Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Boundary anomaly detection in two-dimensional subsystem symmetry-protected topological phases

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that the normalized subsystem-symmetry charge of a twisted sector state equals the mixed boundary anomaly of adjacent subsystem symmetries, giving a transfer-matrix detector for strong, weak, and intrinsic SSPT…

desk verdict A solid, genuinely new anomaly-indicator method for adjacent-subsystem SSPT phases; central claim holds within its stated scope, but the 'more complex cases' generalization is unproved. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07563 v2 pith:IYKGOXTW submitted 2024-12-10 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Ke Ding , Hao-Ran Zhang , Bai-Ting Liu , Shuo Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords subsystemsymmetry-protectedtopologicalphasesboundaryanomalyindicatortwistedsectorstatetensornetworkentanglementspectrumaveragesymmetrymixed-state
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

The paper sets out to show that boundary anomalies of linear subsystem symmetries in two-dimensional states can be read off directly from the bulk wave function. It defines an anomaly indicator $Q(g[y], f[y+1])$ as the normalized subsystem-symmetry charge of a twisted sector state and derives, for symmetric states, that it equals the mixed-anomaly phase $\phi(g[y], f[y+1])$ between adjacent row symmetries. That equality turns a hard classification question into a transfer-matrix calculation, so one numerical routine can tell strong from weak $Z_2^\tau \times Z_2^\sigma$ SSPT phases, detect an intrinsic $Z_2$ SSPT phase, and, after extension to density matrices, find the same anomalies under uniform or alternating disorder. A sympathetic reader would care because previous invariants such as spurious topological entanglement entropy could flag nontrivial phases but could not distinguish which SSPT phase a state is in.

What carries the argument

The central object is the anomaly indicator $Q(g[y], f[y+1])$, a ratio of symmetry charges evaluated from the spectra of transfer matrices with an $f[y+1]$ symmetry defect. The load-bearing identity is that reordering the local virtual-space operators $V_{y+1}(g[y])$ and $V_{y+1}(f[y+1])$ on the shared virtual bond produces the phase $\phi(g[y], f[y+1])$, and this phase factors out of the transfer-matrix trace to give Eq. (16). The locality decomposition $W^{\mathrm{Right}}(g[y]) = V_y(g[y]) V_{y+1}(g[y])$ restricts the analysis to mixed anomalies between adjacent subsystems and is what makes the transfer-matrix proof work.

What would settle it

Take a symmetric tensor state whose boundary operator $W^{\mathrm{Right}}(g[y])$ is supported on rows $y$, $y+1$, and $y+2$, and compute $Q(g[y], f[y+2])$ from the transfer-matrix formula; the paper's assumptions force $\phi(g[y], f[y+2]) = 1$ and hence $Q = 1$, so observing any value other than $1$ would show the indicator misses non-adjacent mixed anomalies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the relation $Q(g[y], f[y+1]) = \phi(g[y], f[y+1])$ for symmetric subsystem states (Eq. 16): inserting a zero-dimensional symmetry defect $V_{y+1}(f[y+1])$ on one virtual bond and measuring the charge of a horizontal subsystem symmetry $S_h(g[y])$ in the resulting twisted sector state reproduces the factor-system phase $\phi$ that labels the mixed anomaly between rows $y$ and $y+1$. The paper verifies this analytically for the 2D cluster state, where $Q = -1$ matches $\phi(g[y]^\tau, g[y+1]^\sigma) = -1$, and numerically for a tunable tensor $\Gamma(\gamma)$ that interpolates between strong ($\gamma = -1$) and weak ($\gamma = 1$) $Z_2^\tau \times Z_2^\sigma$ SSPT phases. It then constructs an intrinsic $Z_2$ SSPT phase with no weak counterpart, detected by $Q(g[1], g[2]) = -1$ and a fully degenerate entanglement spectrum, and extends the indicator to density matrices via $Q_{\mathrm{ave}}$ and $Q_{\mathrm{exa}}$, showing that the anomalies survive both uniform and alternating disorder.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme assumes that a boundary subsystem-symmetry operator acts only on two neighboring rows and factorizes as a product of two local operators; if a real phase has boundary anomalies spread across three or more rows, the indicator would fail to see them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same transfer-matrix routine separates strong from weak SSPT phases: in the weak $Z_2^\tau \times Z_2^\sigma$ phase, $Q(g[y]^\tau, g[y+1]^\sigma) = 1$ while the same-row indicator $Q(g[y]^\tau, g[y]^\sigma) = -1$ remains nontrivial.
  • An intrinsic $Z_2$ SSPT phase exists whose only nontrivial invariant is the adjacent-row mixed anomaly; its entanglement spectrum is fully degenerate and the indicator stays at $-1$ under symmetric perturbations.
  • When a subsystem symmetry is spontaneously broken, the anomaly indicator decays to zero in the thermodynamic limit, so the method simultaneously detects symmetry breaking as the loss of anomaly signal.
  • In mixed states with average subsystem symmetries, the exact and average symmetry charges of the twisted density matrix reproduce the mixed anomaly, and the anomaly persists under both uniform and alternating disorders, connecting pure- and mixed-state boundary anomalies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The locality assumption suggests a natural generalization the authors do not construct: insert defects spanning $k$ adjacent rows and define $Q(g[y], f[y+k])$ to capture longer-range mixed anomalies between non-adjacent subsystems.
  • Because the indicator is built from the topological response rather than from any specific Hamiltonian, it should transfer to foliated fracton and higher-order topological phases in 3D, where planar subsystem symmetries replace row symmetries.
  • The mixed-state version could serve as a practical probe of strong-to-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking in disordered or decohered systems, since $Q_{\mathrm{ave}}$ jumps between $\pm 1$ exactly where the entanglement gap closes; this use goes beyond the paper's stated claims.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a tensor-network anomaly indicator Q(g[y], f[y+1]) for two-dimensional subsystem symmetry-protected topological (SSPT) phases. A twisted-sector state is formed by inserting a symmetry defect V_{y+1}(f[y+1]) on one virtual bond of a cylinder, and Q is defined as the expectation value of the horizontal subsystem symmetry S_h(g[y]) in that state. Under the assumption that boundary subsystem symmetry operators factorize into adjacent local operators, W^Right(g[y]) = V_y(g[y]) V_{y+1}(g[y]), the paper proves Q = φ(g[y], f[y+1]) (Eq. 16), i.e., the indicator equals the mixed anomaly of adjacent row symmetries. The identity is verified analytically for the 2D cluster state and numerically with transfer-matrix calculations on Ly=2 cylinders for a tunable tensor T(γ), which distinguishes strong (γ=-1) and weak (γ=1) Z2^τ x Z2^σ SSPT phases. The authors also introduce a fixed-point tensor T_Z2(φ) with Z2 subsystem symmetry, identify an intrinsic Z2 SSPT phase without a weak counterpart, and detect it through Q=-1 and a degenerate entanglement spectrum. The method is further extended to mixed-state density matrices with average and exact subsystem symmetries in uniform and alternating disorder ensembles, with numerical results for an interpolated density matrix ρ(t).

Significance. The central identity is a useful and nontrivial transfer-matrix characterization for the adjacent-subsystem class of SSPT boundary anomalies. The strengths of the paper are the analytic proof of Q=φ under the stated ansatz, the explicit cluster-state example, and the set of reproducible transfer-matrix numerics that separate strong, weak, and intrinsic phases. The mixed-state extension is a reasonable bridge between pure-state SSPT anomalies and average-symmetry anomalies, and the identification of an intrinsic Z2 SSPT phase is potentially interesting. The main caveat is that the established result is restricted to boundary operators of the adjacent-factorized form (Eq. B2); the broader generality statements in the title, Sec. II A, and the conclusion go beyond what is proven, and the stability claim for the intrinsic phase is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A, Eq. (B2); Appendix B, Eq. (B16); Eq. (16)] The central identity Q(g[y], f[y+1]) = φ(g[y], f[y+1]) (Eq. 16) is proven only for boundary subsystem symmetry operators satisfying W^Right(g[y]) = V_y(g[y]) V_{y+1}(g[y]) (Eq. B2). The proof passes through Eq. (B16), which reduces the mixed anomaly to a commutation relation of the single-bond operator V_{y+1}(g[y]) with V_{y+1}(f[y+1]); if a boundary representative instead has support on a wider window, for example W^Right(g[y]) = V_y(g[y]) V_{y+2}(g[y]), then the V_{y+2} factor commutes through the trace in Eq. (15) and Q need not equal the actual boundary anomaly φ(g[y], f[y+2]). The statement in Sec. II A that "by expanding the region of the investigation... the analysis is also applicable to more complex cases" is not supported by any proof, construction, or numerical example, and the Ly=2 numerics in Figs. 3, 5, and 9 cannot test non-adjacent boundary anomalies. The scope restriction should therefore be stated as a hard limitation, or an explicit proof and example for wider operator support should be supplied.
  2. [Sec. V, Appendix E, Eqs. (47), (49), (E10), (E11)] The mixed-state indicators Qexa and Qave are derived in Appendix E for a one-dimensional MPO with global symmetry; the application to 2D subsystem symmetries in Sec. V is not given the same level of proof. I ask the authors to state explicitly how the adjacent-factorization ansatz of Eq. (B2) is inherited by the boundary operators of the Choi-state representation of the PEPDO, and to show the transfer-matrix steps that lead to Qexa(k,~g)=φ and Qave(g,~g)=φ for the subsystem operators in Eqs. (83) and (86). In addition, Eq. (E10) as written has the right conjugation by V(k)⊗I, whereas Eq. (E9) and the trace evaluation in Eq. (E11) appear to require conjugation by V(g)⊗I; please clarify whether this is a typo or a step relying on the group-extension structure. Without this clarification, the numerical values in Fig. 9 do not by themselves establish the claimed mixed-state anomalies.
  3. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (40)] Section IV B states that the intrinsic Z2 SSPT phase is stable under the subsystem-symmetric perturbation U^v_y(η)=∏_x exp(η X_{x,y}), with φ(g[y],g[y+1]) remaining -1 and the entanglement spectrum remaining fully degenerate "throughout the nontrivial SSPT phase". No numerical data or analytic argument for this stability is provided. Because calling T_Z2(φ) at φ=(2m+1)π a phase rather than a fixed point requires a finite region of stability, please include the Q(g[1],g[2]) and entanglement-spectrum results as functions of η, or state that only the fixed-point behavior is established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI] The conclusion overstates the proven scope by presenting the method as "a numerical method to detect quantum anomalies of subsystem symmetries" without repeating the adjacent-subsystem restriction; I recommend qualifying this sentence.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (C4)] The thermodynamic-limit formula for Q involves the ratio (λ0(g[y],e)/λ0(e,e))^{Lx-1}; please specify how the phase of λ0 is treated when the transfer matrix is non-Hermitian, and state under what conditions Q is guaranteed to be real.
  3. [Secs. V A and V B, Eqs. (60), (63), (74), (76)] Several tensor-network equations are presented diagrammatically without explicit algebraic definitions of every tensor; providing explicit local tensor components or a short pseudocode would help readers verify the commutation relations that the boundary-anomaly graphs in Eqs. (66) and (80) rely on.
  4. [Figs. 4 and 10] The captions do not state the bond dimension (or truncation) used in the entanglement-spectrum calculations, nor the specific Lx values for the horizontal-cylinder geometry; these parameters are needed to assess the claims of full degeneracy and gap closing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (16) is a derived identity, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central result Q(g[y], f[y+1]) = phi(g[y], f[y+1]) is derived from the tensor equations, not assumed or fitted. The indicator is defined independently in Eq. (10) as the normalized subsystem-symmetry charge of a twisted sector state, while phi is defined separately from boundary-operator commutation in Eqs. (6)-(7). The equality follows from the transfer-matrix manipulations in Eqs. (12)-(15) and the bond-commutation relation Eq. (B16), which itself follows from the stated adjacent-factorization ansatz W^Right(g[y]) = V_y(g[y]) V_{y+1}(g[y]). This is a mathematical derivation rather than a self-referential definition. The numerical examples for the cluster state and the intrinsic Z2 phase compute Q from transfer-matrix spectra (Appendix C) and compare against analytically derived boundary commutators, so the numerical checks are not curve fits to the target quantity. The tunable-tensor calculations also detect symmetry breaking via Q approaching zero, which is additional, non-circular content. The paper includes some self-citations (e.g., Refs. [42,65,78,80]), but these concern mixed-state constructions and generalization remarks and are not load-bearing for the main anomaly-indicator identity. The main caveat is scope, not circularity: the proof assumes adjacent-subsystem factorization, and the statement in Sec. II A that 'by expanding the region of the investigation while using a similar approach, the analysis is also applicable to more complex cases' is an unproved assertion about wider-support boundary anomalies. That is a limitation in generality, not a circular step. No specific equation is shown to reduce to its own input, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the boundary-operator decomposition W = V_y V_{y+1} (ad hoc to the paper's scope), the PEPS symmetry tensor equation, and the unique leading eigenvalue of SRE transfer matrices. The free parameters gamma, phi, t are tuning parameters of the model states, not fitted to external data. The invented entities are the intrinsic Z2 phase and the mixed-state anomaly indicators, both defined within the paper's own framework without independent experimental or formal verification.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma in tunable cluster tensor T(gamma) = gamma = -1 (strong), gamma = 1 (weak), otherwise symmetry-broken
    Tuning parameter that interpolates between strong and weak SSPT phases; the phase boundaries at gamma = +/-1 are identified from symmetry restoration, not derived from the anomaly indicator.
  • phi in intrinsic Z2 tensor T_Z2(phi) = phi = (2m+1)pi (nontrivial), phi = 2m pi (trivial)
    Phase parameter in the tensor elements that interpolates between symmetric tensor classes; the anomaly indicator is evaluated at these points.
  • t in density matrix interpolation rho(t) = t = 1 (nontrivial), t = 0 (trivial)
    Interpolation parameter between the disordered cluster density matrix and a trivial state; the mixed-state anomalies are plotted versus t.
  • eta in perturbation U^v_y(eta) = eta in [0,1]
    Generic perturbation parameter used to test stability of the intrinsic phase; no specific value is fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Boundary subsystem symmetry operators decompose as W^Right(g[y]) = V_y(g[y]) V_{y+1}(g[y]) into adjacent local boundary spaces.
    Stated in Sec. II A as a constraint, and used in Appendix B (Eq. B2, B14) to derive the mixed anomaly formula. It restricts the analysis to adjacent-subsystem anomalies.
  • domain assumption The bulk wave function is symmetric under the linear subsystem symmetries and admits the tensor equation Eq. (8).
    Standard in PEPS symmetry analyses. The transfer-matrix derivation of Q = phi depends on this.
  • domain assumption The transfer matrix of an SRE state has a unique leading eigenvalue.
    Used in Appendix C (Eq. C4) to take the thermodynamic limit of Q.
  • standard math The group Gs is a finite Abelian group.
    Invoked in Sec. II A around Eq. (5) to commute group elements.
invented entities (2)
  • Intrinsic Z2 SSPT phase
    purpose: A strong SSPT phase with no weak counterpart, exhibiting mixed anomaly phi(g[y], g[y+1]) = -1 and fully degenerate entanglement spectrum.
    The phase is defined and detected within the constructed tensor wave function T_Z2; no independent prediction outside the model is given.
  • Average subsystem symmetry anomaly indicators Qexa and Qave
    purpose: Mixed-state anomaly indicators for exact and average subsystem symmetries in open quantum systems.
    These are new diagnostic quantities introduced and computed within the paper's framework; not yet independently validated or connected to physical observables beyond the transfer-matrix definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boundary anomaly detection in two-dimensional subsystem symmetry-protected topological phases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IYKGOXTW

@misc{pith2026241207563,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boundary anomaly detection in two-dimensional subsystem symmetry-protected topological phases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IYKGOXTW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07563}
}
abstract

We generalize the topological response theory to detect the boundary anomalies of linear subsystem symmetries. This approach allows us to distinguish different subsystem symmetry-protected topological (SSPT) phases and uncover new ones. We focus on the cases where the mixed anomaly exists within the adjacent subsystems. Using numerical simulations, we demonstrate the power of this method by identifying strong and weak $Z_2^\tau\times Z_2^\sigma$ SSPT phases in a tunable tensor network state. Our analysis reveals an intrinsic $Z_2$ SSPT phase characterized by its degenerate entanglement spectrum. Furthermore, we extend the anomaly indicator to mixed-state density matrices and show that quantum anomalies of subsystem symmetry can persist under both uniform and alternating disorders. This finding establishes a connection between boundary quantum anomalies in pure and mixed states. Our work provides a numerical method to detect quantum anomalies of subsystem symmetries, offering new insights into the study of topological quantum phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07563 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Linear subsystem symmetry transformations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Tensor network representation of a 2D cluster state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Mixed anomaly detection for the tunable tensor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The entanglement spectrum (ES) and the entan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mixed anomaly detection of the intrinsic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. ES and EE of the reduced density matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Mixed-state anomaly detection of the interpolation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The ES and the EE of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Summary of boundary anomalies in various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a) Lattice model of 2D cluster state. The blue dots and red squares denote the spin- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. PEPS representation of 2D cluster state. The blue “ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Entanglement Holography in Quantum Phases via Twisted R\'enyi-N Correlators

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Twisted Rényi-N correlators of the reduced density matrix exhibit long-range order along an artificial replica direction for SPT phases, mirroring the bulk strange correlator.

  2. Topological edge states in two-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_4$ Potts paramagnet protected by the $\mathbb{Z}_4^{\times 3}$ symmetry

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The nontrivial Z4^×3 SPT edge reduces to a constrained Z4 chain whose spectrum is gapless and consistent with a c≈11/5 CFT, tentatively SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Uniform average subsystem symmetry 9

  2. [2]

    Mixed-state anomaly detection 12 VI

    Alternating average subsystem symmetry 11 C. Mixed-state anomaly detection 12 VI. Conclusion and Discussion 13 Acknowledgments 14 References 14 A. Topological response theory 17 B. Extract mixed anomaly from local boundary Hilbert space 21 ∗ shuoyang@tsinghua.edu.cn C. Numerical calculation of Q(g[y], f[y+1]) 24 D. Tensor network representation of 2D clus...

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    By expanding the region of the investi- gation while using a similar approach, the analysis is also applicable to more complex cases

    In Appendix B, we discuss the specific forms of ϕ(g[y1], f[y2]) for the cases with |y1 −y2| > 1, |y1 −y2| = 0, and |y1 − y2| = 1. By expanding the region of the investi- gation while using a similar approach, the analysis is also applicable to more complex cases. Given the system is translationally invariant in both x and y directions, Eq. (2) can be expr...

  4. [4]

    The total horizontal subsys- tem symmetry of |ψSSPT⟩ is denoted by Gh = Q y ˜G[y] s

    Uniform average subsystem symmetry In the first case, the subsystem symmetry ˜Gs of a pure state SSPT wave function |ψSSPT⟩ is considered as a product group Gs × Ks. The total horizontal subsys- tem symmetry of |ψSSPT⟩ is denoted by Gh = Q y ˜G[y] s . To prepare an ASSPT phase ρASSPT, local disorders are introduced uniformly in the SSPT state, leading to ...

  5. [5]

    Alternating average subsystem symmetry In the second case, we construct the ASSPT phase by breaking the subsystem symmetry in an alternating way shown in Fig. 8. Starting from a Gs SSPT wave Sh(k[2y+1]) Sh(g[2y+2]) Sh(g[2y]) FIG. 8. Gs ASSPT phase with alternating disorders. The blue and red squares denote the exact subsystem symmetry operators Sh(k[2y+1]...

  6. [6]

    Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev

    X.-G. Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041004 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Gu and X.-G

    Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen, Tensor-entanglement-filtering renormalization approach and symmetry-protected topo- logical order, Phys. Rev. B 80, 155131 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Symmetry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group, Phys. Rev. B 87, 155114 (2013)

    2013

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Symmetry- Protected Topological Orders in Interacting Bosonic Sys- tems, Science 338, 1604 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Chen, Y.-M

    X. Chen, Y.-M. Lu, and A. Vishwanath, Symmetry- protected topological phases from decorated domain walls, Nature Communications 5, 3507 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B 83, 035107 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Schuch, D

    N. Schuch, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, and I. Cirac, Classifying quantum phases using matrix product states and pro- jected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B 84, 165139 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    I.Affleck and E.H.Lieb, A proof of part of haldane’s con- jecture on spin chains, Letters in Mathematical Physics (1986)

    1986

  6. [14]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Topological insulators and su- perconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Vishwanath and T

    A. Vishwanath and T. Senthil, Physics of three- dimensional bosonic topological insulators: Surface- deconfined criticality and quantized magnetoelectric ef- fect, Phys. Rev. X 3, 011016 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Chen, Z.-X

    X. Chen, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Two-dimensional symmetry-protected topological orders and their pro- tected gapless edge excitations, Phys. Rev. B 84, 235141 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Levin and Z.-C

    M. Levin and Z.-C. Gu, Braiding statistics approach to symmetry-protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. B86, 115109 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Kawagoe and M

    K. Kawagoe and M. Levin, Anomalies in bosonic symmetry-protected topological edge theories: Connec- tion to f symbols and a method of calculation, Phys. Rev. B 104, 115156 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Garre-Rubio, L

    J. Garre-Rubio, L. Lootens, and A. Moln´ ar, Classifying phases protected by matrix product operator symmetries using matrix product states, Quantum 7, 927 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Li and F

    H. Li and F. D. M. Haldane, Entanglement spectrum as a generalization of entanglement entropy: Identification of topological order in non-abelian fractional quantum hall effect states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 010504 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Pollmann, A

    F. Pollmann, A. M. Turner, E. Berg, and M. Oshikawa, Entanglement spectrum of a topological phase in one di- mension, Phys. Rev. B 81, 064439 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    J. I. Cirac, D. Poilblanc, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Entanglement spectrum and boundary theories with pro- jected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 83, 245134 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Poilblanc, J

    D. Poilblanc, J. I. Cirac, and N. Schuch, Chiral topo- logical spin liquids with projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B 91, 224431 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    M. P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, and F. Pollmann, Topolog- ical characterization of fractional quantum hall ground states from microscopic hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 236801 (2013). 15

    2013

  17. [25]

    Schuch, D

    N. Schuch, D. Poilblanc, J. I. Cirac, and D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, Topological order in the projected entangled-pair states formalism: Transfer operator and boundary hamiltoni- ans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090501 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    S. Yang, L. Lehman, D. Poilblanc, K. Van Acoleyen, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and N. Schuch, Edge theories in projected entangled pair state models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 036402 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    S. Yang, T. B. Wahl, H.-H. Tu, N. Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, Chiral projected entangled-pair state with topological or- der, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 106803 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Jiang, Z

    H.-C. Jiang, Z. Wang, and L. Balents, Identifying topo- logical order by entanglement entropy, Nature Physics 8, 902 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Zou and J

    L. Zou and J. Haah, Spurious long-range entanglement and replica correlation length, Phys. Rev. B 94, 075151 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Van Acoleyen, N

    K. Van Acoleyen, N. Bultinck, J. Haegeman, M. Marien, V. B. Scholz, and F. Verstraete, Entanglement of distil- lation for lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 131602 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    H. He, H. Moradi, and X.-G. Wen, Modular matrices as topological order parameter by a gauge-symmetry- preserved tensor renormalization approach, Phys. Rev. B 90, 205114 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    M. P. Zaletel, Detecting two-dimensional symmetry- protected topological order in a ground-state wave func- tion, Phys. Rev. B 90, 235113 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Huang and T.-C

    C.-Y. Huang and T.-C. Wei, Detecting and identi- fying two-dimensional symmetry-protected topological, symmetry-breaking, and intrinsic topological phases with modular matrices via tensor-network methods, Phys. Rev. B 93, 155163 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Bultinck, R

    N. Bultinck, R. Vanhove, J. Haegeman, and F. Ver- straete, Global anomaly detection in two-dimensional symmetry-protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 156601 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Shiozaki and S

    K. Shiozaki and S. Ryu, Matrix product states and equiv- ariant topological field theories for bosonic symmetry- protected topological phases in (1+1) dimensions, Jour- nal of High Energy Physics 2017, 100 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Kapustin, A

    A. Kapustin, A. Turzillo, and M. You, Topological field theory and matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075125 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    W.-T. Xu, T. Rakovszky, M. Knap, and F. Pollmann, Entanglement properties of gauge theories from higher- form symmetries (2024), arXiv:2311.16235 [cond-mat.str- el]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Schuch, I

    N. Schuch, I. Cirac, and D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, PEPS as ground states: Degeneracy and topology, Annals of Physics 325, 2153 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Pollmann and A

    F. Pollmann and A. M. Turner, Detection of symmetry- protected topological phases in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B 86, 125441 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    D. J. Williamson, N. Bultinck, M. Mari¨ en, M. B. S ¸ahino˘ glu, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Matrix prod- uct operators for symmetry-protected topological phases: Gauging and edge theories, Phys. Rev. B 94, 205150 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Bultinck, D

    N. Bultinck, D. J. Williamson, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Fermionic matrix product states and one- dimensional topological phases, Phys. Rev. B 95, 075108 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Jiang and Y

    S. Jiang and Y. Ran, Anyon condensation and a generic tensor-network construction for symmetry-protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. B 95, 125107 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Yang, Z.-C

    S. Yang, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Loop optimization for tensor network renormalization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 110504 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    M. B. S ¸ahino˘ glu, D. Williamson, N. Bultinck, M. Mari¨ en, J. Haegeman, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Character- izing Topological Order with Matrix Product Operators, Annales Henri Poincar´ e22, 563 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Y. Ma, S. Jiang, and C. Xu, Variational tensor wave func- tions for the interacting quantum spin hall phase, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 126504 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    C. Xu, Y. Ma, and S. Jiang, Unveiling correlated two- dimensional topological insulators through fermionic ten- sor network states—classification, edge theories and vari- ational wavefunctions, Reports on Progress in Physics 87, 108001 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Guo, J.-H

    Y. Guo, J.-H. Zhang, S. Yang, and Z. Bi, Locally pu- rified density operators for symmetry-protected topo- logical phases in mixed states (2024), arXiv:2403.16978 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Iqbal, K

    M. Iqbal, K. Duivenvoorden, and N. Schuch, Study of anyon condensation and topological phase transitions from a z4 topological phase using the projected entangled pair states approach, Phys. Rev. B 97, 195124 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Iqbal and N

    M. Iqbal and N. Schuch, Entanglement order parameters and critical behavior for topological phase transitions and beyond, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041014 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Pollmann, S

    F. Pollmann, S. Mukerjee, A. M. Turner, and J. E. Moore, Theory of finite-entanglement scaling at one- dimensional quantum critical points, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 255701 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    Y.-C. He, S. Bhattacharjee, R. Moessner, and F. Poll- mann, Bosonic integer quantum hall effect in an interact- ing lattice model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 116803 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Vanderstraeten, M

    L. Vanderstraeten, M. Mari¨ en, J. Haegeman, N. Schuch, J. Vidal, and F. Verstraete, Bridging perturbative expan- sions with tensor networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 070401 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Huang, L

    R.-Z. Huang, L. Zhang, A. M. L¨ auchli, J. Haegeman, F. Verstraete, and L. Vanderstraeten, Emergent confor- mal boundaries from finite-entanglement scaling in ma- trix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 086503 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Haller, W.-T

    L. Haller, W.-T. Xu, Y.-J. Liu, and F. Pollmann, Quan- tum phase transition between symmetry enriched topo- logical phases in tensor-network states, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043078 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Y. You, T. Devakul, F. J. Burnell, and S. L. Sondhi, Subsystem symmetry protected topological order, Phys. Rev. B 98, 035112 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Devakul, D

    T. Devakul, D. J. Williamson, and Y. You, Classification of subsystem symmetry-protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235121 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Devakul, W

    T. Devakul, W. Shirley, and J. Wang, Strong planar sub- system symmetry-protected topological phases and their dual fracton orders, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 012059 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    F. J. Burnell, T. Devakul, P. Gorantla, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Anomaly inflow for subsystem symmetries, Phys. Rev. B 106, 085113 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Seiberg, Field theories with a vector global symmetry, SciPost Phys

    N. Seiberg, Field theories with a vector global symmetry, SciPost Phys. 8, 050 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Y. You, F. J. Burnell, and T. L. Hughes, Multipolar topo- logical field theories: Bridging higher order topological insulators and fractons, Phys. Rev. B103, 245128 (2021). 16

    2021

  53. [61]

    Casasola, G

    H. Casasola, G. Delfino, Y. You, P. F. Bienzobaz, and P. R. S. Gomes, Fractal subsystem symmetries, anomalies, boundaries, and effective field theory (2024), arXiv:2406.19275 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Ebisu, M

    H. Ebisu, M. Honda, and T. Nakanishi, Anomaly inflow for dipole symmetry and higher form foliated field theo- ries, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024, 61 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    D. T. Stephen, H. Dreyer, M. Iqbal, and N. Schuch, Detecting subsystem symmetry protected topological or- der via entanglement entropy, Phys. Rev. B 100, 115112 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    D. T. Stephen, A. Dua, J. Garre-Rubio, D. J. Williamson, and M. Hermele, Fractionalization of subsystem symme- tries in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B106, 085104 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    D. T. Stephen, J. Garre-Rubio, A. Dua, and D. J. Williamson, Subsystem symmetry enriched topological order in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033331 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    J. F. San Miguel, A. Dua, and D. J. Williamson, Bifurcat- ing subsystem symmetric entanglement renormalization in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 103, 035148 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Y. You, T. Devakul, F. J. Burnell, and T. Neupert, Higher-order symmetry-protected topological states for interacting bosons and fermions, Phys. Rev. B98, 235102 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    May-Mann, Y

    J. May-Mann, Y. You, T. L. Hughes, and Z. Bi, Interaction-enabled fractonic higher-order topological phases, Phys. Rev. B 105, 245122 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Zhang, M

    J.-H. Zhang, M. Cheng, and Z. Bi, Classification and con- struction of interacting fractonic higher-order topological phases, Phys. Rev. B 108, 045133 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Zhang, K

    J.-H. Zhang, K. Ding, S. Yang, and Z. Bi, Fractonic higher-order topological phases in open quantum sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B 108, 155123 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  64. [72]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. D¨ ur, R. Raussendorf, and M. V. den Nest, Measurement-based quantum com- putation, Nature Physics 5, 19 (2009)

    2009

  65. [73]

    Raussendorf, C

    R. Raussendorf, C. Okay, D.-S. Wang, D. T. Stephen, and H. P. Nautrup, Computationally universal phase of quantum matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 090501 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    D. T. Stephen, H. P. Nautrup, J. Bermejo-Vega, J. Eisert, and R. Raussendorf, Subsystem symmetries, quantum cellular automata, and computational phases of quantum matter, Quantum 3, 142 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    Devakul and D

    T. Devakul and D. J. Williamson, Universal quantum computation using fractal symmetry-protected cluster phases, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022332 (2018)

    2018

  68. [76]

    D. J. Williamson, A. Dua, and M. Cheng, Spurious topo- logical entanglement entropy from subsystem symme- tries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140506 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    de Groot, A

    C. de Groot, A. Turzillo, and N. Schuch, Symmetry Pro- tected Topological Order in Open Quantum Systems, Quantum 6, 856 (2022)

    2022

  70. [78]

    Ma and C

    R. Ma and C. Wang, Average symmetry-protected topo- logical phases, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031016 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Ma, J.-H

    R. Ma, J.-H. Zhang, Z. Bi, M. Cheng, and C. Wang, Topological phases with average symmetries: the de- cohered, the disordered, and the intrinsic (2023), arXiv:2305.16399 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Y. Zang, Y. Gu, and S. Jiang, Detecting quantum anoma- lies in open systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 106503 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    L. A. Lessa, R. Ma, J.-H. Zhang, Z. Bi, M. Cheng, and C. Wang, Strong-to-weak spontaneous symmetry break- ing in mixed quantum states (2024), arXiv:2405.03639 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Zhang, Y

    C. Zhang, Y. Xu, J.-H. Zhang, C. Xu, Z. Bi, and Z.-X. Luo, Strong-to-weak spontaneous breaking of 1- form symmetry and intrinsically mixed topological order (2024), arXiv:2409.17530 [quant-ph]

    2024

  75. [83]

    Y. Guo, K. Ding, and S. Yang, A new frame- work for quantum phases in open systems: Steady state of imaginary-time lindbladian evolution (2024), arXiv:2408.03239 [quant-ph]

    2024

  76. [84]

    You and M

    Y. You and M. Oshikawa, Intrinsic symmetry-protected topological mixed state from modulated symmetries and hierarchical structure of boundary anomaly, Phys. Rev. B 110, 165160 (2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    Guo and S

    Y. Guo and S. Yang, Strong-to-weak spontaneous sym- metry breaking meets average symmetry-protected topo- logical order, Phys. Rev. B 111, L201108 (2025)

    2025

  78. [86]

    Xu and C.-M

    Y. Xu and C.-M. Jian, Average-exact mixed anomalies and compatible phases (2024), arXiv:2406.07417 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Sun, J.-H

    S. Sun, J.-H. Zhang, Z. Bi, and Y. You, Holographic view of mixed-state symmetry-protected topological phases in open quantum systems (2024), arXiv:2410.08205 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Shirley, K

    W. Shirley, K. Slagle, and X. Chen, Foliated fracton or- der from gauging subsystem symmetries, SciPost Phys. 6, 041 (2019)

    2019

  81. [89]

    Pretko, X

    M. Pretko, X. Chen, and Y. You, Fracton phases of matter, International Journal of Modern Physics A 35, 2030003 (2020)

    2020

  82. [90]

    Shirley, K

    W. Shirley, K. Slagle, and X. Chen, Fractional excitations in foliated fracton phases, Annals of Physics 410, 167922 (2019)

    2019

  83. [91]

    Shirley, K

    W. Shirley, K. Slagle, Z. Wang, and X. Chen, Fracton models on general three-dimensional manifolds, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031051 (2018)

    2018

  84. [92]

    Cheng and N

    M. Cheng and N. Seiberg, Lieb-Schultz-Mattis, Lut- tinger, and ’t Hooft - anomaly matching in lattice sys- tems, SciPost Phys. 15, 051 (2023)

    2023

  85. [93]

    Kapustin and R

    A. Kapustin and R. Thorngren, Anomalies of discrete symmetries in various dimensions and group cohomology (2014), arXiv:1404.3230 [hep-th]. 17 Appendix A: T opological response theory In this appendix, we discuss the relationship between the topological response theory and the...

    2014 arXiv

  86. [94]

    ⊙” and red “ ⊡

    = ( |+⟩, σ z 1σz 2σz 3σz 4 = 1 |−⟩, σ z 1σz 2σz 3σz 4 = −1 . (D3) 26 Therefore, the nonzero elements of Tτ are given by Tτ = + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + , where the solid and dotted legs represent the virtual degrees of freedom | ↑⟩and | ↓⟩. The solid and hollow blue balls d...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.