PRL 96, 060601 (2006)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

week ending
17 FEBRUARY 2006

Fractionalization, Topological Order, and Quasiparticle Statistics
Masaki Oshikawa1 and T. Senthil2,3
1

2

Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Oh-okayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan
Center for Condensed Matter Theory, Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India
3
Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 13 May 2005; published 13 February 2006)
We argue, based on general principles, that topological order is essential to realize fractionalization ingapped insulating phases in dimensions d  2. In d  2 with genus g, we derive the existence of theminimum topological degeneracy qg if the charge is fractionalized in units of 1=q, irrespective of
microscopic model or effective theory. Furthermore, if the quasiparticle is either boson or fermion, it mustbe at least q2g .
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.060601

PACS numbers: 05.30.Pr, 71.10.Hf, 71.10.Pm, 73.43.Cd

Fractionalization of quantum numbers has been a focus
of condensed matter physics in recent years. It refers to theemergence of a collective excitation having fractional
quantum numbers with respect to the elementary particles(such as electrons), in a strongly correlated system. The
notion of fractionalization is not only fascinating in itself,
but also has been related to other intriguing concepts intheoretical physics as discussed in the following.
At present, several different systems exhibit the fractionalization [1–10], at least theoretically. While the details
naturally depend on each model under consideration, thestructure of the excitation spectrum is efficiently describedin terms of a gauge theory. More precisely the excitations
consist of objects that have long ranged nonlocal ‘‘statistical’’ interactions with each other, which may be encoded
as an Aharanov-Bohm gauge interaction. This is wellknown in the fractional quantum hall effect where thefractionalized quasiparticles also have fractional statistics.
Similarly in the fractionalized liquids described inRefs. [3–8], there are vison excitations that have longrange statistical interactions with the fractionalized particles (such as the spinons in a spin liquid).
This emergent gauge structure generally implies theexistence of a certain kind of order—dubbed topologicalorder—associated with the global properties of theground-state wave function [11], which is also commonly
found in the above examples. A characteristic signature of
the topological order is the ground-state degeneracy depending on the topology of the system. This cannot be
understood as a consequence of a conventional spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is the standard mechanism
behind the ground-state degeneracy. The intriguing natureand consequences of the topological order is best understood in the fractional quantum Hall liquid (FQHL) [11],although some of the concepts are applicable to othersystems. In the gauge theory picture, the topological degeneracy could be understood with different ‘‘vacua’’ corresponding to a different number of vortices trapped ineach ‘‘hole’’ of the space (such as the torus).
However, these developments apparently leave open thequestion on whether there is a different way to realize
0031-9007=06=96(6)=060601(4)$23.00

fractionalization without the emergent gauge structures.
As such, at this point it is also unclear whether the topological order and associated ground-state degeneracy arenecessary to have fractionalization. As we are still far fromthe complete classification of the fractionalized phases,
and many novel examples of fractionalization will likely
be found in the future, these questions are of significant
importance.
In this Letter, we demonstrate that there is indeed ageneral and direct connection between the fractionalization and the topological order, in the specific context ofsystems with a fully gapped spectrum. Generalizing thegauge invariance argument presented in Ref. [12], theexistence of the topological order is shown to follow justfrom the fractionalization, irrespective of microscopic
details.
As discussed before, the known examples of the fractionalization are rather suggestive of such a universal
relation. In the several examples of fractionalization (atzero magnetic field) discussed recently [3–10], the degeneracy is at least q2g -fold in a system on a d  2 dimensional surface with genus g, if the fractionalization occurs
in the unit of 1=q. However, we must recall that theLaughlin FQHL does exhibit a ground-state degeneracy,
but only qg -fold [13,14]. (See also Ref. [10].) We will also
clarify the difference between the cases with q2g -fold andqg -fold degeneracy, which turns out to be related to thestatistics of the quasiparticles. Not surprisingly, our argument is closely related to the earlier studies on the topological order in FQHL especially in Refs. [13,14], and thatin systems of anyons [15].
Now let us define the problem in a general setting. We
consider a system defined by a certain microscopic
Hamiltonian of interacting particles, with an exact U1global symmetry. With the global U1 symmetry, we may
assign a (fictitious) charge to each particle, with the total
charge being a conserved quantity. We take the unit inwhich the elementary charge is unity, so that the chargeof all the particles appearing in the microscopic model is an
integer. We can now also introduce a (fictitious) externalU1 gauge field (‘‘electromagnetic field’’) coupled to the060601-1© 2006 The American Physical Society

PRL 96, 060601 (2006)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

charge. We set @  c  1 so that the unit flux quantum isgiven by 2.
The ground state is generally a complicated state interms of the original particles. Here we assume for simplicity that there is a finite gap above the (possibly degenerate) ground state(s). We further assume that theelementary excitations of the system are well-defined quasiparticles and quasiholes. The quasiparticle may carry acharge that is a fraction of the original unit charge, thereby
we define the fractionalization. This definition is very
natural and is independent of the concrete model or mechanism of the fractionalization, while it naturally applies toall the known cases. Let us assume that the fractionalcharge of the quasiparticle is p=q, where p and q are
mutually prime integers.
For simplicity, let us, for a moment, consider a systemon a d  2 torus of sufficiently large size Lx  Ly . We willcomment on other cases later. We define the following
process as introduced in Ref. [14]. First, we create aquasiparticle and its antiparticle (quasihole) out of thevacuum (ground state) at some location, and then movethe quasiparticle to the x direction, so that it encircles thetorus to come back to the original location and to meet thequasihole. Finally, we pair annihilate the quasiparticle andquasihole. Here we assume that this process can be realized
by a unitary time-evolution operator T x with respect to aproperly chosen time-dependent Hamiltonian, e.g., with atime-dependent local potential to create and drag the quasiparticle. Thus we exclude quantum ‘‘glassy’’ systems as
proposed in Ref. [16].
Similarly, we introduce another unitary operator T y ,corresponding to creation of a quasihole-quasiparticle
pair and annihilation after winding in the y direction. It is
expected that T x;y bring any state in the ground-state
manifold state back, at least approximately, to a (possibly
different) ground state.
Next we consider an adiabatic insertion of a unit flux
quantum 0  2 through the hole of the torus, inducing
an (fictitious) electric field in the x direction. This may
again be realized by a time evolution in which the xcomponent of the vector potential is gradually increased
from Ax  0 to Ax  2=Lx in the Hamiltonian. Thus it isrepresented by a unitary time-evolution operator F x . We
also define a similar operator F y that corresponds to an
adiabatic insertion of a unit flux quantum through the otherhole, inducing the y component of the vector potential. We
assume that these operations do not close the gap toexcitations above the ground-state manifold and thus bringany ground state to a ground state. In d  2, it amounts toassuming the system to be an insulator, while it is astronger assumption for d  3 [17]. (See also Ref. [18].)
Now let us consider two operations T x and F x insequence. The flux insertion F x introduces the vector
potential Ax  2=Lx , corresponding to the unit flux quantum 0  2 contained in the system. As we consider the

week ending
17 FEBRUARY 2006

process T x in different backgrounds, let us distinguishthem by denoting T x  as the ‘‘encircling’’ process
defined above in the presence of the vector potential
Ax  =Lx . The contained unit flux quantum does not
induce the Aharonov-Bohm effect on the original particles
of integral charge. However, for the quasiparticle with thefractional charge p=q, the same vector potential Ax 
2=Lx still gives a nontrivial Aharonov-Bohm phasee2ip=q when the quasiparticle completes the encircling
process. Thus we obtain a relation
T x 0 F x  e2ip=q F x T x 0:

(1)

On the other hand, because the microscopic model isgiven in terms of the original particles of integral charge,
any Hamiltonian with an extra unit flux quantum in thehole of the torus is unitary equivalent to the Hamiltonian
with zero flux. Namely, the Hamiltonian H 0  with theunit flux quantum is related to the Hamiltonian H 0 withzero flux as H 0   U1 H 0U, by a unitary operator
U which is called as the large gauge transformation. As wehave argued previously, the encircling process T x should
be realized by a time evolution with respect to an appropriately chosen time-dependent Hamiltonian, again written
in terms of the original particles. Therefore, the operator
T also must obey the relation
T x 0   U1 T x 0U:(2)

Combining Eqs. (1) and (2), we obtain~ x T x 0;
~ x  e2ip=q F
T x 0F(3)~ x UF x . In the following, for brevity T x withwhere F
out the argument denotes T x 0, and likewise for T y .
~ x is identical to that ofThis algebra between T x and F
the magnetic translation group, which we call as the magnetic algebra. By our assumptions, both of these operators
map a ground state to a ground state. We thus immediately
see that the ground states must be q-fold degenerate, withthe same reasoning as was used in Refs. [14,15]. Our
argument so far is essentially contained in Ref. [12], where
the q-fold ground-state degeneracy of a FQHL is derived
based on the gauge invariance. In this Letter, we shallpresent a more systematic discussion to demonstrate thatthe degeneracy is topology dependent, and that the degeneracy is also affected by quasiparticle statistics.
For the other direction y, we obtain a corresponding
relation~ y  e2ip=q F~ yT y:T yF(4)Apparently, now we obtain two sets of the magnetic
algebra, which would imply a q2 -fold degeneracy on thetorus. However, as it should not apply to the Laughlin state
where the degeneracy is known to be only q-fold, we haveto examine more carefully the interplay between Eqs. (3)and (4).

060601-2

PRL 96, 060601 (2006)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERSF x introduces the vector potential only in the x direction, to which T y is insensitive. Thus, with the large gauge~ x and~ xT y  T yF
transformation combined, we have F~
likewise for F y and T x . Therefore, we can take the basis~ x and T y are bothin the ground-state subspace so that F
diagonalized. Let the simultaneous eigenstate (among the
ground states) of them be jfx ; ty i, with fx and ty denoting~ x and T y , respectively. By applying
the eigenvalues of F
T x to this state, one obtains a new ground state belonging~ x because
to a different eigenvalue fx e2ip=q of F
~ x T x jfx ; ty i  fx e2ip=q T x jfx ; ty iF(5)follows from Eq. (3). By repeated applications of T x , one
can obtain at least q different ground states as announced.
~ y to jfx ; ty i to obtain q-foldSimilarly, we can apply F
degenerate ground states belonging to different eigenvalues of T y . The question now is whether these two procedures give different set of ground states. It depends onwhether (or how) the application of T x changes the eigenvalue of T y . This boils down to the commutation relation
between T x and T y , which actually reflects the statisticsof the quasiparticle. The (Abelian) anyonic statistic ischaracterized by a statistical angle , so that an exchangeof two identical particles gives rise to the phase factor ei .
In Refs. [14,15] it was pointed out that
1
i2
:
T 1
x T y T xT y  e(6)This is because the left-hand side corresponds to worldlines of the two quasiparticles forming two linked loops inthe spacetime, as illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5 in Ref. [14].
Let us first consider the simple case of either bosonic(  0) or fermionic (  ) statistics, for which T x andT y commute from Eq. (6). Thus, applying T x does notchange the eigenvalue ty of T y while it changes the~ x . Therefore, in this case, one can obtaineigenvalue of F
~ x by successively applying
q different eigenvalues of F
T x , for each of q different eigenvalues of T y that are~ y . Thus, there are at leastobtained by application of F2
q -fold degenerate ground states corresponding to the dif~y~ x and F
ferent set of eigenvalues. In particular, when F
commute, the degeneracy deduced from the above set ofalgebra is q2 .
On the other hand, in the Laughlin state at filling fraction
1=q where q is odd, the quasiparticles are known to carry
the fractional charge 1=q (p  1 in the previous notation)[1], and to exhibit anyonic fractional statistics with thestatistical angle   =q [19]. In this case, because of
Eq. (6), we obtainT y T x jfx ; ty i  ty e2i=q T x jfx ; ty i:(7)Thus, combined with Eq. (5), an application of T x induces~ x and T y as
the change in both the eigenvalues of F

week ending
17 FEBRUARY 2006

fx ; ty  ! fx e2i=q ; ty e2i=q :(8)This allows the possibility that the ground-state degeneracy
on the torus to be smaller than q2 . This could happen if~ y  e2i=q F
~ yF
~ x;
~ xF
F

(9)

when acting on the ground-state subspace. In this case,~ y induces exactly the same
because the application of Fchange of the eigenvalues in Eq. (8), we can generate only
q different set of eigenvalues.
In fact, Eq. (9) is exactly what holds in the Laughlin
state. As pointed out in Ref. [14], because the quasiparticles and holes in the Laughlin state can be identified witha ‘‘vortex’’ with unit flux quantum, the encircling process
T x actually introduces a unit flux quantum threading thehole of the torus, as F y does. Thus Eq. (9) follows.
Actually, it means that T x;y can be identified with F y;x
as far as their action in the ground-state subspace is concerned. Thus the two algebra Eqs. (3) and (4) are indeed
reduced to a single magnetic algebra, leaving only the
q-fold degeneracy. On the other hand, if the statisticalangle  does not match the fractional charge of the quasiparticles, we should have a larger degeneracy. When thequasiparticle statistics is non-Abelian, the exact counting ismore complicated. Nevertheless, the minimum q-fold degeneracy still holds because Eq. (3) is based on the fractionalized charge and should not depend on the statistics.
The detailed discussion of the non-Abelian case is deferred
to a separate publication.
The above discussion can be generalized to a twodimensional system on the surface with genus g, for which
there are g pairs of intersecting elementary nontrivial
cycles. We can define the flux insertion (plus the appro~ c and thepriate large gauge transformation) operator F
quasiparticle winding operator T c for each cycle c.
Picking one cycle from each pair, we have a set of gnonintersecting cycles so that the operators for the different
cycles commute. Thus, for any (Abelian or non-Abelian)statistics of the quasiparticles, we have g independent
magnetic algebras acting on the ground-state subspace
and thus the ground-state degeneracy must be at least qg .
If the quasiparticle is either a boson or fermion, we canutilize a set of 2g magnetic algebras and the degeneracy
must be at least q2g .
The close relation between the insertion of the unit flux
quantum and trapped vortices was emphasized previously
in the Z2 gauge theory description of a fractionalized phase~ c was also used to relate[4]. The adiabatic flux insertion F
topologically degenerate ground states in the FQHL
[11,14]. The present argument suggests that these structures are rather universal in fractionalized systems.
Our argument could also be generalized to dimensionsd  2. Although our understanding of the topologicalorder is still incomplete for d  3, our argument implies
a ground-state degeneracy in a gapped fractionalized sys-

060601-3

PRL 96, 060601 (2006)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

tem defined on a geometry with a nontrivial fundamentalgroup. This suggests that the topological order is essential
for the fractionalization, also in d  3.
On the other hand, the situation is quite different ind  1, where the ‘‘polyacetylene’’-type fractionalization[20] is known to occur in a conventional ordered phasewith a spontaneous breaking of the translation symmetry.
Our argument applied to d  1 just requires the groundstate on a ring to be degenerate, as there is no higher
topology. The degeneracy can be understood as a consequence of the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the conventional type, rather than due to any ‘‘topological’’ order.
For d  2, our argument reveals that the ground-statedegeneracy indeed depends on the topology, implying the
topological order. The present observation could help
clarifying the profound difference in the fractionalization
between d  1 and d  2.
Throughout this Letter we have assumed the system tohave a finite gap. However, the topological order can exist
also in gapless systems [4], which we have not yet analyzed. It might be interesting to extend our argument togapless cases. Although the concept of the ground-statedegeneracy itself becomes subtle, the (quasi-)degenerate
ground states may be identified separately from the gaplessexcitations, for example, by examining the finite-size scaling carefully.
To summarize, we have derived a topological degeneracy, which indicates the presence of a topological order, ina general (gapful) fractionalized system in d  2. The
magnitude of the degeneracy is also related to the statisticsof the fractionalized quasiparticles. It is also notable thatthe simple trick of the flux insertion together with thegauge invariance leads to the rather strong statement, tobe added to existing applications [13,14,17,18,21–24].
Comparing with the ‘‘momentum counting’’-type applications [13,17,18,22–24] of the flux insertion, the present
argument is more powerful in the sense that it can beapplied to various topologies, to show the degeneracy is
indeed topological. The momentum counting arguments
can be applied only to a cylinder or a torus, and thus byitself does not indicate whether the derived degeneracy is a
topological one or due to a conventional order. On the other
hand, the operator T c needed in the present argument isintroduced in a hand-waving way, and thus makes theargument considerably less rigorous than the momentum
counting ones.
This work was initiated during a Summer Workshop at
Aspen Center for Physics in which both of the authors
participated, and extended while M. O. attended a programat Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, UC Santa
Barbara (supported in part by NSF Grant No. PHY99-

week ending
17 FEBRUARY 2006

07949). M. O. thanks the participants of the program at
KITP, and Claudio Chamon for very useful comments. In
particular, we are grateful to Gregoire Misguich for correcting the initial confusion on the anyon statistics. M. O. is
supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research,
and a 21st Century COE Program at Tokyo Institute ofTechnology ‘‘Nanometer-Scale Quantum Physics,’’ bothfrom MEXT of Japan. T. S. acknowledges support fromNSF Grant No. DMR-0308945, funding from the NEC
Corporation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and The
Research Corporation.

[1] R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983).
[2] A. Yu. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 303, 2 (2003).
[3] N. Read and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1773 (1991);
X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 44, 2664 (1991).
[4] T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 62, 7850
(2000); 63, 134521 (2001).
[5] R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1881
(2001).
[6] G. Misguich, D. Serban, and V. Pasquier, Phys. Rev. Lett.
89, 137202 (2002).
[7] L. Balents, M. P. A. Fisher, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev.
B 65, 224412 (2002).
[8] O. I. Motrunich and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 277004(2002).
[9] O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. B 67, 115108 (2003).
[10] M. Freedman, C. Nayak, K. Shtengel, K. Walker, andZ. Wang, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 310, 428 (2004).
[11] X.-G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 5, 1641 (1991).
[12] Y.-S. Wu, Y. Hatsugai, and M. Kohmoto, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 66, 659 (1991).
[13] R. Tao and Yong-Shi Wu, Phys. Rev. B 30, R1097 (1984).
[14] X.-G. Wen and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 41, 9377 (1990).
[15] X.-G. Wen, E. Dagotto, and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B
42, 6110 (1990).
[16] C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 040402 (2005).
[17] M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 236401 (2003); 91,
109901(E) (2003).
[18] A. Paramekanti and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B 70,
245118 (2004).
[19] B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1583 (1984).
[20] W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 42, 1698 (1979).
[21] R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. B 23, R5632 (1981).
[22] M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1535 (2000).
[23] M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3370 (2000); T. Senthil,S. Sachdev, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 216403(2003).
[24] M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. B 69, 104431 (2004);
Europhys. Lett. 70, 824 (2005).

060601-4