Kitaev's quantum double model as an error correcting code

Brandon C. Rayhaun; Daniel Ranard; Dawei Ding; Geoffrey Penington; Shawn X. Cui; Xizhi Han; Zhou Shangnan

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Kitaev's quantum double model as an error correcting code

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Every Kitaev quantum double model—for any finite group on any closed surface—is a quantum error-correcting code, because all states with zero energy density on a contractible patch have the same reduced density matrix there.

desk verdict Solid proof of a folklore result, with an honest citation trail; the alleged gap about TQO-1 doesn't survive close reading. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02829 v3 pith:BD4SSCT4 submitted 2019-08-07 quant-ph cond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MPmath.QA

Shawn X. Cui , Dawei Ding , Xizhi Han , Geoffrey Penington , Daniel Ranard , Brandon C. Rayhaun , Zhou Shangnan This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MPmath.QA

keywords Kitaevquantumdoublemodeltopologicalordererror-correctingcodefinitegroupgaugetheorylocalindistinguishabilityWilsonloopsentanglemententropynon-Abeliananyons

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that Kitaev's quantum double model is a quantum error-correcting code for every finite group $G$ on any closed surface. The core statement, Theorem 3.1, is that any two states with zero energy density in a contractible rectangular region have the same reduced density matrix on that region; this simultaneously implies the two topological-quantum-order conditions TQO-1 and TQO-2 and hence a code distance that grows linearly with lattice size. The proof is constructive and yields an explicit formula for the reduced density matrix in terms of boundary holonomy data. As a secondary result, the paper shows that Wilson loop operators do not generally form a complete set of gauge-invariant observables for non-Abelian groups, and that the algebraic and extended-Hilbert-space definitions of entanglement entropy give the same topological entanglement entropy, contrary to an earlier claim.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a gauge-fixing lemma for flat configurations on a rectangle: any two assignments of group elements to the edges of $A$ that have trivial holonomy around every loop in $A$ and agree on the boundary $\partial A$ are related by a product of gauge transformations supported only on interior vertices. The proof orders interior vertices left-to-right and top-to-bottom, fixing the gauge one plaquette at a time. This lemma is used first to show that the complement states $|\phi_{g_A}\rangle$ depend only on the boundary labels $g_{\partial A}$, and then, together with a second gauge transformation acting on boundary vertices, to show that the states $|\xi_{g_{\partial A}}\rangle$ are orthogonal and equal-norm. The result is a Schmidt decomposition with uniform coefficients, which makes the reduced density matrix manifestly independent of the global state.

What would settle it

Brute-force a small rectangular patch in the quantum double model for a non-Abelian group such as $S_3$ on a torus: construct two distinct ground states, compute their reduced density matrices on the patch, and compare; the theorem predicts exact agreement with the formula $|G|^{-(|\partial A|-1)}\sum_{g_{\partial A}}|\xi_{g_{\partial A}}\rangle\langle\xi_{g_{\partial A}}|$, so any discrepancy would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that local indistinguishability is not an accident of the Abelian toric code but a theorem for Kitaev's quantum double models with arbitrary finite gauge group $G$. Theorem 3.1 states that for rectangular sublattices $A\subset B$ contained in contractible regions with $V(A)\subset V(B)^\circ$, every state stabilized by all vertex and plaquette projectors in $B$ has the same reduced density matrix $\rho_A$ on $A$. The explicit form is $\rho_A = |G|^{-(|\partial A|-1)} \sum_{g_{\partial A}} |\xi_{g_{\partial A}}\rangle\langle\xi_{g_{\partial A}}|$, with the sum over boundary group-labellings with trivial holonomy; because this depends only on $A$ and the group, all ground states, and more generally all locally zero-energy states, are locally indistinguishable. Theorem 3.1 implies TQO-1 and TQO-2 and therefore that the model is a quantum error-correcting code with macroscopic distance. The same analysis fixes the topological entanglement entropy as $-\log|G|$ and shows the algebraic and extended-Hilbert-space entropies agree in that universal term.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the gauge-fixing lemma that any two flat edge-labellings of a rectangular region with identical boundary labels are connected by a gauge transformation supported on the interior; if that lemma failed, the complement states would carry information beyond the boundary data and the explicit state-independent reduced density matrix would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every Kitaev quantum double model, including non-Abelian ones, supplies a topological quantum error-correcting code whose distance grows linearly with the linear size of the lattice.
TQO-1 and TQO-2 hold simultaneously, so local perturbations can split ground-state energies only at an order that grows with system size, giving topologically protected degeneracy.
The explicit reduced density matrix yields the topological entanglement entropy $S_{\text{topo}}=-\log|G|$ for all finite groups.
The algebraic definition of entanglement entropy gives the same topological entanglement entropy as the extended-Hilbert-space definition, so the earlier log-dim-$R$ objection to the algebraic entropy is resolved.
Locally zero-energy states on the same contractible region cannot be distinguished by any local observable, so local error-detection and correction procedures work identically for every ground-state sector.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the rectangular-region assumption in the gauge-fixing lemma is relaxed as the paper suggests, the same local-indistinguishability statement should hold for arbitrary contractible shapes, potentially simplifying code-distance proofs for irregular lattice geometries.
The failure of Wilson loops to be a complete observable set means that for non-Abelian groups, practical error correction and recovery cannot rely only on magnetic-flux measurements; recovery schemes would need additional gauge-invariant data such as ribbon or vertex observables.
A natural next step, left open by the authors, is to adapt the gauge-fixing strategy to Hopf-algebra and Levin-Wen generalizations; if the adaptation works, string-net models would inherit the same quantum-error-correction guarantee.
Because the theorem covers all states with zero energy density in the region, the same reduced-state formula should also describe excited states with anyonic excitations located far outside, fixing the local structure of excitations independently of the global state.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The short version: this paper proves a result that has been folklore for years—Kitaev's quantum double model for arbitrary finite groups is a quantum error-correcting code—and it does so with an explicit, self-contained proof. Theorem 3.1 shows that any two states with zero energy density in a region B have the same reduced state on a smaller rectangular region A. The construction of the reduced density matrix is explicit, and the gauge-fixing argument for flat connections on a rectangle works. This is a genuine advance: previous proofs covered Abelian groups, and Naaijkens's thesis treats a different infinite-volume setting.

I want to mention the stress-test note, because it's wrong in an instructive way. The note claims the paper's equivalence between TQO-1 and equal reduced density matrices is false, giving a two-qubit example where two Bell states have the same reduced state but TQO-1 fails. The catch is that the paper's condition is that all normalized ground states have the same reduced state—meaning every vector in the code subspace, not just a chosen basis. In the example, the superposition |ψ1>+|ψ2> has a different reduced state, so the premise isn't met. When read correctly, the equivalence is true: applying the condition to superpositions of any two code states kills the off-diagonal block, and the diagonal is constant by assumption. So the paper's bridge from Theorem 3.1 to TQO-1 is sound, even if the argument is compressed into "straightforward." The stress-test concern doesn't land.

The rest of the paper holds up. Proposition 3.2 on Wilson loops being incomplete is genuinely new and cleanly proved using outer class automorphisms. The topological entanglement entropy section carefully shows that the algebraic and extended definitions give the same TEE because the log dim(R) term is boundary-local; the explicit calculation is a useful correction to claims in the literature. The citation pattern is honest, including the acknowledgment that Naaijkens's methods provide an alternative route.

Soft spots: the proof is for rectangular regions, which is a real limitation but clearly relaxable, and the authors flag it. The gauge-fixing lemma relies on sweeping vertices left-to-right and top-to-bottom; for a rectangle this is fine, but a more general region would need more care. The TEE part is long but correct.

Bottom line: this is a solid, important paper. The main theorem is new, the proof is rigorous, and the extra results are worth having. I'd be happy to see it in print. Bring it to a reading group and cite it if you work on topological error correction.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Kitaev's quantum double model for an arbitrary finite group G on a closed surface. Its main result (Theorem 3.1) states that for two rectangular regions A⊂B with V(A)⊂V(B)°, every normalized state in the local ground-state subspace H_B has the same reduced density matrix on A. The proof constructs the reduced state explicitly via a gauge-fixing argument showing that flat configurations on A with the same boundary data are related by interior gauge transformations, and then uses a Schmidt decomposition. The authors argue that this implies TQO-1 and TQO-2 and therefore that the ground space is a quantum error-correcting code with macroscopic distance. They also prove that Wilson-loop observables do not form a complete set of gauge-invariant observables for certain non-Abelian models, and they compare three definitions of entanglement entropy in gauge theory, concluding that the algebraic and extended Hilbert space definitions give the same topological entanglement entropy.

Significance. The result is significant because rigorous proofs of topological quantum order for Kitaev's model were previously restricted to Abelian groups, while the non-Abelian case is directly relevant to topological quantum computing. The paper is largely self-contained: it proves the ground-state degeneracy formula for arbitrary finite groups and gives a constructive, explicit proof of local indistinguishability. The Wilson-loop incompleteness observation and the clarification of topological entanglement entropy in gauge theory are valuable independent contributions. The main proof strategy is sound, but two issues need attention: the inference from Theorem 3.1 to TQO-1 is missing an off-diagonal argument, and the displayed reduced density matrix in Eq. (40) has a normalization error. Both are repairable within the scope of the manuscript.

major comments (2)

[§2.2, after Def. 2.2; §3.2, inference from Thm. 3.1] The assertion in §2.2 that TQO-1 is equivalent to all normalized ground states having the same reduced density matrix on A is false. Equal diagonal reduced blocks do not force the off-diagonal blocks P|ψ_i⟩⟨ψ_j|P to vanish: on two qubits, |ψ_1⟩=(|00⟩+|11⟩)/√2 and |ψ_2⟩=(|01⟩+|10⟩)/√2 both reduce to I/2 on the first qubit, yet P X_1 P is not proportional to P. The passage from Theorem 3.1 to TQO-1 therefore requires an additional argument. Because H_B is a linear subspace, one can apply the theorem to the superpositions (|ψ_i⟩±|ψ_j⟩)/√2 and (|ψ_i⟩± i|ψ_j⟩)/√2; this forces Tr_{\bar A}(|ψ_j⟩⟨ψ_i|)=0 for i≠j, and combined with the equal diagonal reduced states yields P O P = c_O P for every local O. I recommend adding this argument explicitly before claiming that Theorem 3.1 implies TQO-1.
[§3.2, Eq. (37)-(40)] The states |ξ_{g∂A}⟩ defined in Eq. (37) are unnormalized sums over |g_A⟩, with ||ξ_{g∂A}||^2>1 for regions with interior vertices. Equation (40) nevertheless treats them as normalized: the right-hand side has trace |G|^{|∂A|-1}||ξ||^2, not 1. The reduced density matrix should read ρ_A = (1/(|G|^{|∂A|-1}||ξ||^2)) Σ_g |ξ_g⟩⟨ξ_g|, or the definition of |ξ_g⟩ should include the normalization factor. This does not invalidate the state-independence conclusion, but it makes the displayed formula incorrect and the entropy statement taken directly from it unjustified; the independent calculation in §3.4 yields the correct normalized result.

minor comments (4)

[Def. 2.2 vs Thm. 3.1] The letter B is used both for the enlarged square in Definition 2.2 and for the outer region in Theorem 3.1; renaming one of them would remove a source of confusion.
[§3.2, proof of Thm. 3.1] The proof assumes the state is invariant under all Av and Bp whose support intersects A, whereas H_B is defined through constraints on B; a sentence explaining that V(A)⊂V(B)° and the rectangular containment imply the former would improve readability.
[Eq. (52)] The factors 1/d_{R_i} in Eq. (52) are operators on V_{R_i} and should be written as I_{V_{R_i}}/d_{R_i} to avoid confusion with scalar factors.
[§3.4, after Eq. (76)] The statement that the 'log dim(R) term' is a sum over expectation values of local observables is informal, since log d_R is not an operator on a fixed Hilbert space; it would be clearer to express it as the expectation value of a projector onto the irrep sector.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the main theorem is derived from the model's definitions with a self-contained gauge-fixing argument.

full rationale

Step-by-step walk of the derivation chain shows no circular reduction. Theorem 3.1 is proved directly from the defining projectors A_v and B_p: the paper takes a state |ψ> with zero energy density in A, expands it in the group basis, invokes an elementary gauge-fixing lemma (eq. 34) to show that interior configurations with the same boundary are related by an interior gauge transformation, and then derives orthogonality and equal norms of the |φ_{g_∂A}> sectors to obtain the explicit reduced density matrix (eq. 40). Each ingredient is either a definition, a lattice/representation-theory fact proved in the text (including the boundary gauge-transformation argument and the 'irrep basis' of Appendix A), or a direct computation. There are no fitted parameters and no use of the target claim. The only self-citation is [18] in Appendix B for the algebraic entropy formula; that formula is standard and independently derived in the appendix, so it is not load-bearing. The paper's assertion in Section 2.2 that TQO-1 is 'equivalent' to all ground states having the same reduced density matrix is an unproved and, as stated, mathematically incorrect shortcut to the QECC conclusion; this is a correctness/logical-gap concern, not circularity, since it does not smuggle the conclusion into the proof of Theorem 3.1. The remark that Naaijkens's thesis gives an alternative proof is not used as evidence. The proof of Theorem 3.1 itself is self-contained, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests only on the model definition, a geometric rectangular-region assumption, and standard representation theory. No free parameters or invented entities appear. The rectangular-region assumption is the only ad hoc geometric choice, and it is explicitly stated.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Ground states of the quantum double model are gauge-invariant flat states (Av=1, Bp=1).
Defined in Sections 2.3 and 2.4; this is the model definition, not an additional postulate.
domain assumption The lattice region A is rectangular and V(A) is contained in V(B)° so that all vertex and plaquette operators touching A are included in the local zero-energy constraints.
Assumed in Theorem 3.1 and used throughout the proof; the paper notes the rectangular assumption can be relaxed at the cost of more complicated exposition.
standard math Standard representation theory of finite groups, including the Peter-Weyl decomposition and Schur orthogonality relations.
Used in Appendix A and Section 3.4 for the topological entanglement entropy calculation.
standard math Finite groups with outer class automorphisms exist (Wall, 1947).
Used in Proposition 3.2 to construct gauge-invariant states with identical Wilson loops; a cited external theorem.
standard math Artin-Wedderburn theorem for the central decomposition of the gauge-invariant observable algebra.
Used in Appendix B to define the algebraic entanglement entropy.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kitaev's quantum double model as an error correcting code." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BD4SSCT4

@misc{pith2026190802829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kitaev's quantum double model as an error correcting code},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BD4SSCT4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02829}
}

read the original abstract

Kitaev's quantum double models in 2D provide some of the most commonly studied examples of topological quantum order. In particular, the ground space is thought to yield a quantum error-correcting code. We offer an explicit proof that this is the case for arbitrary finite groups. Actually a stronger claim is shown: any two states with zero energy density in some contractible region must have the same reduced state in that region. Alternatively, the local properties of a gauge-invariant state are fully determined by specifying that its holonomies in the region are trivial. We contrast this result with the fact that local properties of gauge-invariant states are not generally determined by specifying all of their non-Abelian fluxes -- that is, the Wilson loops of lattice gauge theory do not form a complete commuting set of observables. We also note that the methods developed by P. Naaijkens (PhD thesis, 2012) under a different context can be adapted to provide another proof of the error correcting property of Kitaev's model. Finally, we compute the topological entanglement entropy in Kitaev's model, and show, contrary to previous claims in the literature, that it does not depend on whether the "log dim R" term is included in the definition of entanglement entropy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02829 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

A statistical mechanics view on Kitaev’s proposal for quantum memories

R Alicki, M Fannes, and M Horodecki. A statistical mechanics view on Kitaev’s proposal for quantum memories. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40(24):6451, 2007. DOI: 10.1088/1751-8113/40/24/012

doi:10.1088/1751-8113/40/24/012 2007
[2]

Local disorder, topological ground state degeneracy and entanglement en- tropy, and discrete anyons

Sven Bachmann. Local disorder, topological ground state degeneracy and entanglement en- tropy, and discrete anyons. Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 29(06):1750018, 2017. DOI: 10.1142/S0129055X17500180

work page doi:10.1142/s0129055x17500180 2017
[3]

Spin networks in gauge theory.Advances in Mathematics, 117(2):253–272, 1996

John C Baez. Spin networks in gauge theory.Advances in Mathematics, 117(2):253–272, 1996. DOI: 10.1006/aima.1996.0012

arXiv 1996
[4]

A short proof of stability of topological order un- der local perturbations

Sergey Bravyi and Matthew B Hastings. A short proof of stability of topological order un- der local perturbations. Communications in mathematical physics, 307(3):609, 2011. DOI: 10.1007/s00220-011-1346-2

doi:10.1007/s00220-011-1346-2 2011
[5]

Topological quantum order: stability under local perturbations.Journal of mathematical physics, 51(9):093512, 2010

Sergey Bravyi, Matthew B Hastings, and Spyridon Michalakis. Topological quantum order: stability under local perturbations.Journal of mathematical physics, 51(9):093512, 2010. DOI: 10.1063/1.3490195

doi:10.1063/1.3490195 2010
[6]

Mapping Kitaev’s quantum double lattice mod- els to Levin and Wen’s string-net models.Physical Review B, 80(15):155136, 2009

Oliver Buerschaper and Miguel Aguado. Mapping Kitaev’s quantum double lattice mod- els to Levin and Wen’s string-net models.Physical Review B, 80(15):155136, 2009. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.155136

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.80.155136 2009
[7]

A hierarchy of topological tensor network states.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 54(1):012201,

Oliver Buerschaper, Juan Martín Mombelli, Matthias Christandl, and Miguel Aguado. A hierarchy of topological tensor network states.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 54(1):012201,

work page
[9]

The complete set of inﬁnite volume ground states for Kitaev’s Abelian quantum double models.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 357(1):125–157, 2018

Matthew Cha, Pieter Naaijkens, and Bruno Nachtergaele. The complete set of inﬁnite volume ground states for Kitaev’s Abelian quantum double models.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 357(1):125–157, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s00220-017-2989-4

work page doi:10.1007/s00220-017-2989-4 2018

Show all 27 references

[10]

Kitaev models based on unitary quantum groupoids.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 55(4):041703, 2014

Liang Chang. Kitaev models based on unitary quantum groupoids.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 55(4):041703, 2014. DOI: 10.1063/1.4869326

2014 doi
[11]

A modular functor which is universal for quantum computation.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 227(3):605– 622, 2002

Michael H Freedman, Michael Larsen, and Zhenghan Wang. A modular functor which is universal for quantum computation.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 227(3):605– 622, 2002. DOI: 10.1007/s002200200645

2002 doi
[12]

Generalized global sym- metries

Davide Gaiotto, Anton Kapustin, Nathan Seiberg, and Brian Willett. Generalized global sym- metries. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(2):172, 2015. DOI: 10.1007/JHEP02(2015)172

2015 doi
[13]

Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons.Annals of Physics, 303(1): 2–30, 2003

A Yu Kitaev. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons.Annals of Physics, 303(1): 2–30, 2003. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00018-0

2003 doi
[14]

Topological entanglement entropy

Alexei Kitaev and John Preskill. Topological entanglement entropy. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96: 110404, 2006. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.110404

2006 doi
[15]

Detecting topological order in a ground state wave function

Michael Levin and Xiao-Gang Wen. Detecting topological order in a ground state wave function. Physical review letters, 96(11):110405, 2006. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.110405

2006 doi
[17]

Comments on deﬁning entanglement entropy.Nuclear Physics B, 958:115118, 2020

Jennifer Lin and Ðorđe Radičević. Comments on deﬁning entanglement entropy.Nuclear Physics B, 958:115118, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115118

2020
[18]

Target space entanglement entropy.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.07449, 2019

Edward A Mazenc and Daniel Ranard. Target space entanglement entropy.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.07449, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.07449

1910 arXiv
[19]

Anyons in inﬁnite quantum systems: QFT ind = 2 + 1and the toric code

Pieter Naaijkens. Anyons in inﬁnite quantum systems: QFT ind = 2 + 1and the toric code. PhD thesis, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 2012. URL https://hdl.handle.net/2066/ 92737

2012
[20]

Nielsen and Isaac L

Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 10th edition,
[21]

Springer Science & Business Media, 2004

Masanori Ohya and Dénes Petz.Quantum entropy and its use. Springer Science & Business Media, 2004. DOI: 10.1016/0079-6727(95)90032-2

2004 doi
[22]

Nonlocal resources in the presence of superselection rules

Norbert Schuch, Frank Verstraete, and J Ignacio Cirac. Nonlocal resources in the presence of superselection rules. Physical review letters, 92(8):087904, 2004. DOI: 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.92.087904

2004 doi
[23]

Gauge invariant functions of connections

Ambar Sengupta. Gauge invariant functions of connections. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 121(3):897–905, 1994. DOI: 10.1090/S0002-9939-1994-1215205-7

1994 doi
[24]

Aspects of entanglement entropy for gauge theories

Ronak M Soni and Sandip P Trivedi. Aspects of entanglement entropy for gauge theories. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016(1):136, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/JHEP01(2016)136

2016 doi
[25]

Entanglement of distillation for lattice gauge theories

Karel Van Acoleyen, Nick Bultinck, Jutho Haegeman, Michael Marien, Volkher B Scholz, and Frank Verstraete. Entanglement of distillation for lattice gauge theories. Physical Review Letters, 117(13):131602, 2016. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.131602

2016 doi
[26]

Finite groups with class-preserving outer automorphisms.Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 1(4):315–320, 1947

GE Wall. Finite groups with class-preserving outer automorphisms.Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 1(4):315–320, 1947. DOI: 10.1112/jlms/s1-22.4.315

1947 doi
[27]

A note on entanglement edge modes in Chern Simons theory.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(8):20, 2018

Gabriel Wong. A note on entanglement edge modes in Chern Simons theory.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(8):20, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/JHEP08(2018)020. Accepted in Quantum 2020-09-17, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 25

2018 doi
[2011]

DOI: 10.1119/1.1463744

ISBN 1107002176, 9781107002173. DOI: 10.1119/1.1463744

doi
[2013]

DOI: 10.1063/1.4773316

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A statistical mechanics view on Kitaev’s proposal for quantum memories

R Alicki, M Fannes, and M Horodecki. A statistical mechanics view on Kitaev’s proposal for quantum memories. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40(24):6451, 2007. DOI: 10.1088/1751-8113/40/24/012

doi:10.1088/1751-8113/40/24/012 2007

[2] [2]

Local disorder, topological ground state degeneracy and entanglement en- tropy, and discrete anyons

Sven Bachmann. Local disorder, topological ground state degeneracy and entanglement en- tropy, and discrete anyons. Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 29(06):1750018, 2017. DOI: 10.1142/S0129055X17500180

work page doi:10.1142/s0129055x17500180 2017

[3] [3]

Spin networks in gauge theory.Advances in Mathematics, 117(2):253–272, 1996

John C Baez. Spin networks in gauge theory.Advances in Mathematics, 117(2):253–272, 1996. DOI: 10.1006/aima.1996.0012

arXiv 1996

[4] [4]

A short proof of stability of topological order un- der local perturbations

Sergey Bravyi and Matthew B Hastings. A short proof of stability of topological order un- der local perturbations. Communications in mathematical physics, 307(3):609, 2011. DOI: 10.1007/s00220-011-1346-2

doi:10.1007/s00220-011-1346-2 2011

[5] [5]

Topological quantum order: stability under local perturbations.Journal of mathematical physics, 51(9):093512, 2010

Sergey Bravyi, Matthew B Hastings, and Spyridon Michalakis. Topological quantum order: stability under local perturbations.Journal of mathematical physics, 51(9):093512, 2010. DOI: 10.1063/1.3490195

doi:10.1063/1.3490195 2010

[6] [6]

Mapping Kitaev’s quantum double lattice mod- els to Levin and Wen’s string-net models.Physical Review B, 80(15):155136, 2009

Oliver Buerschaper and Miguel Aguado. Mapping Kitaev’s quantum double lattice mod- els to Levin and Wen’s string-net models.Physical Review B, 80(15):155136, 2009. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.155136

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.80.155136 2009

[7] [7]

A hierarchy of topological tensor network states.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 54(1):012201,

Oliver Buerschaper, Juan Martín Mombelli, Matthias Christandl, and Miguel Aguado. A hierarchy of topological tensor network states.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 54(1):012201,

work page

[8] [9]

The complete set of inﬁnite volume ground states for Kitaev’s Abelian quantum double models.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 357(1):125–157, 2018

Matthew Cha, Pieter Naaijkens, and Bruno Nachtergaele. The complete set of inﬁnite volume ground states for Kitaev’s Abelian quantum double models.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 357(1):125–157, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s00220-017-2989-4

work page doi:10.1007/s00220-017-2989-4 2018