h]}$ to be an orthonormal set, at every $h$ and $\ell$. As for MPS, where a similar requirement lead to a gauge symmetry breaking, this restraint translates into a condition that every $\Lambda$ must satisfy, namely $$\label{eq:TTNisometr}
 \delta_{j_1, j_2} = \sum_{k_1, k_2}^{D_{h-1}} \Lambda^{\star\,[h,\ell]\,j_1}_ {k_1, k_2}
 \Lambda^{[h,\ell]\,j_2}_ {k_1, k_2}, \qquad \forall\;\{h,\ell\},$$ where $\vphantom{A}^{\star}$ stands for complex conjugation. In other words, every $\Lambda$, read as a $D^2_{h-1} \times D_{h}$ matrix, must be (left-) isometric, i.e. $\Lambda^{\dagger} \Lambda = {{\mathbb 1}}$. This is indeed a gauge symmetry breaking. Truly, this is exactly the peripheral gauge we defined in section \[sec:peripheral\], when the nucleus $\Pi$ corresponds to the hat tensor $\mathcal{C}$. We remarked that, for a given Tensor Network with no closed loops (as a tree graph is), it is always possible to find the gauge transformation that maps it into the peripheral gauge, no matter the starting state: this tells us that the isometricity condition for $\Lambda$ carries no loss of generality at all.

You can guess that the binary character $b = 2$ of the tree network in is due to the fact that we renormalized just two copies of the old block density matrices into a new one. Of course, mapping an arbitrary number $b$ of copies of the old block into a single one leads to tree Tensor Networks with the corresponding branching number $b$. For example, we could have a ternary tree Tensor Network when $b = 3$: $$\label{eq:TN3pic}
\begin{overpic}[width = \textwidth, unit=1pt]{TTN_E3}
 \put(0, 27){\footnotesize $\Lambda^{[1,1]}$}
 \put(33, 57){\footnotesize $\Lambda^{[2,1]}$}
 \put(166, 58){\footnotesize $\Lambda^{[2,2]}$}
 \put(173, 102){\footnotesize
h]}$ to be an orthonormal set, at every $ h$ and $ \ell$. As for MPS, where a similar requirement lead to a bore isotropy breakage, this restraint translates into a condition that every $ \Lambda$ must meet, namely $ $ \label{eq: TTNisometr } 
  \delta_{j_1, j_2 } = \sum_{k_1, k_2}^{D_{h-1 } } \Lambda^{\star\,[h,\ell]\,j_1 } _ { k_1, k_2 } 
  \Lambda^{[h,\ell]\,j_2 } _ { k_1, k_2 }, \qquad \forall\;\{h,\ell\},$$ where $ \vphantom{A}^{\star}$ stands for complex conjugation. In other word, every $ \Lambda$, read as a $ D^2_{h-1 } \times D_{h}$ matrix, must be (left-) isometric, i.e. $ \Lambda^{\dagger } \Lambda = { { \mathbb 1}}$. This is indeed a gauge isotropy breakage. Truly, this is exactly the peripheral bore we defined in section \[sec: peripheral\ ], when the lens nucleus $ \Pi$ corresponds to the hat tensor $ \mathcal{C}$. We note that, for a given Tensor Network with no closed loops (as a tree graph is), it is always possible to recover the gauge transformation that maps it into the peripheral gauge, no matter the begin state: this tells us that the isometricity condition for $ \Lambda$ carries no personnel casualty of generality at all. 

 You can guess that the binary character $ b = 2 $ of the tree net in is due to the fact that we renormalized just two copies of the old block concentration matrix into a new one. Of course, mapping an arbitrary number $ b$ of copies of the old block into a single one leads to tree Tensor Networks with the comparable ramify number $ b$. For exercise, we could get a ternary tree Tensor Network when $ b = 3 $: $ $ \label{eq: TN3pic } 
 \begin{overpic}[width = \textwidth, unit=1pt]{TTN_E3 } 
  \put(0, 27){\footnotesize $ \Lambda^{[1,1]}$ } 
  \put(33, 57){\footnotesize $ \Lambda^{[2,1]}$ } 
  \put(166, 58){\footnotesize $ \Lambda^{[2,2]}$ } 
  \put(173, 102){\footnotesize
h]}$ tl be an orthonormal set, xt every $h$ and $\glo$. As fmr MPS, where a similar requirement lead to a gaugt symmetry breaking, this resnraint trqnsletes into a condmfion that evedn $\Lamyde$ must satisfy, kamely $$\laben{eq:TTNisometr}
 \geutc_{j_1, j_2} = \sum_{k_1, k_2}^{D_{h-1}} \Lambda^{\star\,[h,\ell]\,j_1}_ {k_1, k_2}
 \Lwmbda^{[h,\ekl]\,u_2}_ {k_1, k_2}, \qquad \fotall\;\{h,\tll\},$$ whedv $\yphantom{A}^{\star}$ stands for complex conjugetion. In other eords, every $\Lambda$, read as a $D^2_{j-1} \times D_{h}$ matrix, lust be (lefj-) isjnetric, i.e. $\Laobda^{\dagger} \Lambda = {{\matgbb 1}}$. This is indeed a gauge symoetry breaking. Jxyly, jhis is exacvly thv peripheral nsuge wa definrd in section \[xec:'eripheral\], when the nuclens $\Pi$ corresponds to the hat deusor $\mathcal{C}$. We remaekwd thdt, fmr a tivdn Uenxod Netwlrk with no cmosed loops (as a tree graph is), ie is always poasible tj find the gauge transformation that maks it into the peripheral gayge, no matter the statting statq: this tells us that the isometricity condition fmr $\Lajcda$ cwfeifs no loss of generality at all.

You can guess egau tme binary characber $b = 2$ of the trer jeyrork in is dug to thz fzct that we renormwlized tust rwo copief of the old block density matruces into a uew one. Of course, map'ing an arbicrary mumbet $b$ of copies of the olb bloci into a sijgle one mdads to tree Tenror Natworks with the corresponqing branrhing number $b$. Fpr exaiple, we cokld have a ternary tree Hensot Netwmrk when $b = 3$: $$\label{eq:TN3pic}
\begin{overpic}[widti = \textwidth, onid=1pt]{NTN_E3}
 \put(0, 27){\yootnobesize $\Lambda^{[1,1]}$}
 \ptt(33, 57){\footnotesizg $\Lambda^{[2,1]}$}
 \'ut(166, 58){\foutnotesize $\Lambda^{[2,2]}$}
 \put(173, 102){\footnoeesize
h]}$ to be an orthonormal set, at and As for where a similar symmetry this restraint translates a condition that $\Lambda$ must satisfy, namely $$\label{eq:TTNisometr} \delta_{j_1, = \sum_{k_1, k_2}^{D_{h-1}} \Lambda^{\star\,[h,\ell]\,j_1}_ {k_1, k_2} \Lambda^{[h,\ell]\,j_2}_ {k_1, k_2}, \qquad \forall\;\{h,\ell\},$$ where $\vphantom{A}^{\star}$ for complex conjugation. In other words, every $\Lambda$, read as a $D^2_{h-1} \times matrix, be isometric, $\Lambda^{\dagger} \Lambda = {{\mathbb 1}}$. This is indeed a gauge symmetry breaking. Truly, this is exactly peripheral gauge we defined in section \[sec:peripheral\], when nucleus $\Pi$ corresponds to hat tensor $\mathcal{C}$. We remarked for given Tensor with closed (as a tree is), it is always possible to find the gauge transformation that maps it into the peripheral gauge, matter the this tells that isometricity for $\Lambda$ carries of generality at all. You can binary character $b = 2$ of the tree in is to the fact that we renormalized two copies of the old block density matrices a new one. Of course, mapping an arbitrary number $b$ of copies of the old a single one leads tree Tensor Networks the branching $b$. example, we have a ternary tree Tensor Network when $b = 3$: $$\label{eq:TN3pic} = \textwidth, unit=1pt]{TTN_E3} \put(0, 27){\footnotesize $\Lambda^{[1,1]}$} \put(33, 57){\footnotesize $\Lambda^{[2,1]}$} \put(166, \put(173,
h]}$ to be an orthonormal set, at evEry $h$ and $\ell$. as for mPS, WheRe A simIlar Requirement leaD To a gAuge symmetry breaking, thIs resTrAInt tRAnSlateS into a cONdITIon ThAt EveRy $\lAmBda$ muSt sAtisfy, nAmely $$\label{Eq:TtNIsometr}
 \delta_{J_1, J_2} = \sUm_{k_1, k_2}^{D_{h-1}} \LambDa^{\sTar\,[h,\ell]\,j_1}_ {k_1, k_2}
 \LaMbdA^{[h,\ell]\,j_2}_ {K_1, k_2}, \QquAD \foraLl\;\{h,\Ell\},$$ whEre $\vphANtom{A}^{\sTar}$ stands FoR CompleX ConjugaTIOn. in otHer words, every $\LambDA$, rEAd as a $D^2_{h-1} \times D_{h}$ Matrix, MuST bE (LEft-) IsoMetric, i.e. $\LaMbDa^{\dagGEr} \LambdA = {{\MaTHBB 1}}$. ThIS is indeed a gauGe symmetry bREakIng. TruLy, ThiS Is exacTly thE pERipHeral gauge wE defIned in secTion \[seC:PeripheRAl\], when tHe nuclEus $\pi$ cOrreSPoNdS to ThE Hat TEnSor $\MAthCal{C}$. We reMaRkEd thaT, for A GIVEn TeNsoR NetWork wIth no closed loOps (As a tREe gRaph iS), it is AlwaYs PossiBle to fInd thE gAuge transformatIon tHat maps it IntO tHe pErIpherAL gauge, No mAttEr the stArting sTAte: ThIS TElLs us that the isometrIcITY cOndition For $\LamBDa$ CaRRies no loSs Of gEnerALIty at All.

YOU cAn guess tHat the BInArY characTeR $b = 2$ of thE tRee NetWork iN Is duE to the Fact that We renORmalized just twO Copies of the olD BlOCK dENsitY maTrices into a New oNE. Of cOursE, MaPpiNG an arBitraRy NUmBEr $b$ of copies of the old BlOck intO a sinGle one leads to Tree Tensor nETWorks witH the COrREsponding brancHing nUmber $b$. For eXAmple, we cOuld hAve a ternAry tree TeNSOr NetworK whEn $b = 3$: $$\LabEl{eQ:tn3pIc}
\begin{overpiC}[WIdth = \TeXtwidth, UniT=1pt]{TTN_E3}
 \Put(0, 27){\FooTnoTesIzE $\Lambda^{[1,1]}$}
 \puT(33, 57){\footnotEsIzE $\LAmBda^{[2,1]}$}
 \Put(166, 58){\foOTnotesizE $\LAmbDa^{[2,2]}$}
 \Put(173, 102){\FootnOTesize
h]}$ to be an orthonormalset, at ev ery $ h$and  $ \ell $. A s for MPS, whe r e asimilar requirement le ad to  a gaug e  s ymmet ry brea k in g ,  th is  r est ra i nt  tran sla tes int o a condit ion  t hat every $\ L am bda$ mustsat isfy, namely  $$ \label {e q:T T Nisom etr }
 \d elta_{ j _1, j_ 2} = \sum _{ k _1, k_ 2 }^{D_{h - 1 }}  \La mbda^{\star\,[h,\ e ll ] \,j_1}_ {k_1,k_2}
\L a mb d a ^{[ h,\ ell]\,j_2} _{k_1, k_2}, \ q qu a d \fo r all\;\{h,\ell \},$$ where $\v phanto m{ A}^ { \star} $ sta nd s  fo r complex c onju gation. I n othe r  words, every $ \Lambd a$,  re ad a s  a  $ D^2 _{ h -1} \t ime s  D_ {h}$ mat ri x,  must  be( l e f t-)iso metr ic, i .e. $\Lambda^ {\d agge r } \ Lambd a = { {\ma th bb 1} }$. Th is is  i ndeed a gauge s ymme try break ing .Tru ly , thi s  is ex act lythe per ipheral gau ge w e  d efined in section\[ s e c: peripher al\],w he nt he nucle us  $\ Pi$c o rresp onds to  the hat  tenso r  $ \m athcal{ C} $. Were mar ked  that ,  for  a giv en Tenso r Net w ork with no cl o sed loops (as at r ee grap h i s), it is a lway s  pos sibl e  t o f i nd th e gau ge tr a nsformation that ma ps  it in to th e peripheralgauge, nom a t ter thestar t in g  state: this t ellsus that th e  isometr icity  conditi on for $\ L a mbda$ ca rri esnolos s of  generality a t all. 
You can  gu ess tha t t hebin ary  c haracter$b = 2$of  t he  t ree  netw o rk in is  d ueto  th e fac t  thatwe re norm al iz e d j ust two co p i es o fth e ol d b lo ck de nsit y  ma tricesinto a ne w o n e. O fco urse, m apping an arb it rary numbe r$b$  of co p i es of th e old block into a sing l e one l ead s totree  Tensor N etw orks w ith the co rrespo nding  b ran c h ing n u m be r $ b$ . For exam p l e,we co ul d ha ve a te rnary tree TensorN etw ork when $b =  3$ : $$ \ l ab el{ e q: T N3p ic } 
\b e g in{overpic}[wid th = \text wi d th , unit=1pt ] {TT N_ E3}
 \p ut(0, 2 7){\f o otnotes ize $\Lam bda^{[1,1 ]} $}
\ p ut( 33, 57){\f ootnotes ize $\Lam b da^{[ 2 ,1 ]}$} \p ut(166 ,58) {\foo tnotes i ze$\Lam bda^{[ 2, 2]}$} \put (1 73, 102) {\footnotesize
h]}$ to_be an_orthonormal set, at every_$h$ and_$\ell$._As for_MPS,_where a similar_requirement lead to_a gauge symmetry breaking,_this restraint translates_into_a condition that every $\Lambda$ must satisfy, namely $$\label{eq:TTNisometr}
 \delta_{j_1, j_2} = \sum_{k_1, k_2}^{D_{h-1}}_\Lambda^{\star\,[h,\ell]\,j_1}__{k_1, k_2}
_\Lambda^{[h,\ell]\,j_2}__{k_1,_k_2}, \qquad \forall\;\{h,\ell\},$$ where $\vphantom{A}^{\star}$_stands for complex conjugation. In_other words,_every $\Lambda$, read as a $D^2_{h-1} \times D_{h}$_matrix,_must be (left-)_isometric, i.e. $\Lambda^{\dagger} \Lambda = {{\mathbb 1}}$. This is_indeed a gauge symmetry breaking. Truly,_this is exactly_the_peripheral_gauge we defined in_section \[sec:peripheral\], when the nucleus $\Pi$_corresponds to the hat tensor $\mathcal{C}$._We remarked that, for a given Tensor_Network with no closed loops (as_a tree graph is), it_is always_possible to find the gauge_transformation that maps_it into_the peripheral gauge,_no matter the starting state: this_tells us that_the isometricity condition for $\Lambda$ carries_no_loss of generality_at_all.

You_can guess_that the binary_character_$b =_2$_of the tree network in is_due_to the fact that we renormalized just_two copies of the_old_block density matrices into_a new one. Of course,_mapping an arbitrary number $b$ of_copies of_the old_block into a single one leads to tree Tensor Networks with_the corresponding branching number $b$. For_example, we could have_a ternary_tree_Tensor Network when_$b_= 3$:_$$\label{eq:TN3pic}
\begin{overpic}[width = \textwidth, unit=1pt]{TTN_E3}
 \put(0, 27){\footnotesize $\Lambda^{[1,1]}$}
_\put(33, 57){\footnotesize_$\Lambda^{[2,1]}$}
 \put(166, 58){\footnotesize $\Lambda^{[2,2]}$}
 \put(173, 102){\footnotesize