pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02856 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · hep-th· quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Type-IV 't Hooft Anomalies on the Lattice: Emergent Higher-Categorical Symmetries and Applications to LSM Systems

Tsubasa Oishi , Hiromi Ebisu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 18:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el hep-thquant-ph
keywords 't Hooft anomalieslattice gauginghigher symmetriesnon-invertible symmetriesLSM anomaliesmodulated symmetries2-group symmetriesdefect dependence
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gauging a lattice model realizing a mixed anomaly among four global symmetries produces emergent 2-group, non-invertible and higher fusion symmetries, while modulated symmetries in LSM systems become intrinsically dependent on defects.

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

The paper constructs an explicit lattice model whose four global symmetries carry the mixed anomaly a1 ∧ a2 ∧ a3 ∧ a4. It performs direct gauging of those symmetries on the lattice and shows that the resulting theory necessarily hosts higher symmetry structures: 2-group symmetries, non-invertible symmetries, and higher fusion categorical symmetries. The same gauging procedure is then applied to Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies obtained by promoting part of the internal symmetries to translations, yielding modulated (dipole) symmetries whose realization changes according to whether symmetry defects are present. A parallel field-theoretic analysis reproduces the same emergent structures, confirming that the anomaly constrains the possible quantum phases even after gauging.

Core claim

By explicitly gauging a lattice model with four global symmetries realizing the mixed anomaly ~a1∧a2∧a3∧a4, higher symmetry structures emerge, including 2-group, non-invertible, and higher fusion categorical symmetries. When the framework is applied to LSM systems by promoting internal symmetries to translational symmetries, the resulting modulated symmetries appear as direct counterparts of those in purely internal type-IV anomalies, yet with the new property that their realization is intrinsically defect-dependent: the emergent symmetry structure changes depending on the presence of symmetry defects.

What carries the argument

Lattice gauging of the mixed anomaly ~a1∧a2∧a3∧a4 realized by four global symmetries, which directly generates the higher symmetry structures and the defect dependence of modulated symmetries.

If this is right

  • The emergent higher symmetries impose additional constraints on gapped phases beyond ordinary group symmetries.
  • Modulated symmetries in LSM systems can be tuned by the presence or absence of defects.
  • The lattice construction supplies a concrete microscopic realization of mixed anomalies that can be studied numerically.
  • Field theory and lattice results agree on the form of the emergent 2-group and non-invertible symmetries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Defect engineering might be used to switch between different symmetry-protected phases in materials that realize similar anomalies.
  • The observed defect dependence could appear in other anomaly types or in higher-dimensional lattice models with translational symmetries.
  • Categorical symmetry classifications may need to incorporate defect data when translational symmetries are involved.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen lattice regularization preserves the continuum mixed anomaly without introducing extra artifacts that would change the emergent symmetry structure after gauging.

What would settle it

A different lattice discretization of the same four-symmetry mixed anomaly that produces emergent symmetries independent of defects, or that fails to generate the higher categorical structures, would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02856 by Hiromi Ebisu, Tsubasa Oishi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) The product of CZ terms in the Hamiltonian ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) A configuration with a Z B 2 defect (blue line) inserted (b) Action of UD,1 around the Z B 2 defect (c) The projective algebra between UC and UD under the defect insertion, which gives rise to a 1-form symmetry (red line) along the defect. 2.2 Gauging Z A 2 × Z B 2 : Non-invertible symmetry We next gauge Z A 2 and Z B 2 symmetries. Following the same procedure as the previous subsection, we introduce a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two triangles close to the defect (blue line connecting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Gauss law GB,b given in (24). (b) Flux term BB defined in (25). (c) The product of CZ terms in the Hamiltonian (26). Hamiltonian (16) so that they commute with the Gauss law (24). After gauging, we arrive at the following gauged Hamiltonian: H2 = − X ⟨bc⟩∈Λbc σ z ⟨bc⟩ − X a∈Λa   Y ⟨bc⟩⊂⟨abc⟩ σ x ⟨bc⟩  1 + Y ⟨bc⟩⊂⟨abc⟩ CZbc Y ⟨ac⟩⊂⟨abc⟩ CZc⟨ac⟩     − X ⟨b1,b2⟩ Zb1 τ z ⟨ac⟩Zb2 − X b∈Λb   Y ⟨ac⟩… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) A configuration with a Z C 2 defect (blue line) inserted (b)Action of UD,2 around the Z C 2 defect factor B(γa, γb) which depends on the configuration of the 1-form loop operators, attached to the CCZ terms to ensure the commutativity between UD,2 and other symmetry operators. More precisely, introducing states that label distinct homology classes of the 1-form loops operators as |(a1, a2),(b1, b2)⟩ wi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The action of ST S ¯ on local operators, where α = σ, τ, µ labels the three types of link variables. the analogous argument outlined in [35], we modify it so that it is dressed with an additional operator. To wit, UD,3 −→ D := UD,3DST S ¯ . (44) Here, DST S ¯ is an operator implementing topological manipulations ST S ¯ , where S, T and S¯ corresponds to gauging three Z2 1-form symmetries (42), stacking of … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Action of the Z D 2 symmetry in the presence of a C defect (green) supported on M2. The symmetry action produces the phase (−1) R M2 a∪b on the defect. while S executes the gauging of the corresponding symmetries on M2. Although Aˆ(2) , Bˆ(2) are originally 1-form symmetries in the bulk, when restricted to M2, they effectively reduce to ordinary 0-form symmetries with their gauge fields denoted by Aˆ(1) , … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fusion rule of the half-space gauging defects on the defect. Here [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Junction (blue line) of the two 0-form symmetry defects labeled by c and d. An SPT phase defined on N2 is attached to the junction. needs to couple a topological quantum field theory (TQFT) on the junction that cancels the anomaly inflow from the SPT phase. In the present case, since the TQFT must have at least two￾dimensional d.o.f, a non-invertible defect appears at the junction9 . This argument is analo… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fusion rules of the half-space gauging defects. Here, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (Left) The first two terms that constitute the Hamiltonian ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Configuration of the square lattice. We introduce a unite cell (gray dashed line) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Action of S¯ on product of CZ gates. B.1 Derivation of (58) We begin by defining the action of higher gauging on the theory T2. When restricted to M2, the theory T2 can be regarded as the theory χ, obtained by gauging the two 0-form symmetries on M2. Its partition function is given by Zχ[Aˆ(1) , Bˆ(1)] = # X aˆ (1) ,ˆb (1) Zχ0 [ˆa (1) , ˆb (1)](−1) R M2 aˆ (1)∪Bˆ(1)+ˆb (1)∪Aˆ(1) , (122) where χ0 denotes t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

't Hooft anomalies impose fundamental constraints on quantum matter and often lead to emergent symmetry structures upon gauging. We analyze a lattice model with four global symmetries realizing a mixed anomaly described by $\sim a_1\wedge a_2\wedge a_3\wedge a_4$, where the $a_i$ denote background gauge fields for the global symmetries. Through explicit lattice gauging, we demonstrate the emergence of higher symmetry structures, including 2-group, non-invertible, and higher fusion categorical symmetries. We also provide a field-theoretical understanding of these results. Applying this framework to systems with Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies, obtained by promoting part of the internal symmetries to translational symmetries, we demonstrate that modulated (dipole) symmetries arise as direct counterparts of those in systems with purely internal typeIV anomalies. Importantly, we uncover a qualitatively new feature absent in previously studied modulated symmetries: their realization can become intrinsically defect-dependent. In particular, the emergent symmetry structure changes depending on whether symmetry defects are present. This work establishes a concrete lattice realization of mixed anomalies and reveals a rich structure of emergent symmetries, thereby clarifying their role in constraining quantum phases of matter.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes a lattice model with four global symmetries realizing a mixed 't Hooft anomaly ~a1 ∧ a2 ∧ a3 ∧ a4. Through explicit lattice gauging, it demonstrates the emergence of 2-group, non-invertible, and higher fusion categorical symmetries, supported by a field-theoretic analysis. The framework is applied to Lieb-Schultz-Mattis systems by promoting internal symmetries to translations, showing that modulated symmetries arise as counterparts to internal type-IV anomalies and exhibit a novel intrinsic defect dependence, where the emergent symmetry structure changes with the presence of symmetry defects.

Significance. If the lattice regularization preserves the continuum anomaly without artifacts, the work provides a concrete lattice realization of type-IV anomalies and links them to emergent higher-categorical symmetries, with the defect-dependent feature in LSM systems representing a qualitatively new observation that could refine classifications of constrained quantum phases. The explicit constructions and field-theory matching are strengths that ground the claims in verifiable lattice data.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Lattice Gauging): The explicit gauging construction for the four-symmetry model claims exact reproduction of the continuum mixed anomaly ~a1∧a2∧a3∧a4 without extra cocycle terms, but the verification is shown only for specific background configurations; no general computation of the lattice anomaly polynomial or check against alternative discretizations (e.g., different link variable choices) is provided, which is load-bearing for the claimed emergence of 2-group and non-invertible symmetries.
  2. [§5] §5 (LSM Application): The assertion that modulated symmetries are intrinsically defect-dependent rests on comparing symmetry structures with and without defects after promoting translations; however, the fusion rule derivation in the defect sector does not include an explicit check for lattice artifacts induced by the translational promotion, leaving open whether the dependence is truly intrinsic or regularization-dependent.
minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract uses 'typeIV' without hyphen; standardize to 'type-IV' to match the title and conventional notation.
  2. [§2] In §2, the normalization of the background fields a_i and the precise coefficient in the anomaly polynomial should be stated explicitly to facilitate reproduction of the lattice anomaly matching.
  3. [Figure 4] Figure 4 caption omits labels distinguishing defect-present versus defect-absent configurations, reducing clarity when following the modulated symmetry comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our work. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Lattice Gauging): The explicit gauging construction for the four-symmetry model claims exact reproduction of the continuum mixed anomaly ~a1∧a2∧a3∧a4 without extra cocycle terms, but the verification is shown only for specific background configurations; no general computation of the lattice anomaly polynomial or check against alternative discretizations (e.g., different link variable choices) is provided, which is load-bearing for the claimed emergence of 2-group and non-invertible symmetries.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's concern regarding the generality of our verification. The lattice model is constructed to faithfully reproduce the continuum anomaly through a discretization that avoids additional cocycle terms by design. Our explicit checks on specific background configurations are representative of the topological nature of the anomaly, supporting the emergence of the higher-categorical symmetries. However, to fully address this point, we will add a general computation of the lattice anomaly polynomial in the revised version and include a discussion of alternative link variable choices to demonstrate independence from the specific discretization. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (LSM Application): The assertion that modulated symmetries are intrinsically defect-dependent rests on comparing symmetry structures with and without defects after promoting translations; however, the fusion rule derivation in the defect sector does not include an explicit check for lattice artifacts induced by the translational promotion, leaving open whether the dependence is truly intrinsic or regularization-dependent.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit check for potential lattice artifacts is important for establishing the intrinsic nature of the defect dependence. In our framework, the promotion of symmetries to translations is performed in a way that preserves the anomaly structure, leading to the modulated symmetries whose fusion rules change with defects. In the revised manuscript, we will provide an additional explicit check confirming that the fusion rules are robust against different regularizations of the translational promotion, thereby confirming the intrinsic character of this feature. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in explicit lattice gauging derivation

full rationale

The paper derives its results via explicit lattice Hamiltonian constructions, background field insertions, and gauging maps that realize the mixed anomaly polynomial ~a1∧a2∧a3∧a4, followed by direct computation of the post-gauging symmetry structure. These steps are independent of the target emergent symmetries and defect-dependent modulated symmetries; they are not obtained by fitting parameters to the output quantities or by renaming inputs. Citations to prior anomaly literature supply context for the continuum anomaly but are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or load-bearing justifications for the lattice-specific findings. The LSM application follows by promoting internal symmetries to translations within the same explicit framework, without reducing to self-definition or self-citation chains.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard assumption that a lattice model can be constructed whose anomaly matches the continuum type-IV form, together with the validity of the gauging procedure on the lattice. No free parameters or new invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption A lattice regularization exists that preserves the mixed anomaly ~a1∧a2∧a3∧a4 without extra lattice artifacts.
    Invoked when the authors state they analyze a lattice model realizing the anomaly and perform explicit gauging.
  • domain assumption Gauging the global symmetries on the lattice produces well-defined higher symmetry structures.
    Central to the emergence claim; standard in anomaly literature but requires verification on the specific lattice.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5523 in / 1543 out tokens · 53157 ms · 2026-05-13T18:12:56.525663+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Lattice Gauging Interfaces and Noninvertible Defects in Higher Dimensions

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Explicit lattice constructions of gauging interfaces and condensation defects are given for higher-dimensional systems with higher-form symmetries, using movement operators to manage constrained Hilbert spaces.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    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. B87no. 15, (2013) 155114,arXiv:1106.4772 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Anomalies of discrete symmetries in three dimensions and group cohomology

    A. Kapustin and R. Thorngren, “Anomalies of discrete symmetries in three dimensions and group cohomology,”Phys. Rev. Lett.112no. 23, (2014) 231602,arXiv:1403.0617 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Topological phases of one-dimensional fermions: An entanglement point of view,

    A. M. Turner, F. Pollmann, and E. Berg, “Topological phases of one-dimensional fermions: An entanglement point of view,”Phys. Rev. B83no. 7, (2011) 075102,arXiv:1008.4346 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Symmetry-protected topological phases from decorated domain walls,

    X. Chen, Y.-M. Lu, and A. Vishwanath, “Symmetry-protected topological phases from decorated domain walls,”Nature communications5no. 1, (2014) 3507

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Topological interactions in broken gauge theories

    M. d. W. Propitius, “Topological interactions in broken gauge theories,”arXiv preprint hep-th/9511195(1995)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  6. [6]

    Field-theory representation of gauge-gravity symmetry-protected topological invariants, group cohomology, and beyond,

    J. C. Wang, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, “Field-theory representation of gauge-gravity symmetry-protected topological invariants, group cohomology, and beyond,”Phys. Rev. Lett.114(Jan, 2015) 031601. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.031601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.031601 2015

  7. [7]

    Topological phases with generalized global symmetries

    B. Yoshida, “Topological phases with generalized global symmetries,”Phys. Rev. B93 no. 15, (2016) 155131,arXiv:1508.03468 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    2025.arXiv e-prints:arXiv:2507.07430

    K. Kawagoe and W. Shirley, “Anomaly diagnosis via symmetry restriction in two-dimensional lattice systems,”arXiv:2507.07430 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    Exploring 2-Group Global Symmetries

    C. Córdova, T. T. Dumitrescu, and K. Intriligator, “Exploring 2-Group Global Symmetries,”JHEP02(2019) 184,arXiv:1802.04790 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    On 2-Group Global Symmetries and Their Anomalies

    F. Benini, C. Córdova, and P.-S. Hsin, “On 2-Group Global Symmetries and their Anomalies,”JHEP03(2019) 118,arXiv:1803.09336 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Higher symmetry and gapped phases of gauge theories,

    A. Kapustin and R. Thorngren, “Higher symmetry and gapped phases of gauge theories,” Algebra, Geometry, and Physics in the 21st Century: Kontsevich Festschrift(2017) 177–202

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Fusion 2-categories and a state-sum invariant for 4-manifolds,

    C. L. Douglas and D. J. Reutter, “Fusion 2-categories and a state-sum invariant for 4-manifolds,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.11933(2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Non-invertible symmetries and higher representation theory I,

    T. Bartsch, M. Bullimore, A. E. V. Ferrari, and J. Pearson, “Non-invertible symmetries and higher representation theory I,”SciPost Phys.17no. 1, (2024) 015, arXiv:2208.05993 [hep-th]. 30

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Non-invertible symmetries and higher representation theory II,

    T. Bartsch, M. Bullimore, A. E. V. Ferrari, and J. Pearson, “Non-invertible symmetries and higher representation theory II,”SciPost Phys.17no. 2, (2024) 067, arXiv:2212.07393 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    The Classification of Fusion 2-Categories,

    T. D. Décoppet, P. Huston, T. Johnson-Freyd, D. Nikshych, D. Penneys, J. Plavnik, D. Reutter, and M. Yu, “The Classification of Fusion 2-Categories,”arXiv:2411.05907 [math.CT]

    work page arXiv

  16. [16]

    Non-invertible higher-categorical symmetries,

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, S. Schafer-Nameki, and A. Tiwari, “Non-invertible higher-categorical symmetries,”SciPost Phys.14no. 1, (2023) 007,arXiv:2204.06564 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Universal Non-Invertible Symmetries,

    L. Bhardwaj, S. Schafer-Nameki, and J. Wu, “Universal Non-Invertible Symmetries,” Fortsch. Phys.70no. 11, (2022) 2200143,arXiv:2208.05973 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain,

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, “Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain,” Annals of Physics16no. 3, (Dec, 1961) 407–466.https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003491661901154?via{%}3Dihub

    work page arXiv 1961

  19. [19]

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

    M. Oshikawa, “Commensurability, excitation gap, and topology in quantum many-particle systems on a periodic lattice,”Phys. Rev. Lett.84(Feb, 2000) 1535–1538. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1535

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.84.1535 2000

  20. [20]

    Lieb-schultz-mattis in higher dimensions,

    M. B. Hastings, “Lieb-schultz-mattis in higher dimensions,”Phys. Rev. B69(Mar, 2004) 104431.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.69.104431

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.69.104431 2004

  21. [21]

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

    M. Cheng, M. Zaletel, M. Barkeshli, A. Vishwanath, and P. Bonderson, “Translational Symmetry and Microscopic Constraints on Symmetry-Enriched Topological Phases: A View from the Surface,”Phys. Rev. X6no. 4, (2016) 041068,arXiv:1511.02263 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Intrinsic and emergent anomalies at deconfined critical points,

    M. A. Metlitski and R. Thorngren, “Intrinsic and emergent anomalies at deconfined critical points,”Physical Review B98no. 8, (2018) 085140

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies and web of dualities induced by gauging in quantum spin chains,

    Ö. M. Aksoy, C. Mudry, A. Furusaki, and A. Tiwari, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies and web of dualities induced by gauging in quantum spin chains,”SciPost Phys.16no. 1, (2024) 022,arXiv:2308.00743 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies as obstructions to gauging (non-on-site) symmetries,

    S. Seifnashri, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies as obstructions to gauging (non-on-site) symmetries,”SciPost Phys.16no. 4, (2024) 098,arXiv:2308.05151 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    (SPT-)LSM theorems from projective non-invertible symmetries,

    S. D. Pace, H. T. Lam, and O. M. Aksoy, “(SPT-)LSM theorems from projective non-invertible symmetries,”arXiv:2409.18113 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv

  26. [26]

    Spacetime symmetry-enriched SymTFT: From LSM anomalies to modulated symmetries and beyond,

    S. D. Pace, Ö. M. Aksoy, and H. T. Lam, “Spacetime symmetry-enriched SymTFT: from LSM anomalies to modulated symmetries and beyond,”SciPost Phys.20(2026) 007, arXiv:2507.02036 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Modulated symmetries from generalized Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies

    H. Ebisu, B. Han, and W. Cao, “Modulated symmetries from generalized Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies,”arXiv:2510.18689 [cond-mat.str-el]. 31

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    2025.arXiv e-prints:arXiv:2505.04719

    A. Kapustin and S. Xu, “Higher symmetries and anomalies in quantum lattice systems,” arXiv:2505.04719 [math-ph]

    work page arXiv

  29. [29]

    Roumpedakis, S

    K. Roumpedakis, S. Seifnashri, and S.-H. Shao, “Higher Gauging and Non-invertible Condensation Defects,”Commun. Math. Phys.401no. 3, (2023) 3043–3107, arXiv:2204.02407 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [31]

    Hidden Z2×Z2 symmetry breaking in Haldane-gap antiferromagnets,

    T. Kennedy and H. Tasaki, “Hidden Z2×Z2 symmetry breaking in Haldane-gap antiferromagnets,”Phys. Rev. B45no. 1, (1992) 304

    work page 1992

  31. [32]

    Hidden symmetry breaking and the Haldane phase inS=1 quantum spin chains,

    T. Kennedy and H. Tasaki, “Hidden symmetry breaking and the Haldane phase inS=1 quantum spin chains,”Commun. Math. Phys.147no. 3, (1992) 431–484

    work page 1992

  32. [33]

    Noninvertible duality transformation between symmetry-protected topological and spontaneous symmetry breaking phases,

    L. Li, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Zheng, “Noninvertible duality transformation between symmetry-protected topological and spontaneous symmetry breaking phases,”Phys. Rev. B108no. 21, (2023) 214429,arXiv:2301.07899 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [34]

    Hidden Z2*Z2 symmetry in quantum spin chains with arbitrary integer spin,

    M. Oshikawa, “Hidden Z2*Z2 symmetry in quantum spin chains with arbitrary integer spin,”J. Phys. Condens. Matter4no. 36, (1992) 7469

    work page 1992

  34. [35]

    Oishi, T

    T. Oishi, T. Saito, and H. Ebisu, “Non-invertible translation from Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomaly,”arXiv:2601.21625 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv

  35. [36]

    Non-invertible and higher-form symmetries in 2+1d lattice gauge theories,

    Y. Choi, Y. Sanghavi, S.-H. Shao, and Y. Zheng, “Non-invertible and higher-form symmetries in 2+1d lattice gauge theories,”arXiv:2405.13105 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv

  36. [37]

    (2+1)d lattice models and tensor networks for gapped phases with categorical symmetry,

    K. Inamura, S.-J. Huang, A. Tiwari, and S. Schafer-Nameki, “(2+1)d lattice models and tensor networks for gapped phases with categorical symmetry,”SciPost Phys.20no. 2, (2026) 043,arXiv:2506.09177 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2026

  37. [38]

    On Gauging Finite Subgroups,

    Y. Tachikawa, “On gauging finite subgroups,”SciPost Phys.8no. 1, (2020) 015, arXiv:1712.09542 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  38. [39]

    Kaidi, K

    J. Kaidi, K. Ohmori, and Y. Zheng, “Kramers-Wannier-like Duality Defects in (3+1)D Gauge Theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett.128no. 11, (2022) 111601,arXiv:2111.01141 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [40]

    Noninvertible Global Symmetries in the Standard Model,

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, “Noninvertible Global Symmetries in the Standard Model,”Phys. Rev. Lett.129no. 16, (2022) 161601,arXiv:2205.05086 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [41]

    Noninvertible Chiral Symmetry and Exponential Hierarchies,

    C. Cordova and K. Ohmori, “Noninvertible Chiral Symmetry and Exponential Hierarchies,”Phys. Rev. X13no. 1, (2023) 011034,arXiv:2205.06243 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  41. [42]

    Symmetry TFTs and Anomalies of Non-Invertible Symmetries,

    J. Kaidi, E. Nardoni, G. Zafrir, and Y. Zheng, “Symmetry TFTs and anomalies of non-invertible symmetries,”JHEP10(2023) 053,arXiv:2301.07112 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [43]

    N-ality symmetry and SPT phases in (1+1)d,

    J. Maeda and T. Oishi, “N-ality symmetry and SPT phases in (1+1)d,”JHEP12(2025) 063,arXiv:2504.20151 [hep-th]. 32

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [44]

    Ebisu, M

    H. Ebisu, M. Honda, and T. Nakanishi, “Foliated field theories and multipole symmetries,” Phys. Rev. B109no. 16, (2024) 165112,arXiv:2310.06701 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [45]

    Multipole and fracton topological order via gauging foliated symmetry protected topological phases,

    H. Ebisu, M. Honda, and T. Nakanishi, “Multipole and fracton topological order via gauging foliated symmetry protected topological phases,”Phys. Rev. Res.6(May, 2024) 023166.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.023166

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.023166 2024

  45. [46]

    Crystalline topological phases as defect networks,

    D. V. Else and R. Thorngren, “Crystalline topological phases as defect networks,”Phys. Rev. B99(Mar, 2019) 115116. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.115116

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.99.115116 2019

  46. [47]

    Braiding statistics approach to symmetry-protected topological phases,

    M. Levin and Z.-C. Gu, “Braiding statistics approach to symmetry-protected topological phases,”Phys. Rev. B86(Sep, 2012) 115109. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.115109

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.115109 2012

  47. [48]

    Cluster State as a Noninvertible Symmetry-Protected Topological Phase,

    S. Seifnashri and S.-H. Shao, “Cluster State as a Noninvertible Symmetry-Protected Topological Phase,”Phys. Rev. Lett.133no. 11, (2024) 116601,arXiv:2404.01369 [cond-mat.str-el]. 33

    work page arXiv 2024