noncommut. Geom.
14
(
1
),
1
23
(
2020
).
34.
Loring
,
T. A.
and
Vides
,
F.
, “
Computing truncated joint approximate eigenbases for model order reduction
,” in
Discussion Contributions 10th Vienna Conference on Mathematical Modelling
(
ARGESIM
,
2022
), Vol. 17.
35.
Maccone
,
L.
and
Pati
,
A. K.c.
, “
Stronger uncertainty relations for all incompatible observables
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
113
(
26
),
260401
(
2014
).
36.
Makris
,
K. G.
, “
Transient growth and dissipative exceptional points
,”
Phys. Rev. E
104
(
5
),
054218
(
2021
).
37.
Marzari
,
N.
,
Mostofi
,
A. A.
,
Yates
,
J. R.
,
Souza
,
I.
, and
Vanderbilt
,
D.
, “
Maximally localized Wannier functions: Theory and applications
,”
Rev. Mod. Phys.
84
,
1419
1475
(
2012
).
38.
Meier
,
E. J.
,
An
,
F. A.
, and
Gadway
,
B.
, “
Observation of the topological soliton state in the Su–Schrieffer–Heeger model
,”
Nat. Commun.
7
(
1
),
13986
(
2016
).
39.
Michala
,
J.
,
Pierson
,
A.
,
Loring
,
T. A.
, and
Watson
,
A. B.
, “
Wave-packet propagation in a finite topological insulator and the spectral localizer index
,”
Involve
14
(
2
),
209
239
(
2021
).
40.
Okuma
,
N.
and
Sato
,
M.
, “
Hermitian zero modes protected by nonnormality: Application of pseudospectra
,”
Phys. Rev. B
102
(
1
),
014203
(
2020
).
41.
Ozawa
,
T.
,
Price
,
H. M.
,
Amo
,
A.
,
Goldman
,
N.
,
Hafezi
,
M.
,
Lu
,
L.
,
Rechtsman
,
M. C.
,
Schuster
,
D.
,
Simon
,
J.
,
Zilberberg
,
O.
, and
Carusotto
,
I.
, “
Topological photonics
,”
Rev. Mod. Phys.
91
(
1
),
015006
(
2019
).
42.
Qi
,
X.-L.
,
Wu
,
Y.-S.
, and
Zhang
,
S.-C.
, “
Topological quantization of the spin Hall effect in two-dimensional paramagnetic semiconductors
,”
Phys. Rev. B
74
(
8
),
085308
(
2006
).
43.
Ryu
,
S.
,
Schnyder
,
A. P.
,
Furusaki
,
A.
, and
Ludwig
,
A. W. W.
, “
Topological insulators and superconductors: Tenfold way and dimensional hierarchy
,”
New J. Phys.
12
(
6
),
065010
(
2010
).
44.
Schneiderbauer
,
L.
and
Steinacker
,
H. C.
, “
Measuring finite quantum geometries via quasi-coherent states
,”
J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.
49
(
28
),
285301
(
2016
).
45.
Schröder
,
H.
and
Schröder
,
H.
,
K-Theory for Real C*-algebras and Applications
(
Longman Scientific and Technical
,
Harlow
,
1993
).
46.
Schulz-Baldes
,
H.
and
Stoiber
,
T.
, “
Spectral localization for semimetals and Callias operators
,” arXiv:2203.15014 [math-ph] (
2022
).
47.
Shen
,
H.
,
Zhen
,
B.
, and
Fu
,
L.
, “
Topological band theory for non-Hermitian Hamiltonians
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
120
(
14
),
146402
(
2018
).
48.
Sivan
,
A.
and
Orenstein
,
M.
, “
Multiple crossed non-Hermitian Su-Schrieffer-Heeger chains coupled via a mutual defect site
,”
Phys. Rev. A
106
(
2
),
022216
(
2022
).
49.
Su
,
W. P.
,
Schrieffer
,
J. R.
, and
Heeger
,
A. J.
, “
Solitons in polyacetylene
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
42
(
25
),
1698
(
1979
).
50.
Trefethen
,
L. N.
, “
Pseudospectra of matrices
. In
Numerical Analysis 1991 (Dundee, 1991)
, Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series (
Longman Sci. Tech.
,
Harlow
,
1992
), Vol. 260, pp.
234
266
.
51.
Trefethen
,
L. N.
and
Embree
,
M.
,
Spectra and Pseudospectra: The Behavior of Nonnormal Matrices and Operators
(
Princeton University Press
,
Princeton, NJ
,
2005
).
52.
Wegge-Olsen
,
N. E.
,
K-Theory and C*-algebras
(
Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press
,
New York
,
1993
), A friendly approach.
53.
Weimann
,
S.
,
Kremer
,
M.
,
Plotnik
,
Y.
,
Lumer
,
Y.
,
Nolte
,
S.
,
Makris
,
K. G.
,
Segev
,
M.
,
Rechtsman
,
M. C.
, and
Szameit
,
A.
, “
Topologically protected bound states in photonic parity-time-symmetric crystals
,”
Nat. Mater.
16
(
4
),
433
438
(
2017
).
54.
Wojcik
,
C. C.
,
Sun
,
X.-Q.
,
Bzdušek
,
T.
, and
Fan
,
S.
, “
Homotopy characterization of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians
,”
Phys. Rev. B
101
(
20
),
205417
(
2020
).
55.
Xiao
,
D.
,
Chang
,
M.-C.
, and
Niu
,
Q.
, “
Berry phase effects on electronic properties
,”
Rev. Mod. Phys.
82
(
3
),
1959
2007
(
2010
).
56.
Yao
,
S.
and
Wang
,
Z.
, “
Edge states and topological invariants of non-Hermitian systems
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
121
(
8
),
086803
(
2018
).
57.
Yeh
,
K. H.-C.
, “
Emergent spacetime in matrix models
,”
Ph.D. thesis
,
University of British Columbia
,
Vancouver
,
2018
.
58.
Zeuner
,
J. M.
,
Rechtsman
,
M. C.
,
Plotnik
,
Y.
,
Lumer
,
Y.
,
Nolte
,
S.
,
Rudner
,
M. S.
,
Segev
,
M.
, and
Szameit
,
A.
, “
Observation of a topological transition in the bulk of a non-Hermitian system
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
115
(
4
),
040402
(
2015
).