Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Anomalous Continuous Translations

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 In a large class of quantum field theories, quantization breaks continuous translations to a discrete non-Abelian group.

desk verdict A clean unification of known translation anomalies into one Chern-Simons framework, honestly labeled as streamlining [1]; the main gaps are imported rather than fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14434 v3 pith:OHI3V6RG submitted 2024-12-19 cond-mat.str-el hep-thmath-phmath.MP

Nathan Seiberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elhep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords ABJanomalycontinuoustranslationsdiscretetranslationsymmetrynon-AbelianChern-Simonstermdifferentialcohomologygeneralizedglobalsymmetriesferromagnetcontinuumtheory
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 argues that a large class of continuum quantum field theories, including $U(1)$ gauge theories at fixed charge density and continuum ferromagnets, have their classical continuous translation symmetry broken by the act of quantization. The culprit is a subtle Chern-Simons term in the action: its globally correct definition is not translation invariant, and the failure is an Adler-Bell-Jackiw-type anomaly rather than spontaneous symmetry breaking. The continuous translation group $U(1)^d$ is reduced to a discrete group $\mathbb{Z}_k^d$, and the surviving discrete translations do not commute; their commutator is controlled by an internal charge operator, making the symmetry non-Abelian. If correct, the result unifies known examples, predicts that dualities match only at the quantum level, and changes what symmetry data a continuum effective theory can carry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the properly defined Chern-Simons term $\exp(ik\, CS(A_1,A_2))$ for two $U(1)$ gauge fields, defined through differential cohomology or an extension to a higher-dimensional bulk. Its key property, quoted as a useful mathematical fact, is that shifting a flat background gauge field $A_1\to A_1+\xi_1$ multiplies the term by $\exp\left(\frac{ik}{2\pi}\int \xi_1\wedge dA_2\right)$; therefore the naive higher-form symmetry is reduced to $\mathbb{Z}_k$. Applied to the background holonomies on a torus, this fact turns a constant background field into a term whose origin-dependent holonomies encode the breaking of translations, and the phase produced by a translation is read off directly from the Chern-Simons transformation law.

What would settle it

In the $d=2$ $U(1)$ gauge theory at fixed charge density, evaluate the commutator $T^1T^2(T^1)^{-1}(T^2)^{-1}$ on a state of magnetic charge $Q$. The paper predicts the phase $e^{2\pi i Q/k}$; detecting any other phase, or finding that translation by $\ell^i/k$ is not a symmetry of the spectrum, would falsify the claim. A complementary check is to compute the torus partition function at flux $k$ and verify that it depends on the origin parameters $x_0^i$ exactly as predicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Euclidean translation symmetry of the classical Lagrangian is explicitly violated in the quantum theory by an Adler-Bell-Jackiw-like anomaly. For a theory with a conserved two-form current $j$ with quantized periods, coupling to a background gauge field $A$ with constant flux $dA=\frac{2\pi k}{V}\, dx^1\wedge\cdots\wedge dx^d$ gives the action a term that must be defined as a Chern-Simons term. Properly defined, this term depends on the holonomies of $A$, parameterized by constants $x_0^i$ that amount to choosing a point in space. Translating by $\epsilon^i$ shifts those holonomies and produces a phase $\exp\left(\frac{2\pi i k\epsilon^i}{\ell^i}\int d\tau\, dx^i\, j_{\tau i}\right)$ on the functional integral, exactly as a $\theta$-parameter shifts in a chiral anomaly. Consequently each $U(1)$ translation is broken to $\mathbb{Z}_k$: the generators $T^i$ satisfy $(T^i)^k=1$ and $T^iT^j=\exp\left(\frac{2\pi i Q_{ij}}{k}\right)T^jT^i$ with $Q_{ij}=\int_{\Sigma_{ij}} j$, so the discrete translations are extended by an internal operator and form a non-Abelian group.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the Chern-Simons transformation law quoted in Section 1.1 is not exact: a properly defined Chern-Simons term must shift by $\exp\left(\frac{ik}{2\pi}\int \xi_1\wedge dA_2\right)$ with no additional corrections, and the ellipsis terms in (1.2) must not cancel the phase.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any theory with an off-shell conserved two-form current with quantized periods, turning on background flux $k$ forces continuous translations down to $\mathbb{Z}_k^d$; the reduction is a property of the quantum definition of the action, not of the classical equations of motion.
  • The surviving discrete translations obey a non-Abelian algebra extended by the internal charge $Q_{ij}$; because the extension is by an operator rather than a c-number, it is not an 't Hooft anomaly and cannot be removed by adding a local counterterm.
  • The breaking is explicit, so there are no phonon Goldstone modes; the analogue of the $\eta'$ mass from QCD instantons is played by instanton configurations with nonzero $\int d\tau\, dx^i\, j_{\tau i}$.
  • On a sphere, the same background field leaves rotation symmetry intact, because the $\theta$-terms responsible for the anomaly are absent on spheres.
  • Known dualities such as particle-vortex duality pass a nontrivial test: the classical symmetry groups of the two sides do not match, but after the ABJ breaking both sides realize the same discrete non-Abelian translation symmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the mechanism suggests that any lattice model whose continuum limit carries a quantized two-form current will show noncommuting translations in the continuum, even when the microscopic lattice translations commute; the paper's map $T^i_{UV}\to (T^i)^{k/L_i}$ makes this concrete and could be checked in exact lattice diagonalizations.
  • Editorial inference: because the symmetry breaking is explicit and tied to the origin $x_0^i$, a cleaner observable may be the response to changing boundary conditions or inserting flux through the torus: correlation functions should depend on $x_0^i$ in a specific way, which a numerical simulation of the $U(1)$ gauge theory at fixed density could test.
  • Editorial inference: the noninvertible restoration of continuous translations in the subspace with $\int j_1=\int j_2=0$ suggests that coupled-layer or bilayer constructions realizing the current as $j_1\wedge j_2$ could exhibit emergent continuous translations, providing a microscopic laboratory for these anomalies.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a class of non-relativistic continuum field theories with a two-form current j whose periods are quantized, and couples them to a background (d-1)-form gauge field A with constant field strength dA = (2πk/V) dx^1∧...∧dx^d. The coupling is defined as a Chern-Simons term, and a transformation law quoted from differential cohomology, Eq. (1.3), is used to show that a spatial translation by ϵ^i multiplies the topological term by exp(2πi k ϵ^i ∮ j_{τ i}/ℓ^i). From this the paper concludes that the classical continuous translation symmetry is explicitly broken to Z_k^d, that for d=2 the discrete translations obey the non-Abelian algebra (T^1)^k=(T^2)^k=1, T^1T^2 = e^{2πi Q/k} T^2T^1 with Q=∮ j, and that the extension is by an internal operator rather than a central charge. The result is interpreted as an ABJ-like anomaly, used to check particle-vortex duality, and related to lattice models and the Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem. An appendix gives a pedagogical review of the charged-particle-in-a-magnetic-field example.

Significance. If the central argument is correct, the paper gives a clean and fairly general mechanism for the quantum breaking of continuous translations, unifying previously studied examples such as gauge theories with constant charge density and ferromagnets, and sharpening the distinction between an 't Hooft anomaly and an ABJ-type explicit breaking. The paper has no fitted parameters: k is an integer background flux and Q, Q_ij are quantized charges, and the main claim is falsifiable through the stated duality checks and lattice realizations. The presentation is explicit and largely self-contained, and the appendix is a useful pedagogical account of anomalies in a well-known system. The main caveat is that two load-bearing mathematical inputs—the differential-cohomology transformation law (1.3) and the many-body non-Abelian algebra (4.10)-(4.11)—are quoted or imported rather than derived in this manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 1.1, Eq. (1.3)] The transformation law (1.3) is the central mathematical input, but it is quoted rather than proved. The text states that it follows from differential cohomology and refers to the literature in general terms, but it does not give a precise statement of what the ellipses in (1.2) denote, nor a proof of (1.3) from, say, the bulk definition exp((ik/2π)∫_bulk dA1 ∧ dA2). This matters because the holonomy dependence and the origin dependence x0^i live precisely in the terms hidden by the ellipses (see (4.1)-(4.3)), so the derivation of (4.6) is only as secure as this quoted fact. I request either a short proof of (1.3) and (1.5), or an explicit theorem statement with a specific reference; in particular, the claimed reduction (1.5) of the A2-shift symmetry is described as 'somewhat less obvious' and is asserted without demonstration. This is a verification gap rather than a demonstrated error, but it is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (4.10)-(4.11)] The non-Abelian algebra is the distinctive part of the strongest claim, but it is not derived for the many-body system. The text says 'Our system does not have a single particle... As a result...' and imports the single-particle magnetic-translation result from Appendix A. The phase (4.6) determines the transformation of the topological term under a translation, but it does not by itself fix the operator product T^i T^j T^{-i} T^{-j} in the many-body Hilbert space, where Q_ij is an operator rather than a c-number. Please derive (4.10)-(4.11) from the definition of the T^i as discrete translation operators—for example, from the current expression (6.6) or from a Ward identity for the anomalous momentum current—or state explicitly the additional assumption needed to pass from (4.6) to the algebra.
  3. [Section 4, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.6)] The x0^i dependence that signals the breaking of translations is imported from the author's previous paper [1] rather than derived here. The paper describes itself as a streamlined derivation, and the note after (4.2) explicitly says that '[1]' contained the careful analysis of the x0^i dependence. This is acceptable only if the needed result from [1] is stated precisely enough that the reader can see which property of the Chern-Simons term establishes (4.6). As written, the dependence on the constant mode of A is asserted in Section 1.1 and then used in (4.1)-(4.6), so the logical dependency should be made explicit, ideally with a self-contained derivation of the x0^i dependence for the topological term.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2] The text 'for ω ∈ H^2(M,R) with ∫ ω ∈ Z' should presumably be 'for ω in the image of H^2(M,Z)', since the integrality condition is what selects the integral cohomology class; this is a mathematical typo but could confuse readers.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (4.1)] The notation H^i(A) is used for a 'holonomy' that for d=1 is just exp(iθ(x^1)); this is slightly abusive. A footnote or sentence clarifying that for d=1 the object is a θ-parameter rather than a holonomy would help.
  3. [Section 6.4, Eq. (6.8)] The map T^i_UV → (T^i)^{k/L_i} is stated to rely on k/L_i being an integer, but the condition is not discussed. If L_i does not divide k, the map is not defined, and in the continuum limit L_i → ∞ with fixed k the exponent k/L_i is not an integer; the sentence deserves an explanatory comment.
  4. [Section 5] The duality check is qualitative: it asserts matching of the translation symmetry on both sides of (5.1) but does not exhibit the matching operators or verify that the charge Q and the order k map correctly under the duality. A few more details would make the check more conclusive.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central derivation relies on standard differential-cohomology facts and parameter-free prior work, not on a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that continuous translations are broken to a discrete non-Abelian group — is derived by applying the standard Chern-Simons transformation law (1.3) to the background holonomies (4.1). The phase (4.6) follows from (1.3) with ξ the constant shift (4.5), and the reduction U(1)→Z_k follows from charge quantization without any fitted parameter. The non-Abelian algebra (4.10)-(4.11) is imported from the well-known single-particle magnetic-translation result, reviewed independently in Appendix A, and extended to a many-body operator Q=∮j; this is an extrapolation by analogy, not a circular reduction. Self-citations to [1] are parameter-free prior derivations (e.g., the x0^i dependence) and the current paper re-derives that dependence via the Chern-Simons holonomy expression (4.1)-(4.6). The 'useful mathematical fact' (1.3) is quoted from differential cohomology, not from the paper's own conclusions; the paper explicitly flags it as a fact it uses rather than proves (Section 1.1), which is a verification gap but not circularity. No equation is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No ad hoc constants are fitted to data; the integer k is a background flux and the x0^i and theta_i are parameters whose shifts encode the anomaly. The main hidden inputs are the differential-cohomology transformation law and the x0^i analysis imported from [1].

free parameters (2)
  • x0^i (origin parameters) = arbitrary constants on T^d
    Constants in the holonomies (4.1) that determine the dependence of physical quantities on a choice of origin; the paper treats them as parameters of the quantum theory and their presence signals translation breaking. They are not fitted to data.
  • theta_i (theta-terms) = arbitrary, shift under translations by 2 pi k epsilon_i / ell_i
    Standard theta-parameters in (2.3); the anomaly analysis describes how translations shift them. Not fitted to data.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Properly defined exp(ik CS(A1,A2)) transforms under flat shifts as in (1.3): exp(ik CS(A1,A2)) -> exp((ik/2 pi) integral xi1 wedge dA2) exp(...), reducing naive U(1) higher-form symmetry to Z_k.
    Stated in Section 1.1 and cited to differential cohomology literature [18,24-26]; not proved in the paper, but standard.
  • domain assumption For every theory in the class, the two-form current j has quantized periods integral j in Z off-shell and locally j = d phi.
    Section 2 defines the class this way; it is an assumption about which theories are covered, not derived.
  • domain assumption The careful analysis of exp((2 pi i k / V) integral d tau d^d x (phi_tau + ...)) in [1] determines its x0^i dependence; the present paper quotes this dependence.
    Section 4 relies on [1] for the x0^i dependence that is the physical signal of translation breaking. This is a prior published derivation by the same author, treated as independent support under the review policy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous Continuous Translations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OHI3V6RG

@misc{pith2026241214434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous Continuous Translations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OHI3V6RG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14434}
}
read the original abstract

We discuss a large class of non-relativistic continuum field theories where the Euclidean spatial symmetry of the classical theory is violated in the quantum theory by an Adler-Bell-Jackiw-like anomaly. In particular, the continuous translation symmetry of the classical theory is broken in the quantum theory to a discrete symmetry. Furthermore, that discrete symmetry is extended by an internal symmetry, making it non-Abelian. This presentation streamlines and extends the discussion in [1]. In an Appendix, we present an elementary introduction to 't Hooft and Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomalies using a well-known system.

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. Generalized Families of QFTs

    hep-th 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Generalized family anomalies for broken higher-group and non-invertible symmetries constrain RG flows and IR phases of QFT families, with explicit application to deformed 4d QCD.

  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

53 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Seiberg, Ferromagnets, a New Anomaly, Instantons, and (noninvertible) Continuous Translations, SciPost Phys

    N. Seiberg, Ferromagnets, a New Anomaly, Instantons, and (noninvertible) Continuous Translations, SciPost Phys. 18 (2025) 063, [ arXiv:2406.06698]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Fischler, J

    W. Fischler, J. B. Kogut, and L. Susskind, Quark Confinement in Unusual Environments, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 1188

    work page 1979

  3. [3]

    M. A. Metlitski, Is Schwinger model at finite density a crystal? , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 045004, [ hep-th/0609046]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    S. D. Geraedts, M. P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, M. A. Metlitski, A. Vishwanath, and O. I. Motrunich, The half-filled Landau level: the case for Dirac composite fermions , Science 352 (2016) 197, [ arXiv:1508.04140]. 25

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Balakrishnan and A

    R. Balakrishnan and A. R. Bishop, Nonlinear excitations on a quantum ferromagnetic chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (Jul, 1985) 537–540

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Geometrical Interpretation of Momentum and Crystal Momentum of Classical and Quantum Ferromagnetic Heisenberg Chains , Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986) 1488–1491

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    G. E. Volovik, Linear momentum in ferromagnets , Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 20 (mar, 1987) L83

    work page 1987

  8. [8]

    Papanicolaou and T

    N. Papanicolaou and T. N. Tomaras, Dynamics of magnetic vortices , Nucl. Phys. B 360 (1991) 425–462

    work page 1991

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    E. G. Floratos, A Lagrangian resolution of the momentum problem for two-dimensional ferromagnets, Phys. Lett. B 279 (1992) 117–123

    1992

  2. [10]

    Banerjee and B

    R. Banerjee and B. Chakraborty, Formulation of the Landau-Lifshitz model of ferromagnetism as a constrained dynamical system , Nucl. Phys. B 449 (1995) 317–346

    1995

  3. [11]

    V. P. Nair and R. Ray, Some topological issues for ferromagnets and fluids , Nucl. Phys. B 676 (2004) 659–675, [ hep-th/0309087]

    2004 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Watanabe and H

    H. Watanabe and H. Murayama, Noncommuting Momenta of Topological Solitons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014), no. 19 191804, [ arXiv:1401.8139]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Tchernyshyov, Conserved momenta of a ferromagnetic soliton , Annals of Physics 363 (2015) 98–113

    O. Tchernyshyov, Conserved momenta of a ferromagnetic soliton , Annals of Physics 363 (2015) 98–113

    2015

  6. [14]

    Dasgupta and O

    S. Dasgupta and O. Tchernyshyov, Energy-momentum tensor of a ferromagnet , Phys. Rev. B 98 (2018), no. 22 224401, [ arXiv:1810.01006]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Di and O

    X. Di and O. Tchernyshyov, Conserved momenta of ferromagnetic solitons through the prism of differential geometry , SciPost Phys. 11 (2021) 108, [ arXiv:2105.03553]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Brauner, N

    T. Brauner, N. Yamamoto, and R. Yokokura, Dipole symmetries from the topology of the phase space and the constraints on the low-energy spectrum , SciPost Phys. 16 (2024), no. 2 051, [ arXiv:2303.04479]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Witten, Global Aspects of Current Algebra , Nucl

    E. Witten, Global Aspects of Current Algebra , Nucl. Phys. B 223 (1983) 422–432

    1983

  10. [18]

    Witten, Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial , Commun

    E. Witten, Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial , Commun. Math. Phys. 121 (1989) 351–399

    1989

  11. [19]

    Alvarez, Topological Quantization and Cohomology, Commun

    O. Alvarez, Topological Quantization and Cohomology, Commun. Math. Phys. 100 (1985) 279

    1985

  12. [20]

    D. S. Freed, G. W. Moore, and G. Segal, Heisenberg Groups and Noncommutative Fluxes, Annals Phys. 322 (2007) 236–285, [ hep-th/0605200]. 26

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kapustin and N

    A. Kapustin and N. Seiberg, Coupling a QFT to a TQFT and Duality , JHEP 04 (2014) 001, [ arXiv:1401.0740]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    C´ ordova, D

    C. C´ ordova, D. S. Freed, H. T. Lam, and N. Seiberg, Anomalies in the Space of Coupling Constants and Their Dynamical Applications I , SciPost Phys. 8 (2020), no. 1 001, [arXiv:1905.09315]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gorantla, H

    P. Gorantla, H. T. Lam, N. Seiberg, and S.-H. Shao, A modified Villain formulation of fractons and other exotic theories , J. Math. Phys. 62 (2021), no. 10 102301, [arXiv:2103.01257]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. A. Kirillov, Geometric quantization, in Dynamical Systems IV: Symplectic Geometry and its Applications (V. I. Arnold and S. P. Novikov, eds.), pp. 139–176. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001

    2001

  17. [25]

    D. S. Freed, K theory in quantum field theory , in Current Developments in Mathematics, 6, 2002. math-ph/0206031

    2002 arXiv

  18. [26]

    van Koert, Simple computations in prequantization bundles , 2014

    O. van Koert, Simple computations in prequantization bundles , 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, Generalized Global Symmetries, JHEP 02 (2015) 172, [ arXiv:1412.5148]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C´ ordova, D

    C. C´ ordova, D. S. Freed, H. T. Lam, and N. Seiberg, Anomalies in the Space of Coupling Constants and Their Dynamical Applications II , SciPost Phys. 8 (2020), no. 1 002, [ arXiv:1905.13361]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. E. Peskin, Mandelstam ’t Hooft Duality in Abelian Lattice Models , Annals Phys. 113 (1978) 122

    1978

  22. [30]

    Dasgupta and B

    C. Dasgupta and B. I. Halperin, Phase Transition in a Lattice Model of Superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981) 1556–1560

    1981

  23. [31]

    Seiberg, T

    N. Seiberg, T. Senthil, C. Wang, and E. Witten, A Duality Web in 2+1 Dimensions and Condensed Matter Physics , Annals Phys. 374 (2016) 395–433, [arXiv:1606.01989]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. T. Son, Is the Composite Fermion a Dirac Particle? , Phys. Rev. X 5 (2015), no. 3 031027, [arXiv:1502.03446]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Wang and T

    C. Wang and T. Senthil, Dual Dirac Liquid on the Surface of the Electron Topological Insulator, Phys. Rev. X 5 (2015), no. 4 041031, [ arXiv:1505.05141]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. A. Metlitski and A. Vishwanath, Particle-vortex duality of two-dimensional Dirac fermion from electric-magnetic duality of three-dimensional topological insulators , Phys. Rev. B 93 (2016), no. 24 245151, [ arXiv:1505.05142]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Seiberg, Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories , Nucl

    N. Seiberg, Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories , Nucl. Phys. B 435 (1995) 129–146, [ hep-th/9411149]. 27

    1995 arXiv

  28. [36]

    K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, Lectures on supersymmetric gauge theories and electric-magnetic duality, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 45BC (1996) 1–28, [hep-th/9509066]

    1996 arXiv

  29. [37]

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

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Cordova and K

    C. Cordova and K. Ohmori, Noninvertible Chiral Symmetry and Exponential Hierarchies, Phys. Rev. X 13 (2023), no. 1 011034, [ arXiv:2205.06243]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Seiberg and S.-H

    N. Seiberg and S.-H. Shao, Majorana chain and Ising model – (non-invertible) translations, anomalies, and emanant symmetries , SciPost Phys. 16 (2024) 064, [arXiv:2307.02534]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Seiberg, S

    N. Seiberg, S. Seifnashri, and S.-H. Shao, Non-invertible symmetries and LSM-type constraints on a tensor product Hilbert space , arXiv:2401.12281

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain , Annals of Physics 16 (1961) 407

    1961

  34. [42]

    Oshikawa, Topological approach to Luttinger’s theorem and the Fermi surface of a Kondo lattice, Phys

    M. Oshikawa, Topological approach to Luttinger’s theorem and the Fermi surface of a Kondo lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 1535, [ cond-mat/0002392]

    2000 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Cheng, M

    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. X 6 (2016), no. 4 041068, [ arXiv:1511.02263]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Thorngren and D

    R. Thorngren and D. V. Else, Gauging Spatial Symmetries and the Classification of Topological Crystalline Phases, Phys. Rev. X 8 (2018), no. 1 011040, [arXiv:1612.00846]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G. Y. Cho, S. Ryu, and C.-T. Hsieh, Anomaly Manifestation of Lieb-Schultz-Mattis Theorem and Topological Phases, Phys. Rev. B 96 (2017), no. 19 195105, [arXiv:1705.03892]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Huang, H

    S.-J. Huang, H. Song, Y.-P. Huang, and M. Hermele, Building crystalline topological phases from lower-dimensional states , Phys. Rev. B 96 (2017), no. 20 205106

    2017

  39. [47]

    M. A. Metlitski and R. Thorngren, Intrinsic and emergent anomalies at deconfined critical points, Phys. Rev. B 98 (2018), no. 8 085140, [ arXiv:1707.07686]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Song, Y.-C

    X.-Y. Song, Y.-C. He, A. Vishwanath, and C. Wang, Electric polarization as a nonquantized topological response and boundary Luttinger theorem , Phys. Rev. Res. 3 (2021), no. 2 023011, [ arXiv:1909.08637]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Manjunath and M

    N. Manjunath and M. Barkeshli, Crystalline gauge fields and quantized discrete geometric response for Abelian topological phases with lattice symmetry , Phys. Rev. Res. 3 (2021), no. 1 013040, [ arXiv:2005.10265]. 28

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Manjunath and M

    N. Manjunath and M. Barkeshli, Classification of fractional quantum Hall states with spatial symmetries, arXiv:2012.11603

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cheng and N

    M. Cheng and N. Seiberg, Lieb-Schultz-Mattis, Luttinger, and ’t Hooft - anomaly matching in lattice systems , SciPost Phys. 15 (2023), no. 2 051, [ arXiv:2211.12543]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Yao and M

    Y. Yao and M. Oshikawa, Twisted boundary condition and Lieb-Schultz-Mattis ingappability for discrete symmetries , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021), no. 21 217201, [arXiv:2010.09244]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Y. Yao, M. Oshikawa, and A. Furusaki, Gappability Index for Quantum Many-Body Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022), no. 1 017204, [ arXiv:2112.06575]. 29

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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