Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Defect Networks for Topological Phases Protected By Modulated Symmetries

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper generalizes the defect-network construction to modulated symmetries and shows that spatial symmetries impose an anomaly-free condition, $S^*[\omega]=[\omega]$, that rules out many naively allowed symmetry-protected topological ph

desk verdict A genuinely new defect-network framework for modulated SPTs with a clean anomaly condition; the weak-index tables rest on unproven equivalence relations, so the classifications are conditional but likely right. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06604 v2 pith:2ZJKNW5B submitted 2025-08-08 cond-mat.str-el math-phmath.MP

Daniel Bulmash This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MP
keywords modulatedsymmetriesdipolarsymmetrydefectnetworkssymmetry-protectedtopologicalphasescrystallineequivalenceprinciplegroupcohomologytranslationanomaly-freecondition
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 extends the defect-network construction to modulated symmetries—internal symmetries that do not commute with spatial symmetries, with dipolar symmetry as the leading example. It argues that in the absence of spatial symmetries such a symmetry behaves like an ordinary internal symmetry, so the distinction becomes meaningful only when translations or other spatial symmetries are imposed. The central result is the anomaly-free condition $S^*[\omega]=[\omega]$ (Eq. 15): strong SPT data on the $d$-cells of a defect network survives only if every spatial symmetry pulls the cocycle back to the same cohomology class. Many cocycles that are non-anomalous for unmodulated symmetries fail this test, which is why modulated SPT classifications are smaller than naive group-cohomology guesses. Combining this condition with the weak-SPT equivalence relations yields the dipolar SPT classifications summarized in Table I, including new weak indices.

What carries the argument

The defect network (block-state) construction, adapted to modulated symmetries. A symmetric cellulation of space carries strong SPT data $\omega\in H^{d+1}(G_{\mathrm{int}},U(1))$ on the $d$-cells and weak data on lower-dimensional cells; the novelty is the non-diagonal gluing rule (Eq. 14) that implements the semidirect action and the anomaly-free condition $S^*[\omega]=[\omega]$ (Eq. 15) that gates which strong data survive. The lower-cell data form torsors over $H^k(G_{\mathrm{int}}\rtimes G_{\Sigma},U(1))$, and the weak-data equivalences (Eqs. 34 and 36) come from translation-invariant nucleation of charges and 1D SPTs. A spectral-sequence argument relates the assembled groups to $H^{d+1

What would settle it

Construct a finite (1+1)D chain with $\mathbb{Z}_3$ dipole symmetry and numerically check whether the number of inequivalent gapped phases matches the predicted $\mathbb{Z}_3$ strong $\times$ $\mathbb{Z}_3$ weak classification; an extra equivalence between distinct 0-cell data would show Eq. (34) is incomplete. Alternatively, attempt to build a gapped symmetric ground state whose strong data violates $S^*[\omega]=[\omega]$; a successful construction would falsify the anomaly condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a symmetry group $G=G_{\mathrm{int}}\rtimes G_{\mathrm{sp}}$, the defect network places a $G_{\mathrm{int}}$-SPT cocycle $\omega$ on each $d$-cell. The modulation enters when neighboring cells are coupled not through the diagonal subgroup but through $g\mapsto U_g(L)U_{S^{-1}(g)}(R)$, where $S$ is the space-group element taking one cell to its neighbor. The paper establishes that a gapped, symmetry-preserving interface then exists only if $S^*[\omega]=[\omega]$ for every $S\in G_{\mathrm{sp}}$; when this fails, the strong data carries a 't Hooft anomaly. Lower-dimensional cells carry weak SPT data that form torsors over cohomology groups of $G_{\mathrm{int}}$ (extended by the little grou

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the translation-invariant processes of nucleating charges on 1-cells and expanding 1D SPTs inside 2-cells generate all equivalences among weak SPT data; if other local symmetric processes identify more data, the weak indices in Table I shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • (1+1)D $\mathbb{Z}_N$ dipolar SPTs with translations have strong index $\mathbb{Z}_N$ and weak index $\mathbb{Z}_N$; the neutral dipole per unit cell is trivial weak data.
  • (2+1)D with $\mathbb{Z}_N$ dipole conserved in one direction is classified by $\mathbb{Z}_N^4\times\mathbb{Z}_{(2,N)}$, with an extra $\mathbb{Z}_2$ strong index for even $N$.
  • With $\mathbb{Z}_N$ dipole conserved in both directions, anomalies appear on the 0-cells even without point-group symmetry, and the index splits into strong $\mathbb{Z}_N^4$ and weak $\mathbb{Z}_N^4$.
  • The $\mathbb{Z}_N\times\mathbb{Z}_N$ cluster state with translation is only non-anomalous for $k=0$ (and $k=N/2$ when $N$ is even), reproducing the known restriction.
  • For $U(1)$ charge with $\mathbb{Z}_L$ dipole on a ring of length $L$, the weak data yields the filling constraint $\nu_D-\nu(L+1)/2\in\mathbb{Z}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • By the same defect-network logic, the anomaly-free condition should also constrain non-invertible and fermionic modulated phases, though the paper only develops the bosonic cohomology case.
  • The completeness of the weak-data equivalence relations is the main open assumption; a search for additional translation-invariant local processes identifying 0-cell data would directly test the Table I quotients.
  • Finite-size effects enter through the symmetry group itself; the filling constraint in Sec. VII B suggests analogous size-dependent constraints for higher multipole symmetries and in higher dimensions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a defect-network construction for symmetry-protected topological phases protected by modulated symmetries, i.e., internal symmetries that do not commute with spatial symmetries. The central result is an anomaly-free condition, Eq. (15), stating that the strong SPT data on the d-cells, [ω] ∈ H^{d+1}(G_int,U(1)), must satisfy S^*[ω]=[ω] for every spatial symmetry generator S. The paper argues that modulated symmetries behave like ordinary internal symmetries when spatial symmetries are absent, but that spatial symmetries make many naively valid defect networks anomalous. It then applies the formalism to classify dipolar and other modulated SPTs in (1+1)D and (2+1)D, reproducing and extending known results, with Table I summarizing the classifications.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper provides a general and computationally useful framework for modulated-symmetry SPTs, generalizing the crystalline equivalence principle and unifying several prior results derived by MPS or SymTFT methods. The explicit cohomology computations are internally consistent and transparent, and the reproduction of the cluster-state theorem, Lam's MPS classification, and the LHS spectral-sequence structure gives independent confirmation of the framework. The anomaly-free condition Eq. (15) is a crisp, falsifiable criterion that yields concrete classifications. However, the classification claims in Table I depend on the completeness of weak-SPT equivalence relations that are only physically motivated, not proven; this is the main correctness risk.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV E; Eqs. (34), (36); Table I] The weak-index column of Table I rests on equivalence relations introduced with 'We claim' and 'This equivalence is obtained by...' rather than proven. The physical processes of nucleating charges or 1D SPTs and moving/expanding them are not demonstrated to be symmetry-allowed for arbitrary G_int, nor are they shown to generate all equivalences. This is load-bearing: every weak entry in Table I is a quotient of naive cell data by these relations, e.g., Eq. (57) for (1+1)D dipolar, Eq. (36) and Eq. (129) for (2+1)D one-direction dipolar, and Eq. (36) plus Eqs. (154)-(155) for two-direction dipolar. If a sketched process is not symmetry-preserving, the quotient is too large; if additional equivalences exist, the quotient is too small. The paper explicitly leaves completeness at the level of plausibility, so the classification claim in Table I is not fully established.
  2. [Sec. IV G; Eqs. (38)-(39); Sec. VII A] The anomaly-free condition for cells with nontrivial extended symmetry is derived only schematically. The text states that the argument is 'more technically involved than the one we gave previously' and provides a folding diagram and a commutativity diagram rather than a complete derivation. This condition is used in Sec. VII A (Eqs. (87)-(89)) and in the classification of weak data in reflection-symmetric cluster states. A rigorous derivation, or an explicit statement that the condition is an assumption subject to verification, is needed before the corresponding results can be accepted as proven.
  3. [Sec. VI D; Eqs. (79)-(83)] The reinterpretation of Lam's MPS classification relies on a formal manipulation in which the system size is set to L0=1 in Eq. (83). While the conclusion is plausible and matches the earlier cohomology computation, the step from finite-size operator algebras to an infinite-system cocycle condition is not justified in detail. This is a secondary point, but it affects the claimed equivalence between the MPS and defect-network derivations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (12)] Typographical error: 'G_L_int × G_L_int' should presumably be 'G_L_int × G_R_int' in the first line.
  2. [Sec. IV D; Eq. (33)] The orientation conventions entering the 0-cell cocycle condition are not fully specified. A short sentence defining the orientations of horizontal and vertical 1-cells would make the consistency check reproducible.
  3. [Sec. VII C; Eq. (105)] The expression for the translation-invariant cocycle ω_ℓ is dense; stating the ranges of i,j and the condition ℓ ≤ ⌈(n+1)/2⌉ more explicitly, and explaining why no overcounting occurs, would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. VIII C.2] After Eq. (150), the text says 'one copy of Z_N is actually anomalous and two are trivial via Eq. (36)', but the details appear only later in the 0-cell analysis. A forward reference would help.
  5. [References] Ref. [35] is cited as 'private communication/work in progress'; if it has appeared by the time of publication, the reference should be updated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the defect-network derivation is self-contained and benchmarked against independent results.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The anomaly-free condition (Eq. 15) is obtained by tracking how the modulated global symmetry Gm acts on the local SPT data on each d-cell (Sec. IV A, Eqs. 18-27), not assumed as the classification. The strong-SPT indices in Table I follow from explicit cohomology computations of T* on representative cocycles (e.g., Eqs. 53-56; Eqs. 121-127; Eqs. 139-147), and the weak indices follow from physical equivalence relations in Sec. IV E that are argued from explicit processes (Figs. 5-6) and, for the cluster-state case, demonstrated in an exactly solvable model in Appendix A. The weak-SPT equivalences are indeed asserted rather than proved complete ('We claim' at Eq. 34; 'This equivalence is obtained by...' at Eq. 36); however, they are not fitted to reproduce the final classifications, and the paper independently checks Eq. 37 against the LHS spectral sequence and reproduces the external MPS classification of Ref. [33] and the cluster-state theorem of Ref. [32]. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [37], [46], [67], [57]) are contextual and not load-bearing. The unproven completeness of the weak-SPT quotient is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the defect network construction imported from prior work and on the completeness of the weak-data equivalence relations, both of which are assumptions rather than proven theorems. No free parameters are fitted.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption For bosonic group-cohomology SPTs, a gapped symmetric interface between bulk states labeled by ω and S^*ω exists iff S^*[ω]=[ω], and inequivalent interfaces are classified by trivializations of S^*ω/ω (Eq. 28).
    Used to derive the central anomaly-free condition Eq. 15 (Sec. IV A 2).
  • domain assumption The defect network construction with the stated cellulation rules (fundamental-domain d-cells, all inequivalent Wyckoff cells, no accidental stabilizers) is complete for modulated SPTs: every MSPT can be represented this way.
    Assumed by analogy with unmodulated CSPTs; the paper does not prove completeness.
  • domain assumption The equivalence relations Eq. 34 and Eq. 36 generated by the specified nucleation-and-movement processes are exhaustive for weak SPT data.
    Used in all classifications to reduce naive weak data (e.g., Eq. 57, Eq. 113); argued physically but not proven complete.
  • standard math The Lyndon-Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence degenerates at E2 and gives H^0(G_{Σ}, H^{d+1}(Gint,U(1))) as the invariant subgroup (Eq. 38).
    Imported from Ref. 58 to handle extended symmetry on cells (Sec. IV G).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Defect Networks for Topological Phases Protected By Modulated Symmetries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ZJKNW5B

@misc{pith2026250806604,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Defect Networks for Topological Phases Protected By Modulated Symmetries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ZJKNW5B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06604}
}
read the original abstract

Modulated symmetries are internal symmetries which do not commute with spatial symmetries; dipolar symmetries are a prime example. We give a general recipe for constructing topological phases protected by modulated symmetries via a defect network construction, generalizing the crystalline equivalence principle to modulated symmetries. We demonstrate that modulated symmetries can be treated identically to unmodulated symmetries in the absence of spatial symmetries, but in the presence of spatial symmetries, some defect networks which are non-anomalous for unmodulated symmetries become anomalous for modulated symmetries. We apply this understanding to classify symmetry-protected topological phases protected by translation symmetry plus either discrete or continuous dipolar symmetries in (1+1)D and (2+1)D and obtain a number of other (1+1)D classification results for modulated symmetry-protected topological phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06604 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) The two different coupling terms in the Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Defect network construction for an unmodulated symmetry, shown with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Defect network construction for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Anomaly cancellation in a (2+1)D modulated SPT (pink and green defect network) by modulated weak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Physical process that produces the equivalence Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Physical process that produces the equivalence Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) Folding trick used to take a gapped interface between two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Defect network for a (1+1)D state with translation symmetry only. 1-cells are green bars, 0-cells are blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Triviality of the weak SPT with a neutral dipole moment per unit cell. The neutral dipole (grey) on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Defect network for a (1+1)D state with translation and reflection symmetry. There are two 1-cells (each is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Equivalence of weak SPT data for cluster states with reflection symmetry. First (top) nucleate pairs of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: The two terms in the coupling Hamiltonian Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_12.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. Matrix Product States for Modulated Symmetries: SPT, LSM, and Beyond

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A generalized MPS push-through condition for modulated symmetries classifies 1D SPTs and yields LSM constraints via site-dependent virtual cocycles.

  2. Non-invertible translation from Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomaly

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gauging the full internal symmetry of a lattice system with an LSM anomaly turns lattice translation into a non-invertible operator whose fusion rules involve condensation defects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Z2 Nˆ Z2 (90) where s stands for “site

    Weak dipolar SPT data We can refine the classification by adding weak SPT data, which amounts to dressing the 0-cells by (0+1)D SPTs. Since the symmetry which preserves the 0-cells is still ZN ˆ ZN , the pd´ 1q-cell data naively form an H1pZNˆ ZN , Up1qq“ ZNˆ ZN torsor. To see that translation symmetry is required to distinguish these weak SPT classes, co...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Then a does not have a multiplicative inverse modulo N , and one can check that every positive power of A (resp

    Other cases Next consider a“ 0 mod rad pNq, where radpNq is the product of distinct prime factors of N . Then a does not have a multiplicative inverse modulo N , and one can check that every positive power of A (resp. B) is only well- defined if the system has a boundary on the left (resp. right), i.e., if j is always nonnegative (resp. nonpositive), and ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Gint¸ GΣd´1 , the LHS spectral sequence degenerates at the E2 page and shows that Hd`1pK, Up1qq includes a subgroup H0pGΣd´1 , Hd`1pGint, Up1qqq“ Hd`1pGint, Up1qqS

    Data on the pd´ 1q-cell Based on our discussion above, the data we need to specify on each pd´ 1q-cell Σd´1 is a gapped interface between the SPTs given by the cocyclesω and S˚ω. If GΣd´1 is trivial, then the solution to this problem is well-understood [52]; all we need is a cochain µP C dpGint, Up1qq such that S˚ω ω “ dµ (28) which must exist if there is...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In this case, the mth power of A (resp

    a and N are coprime The most interesting behavior happens when a and N are coprime. In this case, the mth power of A (resp. B) involves operators X maj (resp. X ma´j ) for all j, and in particular j “ 1 (resp. -1). It immediately follows that A and B are both ZN symmetries, and it is not hard to check that TpAq“ Aa (110) TpBq“ Ba´1 (111) This means that f...

    work page

  5. [5]

    e 2πi N 2 gxphx`kx´rhx`kxsq (119) ωII “ e 2πi N 2 gQphx`kx´rhx`kxsq (120) whererg` hs denotes addition mod N and the subscript denotes the “type

    2-cell data We need to choose ωP H3pZNˆ ZN , Up1qq“ Z3 N . Representative cocycles for the generators of Z3 N are: ωpQq I “ e 2πi N 2 gQphQ`kQ´rhQ`kQsq (118) ωpxq I “ e 2πi N 2 gxphx`kx´rhx`kxsq (119) ωII “ e 2πi N 2 gQphx`kx´rhx`kxsq (120) whererg` hs denotes addition mod N and the subscript denotes the “type” of the cocycle. Obviously all of these are i...

    work page

  6. [6]

    ω. Obviously shifting ν by a 2-cocycle will not change the fact that ν trivializes T˚ x ω{ω. Hence, the naive 1-cell data is given by µh“ zh µv“ $ & % νzv N even andrωs“ ´

    1-cell data The symmetry that preserves each 1-cell is just Gint. If we choose the 2-cell data ω“ ωpxq I , then ω is manifestly invariant on the nose under both T˚ x and T˚ y , so data on each 1-cell is labeled by an actual element of H2pGint, Up1qq. That is, we dress the 1-cells with a (1+1)D dipolar SPT. As in Sec. IV D, we have independent choices for ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Given that T˚ y ν“ ν on the nose, we can insert the data in Eq

    0-cell data There is no extra symmetry at the 0-cell. Given that T˚ y ν“ ν on the nose, we can insert the data in Eq. 128 into Eq. 33 and immediately see that there is no anomaly on the 0-cells for any non-anomalous choice of ω. Distinct 0-cell data then naively forms a H1pGint, Up1qq“ ZNˆ ZN torsor. These are analogous to the 1+1D 0-cell data, namely, th...

    work page

  8. [8]

    ” ωpQq I ı

    Strong SPT (2-cell) data We need to choose an elementrωsP H3pZ3 N , Up1qq“ Z7 N . The representative cocycles are, for i“ Q, x, yrepresenting Q, Dx, and Dy respectively, ωpiq I “ e 2πi N 2 giphi`ki´rhi`kisq (134) ωpijq II “ e 2πi N 2 giphj`kj´rhj`kjsq (135) ωIII “ e 2πi N gQhxky (136) where for ωII , iă j generates all cocycles. We can repeat the results ...

    work page

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    ” ωpxq I ı ,

    1-cell data As in the previous case, the symmetry that preserves the 1-cell is still Gint“ Z3 N . 30 Let us characterize the data on the 1-cells for different choices of ω. Note that we have independent choices of data on the horizontal and vertical 1-cells. Case 1: If the 2-c...

  2. [10]

    We follow the same case analysis as we did for the 1-cells

    0-cell data We now need to check for any anomalies on the 0-cells. We follow the same case analysis as we did for the 1-cells. Case 1: The 1-cell data is actually classified by the aforementioned cocycles rather than just forming a torsor. Examining Eq. 33, we see that if µv“ ...

  3. [11]

    Turner, and Masaki Oshikawa

    Frank Pollmann, Erez Berg, Ari M. Turner, and Masaki Oshikawa. Symmetry protection of topological phases in one- dimensional quantum spin systems. Phys. Rev. B, 85:075125, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin systems

    Xie Chen, Zheng-Cheng Gu, and Xiao-Gang Wen. Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin systems. Phys. Rev. B, 83:035107, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Complete classification of one-dimensional gapped quantum phases in interacting spin systems

    Xie Chen, Zheng-Cheng Gu, and Xiao-Gang Wen. Complete classification of one-dimensional gapped quantum phases in interacting spin systems. Phys. Rev. B, 84:235128, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    Classifying quantum phases using matrix product states and projected entangled pair states

    Norbert Schuch, David P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, and Ignacio Cirac. Classifying quantum phases using matrix product states and projected entangled pair states. Phys. Rev. B, 84:165139, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Symmetry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group

    Xie Chen, Zheng-Cheng Gu, Zheng-Xin Liu, and Xiao-Gang Wen. Symmetry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group. Phys. Rev. B, 87:155114, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    T. Senthil. Symmetry-protected topological phases of quantum matter. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 6(Volume 6, 2015):299–324, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N Seiberg, and B. Willett. Generalized global symmetries. J. High Energ. Phys., 2015:172, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    McGreevy

    J. McGreevy. Generalized symmetries in condensed matter. Ann. Rev. Cond. Mat. Phys., 14:57–82, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Pedro R. S. Gomes. An introduction to higher-form symmetries. SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes, page 74, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    ICTP Lectures on (Non-)Invertible Generalized Symmetries, 2023

    Sakura Schafer-Nameki. ICTP Lectures on (Non-)Invertible Generalized Symmetries, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Lecture notes on generalized symmetries and applications

    Ran Luo, Qing-Rui Wang, and Yi-Nan Wang. Lecture notes on generalized symmetries and applications. Physics Reports, 1065:1–43, 2024. Lecture notes on generalized symmetries and applications

    2024

  14. [22]

    Simons Lectures on Categorical Symmetries, 2024

    Davi Costa, Clay C´ ordova, Michele Del Zotto, Dan Freed, Jonte G¨ odicke, Aaron Hofer, David Jordan, Davide Morgante, Robert Moscrop, Kantaro Ohmori, Elias Riedel G ˚ arding, Claudia Scheimbauer, and Anja ˇSvraka. Simons Lectures on Categorical Symmetries, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Nandkishore

    Shriya Pai, Michael Pretko, and Rahul M. Nandkishore. Localization in fractonic random circuits. Phys. Rev. X, 9:021003, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Scaling and localization in multipole-conserving diffusion

    Jung Hoon Han, Ethan Lake, and Sunghan Ro. Scaling and localization in multipole-conserving diffusion. Phys. Rev. Lett., 132:137102, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Anomalous diffusion in dipole- and higher-moment-conserving systems

    Johannes Feldmeier, Pablo Sala, Giuseppe De Tomasi, Frank Pollmann, and Michael Knap. Anomalous diffusion in dipole- and higher-moment-conserving systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:245303, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Nandkishore

    Andrey Gromov, Andrew Lucas, and Rahul M. Nandkishore. Fracton hydrodynamics. Phys. Rev. Res., 2:033124, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    and Jensen, K

    Jain, A. and Jensen, K. and Liu, R. and Mefford, E. Dipole superfluid hydrodynamics. J. High Energ. Phys., 2023:184, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Ergodicity breaking arising from hilbert space fragmentation in dipole-conserving hamiltonians

    Pablo Sala, Tibor Rakovszky, Ruben Verresen, Michael Knap, and Frank Pollmann. Ergodicity breaking arising from hilbert space fragmentation in dipole-conserving hamiltonians. Phys. Rev. X, 10:011047, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Subdimensional particle structure of higher rank up1q spin liquids

    Michael Pretko. Subdimensional particle structure of higher rank up1q spin liquids. Phys. Rev. B, 95:115139, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Global dipole symmetry, compact Lifshitz theory, tensor gauge theory, and fractons

    Pranay Gorantla, Ho Tat Lam, Nathan Seiberg, and Shu-Heng Shao. Global dipole symmetry, compact Lifshitz theory, tensor gauge theory, and fractons. Phys. Rev. B, 106:045112, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    The fracton gauge principle

    Michael Pretko. The fracton gauge principle. Phys. Rev. B, 98:115134, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Towards classification of fracton phases: The multipole algebra

    Andrey Gromov. Towards classification of fracton phases: The multipole algebra. Phys. Rev. X, 9:031035, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Fracton topological order, generalized lattice gauge theory, and duality

    Sagar Vijay, Jeongwan Haah, and Liang Fu. Fracton topological order, generalized lattice gauge theory, and duality. Phys. Rev. B, 94:235157, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Topological quantum glassiness

    Claudio Castelnovo and Claudio Chamon. Topological quantum glassiness. Philosophical Magazine, 92(1-3):304–323, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Trithep Devakul, Yizhi You, F. J. Burnell, and S. L. Sondhi. Fractal Symmetric Phases of Matter. SciPost Phys., 6:007, 2019. 34

    2019

  28. [36]

    Bulmash and M

    D. Bulmash and M. Barkeshli. Generalized U(1) Gauge Field Theories and Fractal Dynamics, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Dynamics in systems with modulated symmetries

    Pablo Sala, Julius Lehmann, Tibor Rakovszky, and Frank Pollmann. Dynamics in systems with modulated symmetries. Phys. Rev. Lett., 129:170601, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Quantum breakdown model: From many-body localization to chaos with scars

    Biao Lian. Quantum breakdown model: From many-body localization to chaos with scars. Phys. Rev. B, 107:115171, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Yizhi You, Trithep Devakul, F. J. Burnell, and S. L. Sondhi. Subsystem symmetry protected topological order. Phys. Rev. B, 98:035112, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Classifying local fractal subsystem symmetry-protected topological phases

    Trithep Devakul. Classifying local fractal subsystem symmetry-protected topological phases. Phys. Rev. B, 99:235131, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Strong planar subsystem symmetry-protected topological phases and their dual fracton orders

    Trithep Devakul, Wilbur Shirley, and Juven Wang. Strong planar subsystem symmetry-protected topological phases and their dual fracton orders. Phys. Rev. Res., 2:012059, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Topological quantum chains protected by dipolar and other modulated symmetries, 2023

    Jung Hoon Han, Ethan Lake, Ho Tat Lam, Ruben Verresen, and Yizhi You. Topological quantum chains protected by dipolar and other modulated symmetries, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Classification of Dipolar Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases: Matrix Product States, Stabilizer Hamil- tonians and Finite Tensor Gauge Theories, 2023

    Ho Tat Lam. Classification of Dipolar Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases: Matrix Product States, Stabilizer Hamil- tonians and Finite Tensor Gauge Theories, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Topological dipole insulator

    Ho Tat Lam, Jung Hoon Han, and Yizhi You. Topological dipole insulator. SciPost Phys., 17:137, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Private communication/work in progress

    Takumi Saito and Hiromi Ebisu. Private communication/work in progress

  38. [46]

    Pace, Guilherme Delfino, Ho Tat Lam, and ¨Omer M

    Salvatore D. Pace, Guilherme Delfino, Ho Tat Lam, and ¨Omer M. Aksoy. Gauging modulated symmetries: Kramers- Wannier dualities and non-invertible reflections. SciPost Phys., 18:021, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Multipole groups and fracton phenomena on arbitrary crystalline lattices

    Daniel Bulmash, Oliver Hart, and Rahul Nandkishore. Multipole groups and fracton phenomena on arbitrary crystalline lattices. SciPost Phys., 15:235, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Ryan Thorngren and Dominic V. Else. Gauging spatial symmetries and the classification of topological crystalline phases. Phys. Rev. X, 8:011040, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Else, Sheng-Jie Huang, Abhinav Prem, and Andrey Gromov

    Dominic V. Else, Sheng-Jie Huang, Abhinav Prem, and Andrey Gromov. Quantum many-body topology of quasicrystals. Phys. Rev. X, 11:041051, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Else and Ryan Thorngren

    Dominic V. Else and Ryan Thorngren. Crystalline topological phases as defect networks. Phys. Rev. B, 99:115116, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Building crystalline topological phases from lower- dimensional states

    Sheng-Jie Huang, Hao Song, Yi-Ping Huang, and Michael Hermele. Building crystalline topological phases from lower- dimensional states. Phys. Rev. B, 96:205106, 2017

    2017

  44. [52]

    Z. Song, C. Fang, and Y. Qi. Real-space recipes for general topological crystalline states. Nat. Commun., page 4197, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Generalized Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem on bosonic symmetry protected topological phases

    Shenghan Jiang, Meng Cheng, Yang Qi, and Yuan-Ming Lu. Generalized Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem on bosonic symmetry protected topological phases. SciPost Phys., 11:024, 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    Construction and classification of point- group symmetry-protected topological phases in two-dimensional interacting fermionic systems

    Jian-Hao Zhang, Qing-Rui Wang, Shuo Yang, Yang Qi, and Zheng-Cheng Gu. Construction and classification of point- group symmetry-protected topological phases in two-dimensional interacting fermionic systems. Phys. Rev. B, 101:100501, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Real-space construction of crystalline topological supercon- ductors and insulators in 2D interacting fermionic systems

    Jian-Hao Zhang, Shuo Yang, Yang Qi, and Zheng-Cheng Gu. Real-space construction of crystalline topological supercon- ductors and insulators in 2D interacting fermionic systems. Phys. Rev. Res., 4:033081, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Williamson

    David Aasen, Daniel Bulmash, Abhinav Prem, Kevin Slagle, and Dominic J. Williamson. Topological defect networks for fractons of all types. Phys. Rev. Res., 2:043165, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Systematic construction of gapped nonliquid states

    Xiao-Gang Wen. Systematic construction of gapped nonliquid states. Phys. Rev. Res., 2:033300, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Nonliquid cellular states: Gluing gauge-higher-symmetry-breaking versus gauge-higher-symmetry-extension interfacial defects

    Juven Wang. Nonliquid cellular states: Gluing gauge-higher-symmetry-breaking versus gauge-higher-symmetry-extension interfacial defects. Phys. Rev. Res., 4:023258, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Joseph Sullivan, Rui Wen, and Andrew C. Potter. Floquet codes and phases in twist-defect networks. Phys. Rev. B, 108:195134, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Pace, ¨Omer M

    Salvatore D. Pace, ¨Omer M. Aksoy, and Ho Tat Lam. Spacetime symmetry-enriched symtft: from lsm anomalies to modulated symmetries and beyond, 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    2D Fractons from Gauging Exponential Symmetries, 2023

    Guilherme Delfino, Claudio Chamon, and Yizhi You. 2D Fractons from Gauging Exponential Symmetries, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Symmetric gapped interfaces of SPT and SET states: systematic constructions

    Juven Wang, Xiao-Gang Wen, and Edward Witten. Symmetric gapped interfaces of SPT and SET states: systematic constructions. Physical Review X, 8(3):031048, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain

    Elliott Lieb, Theodore Schultz, and Daniel Mattis. Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain. Annals of Physics, 16(3):407–466, 1961

    1961

  56. [64]

    Commensurability, excitation gap, and topology in quantum many-particle systems on a periodic lattice

    Masaki Oshikawa. Commensurability, excitation gap, and topology in quantum many-particle systems on a periodic lattice. Phys. Rev. Lett., 84:1535–1538, 2000

    2000

  57. [65]

    M. B. Hastings. Lieb-Schultz-Mattis in higher dimensions. Phys. Rev. B, 69:104431, 2004

    2004

  58. [66]

    Translational symmetry and microscopic constraints on symmetry-enriched topological phases: A view from the surface

    Meng Cheng, Michael Zaletel, Maissam Barkeshli, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Parsa Bonderson. Translational symmetry and microscopic constraints on symmetry-enriched topological phases: A view from the surface. Phys. Rev. X, 6:041068, 2016

    2016

  59. [67]

    Work in progress

    Salvatore Pace and Daniel Bulmash. Work in progress

  60. [68]

    Domain Wall Decorations, Anomalies and Spectral Sequences in Bosonic Topological Phases, 2021

    Qing-Rui Wang, Shang-Qiang Ning, and Meng Cheng. Domain Wall Decorations, Anomalies and Spectral Sequences in Bosonic Topological Phases, 2021

    2021

  61. [69]

    Symmetry-protected topological phases of mixed states in the doubled space

    Ruochen Ma and Alex Turzillo. Symmetry-protected topological phases of mixed states in the doubled space. PRX Quantum, 6:010348, 2025

    2025

  62. [70]

    Geraedts and Olexei I

    Scott D. Geraedts and Olexei I. Motrunich. Exact models for symmetry-protected topological phases in one dimension, 2014

    2014

  63. [71]

    Luiz H. Santos. Rokhsar-kivelson models of bosonic symmetry-protected topological states. Phys. Rev. B, 91:155150, 2015

    2015

  64. [72]

    Burnell, Sanjay Moudgalya, and Abhinav Prem

    Fiona J. Burnell, Sanjay Moudgalya, and Abhinav Prem. Filling constraints on translation invariant dipole conserving 35 systems, 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    Fragmentation-induced localization and boundary charges in dimensions two and above

    Julius Lehmann, Pablo Sala de Torres-Solanot, Frank Pollmann, and Tibor Rakovszky. Fragmentation-induced localization and boundary charges in dimensions two and above. SciPost Phys., 14:140, 2023

    2023

  66. [74]

    Ground state degeneracy on torus in a family of zn toric code

    Haruki Watanabe, Meng Cheng, and Yohei Fuji. Ground state degeneracy on torus in a family of zn toric code. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 64(5):051901, 2023

    2023

  67. [75]

    Quantum orders in an exact soluble model

    Xiao-Gang Wen. Quantum orders in an exact soluble model. Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:016803, 2003

    2003

  68. [76]

    Pace and Xiao-Gang Wen

    Salvatore D. Pace and Xiao-Gang Wen. Position-dependent excitations and UV/IR mixing in the ZN rank-2 toric code and its low-energy effective field theory. Phys. Rev. B, 106:045145, 2022

    2022

  69. [77]

    Unveiling UV/IR mixing via symmetry defects: A view from topological entanglement entropy

    Jintae Kim, Yun-Tak Oh, Daniel Bulmash, and Jung Hoon Han. Unveiling UV/IR mixing via symmetry defects: A view from topological entanglement entropy. SciPost Phys., 18:110, 2025

    2025

  70. [78]

    Yoshitome, Heitor Casasola, Rodrigo Corso, and Pedro R

    Gustavo M. Yoshitome, Heitor Casasola, Rodrigo Corso, and Pedro R. S. Gomes. Generalized modulated symmetries in Z2 topological ordered phases, 2025

    2025

  71. [79]

    Generalized homology and Atiyah–Hirzebruch spectral se- quence in crystalline symmetry protected topological phenomena

    Ken Shiozaki, Charles Zhaoxi Xiong, and Kiyonori Gomi. Generalized homology and Atiyah–Hirzebruch spectral se- quence in crystalline symmetry protected topological phenomena. Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2023(8):083I01, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.