Non-Abelian line graph: A generalized approach to flat bands

Rui-Heng Liu School of Physics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China    Xin Liu [email protected] School of Physics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China Institute for Quantum Science and Engineering and Wuhan National High Magnetic Field Center, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China Hubei Key Laboratory of Gravitation and Quantum Physics, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
(May 1, 2024)
Abstract

Line graph (LG) lattices are well known to host flat bands (FBs) with isotropic hop**s in s𝑠sitalic_s-orbital models. Yet, higher-angular-momentum orbitals with spin-orbit coupling (SOC), which are more common in real materials, lack a general approach for their inclusion in LG to achieve FBs. Here, we introduce a non-Abelian LG theory to construct FBs in realistic systems, which incorporates internal degrees of freedom and goes beyond real-valued isotropic hop**s. The lattice edges and sites in the LG are modified to be associated with arbitrary Hermitian matrices, referred to as the multiple LG. A crucial step is to map the multiple LG Hamiltonian to a tight-binding (TB) model that respects the lattice symmetry through appropriate local non-Abelian transformations in the internal space. We find the general conditions to determine the local transformations. Based on this mechanism, we discuss the realization of d𝑑ditalic_d-orbital FBs in the Kagome lattice, which may serve as a minimal model for understanding the high-orbital FBs with SOC in Kagome materials. Our approach bridges the known FBs in pure lattice models and the realization in multi-orbital systems.

The quenching of kinetic energy in the flat band (FB) system renders it an ideal platform for investigating diverse correlated phenomena such as ferromagnetism [1, 2], superconductivity and superfluidity [3, 4, 5, 6], Wigner crystal [7] and fractional quantum Hall effect [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. The destructive interference is a common origin of the FB, which suppress the kinetic energy and leads to the localization of the electrons [16, 17]. In an early seminal work, Mielke identified a special class of lattice known as the line graph (LG) lattice that could naturally lead to destructive interference and therefore produce a FB [1, 2], as guaranteed by the LG theorem [17, 18, 19]. The typical examples are Kagome [20, 16], checkerboard [8, 21] and pyrochlore lattice [22, 23, 16]. Recently, realizing FBs in real systems has attracted significant attention in both theoretical and experimental research, where Kagome stands out as a prominent representative. Notably, both DFT calculations and experiments reveal that Kagome materials have higher-angular-momentum orbitals (high orbitals) near the Fermi surface and the spin-orbit coupling (SOC) is usually presented [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35], which significantly differ from the isotropic hop**s from s𝑠sitalic_s-electrons as originally assumed. Meanwhile, FBs are also observed in Moiré systems, arising from the Moiré potential and band folding. Twisted bilayer graphene hosts approximate chiral FBs near charge neutrality [36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44]. More interestingly, the bands in twisted TMD systems exhibit high-orbital characteristics [45, 46, 47], which is reminiscent of the honeycomb lattice with px,pysubscript𝑝𝑥subscript𝑝𝑦p_{x},p_{y}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT orbitals [7, 48]. However, the original LG approach focuses on pure lattice degree of freedom with isotropic hop**s, and its application to systems with internal degrees of freedom (such as orbitals) remains to be studied.

In this work, we develop a non-Abelian LG theory to incorporate internal degrees of freedom. We first generalize the uniform coupling constant (Fig. 1(a)) on each edge to a Hermitian matrix (Fig. 1(b)). The extension is referred to as the multiple LG, which allows the application of the LG theorem to the systems with internal space. When the LG corresponds to a periodic system, the multiple LG serves as the counterpart of the conventional LG to preserve the FB nature. To match the anisotropic hop**s in real materials, we perform local U(n)𝑛(n)( italic_n ) unitary transformations in the internal space to drive the Hamiltonian beyond the isotropic multiple LG, which gives rise to a non-Abelian LG (Fig. 1(c)). Further, we set up general conditions to distinguish non-Abelian LGs from the tight-binding (TB) models (Fig. 1(d)), where all the realistic lattice symmetries are respected. To demonstrate our theory, we study the d𝑑ditalic_d-orbital Kagome models, which may provide insights into Kagome materials.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: (a) The construction of a LG. Black and green lines belong to the root graph and the LG. The green edges and red loops represent hop**s and on-site energies in the TB model. The “dumbbell” is employed for convenience. (b) The multiple LG. The couplings are generalized to matrices. (c) Schematic depiction of a non-Abelian LG. The triangle corresponds to the gray region of (a). The couplings in different directions are anisotropic but related by “rotations”. (d) Relation between the non-Abelian LG and TB models with lattice symmetry. FBs are present in their intersection.

Multiple Line Graph- Mathematically, a graph consists of a set of vertices and edges, where the edge represents a pairing relation between the vertices [49] (Fig. 1(a)). For a simple graph X𝑋Xitalic_X, we can obtain its LG L(X)𝐿𝑋L(X)italic_L ( italic_X ) by replacing each edge with a vertex, which is placed on the midpoint as agreed. These vertices are adjacent when the corresponding edges in X𝑋Xitalic_X share a common vertex. X𝑋Xitalic_X is referred to as the root graph. Fig. 1(a) shows an example of the construction. The LG is related to a TB Hamiltonian of the form HLG=tAL(X)=tijcicjsubscript𝐻LG𝑡subscript𝐴𝐿𝑋𝑡subscript𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑐𝑖subscript𝑐𝑗H_{\rm LG}=tA_{L(X)}=t\sum_{i\neq j}c_{i}^{\dagger}c_{j}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_LG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_t italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L ( italic_X ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_t ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≠ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Here, AL(X)subscript𝐴𝐿𝑋A_{L(X)}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L ( italic_X ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the {0,1}01\{0,1\}{ 0 , 1 } off-diagonal adjacency matrix of the LG and ci (ci)subscript𝑐𝑖 subscriptsuperscript𝑐𝑖c_{i}\text{ }(c^{\dagger}_{i})italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) the annihilation (creation) operator on the i𝑖iitalic_i-th site and t𝑡titalic_t the hop** constant. Since the edges are identical, there is only a unique hop** parameter t𝑡titalic_t between two connected vertices in the model, and it has to be real to guarantee Hermicity. When the graph is periodic, the spectrum of the LG lattice hosts a macroscopic degenerate subspace, which corresponds to a FB with energy EFB=2tsubscript𝐸FB2𝑡E_{\text{FB}}=-2titalic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FB end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - 2 italic_t in the language of band theory [18, 19]. It is commonly referred to as the LG theorem and the existence of FBs in the LG lattice is fundamentally governed by its specific connectivity. The uniform chemical potential μ𝜇\muitalic_μ is usually omitted in the LG since it only shifts all the bands trivially. But it is present as a loop (Fig. 1(a)) here for our generalization of the conventional LG to include the internal degree of freedom. Note that the LG Hamiltonian only has two parameters t𝑡titalic_t and μ𝜇\muitalic_μ, which are visualized in the “dumbbell” in Fig. 1(a).

In its essence, we extend the discussion to more general TB models with internal degrees of freedom. In such cases, the coupling between two sites is generalized to a matrix. We propose the Hamiltonian

HMLG=TAL(X)+M𝟙subscript𝐻MLGtensor-product𝑇subscript𝐴𝐿𝑋tensor-product𝑀1H_{\rm MLG}=T\otimes A_{L(X)}+M\otimes\mathbbm{1}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_MLG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_T ⊗ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L ( italic_X ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_M ⊗ blackboard_1 (1)

with AL(X)subscript𝐴𝐿𝑋A_{L(X)}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L ( italic_X ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the {0,1}01\{0,1\}{ 0 , 1 } off-diagonal adjacency matrix of the LG, 𝟙1\mathbbm{1}blackboard_1 the identity of the same dimensionality with AL(X)subscript𝐴𝐿𝑋A_{L(X)}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L ( italic_X ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, T𝑇Titalic_T and M𝑀Mitalic_M the arbitrary Hermitian matrices of dimensionality n𝑛nitalic_n. The original LG is a specific case where T=t𝑇𝑡T=titalic_T = italic_t and M=μ𝑀𝜇M=\muitalic_M = italic_μ. The FB eigenspace of the original LG is spanned by the compact localized states (CLSs) and the non-contractible loop states (NLSs) [16, 50] which are denoted as {vi}subscript𝑣𝑖\{v_{i}\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } with i𝑖iitalic_i up to the dimension of the FB eigenspace. To inherit the FB character from the LG, we construct the wave function ψj,i=ujvisubscript𝜓𝑗𝑖tensor-productsubscript𝑢𝑗subscript𝑣𝑖\psi_{j,i}=u_{j}\otimes v_{i}italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where ujsubscript𝑢𝑗u_{j}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the j𝑗jitalic_j-th eigenvector, satisfying (T12M)uj=λjuj𝑇12𝑀subscript𝑢𝑗subscript𝜆𝑗subscript𝑢𝑗\left(T-\dfrac{1}{2}M\right)u_{j}=\lambda_{j}u_{j}( italic_T - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_M ) italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, in the internal space. Remarkably, it follows that for arbitrary CLS or NLS visubscript𝑣𝑖v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, Hψj,i=(2λj)ψj,i𝐻subscript𝜓𝑗𝑖2subscript𝜆𝑗subscript𝜓𝑗𝑖H\psi_{j,i}=(-2\lambda_{j})\psi_{j,i}italic_H italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( - 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. As a result, the original FB with energy 22-2- 2 has transformed into n𝑛nitalic_n FBs, each with an energy of 2λj2subscript𝜆𝑗-2\lambda_{j}- 2 italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Their existence is independent of the parameters of the matrices T𝑇Titalic_T and M𝑀Mitalic_M, indicating that they originate from the connectivity of the underlying periodic graph. Therefore, we can naturally extend the original LG structure (Fig. 1(a)) to a version with multiple internal degree of freedom (Fig. 1(b)). Specifically, we utilize the Kagome lattice, whose root graph is the honeycomb lattice to illustrate. A single site is now mapped to multiple vertices, which results in a layer structure. We first set T𝑇Titalic_T and M𝑀Mitalic_M to be diagonal for clearance and draw the corresponding graph structure in Fig. 2(a). The blue and green layers represent any two-component degrees of freedom residing on the same site. Each layer features a LG structure, while the weights could be varied in different layers as indicated by tisubscript𝑡𝑖t_{i}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and μisubscript𝜇𝑖\mu_{i}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By including off-diagonal elements, we can more generally incorporate inter-layer couplings (magenta and brown arrows in Fig. 1(b)). As long as Hermiticity is maintained, these elements can assume complex values, which could include practical factors such as the SOC or magnetic fields in principle. The distinction from the intra-layer couplings is indicated by the bidirectional arrows. It is reasonable to designate the corresponding graph structure as the multiple LG as the presence of FBs is proven.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: (a) The multiple LG on a Kagome lattice with a two-dimensional internal space, where the inter-layer coupling is neglected. The generators of the point group C6vsubscript𝐶6𝑣C_{6v}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are shown.  (b) Anisotropic hop**s from d𝑑ditalic_d-orbitals. (c) Isotropic hop**s from s𝑠sitalic_s-orbitals. (d) Sublattices A,B,C and the inequivalent nearest neighbor hop**s of Kagome.

Physical Interpretation and Non-Abelian Line Graph- We notice that high orbitals in the real material generally lead to an anisotropic hop** Hamiltonian (Fig. 2(b)), which is not compatible with the multiple LG as previously proposed. When the orbitals form a high dimensional irreducible representation (IRREP) of the space group of the real crystal, there is a mismatch between symmetries and the multiple LG, as we demonstrate below. Firstly, the lattice translation symmetry implies that the hop**s associated by the translation operator T^^𝑇\hat{T}over^ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG are equivalent. Further, the point group imposes constraints on the inequivalent hop**s (Fig. 2(b)), denoted as tαβsuperscript𝑡𝛼𝛽t^{\alpha\leftarrow\beta}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ← italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with α,β𝛼𝛽\alpha,\betaitalic_α , italic_β the sublattice index. When a symmetry operation g𝑔gitalic_g connects the hop** vectors of the inequivalent hop**s, the corresponding hop** matrices only differ by a similarity transformation as

tαβ=D(g)tγδD(g),𝒓αβ=g𝒓γδformulae-sequencesuperscript𝑡𝛼𝛽superscript𝐷𝑔superscript𝑡𝛾𝛿𝐷𝑔superscript𝒓𝛼𝛽𝑔superscript𝒓𝛾𝛿t^{\alpha\leftarrow\beta}=D^{\dagger}(g)t^{\gamma\leftarrow\delta}D(g),\quad% \mbox{\boldmath$r$}^{\alpha\leftarrow\beta}=g\mbox{\boldmath$r$}^{\gamma% \leftarrow\delta}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ← italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_g ) italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ← italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_D ( italic_g ) , bold_italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ← italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_g bold_italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ← italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (2)

where D(g)𝐷𝑔D(g)italic_D ( italic_g ) is the high-dimensional IRREP of g𝑔gitalic_g in the high orbital basis. In the multiple LG, the symmetry conditions are equivalent to D(g)TD(g)=Tsuperscript𝐷𝑔𝑇𝐷𝑔𝑇D^{\dagger}(g)TD(g)=Titalic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_g ) italic_T italic_D ( italic_g ) = italic_T for g𝑔gitalic_g is any group element. Therefore, T𝑇Titalic_T must be proportional to the identity according to Schur’s lemma. The model reduces to several identical copies of the original LG, which corresponds to a reducible representation as the sum of the one-dimensional representations (Fig. 2(c)). This leads to a contradiction and implies that the multiple LG is not directly applicable for high orbitals. Remarkably, we can remedy the loophole by utilizing the internal degree of freedom. To illustrate that, we first introduce the concept of the non-Abelian LG. The energy spectrum of the multiple LG Hamiltonian (Eq. (1)) should be unaffected if we perform a local transformation Ui(n)subscript𝑈𝑖𝑛U_{i}(n)italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n ) in the internal space. As a result, the matrix T𝑇Titalic_T on the connecting link of the adjacent sites i𝑖iitalic_i and j𝑗jitalic_j changes as TUiTUj:=tij𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑈𝑖𝑇subscript𝑈𝑗assignsuperscript𝑡𝑖𝑗T\rightarrow U_{i}^{\dagger}TU_{j}:=t^{i\leftarrow j}italic_T → italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i ← italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and the on-site matrix M𝑀Mitalic_M change as MUiMUi:=Mi𝑀subscriptsuperscript𝑈𝑖𝑀subscript𝑈𝑖assignsubscript𝑀𝑖M\rightarrow U^{\dagger}_{i}MU_{i}:=M_{i}italic_M → italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. They are combined and understood as a gauge transformation to guarantee the invariance of the overall Hamiltonian [51, 52] and result in a Hamiltonian with enhanced local U(n)U𝑛\text{U}(n)U ( italic_n ) symmetry

HNALG=s,s(i,jci,stssijcj,s+ici,sMici,s).subscript𝐻NALGsubscript𝑠superscript𝑠subscript𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑐𝑖𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝑡𝑖𝑗𝑠superscript𝑠subscript𝑐𝑗superscript𝑠subscript𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑐𝑖𝑠subscript𝑀𝑖subscript𝑐𝑖𝑠H_{\rm NALG}=\sum_{s,s^{\prime}}\left(\sum_{i,j}c_{i,s}^{\dagger}t^{i% \leftarrow j}_{ss^{\prime}}c_{j,s^{\prime}}+\sum_{i}c_{i,s}^{\dagger}M_{i}c_{i% ,s}\right).italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_NALG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i ← italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . (3)

The hop**s tijsuperscript𝑡𝑖𝑗t^{i\leftarrow j}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i ← italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are non-Abelian matrices since the transformations Ui(n)subscript𝑈𝑖𝑛U_{i}(n)italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n ) generally make them not commute to each other. Also, they are not necessarily Hermitian since each tijsuperscript𝑡𝑖𝑗t^{i\leftarrow j}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i ← italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT only represents a one-way hop**. The corresponding graph is referred to as a non-Abelian LG (Fig. 1(c)).

Table 1: The FB condition for the d𝑑ditalic_d-orbital doublet in terms of the SK integrals and the corresponding local transformation satisfying Eq. (4).
IRREP FB conditions for SK integrals Local transformation
E1(dxz/dyz)subscript𝐸1subscript𝑑𝑥𝑧subscript𝑑𝑦𝑧E_{1}(d_{xz}/d_{yz})italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ddπ+ddδ=0𝑑𝑑𝜋𝑑𝑑𝛿0dd\pi+dd\delta=0italic_d italic_d italic_π + italic_d italic_d italic_δ = 0 UA=D2(C6),UB=𝟏,UC=D2(C6)formulae-sequencesubscript𝑈𝐴superscript𝐷2subscriptC6formulae-sequencesubscript𝑈𝐵1subscript𝑈𝐶superscript𝐷2subscriptC6U_{A}=D^{2}(\text{C}_{6}),U_{B}=\mathbf{1},U_{C}=D^{-2}(\text{C}_{6})italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_1 , italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
E2(dx2y2/dxy)subscript𝐸2subscript𝑑superscript𝑥2superscript𝑦2subscript𝑑𝑥𝑦E_{2}(d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}/d_{xy})italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) 3ddσ+4ddπ+ddδ=03𝑑𝑑𝜎4𝑑𝑑𝜋𝑑𝑑𝛿03dd\sigma+4dd\pi+dd\delta=03 italic_d italic_d italic_σ + 4 italic_d italic_d italic_π + italic_d italic_d italic_δ = 0 UA=D1(C6),UB=𝟏,UC=D(C6)formulae-sequencesubscript𝑈𝐴superscript𝐷1subscriptC6formulae-sequencesubscript𝑈𝐵1subscript𝑈𝐶𝐷subscriptC6U_{A}=D^{-1}(\text{C}_{6}),U_{B}=\mathbf{1},U_{C}=D(\text{C}_{6})italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_1 , italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_D ( C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

This novel concept builds a significant connection between the multiple LG and the FB in the real material with internal degree of freedom. A non-Abelian LG can support FBs since there always exist appropriate local transformations that can convert them back to a multiple LG. Meanwhile, the non-commutative hop**s allow it to match the high-dimensional IRREP of the space group. In practice, we can start from a TB Hamiltonian which respects all the lattice symmetry. Since the TB Hamiltonian is periodic, once we find sublattice-dependent local transformations Uα,βsubscript𝑈𝛼𝛽U_{\alpha,\beta}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that satisfy two conditions

UαtαβUβ=TandUαMαUα=M,formulae-sequencesubscript𝑈𝛼superscript𝑡𝛼𝛽superscriptsubscript𝑈𝛽𝑇andsubscript𝑈𝛼subscript𝑀𝛼subscriptsuperscript𝑈𝛼𝑀U_{\alpha}t^{\alpha\leftarrow\beta}U_{\beta}^{\dagger}=T\quad\text{and}\quad U% _{\alpha}M_{\alpha}U^{\dagger}_{\alpha}=M,italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ← italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_T and italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_M , (4)

the TB model is determined as a non-Abelian LG, and the presence of FBs is guaranteed. We refer to them as the hop** condition and the onsite condition, respectively. They are general regardless of the specific LG lattice or the orbitals. To better elucidate the point, we still consider the Kagome lattice for convenience. The lattice has three sublattices and six types of nearest neighbor hop**s as shown in Fig. 2(d). The point group of the lattice is C6vsubscript𝐶6𝑣C_{6v}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with the generators six-fold rotations C6subscriptC6\text{C}_{6}C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and mirror M (Fig. 2(a)). Considering the smallest triangle loop in the lattice, we find that the hop** condition in Eq. (4) leads to

T~α=UαT3Uα,T~α=T~α,formulae-sequencesubscript~𝑇𝛼subscriptsuperscript𝑈𝛼superscript𝑇3subscript𝑈𝛼subscript~𝑇𝛼superscriptsubscript~𝑇𝛼\tilde{T}_{\alpha}=U^{\dagger}_{\alpha}T^{3}U_{\alpha},\quad\tilde{T}_{\alpha}% =\tilde{T}_{\alpha}^{\dagger},over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (5)

where T~α=A,B,C=t(tαβtγα)subscript~𝑇𝛼𝐴𝐵𝐶subscriptproduct𝑡superscript𝑡𝛼𝛽superscript𝑡𝛾𝛼\tilde{T}_{\alpha=A,B,C}=\prod_{t\in\triangleright}(t^{\alpha\leftarrow\beta}% \cdots t^{\gamma\leftarrow\alpha})over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α = italic_A , italic_B , italic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ∈ ▷ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ← italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ← italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is the product of the hop** matrices along the loop. All the T~αsubscript~𝑇𝛼\tilde{T}_{\alpha}over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT must be Hermitian and share the same eigenvalues, and this is a non-trivial requirement since tαβsuperscript𝑡𝛼𝛽t^{\alpha\leftarrow\beta}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ← italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are non-Abelian. Together with the on-site condition in Eq. (4), we offer a direct criterion for determining whether a given TB model is a non-Abelian LG. When the SOC is neglected, we can choose all the wavefunctions to be real and focus on a simplified spinless model. The hop** strength between atomic orbitals is usually captured by the Slater-Koster (SK) integrals [53], which are also real. It is natural to specify the orbitals as the d𝑑ditalic_d-orbital doublets since they carry the high-dimensional IRREPs En=1,2subscript𝐸𝑛12E_{n=1,2}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and the corresponding representation matrices in Eq. (2) are given by D(C6)=cos(nθ)σ0isin(nθ)σy𝐷subscriptC6𝑛𝜃subscript𝜎0𝑖𝑛𝜃subscript𝜎𝑦D(\text{C}_{6})=\cos(n\theta)\sigma_{0}-i\sin(n\theta)\sigma_{y}italic_D ( C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_cos ( start_ARG italic_n italic_θ end_ARG ) italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i roman_sin ( start_ARG italic_n italic_θ end_ARG ) italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and D(M)=σz𝐷𝑀subscript𝜎𝑧D(M)=\sigma_{z}italic_D ( italic_M ) = italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To be specific, we consider the dx2y2/dxysubscript𝑑superscript𝑥2superscript𝑦2subscript𝑑𝑥𝑦d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}/d_{xy}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT orbitals. Therefore, the hop** matrix along y𝑦yitalic_y direction (Fig. 3(a)) is given by

tAC=[(3ddσ+ddδ)/400ddπ].superscript𝑡𝐴𝐶matrix3𝑑𝑑𝜎𝑑𝑑𝛿400𝑑𝑑𝜋t^{A\leftarrow C}=\begin{bmatrix}(3dd\sigma+dd\delta)/4&0\\ 0&dd\pi\end{bmatrix}.italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A ← italic_C end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL ( 3 italic_d italic_d italic_σ + italic_d italic_d italic_δ ) / 4 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_d italic_d italic_π end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] . (6)

The other two hop**s tCB,tBAsuperscript𝑡𝐶𝐵superscript𝑡𝐵𝐴t^{C\leftarrow B},t^{B\leftarrow A}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C ← italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B ← italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are related to it via C6subscriptC6\text{C}_{6}C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and T~αsubscript~𝑇𝛼\tilde{T}_{\alpha}over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can then be calculated. The algebra of the Pauli matrices offers us a powerful tool to deal with these two-dimensional representations. Detailed calculation [54] reveals that Eq. (5) is satisfied when Tr(tαβ)=0Trsuperscript𝑡𝛼𝛽0\text{Tr}(t^{\alpha\leftarrow\beta})=0Tr ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ← italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0. Equivalently, the FBs exist when 3ddσ+4ddπ+ddδ=03𝑑𝑑𝜎4𝑑𝑑𝜋𝑑𝑑𝛿03dd\sigma+4dd\pi+dd\delta=03 italic_d italic_d italic_σ + 4 italic_d italic_d italic_π + italic_d italic_d italic_δ = 0. Meanwhile, since dx2y2/dxysubscript𝑑superscript𝑥2superscript𝑦2subscript𝑑𝑥𝑦d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}/d_{xy}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT orbitals carry a two-dimensional IRREP, the on-site matrix M𝑀Mitalic_M is identity. Hence, the on-site condition in Eq. (4) is automatically fulfilled. Notably, tACσzsimilar-tosuperscript𝑡𝐴𝐶subscript𝜎𝑧t^{A\leftarrow C}\sim\sigma_{z}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A ← italic_C end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∼ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT while σxsubscript𝜎𝑥\sigma_{x}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT appears in the other two hop**s with these specific SK integrals. They do not commute and the model is a non-Abelian LG. Interestingly, it is close to the parameters of transition metals [55], which suggests that our proposal may be a candidate to explain the origin of FBs in realistic Kagome materials, considering the orbital components. We set ddσ=4,ddπ=3,ddδ=0formulae-sequence𝑑𝑑𝜎4formulae-sequence𝑑𝑑𝜋3𝑑𝑑𝛿0dd\sigma=4,dd\pi=-3,dd\delta=0italic_d italic_d italic_σ = 4 , italic_d italic_d italic_π = - 3 , italic_d italic_d italic_δ = 0 and M=0𝑀0M=0italic_M = 0 for simplicity and plot the band dispersion in Fig. 3(b). We can manifestly identify two sets of s𝑠sitalic_s-orbital-like Kagome bands [16] in the band structure, which indicates that our non-Abelian LG inherits the conventional LG nature.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: (a) Sublattice-dependent rotation that related the multiple LG to the d𝑑ditalic_d-orbital TB models. The grey line indicates the hop** tACsuperscript𝑡𝐴𝐶t^{A\leftarrow C}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A ← italic_C end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. (b)(c) Band structure and the corresponding multiple LG of the Kagome model with dx2y2/dxysubscript𝑑superscript𝑥2superscript𝑦2subscript𝑑𝑥𝑦d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}/d_{xy}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the non-zero SK integrals are ddσ=4,ddπ=3formulae-sequence𝑑𝑑𝜎4𝑑𝑑𝜋3dd\sigma=4,dd\pi=-3italic_d italic_d italic_σ = 4 , italic_d italic_d italic_π = - 3.  b) without SOC and the inter-orbital couplings; c) with SOC λ=0.5𝜆0.5\lambda=0.5italic_λ = 0.5 and the inter-orbital couplings.

To further illustrate this relation, we explicitly transform the non-Abelian LG back to the multiple LG. It will also provide a more intuitive understanding of the band structures after we distinguish the non-Abelian LG in general TB models. Based on Eq. (5), we further diagonalize T𝑇Titalic_T to 𝒯=𝒰T𝒰𝒯superscript𝒰𝑇𝒰\mathcal{T}=\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}T\mathcal{U}caligraphic_T = caligraphic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T caligraphic_U and obtain T~α=Oα𝒯3Oαsubscript~𝑇𝛼subscriptsuperscript𝑂𝛼superscript𝒯3subscript𝑂𝛼\tilde{T}_{\alpha}=O^{\dagger}_{\alpha}\mathcal{T}^{3}O_{\alpha}over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_O start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where Oα=𝒰Uαsubscript𝑂𝛼𝒰subscript𝑈𝛼O_{\alpha}=\mathcal{U}U_{\alpha}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_U italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Denoting the eigenvalues of T~αsubscript~𝑇𝛼\tilde{T}_{\alpha}over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as Eig(T~α)={ϵ1,,ϵn}Eigsubscript~𝑇𝛼subscriptitalic-ϵ1subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑛\text{Eig}(\tilde{T}_{\alpha})=\{\epsilon_{1},\cdots,\epsilon_{n}\}Eig ( over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = { italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, it follows that 𝒯=diag(ϵ13,,ϵn3)𝒯diag3subscriptitalic-ϵ13subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑛\mathcal{T}=\text{diag}(\sqrt[3]{\epsilon_{1}},\cdots,\sqrt[3]{\epsilon_{n}})caligraphic_T = diag ( nth-root start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , ⋯ , nth-root start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ). In our d𝑑ditalic_d-orbital case, we have Eig(T~α)={(±ddπ)3}Eigsubscript~𝑇𝛼superscriptplus-or-minus𝑑𝑑𝜋3\text{Eig}(\tilde{T}_{\alpha})=\{(\pm dd\pi)^{3}\}Eig ( over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = { ( ± italic_d italic_d italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT }, leading to 𝒯=diag(ddπ,ddπ)𝒯diag𝑑𝑑𝜋𝑑𝑑𝜋\mathcal{T}=\text{diag}(dd\pi,-dd\pi)caligraphic_T = diag ( italic_d italic_d italic_π , - italic_d italic_d italic_π ). Therefore, the related multiple LG Hamiltonian is determined as diagonal T=𝒯=tσz𝑇𝒯𝑡subscript𝜎𝑧T=\mathcal{T}=t\sigma_{z}italic_T = caligraphic_T = italic_t italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for convenience, where t=ddπ𝑡𝑑𝑑𝜋t=dd\piitalic_t = italic_d italic_d italic_π and σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ acts on the orbital-space. The corresponding local transformations are listed in Table 1 and illustrated in Fig. 3(a). The resulting multiple LG is shown in Fig. 3(b), where the two layers are interpreted as the rotated orbitals in Fig. 3(a). The blue, green and magenta arrows represent real-valued hop**s, and the yellow and red loops are chemical potentials (set as 0). The Hamiltonian leads to two copies of the original LG with EFB=±2tsubscript𝐸FBplus-or-minus2𝑡E_{\text{FB}}=\pm 2titalic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FB end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ± 2 italic_t, and the band structure is symmetric due to the emergent chiral symmetry with the unitary operator σysubscript𝜎𝑦\sigma_{y}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. They are consistent with the bands shown in Fig. 3(b).

On this foundation, we duplicate the model to recover a spinful model and introduce the SOC. The leading term is given by the on-site 𝑳𝑺𝑳𝑺\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$S$}bold_italic_L ⋅ bold_italic_S as dx2y2,s|𝑳𝑺|dxy,s=dx2y2|LzSz|dxyδssbrasubscript𝑑superscript𝑥2superscript𝑦2𝑠𝑳𝑺ketsubscript𝑑𝑥𝑦superscript𝑠brasubscript𝑑superscript𝑥2superscript𝑦2subscript𝐿𝑧subscript𝑆𝑧ketsubscript𝑑𝑥𝑦subscript𝛿𝑠superscript𝑠\bra{d_{x^{2}-y^{2}},s}\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$S$}\ket{d_{xy},% s^{\prime}}=\bra{d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}}L_{z}S_{z}\ket{d_{xy}}\delta_{ss^{\prime}}⟨ start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_s end_ARG | bold_italic_L ⋅ bold_italic_S | start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ = ⟨ start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which couples the orbitals on the same site. The band structure is plotted in Fig. 3(c). Correspondingly, the related multiple LG Hamiltonian is generalized to

T=s0(tσz),M=sz(λσy),formulae-sequence𝑇subscript𝑠0𝑡subscript𝜎𝑧𝑀subscript𝑠𝑧𝜆subscript𝜎𝑦T=s_{0}(t\sigma_{z}),\quad M=s_{z}(\lambda\sigma_{y}),italic_T = italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_M = italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_λ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , (7)

where s𝑠sitalic_s acts on the spin-space and λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ is the SOC strength. We find that M𝑀Mitalic_M commutes with the local transformations Uαsubscript𝑈𝛼U_{\alpha}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [54] so that the on-site condition in Eq. (4) is satisfied. Meanwhile, it provides the coupling between two s-orbital like FBs and open the degeneracies at E=0𝐸0E=0italic_E = 0 (Fig. 3(b) and (c)). The coupling due to the SOC is visualized to the brown arrows appear in the multiple LG due to the SOC (Fig. 3(c)). As a result, the bands can no longer be explained as superpositions of the original Kagome bands. Nevertheless, the FBs are still ensured as previously discussed. Using the anti-commutative Clifford algebra, we can solve the FB energies analytically, which are slightly shifted to ±4t2+λ2plus-or-minus4superscript𝑡2superscript𝜆2\pm\sqrt{4t^{2}+\lambda^{2}}± square-root start_ARG 4 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG. Notice that spin is a good quantum number of the model, our analysis holds for each spin component. Note that two spin sectors share the same multiple LG structure but with opposite on-site coupling strength, resulting in a two-fold degenerate band structure. Also, the bands are symmetric due to the chiral symmetry with operator sxσysubscript𝑠𝑥subscript𝜎𝑦s_{x}\sigma_{y}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Similar analyses are also valid for the dxz/dyzsubscript𝑑𝑥𝑧subscript𝑑𝑦𝑧d_{xz}/d_{yz}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT doublet, and the main results are listed in Table 1.

Discussion and Conclusion- In conclusion, we have introduced a non-Abelian LG generalized from the original LG, which is adaptable for constructing multiple FBs in practical systems with internal degrees of freedom. It also goes beyond the requirement of real-valued isotropic hop**s. Our proof for the multiple LG can be extended to a plethora of pure lattice models with a FB [56]. As long as the crystal net structure hosts a macroscopic degenerate subspace, we could attach the internal degrees of freedom and the proof still holds. In special cases such as two-dimensional internal space, the energies of multiple FBs are exactly solvable and easily tunable in the model. Though we mainly discussed physical atomic orbitals throughout the work, the internal space of Eq. (1) can stand for any degree of freedom independent of the lattices. It defines an equivalent class H(T,M)𝐻𝑇𝑀H(T,M)italic_H ( italic_T , italic_M ), and the models that differ only by a gauge transformation result in different non-Abelian LGs but belong to the same class and share an identical energy spectrum. In the case of the Kagome lattice, those equivalent Hamiltonians can be associated with the d𝑑ditalic_d-orbital doublet via proper local transformations as we discussed, or diatomic Kagome lattice [57, 58, 59], or other more. Although they are equivalent in the gauge sense, the physical realizations are distinct. By leveraging internal degrees of freedom, our work may provide new insight and open an alternative avenue to construct and explore practical FB systems.

Acknowledgements.

Acknowledge

We acknowledge useful discussions with **-Hua Gao and Ying-Hai Wu. We acknowledge the support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant No.12074133).

References

  • Mielke [1991a] A. Mielke, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 24, L73 (1991a).
  • Mielke [1991b] A. Mielke, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 24, 3311 (1991b).
  • Peotta and Törmä [2015] S. Peotta and P. Törmä, Nature Communications 6, 8944 (2015).
  • Xie et al. [2020] F. Xie, Z. Song, B. Lian,  and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review Letters 124, 167002 (2020).
  • Peri et al. [2021] V. Peri, Z.-D. Song, B. A. Bernevig,  and S. D. Huber, Physical Review Letters 126, 027002 (2021).
  • Törmä et al. [2022] P. Törmä, S. Peotta,  and B. A. Bernevig, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 528 (2022).
  • Wu et al. [2007] C. Wu, D. Bergman, L. Balents,  and S. D. Sarma, Physical Review Letters 99, 070401 (2007).
  • Sun et al. [2011] K. Sun, Z. Gu, H. Katsura,  and S. D. Sarma, Physical Review Letters 106, 236803 (2011).
  • Neupert et al. [2011] T. Neupert, L. Santos, C. Chamon,  and C. Mudry, Physical Review Letters 106, 236804 (2011).
  • Tang et al. [2011] E. Tang, J.-W. Mei,  and X.-G. Wen, Physical Review Letters 106, 236802 (2011).
  • Regnault and Bernevig [2011] N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review X 1, 021014 (2011).
  • Andrews and Soluyanov [2020] B. Andrews and A. Soluyanov, Physical Review B 101, 235312 (2020).
  • Park et al. [2023] H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, et al., Nature 622, 74 (2023).
  • Cai et al. [2023] J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, et al., Nature 622, 63 (2023).
  • Xu et al. [2023] F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, et al., Physical Review X 13, 031037 (2023).
  • Bergman et al. [2008] D. L. Bergman, C. Wu,  and L. Balents, Physical Review B 78, 125104 (2008).
  • Liu et al. [2014] Z. Liu, F. Liu,  and Y.-S. Wu, Chinese Physics B 23, 077308 (2014).
  • Cvetkovic et al. [2004] D. Cvetkovic, P. Rowlinson,  and S. Simic, Spectral generalizations of line graphs: On graphs with least eigenvalue-2, Vol. 314 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
  • Kollár et al. [2020] A. J. Kollár, M. Fitzpatrick, P. Sarnak,  and A. A. Houck, Communications in Mathematical Physics 376, 1909 (2020).
  • Mielke [1992] A. Mielke, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 25, 4335 (1992).
  • Iskin [2019] M. Iskin, Physical Review A 99, 053608 (2019).
  • Guo and Franz [2009] H.-M. Guo and M. Franz, Physical Review Letters 103, 206805 (2009).
  • Trescher and Bergholtz [2012] M. Trescher and E. J. Bergholtz, Physical Review B 86, 241111 (2012).
  • Kang et al. [2020a] M. Kang, L. Ye, S. Fang, J.-S. You, A. Levitan, M. Han, J. I. Facio, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, et al., Nature materials 19, 163 (2020a).
  • Kang et al. [2020b] M. Kang, S. Fang, L. Ye, H. C. Po, J. Denlinger, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, E. Kaxiras, J. G. Checkelsky, et al., Nature Communications 11, 4004 (2020b).
  • Liu et al. [2020] Z. Liu, M. Li, Q. Wang, G. Wang, C. Wen, K. Jiang, X. Lu, S. Yan, Y. Huang, D. Shen, et al., Nature Communications 11, 4002 (2020).
  • Cao et al. [2023] S. Cao, C. Xu, H. Fukui, T. Manjo, M. Shi, Y. Liu, C. Cao,  and Y. Song, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08197  (2023).
  • Jiang et al. [2023] Y. Jiang, H. Hu, D. Călugăru, C. Felser, S. Blanco-Canosa, H. Weng, Y. Xu,  and B. A. Bernevig, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09290  (2023).
  • Li et al. [2021] H. Li, T. Zhang, T. Yilmaz, Y. Pai, C. Marvinney, A. Said, Q. Yin, C. Gong, Z. Tu, E. Vescovo, et al., Physical Review X 11, 031050 (2021).
  • Chen et al. [2021] K. Chen, N. Wang, Q. Yin, Y. Gu, K. Jiang, Z. Tu, C. Gong, Y. Uwatoko, J. Sun, H. Lei, et al., Physical Review Letters 126, 247001 (2021).
  • Chen et al. [2022] Q. Chen, D. Chen, W. Schnelle, C. Felser,  and B. Gaulin, Physical Review Letters 129, 056401 (2022).
  • Ye et al. [2018] L. Ye, M. Kang, J. Liu, F. Von Cube, C. R. Wicker, T. Suzuki, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, D. C. Bell, et al., Nature 555, 638 (2018).
  • Yin et al. [2022] J.-X. Yin, B. Lian,  and M. Z. Hasan, Nature 612, 647 (2022).
  • Arachchige et al. [2022] H. W. S. Arachchige, W. R. Meier, M. Marshall, T. Matsuoka, R. Xue, M. A. McGuire, R. P. Hermann, H. Cao,  and D. Mandrus, Physical Review Letters 129, 216402 (2022).
  • Teng et al. [2023] X. Teng, J. S. Oh, H. Tan, L. Chen, J. Huang, B. Gao, J.-X. Yin, J.-H. Chu, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, et al., Nature Physics , 1 (2023).
  • Cao et al. [2018a] Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras,  and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature 556, 43 (2018a).
  • Cao et al. [2018b] Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, et al., Nature 556, 80 (2018b).
  • Tarnopolsky et al. [2019] G. Tarnopolsky, A. J. Kruchkov,  and A. Vishwanath, Physical Review Letters 122, 106405 (2019).
  • Bernevig et al. [2021a] B. A. Bernevig, Z.-D. Song, N. Regnault,  and B. Lian, Physical Review B 103, 205411 (2021a).
  • Song et al. [2021] Z.-D. Song, B. Lian, N. Regnault,  and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review B 103, 205412 (2021).
  • Bernevig et al. [2021b] B. A. Bernevig, Z.-D. Song, N. Regnault,  and B. Lian, Physical Review B 103, 205413 (2021b).
  • Lian et al. [2021] B. Lian, Z.-D. Song, N. Regnault, D. K. Efetov, A. Yazdani,  and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review B 103, 205414 (2021).
  • Bernevig et al. [2021c] B. A. Bernevig, B. Lian, A. Cowsik, F. Xie, N. Regnault,  and Z.-D. Song, Physical Review B 103, 205415 (2021c).
  • Xie et al. [2021] F. Xie, A. Cowsik, Z.-D. Song, B. Lian, B. A. Bernevig,  and N. Regnault, Physical Review B 103, 205416 (2021).
  • Angeli and MacDonald [2021] M. Angeli and A. H. MacDonald, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2021826118 (2021).
  • Xian et al. [2021] L. Xian, M. Claassen, D. Kiese, M. M. Scherer, S. Trebst, D. M. Kennes,  and A. Rubio, Nature Communications 12, 5644 (2021).
  • Claassen et al. [2022] M. Claassen, L. Xian, D. M. Kennes,  and A. Rubio, Nature Communications 13, 4915 (2022).
  • Wu and Sarma [2008] C. Wu and S. D. Sarma, Physical Review B 77, 235107 (2008).
  • West et al. [2001] D. B. West et al.Introduction to graph theory, Vol. 2 (Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, 2001).
  • Rhim and Yang [2019] J.-W. Rhim and B.-J. Yang, Physical Review B 99, 045107 (2019).
  • Kogut [1979] J. B. Kogut, Reviews of Modern Physics 51, 659 (1979).
  • Rothe [2012] H. J. Rothe, Lattice gauge theories: an introduction (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2012).
  • Slater and Koster [1954] J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster, Physical Review 94, 1498 (1954).
  • [54] See supplemental materials.
  • Masuda et al. [1984] K. Masuda, N. Hamada,  and K. Terakura, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics 14, 47 (1984).
  • Neves et al. [2024] P. M. Neves, J. P. Wakefield, S. Fang, H. Nguyen, L. Ye,  and J. G. Checkelsky, npj Computational Materials 10, 39 (2024).
  • Zhou et al. [2019] Y. Zhou, G. Sethi, H. Liu, Z. Wang,  and F. Liu, arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03689  (2019).
  • Sethi et al. [2021] G. Sethi, Y. Zhou, L. Zhu, L. Yang,  and F. Liu, Physical Review Letters 126, 196403 (2021).
  • Sethi et al. [2024] G. Sethi, B. Xia, D. Kim, H. Liu, X. Li,  and F. Liu, Physical Review B 109, 035140 (2024).