- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Toric code under antiferromagnetic isotropic Heisenberg interactions

Won Jang1,*, Robert Peters1, and Thore Posske2,3

  • *Contact author: jangwon001129@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033008 – Published 6 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/6jk8-w5r8

Abstract

We investigate the impact of an isotropic antiferromagnetic Heisenberg perturbation on the toric code, focusing on the resulting quantum phase transition and the nature of the phase that emerges beyond topological order. Using neural-network quantum states, we compute ground states over a wide range of Heisenberg couplings while fully respecting the exact symmetries of the model. In the weak-coupling regime, the numerical results are in excellent agreement with an effective low-energy description derived from a Schrieffer-Wolff (SW) transformation, providing analytic control over the perturbative breakdown of topological order. We show that the Heisenberg perturbation only renormalizes local operators at low orders, whereas mixing between topological sectors occurs only at a perturbative order proportional to the system size. At intermediate values of the Heisenberg interaction, the topological phase breaks down. We estimate the critical point through a combination of the fidelity susceptibility and the logarithmic susceptibility of noncontractible Wilson loops for various system sizes. Furthermore, we utilize the topological entanglement entropy to provide a comprehensive characterization of the phase transition. Beyond the transition, an antiferromagnetic ±X/±Z Néel phase emerges, characterized by a fourfold-degenerate symmetry-broken manifold, which is explicitly probed using staggered-magnetization-based diagnostics. Our results show how local two-spin interactions, which naturally arise in realistic implementations of the toric code, drive the breakdown of topological order. Moreover, we establish the SW approach as a systematic framework for analyzing such perturbations in combination with variational many-body methods.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (93)

  1. A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys. 303, 2 (2003).
  2. A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Ground state entanglement and geometric entropy in the Kitaev model, Phys. Lett. A 337, 22 (2005).
  3. C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008).
  4. S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and S. Michalakis, Topological quantum order: Stability under local perturbations, J. Math. Phys. 51, 093512 (2010).
  5. E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topological quantum memory, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4452 (2002).
  6. P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Doping a Mott insulator: Physics of high-temperature superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17 (2006).
  7. T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Z2 gauge theory of electron fractionalization in strongly correlated systems, Phys. Rev. B 62, 7850 (2000).
  8. M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen, String-net condensation: A physical mechanism for topological phases, Phys. Rev. B 71, 045110 (2005).
  9. A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Ann. Phys. 321, 2 (2006).
  10. D. S. Rokhsar and S. A. Kivelson, Superconductivity and the quantum hard-core dimer gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2376 (1988).
  11. R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, Resonating valence bond phase in the triangular lattice quantum dimer model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1881 (2001).
  12. G. Misguich, D. Serban, and V. Pasquier, Quantum dimer model with extensive ground-state entropy on the Kagome lattice, Phys. Rev. B 67, 214413 (2003).
  13. Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature (London) 614, 676 (2023).
  14. X.-C. Yao, T.-X. Wang, H.-Z. Chen, W.-B. Gao, A. G. Fowler, R. Raussendorf, Z.-B. Chen, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, Y.-J. Deng, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental demonstration of topological error correction, Nature (London) 482, 489 (2012).
  15. C.-Y. Lu, W.-B. Gao, O. Gühne, X.-Q. Zhou, Z.-B. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Demonstrating anyonic fractional statistics with a six-qubit quantum simulator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 030502 (2009).
  16. K. J. Satzinger et al., Realizing topologically ordered states on a quantum processor, Science 374, 1237 (2021).
  17. R. Acharya et al. (Google Quantum AI and Collaborators), Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature (London) 638, 920 (2025).
  18. F. Wu, Y. Deng, and N. Prokof’ev, Phase diagram of the toric code model in a parallel magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 85, 195104 (2012).
  19. J. Vidal, S. Dusuel, and K. P. Schmidt, Low-energy effective theory of the toric code model in a parallel magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 79, 033109 (2009).
  20. S. Dusuel, M. Kamfor, R. Orús, K. P. Schmidt, and J. Vidal, Robustness of a perturbed topological phase, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 107203 (2011).
  21. J. Vidal, R. Thomale, K. P. Schmidt, and S. Dusuel, Self-duality and bound states of the toric code model in a transverse field, Phys. Rev. B 80, 081104(R) (2009).
  22. V. Karimipour, L. Memarzadeh, and P. Zarkeshian, Kitaev-Ising model and the transition between topological and ferromagnetic order, Phys. Rev. A 87, 032322 (2013).
  23. S. Trebst, P. Werner, M. Troyer, K. Shtengel, and C. Nayak, Breakdown of a topological phase: Quantum phase transition in a loop gas model with tension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070602 (2007).
  24. G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017).
  25. Y. Nomura, A. S. Darmawan, Y. Yamaji, and M. Imada, Restricted Boltzmann machine learning for solving strongly correlated quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B 96, 205152 (2017).
  26. H. Lange, A. Van de Walle, A. Abedinnia, and A. Bohrdt, From architectures to applications: A review of neural quantum states, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 040501 (2024).
  27. X. Gao and L.-M. Duan, Efficient representation of quantum many-body states with deep neural networks, Nat. Commun. 8, 662 (2017).
  28. D.-L. Deng, X. Li, and S. Das Sarma, Quantum entanglement in neural network states, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021021 (2017).
  29. Y. Levine, O. Sharir, N. Cohen, and A. Shashua, Quantum entanglement in deep learning architectures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 065301 (2019).
  30. M. Hibat-Allah, M. Ganahl, L. E. Hayward, R. G. Melko, and J. Carrasquilla, Recurrent neural network wave functions, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023358 (2020).
  31. O. Sharir, Y. Levine, N. Wies, G. Carleo, and A. Shashua, Deep autoregressive models for the efficient variational simulation of many-body quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 020503 (2020).
  32. Z. Denis, A. Sinibaldi, and G. Carleo, Comment on “Can neural quantum states learn volume-law ground states?” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 079701 (2025).
  33. A. Joshi, R. Peters, and T. Posske, Ground state properties of quantum skyrmions described by neural network quantum states, Phys. Rev. B 108, 094410 (2023).
  34. A. Joshi, R. Peters, and T. Posske, Quantum skyrmion dynamics studied by neural network quantum states, Phys. Rev. B 110, 104411 (2024).
  35. D. S. Kufel, J. Kemp, D. Vu, S. M. Linsel, C. R. Laumann, and N. Y. Yao, Approximately symmetric neural networks for quantum spin liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 056702 (2025).
  36. I. Glasser, N. Pancotti, M. August, I. D. Rodriguez, and J. I. Cirac, Neural-network quantum states, string-bond states, and chiral topological states, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011006 (2018).
  37. J. Chen, S. Cheng, H. Xie, L. Wang, and T. Xiang, Equivalence of restricted Boltzmann machines and tensor network states, Phys. Rev. B 97, 085104 (2018).
  38. Y. Huang and J. E. Moore, Neural network representation of tensor network and chiral states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 170601 (2021).
  39. M. Hibat-Allah, E. M. Inack, R. Wiersema, R. G. Melko, and J. Carrasquilla, Variational neural annealing, Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 952 (2021).
  40. A. Valenti, E. Greplova, N. H. Lindner, and S. D. Huber, Correlation-enhanced neural networks as interpretable variational quantum states, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L012010 (2022).
  41. R. Rende, S. Goldt, F. Becca, and L. L. Viteritti, Fine-tuning neural network quantum states, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043280 (2024).
  42. S. Bravyi, D. P. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Schrieffer–Wolff transformation for quantum many-body systems, Ann. Phys. 326, 2793 (2011).
  43. S. Bravyi, D. P. Divincenzo, R. Oliveira, and B. M. Terhal, The complexity of stoquastic local Hamiltonian problems, Quantum Inf. Comput. 8, 361 (2008).
  44. M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201 (2005).
  45. W. Marshall, Antiferromagnetism, Proc. R. Soc. London A 232, 48 (1955).
  46. X. Liang, W.-Y. Liu, P.-Z. Lin, G.-C. Guo, Y.-S. Zhang, and L. He, Solving frustrated quantum many-particle models with convolutional neural networks, Phys. Rev. B 98, 104426 (2018).
  47. X. Liang, S.-J. Dong, and L. He, Hybrid convolutional neural network and projected entangled pair states wave functions for quantum many-particle states, Phys. Rev. B 103, 035138 (2021).
  48. K. Choo, T. Neupert, and G. Carleo, Two-dimensional frustrated J1–J2 model studied with neural network quantum states, Phys. Rev. B 100, 125124 (2019).
  49. A. Szabó and C. Castelnovo, Neural network wave functions and the sign problem, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033075 (2020).
  50. M. Reh, M. Schmitt, and M. Gärttner, Optimizing design choices for neural quantum states, Phys. Rev. B 107, 195115 (2023).
  51. T. Vieijra, C. Casert, J. Nys, W. De Neve, J. Haegeman, J. Ryckebusch, and F. Verstraete, Restricted Boltzmann machines for quantum states with non-Abelian or anyonic symmetries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 097201 (2020).
  52. T. Vieijra and J. Nys, Many-body quantum states with exact conservation of non-Abelian and lattice symmetries through variational Monte Carlo, Phys. Rev. B 104, 045123 (2021).
  53. Y. Nomura and M. Imada, Dirac-type nodal spin liquid revealed by refined quantum many-body solver using neural-network wave function, correlation ratio, and level spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031034 (2021).
  54. C. Roth and A. H. MacDonald, Group convolutional neural networks improve quantum state accuracy, arXiv:2104.05085.
  55. M. Mezera, J. Menšíková, P. Baláž, and M. Žonda, Neural network quantum states analysis of the Shastry-Sutherland model, SciPost Phys. Core 6, 088 (2023).
  56. P. Zanardi and N. Paunković, Ground state overlap and quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. E 74, 031123 (2006).
  57. P. Zanardi, P. Giorda, and M. Cozzini, Information-theoretic differential geometry of quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 100603 (2007).
  58. A. F. Albuquerque, F. Alet, C. Sire, and S. Capponi, Quantum critical scaling of fidelity susceptibility, Phys. Rev. B 81, 064418 (2010).
  59. W.-L. You, Y.-W. Li, and S.-J. Gu, Fidelity, dynamic structure factor, and susceptibility in critical phenomena, Phys. Rev. E 76, 022101 (2007).
  60. S.-J. GU, Fidelity approach to quantum phase transitions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 24, 4371 (2010).
  61. A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Topological entanglement entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110404 (2006).
  62. M. B. Hastings, I. González, A. B. Kallin, and R. G. Melko, Measuring Rényi entanglement entropy in quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 157201 (2010).
  63. A. J. Beekman, L. Rademaker, and J. van Wezel, An introduction to spontaneous symmetry breaking, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes, 11 (2019).
  64. H.-C. Jiang, H. Yao, and L. Balents, Spin liquid ground state of the spin−12 square J1−J2 Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 86, 024424 (2012).
  65. J.-M. Stéphan, S. Furukawa, G. Misguich, and V. Pasquier, Shannon and entanglement entropies of one- and two-dimensional critical wave functions, Phys. Rev. B 80, 184421 (2009).
  66. T. G. Kiely and E. J. Mueller, Role of conservation laws in the density matrix renormalization group, Phys. Rev. B 106, 235126 (2022).
  67. Y. You, E. Wybo, F. Pollmann, and S. L. Sondhi, Observing quasiparticles through the entanglement lens, Phys. Rev. B 106, L161104 (2022).
  68. N. Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Phys. Rep. 646, 1 (2016).
  69. A. B. Kallin, M. B. Hastings, R. G. Melko, and R. R. P. Singh, Anomalies in the entanglement properties of the square-lattice Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 84, 165134 (2011).
  70. S. Voleti, A. Haldar, and A. Paramekanti, Octupolar order and Ising quantum criticality tuned by strain and dimensionality: Application to d-orbital Mott insulators, Phys. Rev. B 104, 174431 (2021).
  71. A. Kale, J. H. Huhn, M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, M. Lebrat, C. Chiu, G. Ji, F. Grusdt, A. Bohrdt, and M. Greiner, Schrieffer-Wolff transformations for experiments: Dynamically suppressing virtual doublon-hole excitations in a Fermi-Hubbard simulator, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012428 (2022).
  72. H. Hu, B. A. Bernevig, and A. M. Tsvelik, Kondo lattice model of magic-angle twisted-bilayer graphene: Hund's rule, local-moment fluctuations, and low-energy effective theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 026502 (2023).
  73. D. Manning-Coe and B. Bradlyn, Ground state stability, symmetry, and degeneracy in Mott insulators with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. B 108, 165136 (2023).
  74. M. Benito, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, Optimized cavity-mediated dispersive two-qubit gates between spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B 100, 081412(R) (2019).
  75. P. M. Mutter and G. Burkard, Cavity control over heavy-hole spin qubits in inversion-symmetric crystals, Phys. Rev. B 102, 205412 (2020).
  76. P. M. Mutter and G. Burkard, All-electrical control of hole singlet-triplet spin qubits at low-leakage points, Phys. Rev. B 104, 195421 (2021).
  77. S. Bosco, B. Hetényi, and D. Loss, Hole spin qubits in Si FinFETs with fully tunable spin-orbit coupling and sweet spots for charge noise, PRX Quantum 2, 010348 (2021).
  78. Y. Liu, J.-X. Xiong, Z. Wang, W.-L. Ma, S. Guan, J.-W. Luo, and S.-S. Li, Emergent linear Rashba spin-orbit coupling offers fast manipulation of hole-spin qubits in germanium, Phys. Rev. B 105, 075313 (2022).
  79. B. Hetényi, S. Bosco, and D. Loss, Anomalous zero-field splitting for hole spin qubits in Si and Ge quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 116805 (2022).
  80. E. Kawakami, J. Chen, M. Benito, and D. Konstantinov, Blueprint for quantum computing using electrons on helium, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 054022 (2023).
  81. Z. Zhang, Entanglement blossom in a simplex matryoshka, Ann. Phys. 457, 169395 (2023).
  82. P. Del Vecchio and O. Moutanabbir, Light-hole gate-defined spin-orbit qubit, Phys. Rev. B 107, L161406 (2023).
  83. Z. Zhang, Y. Yang, X. Xu, and Y. Li, Quantum algorithms for Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043023 (2022).
  84. Q. Marécat, B. Senjean, and M. Saubanère, Recursive relations and quantum eigensolver algorithms within modified Schrieffer-Wolff transformations for the Hubbard dimer, Phys. Rev. B 107, 155110 (2023).
  85. J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Relation between the Anderson and Kondo Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. 149, 491 (1966).
  86. D.-H. Kim, S.-Y. Lee, Y. Jo, D. Y. Kim, Z. Kim, and T. Jeong, A method to compute the Schrieffer–Wolff generator for analysis of quantum memory, Entropy 23, 1260 (2021).
  87. T. Hillmann and F. Quijandría, Designing Kerr interactions for quantum information processing via counterrotating terms of asymmetric Josephson-junction loops, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 064018 (2022).
  88. L. Reascos, G. F. Diotallevi, and M. Benito, Universal solution to the Schrieffer–Wolff transformation generator, arXiv:2411.11535.
  89. R. Winkler, Spin–Orbit Coupling Effects in Two-Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics (Springer, Berlin, 2003), Vol. 191.
  90. G. T. Landi, Eigenoperator approach to Schrieffer–Wolff perturbation theory and dispersive interactions, arXiv:2409.10656.
  91. S. Xie, R. Girshick, P. Dollár, Z. Tu, and K. He, Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks, in 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2017), pp. 5987–5995.
  92. K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image recognition, in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2016), pp. 770–778.
  93. F. Vicentini, D. Hofmann, A. Szabó, D. Wu, C. Roth, C. Giuliani, G. Pescia, J. Nys, V. Vargas-Calderón, N. Astrakhantsev, and G. Carleo, NetKet 3: Machine learning toolbox for many-body quantum systems, SciPost Phys. Codebases, 7 (2022).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033008– Published 6 July, 2026
  • Received 9 March 2026
  • Accepted 3 June 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation