Symmetric entanglers for non-invertible SPT phases

Minyoung You

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Symmetric entanglers for non-invertible SPT phases

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fixed-charge dualities of the bulk symmetry TFT preserve boundary symmetries, so non-invertible SPT phases connected by them have symmetric entanglers; the paper builds one explicitly for the two Rep(A4) phases.

desk verdict A plausible and important claim that non-invertible SPTs can have symmetric entanglers, with a concrete Rep(A4) example, but several load-bearing checks on the explicit MPU are asserted rather than demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04581 v3 pith:AQPCPHF3 submitted 2025-09-04 cond-mat.str-el hep-thquant-ph

Minyoung You This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-elhep-thquant-ph

keywords non-invertiblesymmetrySPTphasessymmetricentanglerfixed-chargedualitytopologicalholographysymTFTmatrixproductunitaryRep(A4)

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper takes on a widely repeated expectation: that non-invertible symmetry-protected phases cannot be connected by symmetric entanglers because they have no stacking structure. Its central claim is the opposite: whenever two 1+1d SPT phases of a non-invertible fusion-category symmetry are connected by a fixed-charge duality of the bulk symmetry TFT, a symmetric entangler must exist. The paper proves the key step, that a fixed-charge duality preserves the boundary symmetry operators, and then gives a concrete example: a matrix product unitary that maps the product state to the nontrivial Rep(A4) SPT state, commutes with the symmetry, and has zero index. If the claim holds, symmetric entanglers exist for non-invertible symmetries even though stacking does not, and the two notions are decoupled.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the symTFT dictionary: a 1+1d system with fusion-category symmetry $C$ is encoded by the 2+1d TQFT $Z(C)$, with a reference Dirichlet boundary fixing the charges and a physical boundary supplying the dynamics. Within that dictionary, the named mechanism is the forgetful functor $F: Z(C) \to C$, which turns bulk anyons into boundary symmetry lines, together with fixed-charge dualities (braided autoequivalences of $Z(C)$ that preserve the charges). The theorem's engine is the invariance of torus partition functions under an FCD, which forces the junction multiplicities $\langle D(\mu),a\rangle$ to equal $\langle\mu,a\rangle$ and hence $F(D(\mu)) = F(\mu)$. On the lattice, the explicit entangler is a matrix product unitary built from the unique degree-2 projective representation of A4; its zero index, verified by a cited criterion, turns it into a finite-depth quantum circuit.

What would settle it

Evaluate the MPU index of the explicit tensor E on a finite chain using the index formula of the cited MPU structure theorem, and directly check [E, Lπ] = 0; a nonzero index or nonzero commutator would falsify the claim that E is a symmetric finite-depth circuit, and a fusion category with FCD-connected SPT phases but no boundary entangler would falsify the general theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is a theorem about the symmetry TFT (symTFT) of a fusion category $C$. In the Drinfeld center $Z(C)$, bulk anyons $\mu$ flow to boundary symmetry operators through a forgetful functor $F$, and charges are the coefficients with which anyons appear in the Dirichlet Lagrangian algebra. The theorem states that if $D$ is a braided autoequivalence of $Z(C)$ that preserves every charge (a fixed-charge duality, FCD), then $F(D(\mu)) = F(\mu)$ for every anyon $\mu$; so $D$ preserves the boundary symmetries. The proof runs through torus partition functions with symmetry lines inserted: an FCD leaves the twisted partition functions invariant, which forces the junction dimensions $\langle\mu,a\rangle$ to be invariant, hence $F(D(\mu))=F(\mu)$. The paper therefore concludes that an FCD connecting two SPT phases yields a symmetric entangler, and exhibits one for the two Rep(A4) SPT phases as an explicit matrix product unitary.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a fixed-charge duality of the bulk symTFT descends to a symmetric entangler on the lattice; the paper cites this dictionary from earlier work rather than proving it, and the explicit Rep(A4) MPU was built ad hoc without using that FCD.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The absence of symmetric entanglers is not a general property of non-invertible SPT phases; it depends on whether the phases are connected by a fixed-charge duality.
The two Rep(A4) SPT phases form a Z2 torsor under the entangler E, since E is order two and maps one phase to the other.
For Rep(D8) and for non-abelian G×Rep(G) cluster states there is no fixed-charge duality connecting the phases, so the earlier no-entangler results remain consistent.
Existence of symmetric entanglers is decoupled from the existence of a stacking structure, since Rep(A4) has no diagonal subalgebra yet admits an entangler.
The explicit MPU provides a finite-depth, globally symmetric circuit on chains of arbitrary length N that maps the product state to the nontrivial Rep(A4) SPT state.

Reading between the lines

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

A criterion the argument suggests but does not state: for a fixed fusion category, the SPT phases connected by fixed-charge dualities should be exactly the orbits of the symmetric-entangler action, so enumerating FCDs would classify which pairs admit entanglers.
The bulk-to-boundary dictionary is cited rather than derived; making it algorithmic would turn the theorem into a construction method and test it on categories beyond Rep(A4).
The sign flip in the torus partition function $(Z_{\pi\pi,\pi})_{\mu\nu}$ computed in the appendix offers a concrete, gauge-invariant diagnostic that distinguishes the two Rep(A4) phases and could serve as a fingerprint for non-invertible SPT phases in other models.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper claims two things: a general argument that fixed-charge dualities of the symTFT give symmetric entanglers for non-invertible SPT phases, and the first explicit such entangler, an MPU connecting the two Rep(A4) SPT phases. The second claim, if right, overturns the expectation from Seifnashri–Shao for Rep(D8). The author is honest that the MPU was built ad hoc and does not follow from the general theorem.

What is genuinely good: the L-symbol computation in the appendix gives a concrete invariant distinguishing the two states, and the MPU construction itself is explicit enough to be checked. The general theorem is short and uses the standard symTFT machinery; the idea that FCDs preserve charges and hence boundary symmetries is natural.

The soft spots are real. The theorem statement contains a type error: 'F(D(µ)) = D(µ)' should be 'F(D(µ)) = F(µ)'. More substantively, the proof uses β_a(D(µ)) = β_a(µ) as though it follows from charge preservation, but β_a(µ) is a trace over the junction space W^µ_1, which is not determined by the charge alone. That step needs an argument or a citation; without it the theorem is not proved. The explicit MPU is where I would focus referee attention. The state-mapping identity E|Ψ1> = |Ψ2> is stated 'up to a possible overall sign,' but because each tensor carries a factor of 1/2, the equality is actually only up to a 2^{-N} normalization as well, which is harmless if the paper says so. The sign matrices in Eq. (13) appear to depend on g and h, so the claim that the signs collapse to an overall constant when acting on |Ψ1> requires a parity argument that is not given. Unitarity is dismissed with a citation to Theorem 1 of Ref. [34], but the local isometry conditions against the sign matrices are never checked. The zero-index claim is a single sentence with no computation. If any of these fail, the central example fails; they are all probably fixable, but they are currently assertions, not demonstrations.

Despite this, the paper deserves a serious referee. The claim is important, the construction is sufficiently concrete that a referee can verify it, and the author has flagged the main caveat about the symTFT-to-lattice dictionary. I would send it to review with a request to supply the missing checks, not desk-reject it.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper argues that non-invertible SPT phases in 1+1d can be connected by symmetric entanglers despite the absence of a stacking structure. Section II proves, in the symTFT setup, that a fixed-charge duality D of the Drinfeld center Z(C) satisfies F(D(μ)) = F(μ) for the forgetful functor F, so D preserves all boundary symmetry operators. Section III discusses examples: Rep(D8) has no FCD and, consistently with Ref. [7], no symmetric entangler; G×Rep(G) cluster states are not connected by any FSD; and the two Rep(A4) SPT phases, which are connected by an FCD, are claimed to be connected by an explicit matrix product unitary E. The MPU E is presented with sign tables, and the paper asserts that E is unitary of order two, has zero MPU index, commutes with the Rep(A4) symmetry, and maps the product state |Ψ1> to the second SPT state |Ψ2>. Appendix A gives an L-symbol computation showing that the two states lie in distinct phases.

Significance. If the missing checks are supplied, the Rep(A4) construction would be the first explicit symmetric entangler for non-invertible SPT phases, directly contradicting the earlier no-go expectation of Ref. [7] and showing that the absence of stacking does not preclude entanglers. The paper's strengths are its clean formal statement in Sec. II, the explicit and parameter-free tensors in Eqs. (10)-(13), and the concrete L-symbol and torus partition function invariant in Appendix A that distinguishes the two phases. No fitted parameters enter; the only adjustable data are the sign tables, which are fixed. The main reservation is that the central example is not yet fully established, because unitarity, the zero-index property, and exact commutation are asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (5)

[III C 3, Eq. (14)] Eq. (14) is not exact as written. Each tensor in Eq. (12) carries a factor 1/2, so acting on |Ψ1> = |e,e,...> gives E|Ψ1> = 2^{-N} Σ_{g_i} Tr[Q(g_1)...Q(g_N)] |g_1...g_N>, up to the signs s_e(g_i,e), not |Ψ2> as displayed. Since the MPS |Ψ2> in Eq. (11) has norm 2^N, the normalized state is consistent with unitarity of E, but the equality should be written with an explicit normalization and the sign factors should be checked to be constant on the relevant configurations.
[III C 3, after Eq. (13)] Unitarity of E for every N is load-bearing and is not demonstrated. The sentence that E satisfies the conditions of Theorem 1 of Ref. [34] does not state those conditions or verify them against the sign matrices Eq. (13). Because E is the only concrete evidence for the paper's central claim, the local isometry conditions, or an explicit calculation of E†E = 1, should be written out.
[III C 3, after Eq. (13)] The claim that the MPU index is zero is a single sentence with no computation. The finite-depth property of the entangler rests entirely on this index; please provide the index calculation in the convention of Ref. [35], or give an explicit finite-depth circuit decomposition of E.
[III C 3, Eqs. (15)-(16)] The commutation proof drops the sign factors from Eq. (12). After acting with E on a general basis state, the amplitudes are written 'up to some signs from Eq. 13', but those signs depend on the individual group elements g_i and h_i. To conclude that E commutes with L_π and the other symmetry operators, one must show that the signs do not distinguish the input charge class or otherwise cancel in the matrix elements of E L_π and L_π E. As written, the charge-preservation argument only uses the block structure and trace properties, not the signs.
[II, last paragraph; IV] The general claim that an FCD implies a boundary symmetric entangler is not a theorem in the present manuscript. Section II proves only F(D(μ)) = F(μ), i.e. preservation of boundary symmetry lines; the step from a bulk duality to a lattice unitary is cited to Refs. [21,25,26] and described as an expectation. The discussion in Sec. IV states that the explicit MPU was constructed ad hoc and does not directly use the bulk FCD, so the general statement is not supported by the explicit construction either. Please either provide a precise dictionary theorem or label this part as a conjecture, separate from the explicit Rep(A4) result.

minor comments (4)

[II, Theorem statement] The theorem statement writes F(D(µ)) = D(µ), which is not well typed since D(µ) is a bulk anyon while F outputs a boundary line; the intended statement, used in the proof, is F(D(µ)) = F(µ).
[III C 3, Eq. (12)] The symbol (g,h) in T_{x^2g,x^2h} is never defined; presumably it is the 2-cocycle phase satisfying Q(g)Q(h) = (g,h)Q(gh), but this should be stated explicitly.
[III C 3, Eq. (13)] The row and column ordering of the sign matrices is not specified; the reader cannot reproduce the MPU without knowing, for example, whether the ordering is (e,a,b,c).
[III C 3] The relation T_{j,i}^* = U T_{i,j} U^{-1} with U = iY is stated without showing that the sign tables satisfy it; a short verification would make the order-two claim checkable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The general FCD-to-entangler theorem in Sec. II proves itself by assuming the conclusion; the explicit Rep(A4) MPU is independent and not circular.

self definitional [Sec. II, Theorem and proof, Eqs. (1)-(5)]
"β_a(D(µ)) = β_a(µ) since D preserves charges. ... we see that F(D(µ)) = F(µ)."

The theorem's conclusion is that the full boundary-line decomposition F(µ)=⊕_a ⟨µ,a⟩ a is invariant under the FCD. The proof's only use of the FCD condition is the assertion β_a(D(µ))=β_a(µ) for all a. But β_a(µ)=Tr_{W_1^µ} L_a is the character of the C-representation on the junction space W_1^µ, whose decomposition multiplicities are exactly ⟨µ,a⟩; hence the full set of β-invariances is equivalent to F(D(µ))=F(µ). Earlier in the paper, an FCD was defined only as preserving charges, i.e. the multiplicities ⟨µ,1⟩ corresponding to anyons in the Dirichlet Lagrangian algebra. The proof therefore silently upgrades the input to the conclusion, making the theorem circular as written.

full rationale

The explicit Rep(A4) construction is independent of the Sec. II theorem: the MPU E is written down directly, and the paper itself states in the Discussion that 'the construction of the explicit MPU was ad hoc, and did not directly reference the FCD of the bulk symTFT.' The Appendix L-symbol computation is a self-contained check that the two states lie in different phases. There is no fitted parameter and no load-bearing self-citation: the author's own prior works appear only as background on invertible SPT stacking and duality. The circular step I identify is confined to the general FCD-to-symmetric-entangler argument: the proof of the FCD preservation theorem assumes an invariance equivalent to its conclusion rather than deriving it from the stated charge-preservation condition. Because the concrete MPU example stands on its own, the overall circularity is partial, not total. The other concerns raised by reviewers (unitarity and zero-index assertions not demonstrated, Eq. (14) missing a 2^{-N} normalization) are correctness gaps, not instances of circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted constants. Its construction rests on the symTFT dictionary, the FCD classification of Ref. [27], the MPU-index criterion of Ref. [35], and the standard module-category classification of SPTs. The only hand-chosen data are the sign tables in Eq. (13), which are part of the MPU construction rather than an empirical fit.

free parameters (1)

sign tables s_e, s_x, s_x2 = 4x4 sign matrices in Eq. (13)
Introduced by hand to make the MPO E unitary and to map the product state to the SPT state. No derivation is given for why these signs are the unique or correct choice; the mapping claim is stated as 'up to a possible overall sign'.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Topological holography: a 1+1d C-symmetric system is described by a 2+1d symTFT Z(C) with a reference boundary and a physical boundary, and bulk dualities descend to boundary dualities.
Invoked throughout Secs. I and II as the framework; the descent step from F(D(µ)) = F(µ) to an actual lattice entangler is cited to Refs. [21,25,26] rather than proven here.
domain assumption Classification of FCD/FAD/FSD dualities and the statement that the two Rep(A4) SPT phases are connected by an FCD.
Taken from Ref. [27] and used to motivate the expected entangler; the paper does not derive this classification.
domain assumption MPU/FDQC equivalence: an MPU with zero index is a finite-depth quantum circuit.
Used in Sec. III C.3 to conclude E is an FDQC from the asserted index computation, citing Definition IV.1 of Ref. [35]. The index value is asserted, not computed in the text.
standard math Standard categorical data: the S-matrix of Z(C) is invariant under braided autoequivalences, and the forgetful functor F decomposes anyons into boundary lines with multiplicities ⟨µ,a⟩.
Used in the proof of the theorem in Sec. II; standard results in fusion category theory cited to Refs. [30,32].
domain assumption Rep(G) SPT phases are classified by module categories Rep_ψ(H) over Rep(G), with SPT phases corresponding to a single simple object.
Used in Sec. III C to identify the two phases as Rep(1) and Rep_ω(Z2 x Z2), citing Ref. [32].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetric entanglers for non-invertible SPT phases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AQPCPHF3

@misc{pith2026250904581,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetric entanglers for non-invertible SPT phases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AQPCPHF3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04581}
}

abstract

It has been suggested that non-invertible symmetry protected topological phases (SPT), due to the lack of a stacking structure, do not have symmetric entanglers (globally symmetric finite-depth quantum circuits) connecting them. Using topological holography, we argue that a symmetric entangler should in fact exist for $1+1$d systems whenever the non-invertible symmetry has SPT phases connected by fixed-charge dualities (FCD). Moreover, we construct an explicit example of a symmetric entangler for the two SPT phases with $\mathrm{Rep}(A_4)$-symmetry, as a matrix product unitary (MPU).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04581 by the authors.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Algebras of order parameters in one-dimensional spin systems
cond-mat.str-el 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

String order parameters in 1D gapped phases with invertible or non-invertible symmetries organize into Lagrangian algebras in the Drinfel'd centre via tensor-network module categories.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[34]

Y. Choi, B. C. Rayhaun, and Y. Zheng, Generalized tube algebras, symmetry-resolved partition functions, and twisted boundary states (2024), arXiv:2409.02159 [hep-th]

arXiv 2024
[7]

Zhang and C

C. Zhang and C. C´ ordova, Anomalies of (1+ 1)- dimensional categorical symmetries, Physical Review B 110, 035155 (2024)

work page 2024
[35]

Putrov and R

P. Putrov and R. Radhakrishnan, Non-anomalous non- invertible symmetries in 1+1d from gapped boundaries of symtfts (2024), arXiv:2405.04619 [hep-th]

arXiv 2024
[1]

SPT phase 1: product state 5

work page
[2]

trivial phase,

SPT phase 2 From here on, we will fixG=A 4 andH=Z 2×Z 2⊂ G. A state corresponding to Rep ω(Z2×Z 2) can be con- structed as follows. We define matrices Q(e) =1, Q(a) =Z, Q(b) =X, Q(c) =iY(10) whereX,Y,Zare Pauli matrices acting on the bond space. We may think ofQ:H→GL(2) as the pro- jective representation ofH. The SPT state is defined as an MPS with 2d bon...

work page
[3]

Dirichlet

Symmetric entangler as an MPU 5 IV. Discussion 7 A.L-symbols and torus partition functions for Rep(A4) SPT phases 7 References 8 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Recently, non-invertible SPT phases, i.e. phases with a unique ground state protected by a non-invertible sym- metry, have received much attention, especially in 1+1 dimensions where the symmetry f...

arXiv 2025
[4]

overall group element

SPT phase 1: product state We can construct an SPT state corresponding to Rep(1) as a product state 3 |Ψ1⟩=|e,e,e,···⟩(9) whereeis the identity element. As an MPS, it is trivial: the bond space is 1d. It is clear this is symmetric under the Rep(A 4) symmetry MPOs, as the MPO action only depends on the “overall group element” (the product of group elements...

work page
[5]

internal

Symmetric entangler as an MPU Now, we construct a symmetric entangler connecting the two SPT states. First,A 4 has a unique projective ir- rep of degree 2. We denote this again byQ, using the fact that the projective representationQofHdefined before arise as a restriction of this projective representation to H(up to some phase freedom). Explicitly, we cho...

work page

Show all 40 references

[6]

Thorngren and Y

R. Thorngren and Y. Wang, Fusion category symmetry. part i. anomaly in-flow and gapped phases, Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 1 (2024)

2024
[8]

Bhardwaj, L

L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, D. Pajer, and S. Sch¨ afer- Nameki, Gapped phases with non-invertible symme- tries: (1+1)d, SciPost Physics18, 10.21468/scipost- phys.18.1.032 (2025)

2025 doi
[9]

Inamura, Topological field theories and symme- try protected topological phases with fusion category symmetries, Journal of High Energy Physics2021, 10.1007/jhep05(2021)204 (2021)

K. Inamura, Topological field theories and symme- try protected topological phases with fusion category symmetries, Journal of High Energy Physics2021, 10.1007/jhep05(2021)204 (2021)

2021 doi
[10]

Inamura and S

K. Inamura and S. Ohyama, 1+1d spt phases with fusion category symmetry: interface modes and non-abelian thouless pump (2024), arXiv:2408.15960 [cond-mat.str- el]

2024
[11]

Fechisin, N

C. Fechisin, N. Tantivasadakarn, and V. V. Albert, Noninvertible symmetry-protected topological order in a group-based cluster state, Physical Review X15, 10.1103/physrevx.15.011058 (2025)

2025 doi
[12]

Seifnashri and S.-H

S. Seifnashri and S.-H. Shao, Cluster state as a nonin- vertible symmetry-protected topological phase, Physical Review Letters133, 116601 (2024)

2024
[13]

C. Meng, X. Yang, T. Lan, and Z. Gu, Non-invertible spts: an on-site realization of (1+1)d anomaly-free fu- sion category symmetry (2025), arXiv:2412.20546 [cond- mat.str-el]

2025 arXiv
[14]

Chen, Z.-C

X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Sym- metry protected topological orders and the group coho- mology of their symmetry group, Physical Review B87, 10.1103/physrevb.87.155114 (2013)

2013 doi
[15]

Kapustin, A

A. Kapustin, A. Turzillo, and M. You, Spin topological 9 field theory and fermionic matrix product states, Physical Review B98, 10.1103/physrevb.98.125101 (2018)

2018 doi
[16]

Turzillo and M

A. Turzillo and M. You, Fermionic matrix product states and one-dimensional short-range entangled phases with antiunitary symmetries, Physical Review B99, 10.1103/physrevb.99.035103 (2019)

2019 doi
[17]

Bultinck, D

N. Bultinck, D. J. Williamson, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Fermionic matrix product states and one- dimensional topological phases, Physical Review B95, 10.1103/physrevb.95.075108 (2017)

2017 doi
[18]

Ren, S.-Q

X.-Y. Ren, S.-Q. Ning, Y. Qi, Q.-R. Wang, and Z.-C. Gu, Stacking group structure of fermionic symmetry- protected topological phases, Physical Review B110, 235117 (2024)

2024
[19]

Turzillo and M

A. Turzillo and M. You, Duality and stacking of bosonic and fermionic spt phases, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024, 10.1007/jhep10(2024)034 (2024)

2024 doi
[20]

Chen, Z.-C

X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Symmetry- protected topological orders in interacting bosonic sys- tems, Science338, 1604 (2012)

2012
[21]

B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, and X.-G. Wen, Quantum information meets quantum matter – from quantum en- tanglement to topological phase in many-body systems (2018), arXiv:1508.02595 [cond-mat.str-el]

2018 arXiv
[22]

Tantivasadakarn, R

N. Tantivasadakarn, R. Thorngren, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, Pivot hamiltonians as generators of symme- try and entanglement, SciPost Physics14, 012 (2023)

2023
[23]

Zhang, Topological invariants for symmetry-protected topological phase entanglers, Physical Review B107, 235104 (2023)

C. Zhang, Topological invariants for symmetry-protected topological phase entanglers, Physical Review B107, 235104 (2023)

2023
[24]

Tantivasadakarn, R

N. Tantivasadakarn, R. Thorngren, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, Long-range entanglement from measuring symmetry-protected topological phases, Physical Review X14, 10.1103/physrevx.14.021040 (2024)

2024 doi
[25]

Gaiotto and J

D. Gaiotto and J. Kulp, Orbifold groupoids, Journal of High Energy Physics2021, 10.1007/jhep02(2021)132 (2021)

2021 doi
[26]

Moradi, S

H. Moradi, S. F. Moosavian, and A. Tiwari, Topological holography: Towards a unification of landau and beyond- landau physics, SciPost Physics Core6, 066 (2023)

2023
[27]

Bhardwaj and S

L. Bhardwaj and S. Schafer-Nameki, Generalized charges, part ii: Non-invertible symmetries and the sym- metry tft (2023), arXiv:2305.17159 [hep-th]

2023
[28]

Etingof, D

P. Etingof, D. Nikshych, V. Ostrik, and with an ap- pendix by Ehud Meir, Fusion categories and homotopy theory (2009), arXiv:0909.3140 [math.QA]

2009 arXiv
[29]

Barkeshli, P

M. Barkeshli, P. Bonderson, M. Cheng, and Z. Wang, Symmetry fractionalization, defects, and gaug- ing of topological phases, Physical Review B100, 10.1103/physrevb.100.115147 (2019)

2019 doi
[30]

Lootens, C

L. Lootens, C. Delcamp, G. Ortiz, and F. Verstraete, Dualities in one-dimensional quantum lattice models: Symmetric hamiltonians and matrix product opera- tor intertwiners, PRX Quantum4, 10.1103/prxquan- tum.4.020357 (2023)

2023 doi
[31]

Lootens, C

L. Lootens, C. Delcamp, and F. Verstraete, Dualities in one-dimensional quantum lattice models: Topological sectors, PRX Quantum5, 10.1103/prxquantum.5.010338 (2024)

2024 doi
[32]

O. M. Aksoy and X.-G. Wen, Phases with non-invertible symmetries in 1+1d symmetry protected topological or- ders as duality automorphisms (2025), arXiv:2503.21764 [cond-mat.str-el]

2025 arXiv
[33]

Y.-H. Lin, M. Okada, S. Seifnashri, and Y. Tachikawa, Asymptotic density of states in 2d cfts with non- invertible symmetries, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 10.1007/jhep03(2023)094 (2023)

2023 doi
[36]

W. Ji, D. T. Stephen, M. Levin, and X. Chen, Bulk excitations of invertible phases (2025), arXiv:2506.11288 [cond-mat.str-el]

2025 arXiv
[37]

Etingof, S

P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik,Ten- sor Categories, Vol. 205 (American Mathematical Soc., 2016)

2016
[38]

Garre-Rubio, L

J. Garre-Rubio, L. Lootens, and A. Moln´ ar, Classifying phases protected by matrix product operator symmetries using matrix product states, Quantum7, 927 (2023)

2023
[39]

S. K. Shukla, A simple and general equation for ma- trix product unitary generation (2025), arXiv:2502.00390 [cond-mat.str-el]

2025
[40]

Ignacio Cirac, D

J. Ignacio Cirac, D. Perez-Garcia, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Matrix product unitaries: structure, symmetries, and topological invariants, Journal of Statistical Mechan- ics: Theory and Experiment2017, 083105 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [34]

Y. Choi, B. C. Rayhaun, and Y. Zheng, Generalized tube algebras, symmetry-resolved partition functions, and twisted boundary states (2024), arXiv:2409.02159 [hep-th]

arXiv 2024

[2] [7]

Zhang and C

C. Zhang and C. C´ ordova, Anomalies of (1+ 1)- dimensional categorical symmetries, Physical Review B 110, 035155 (2024)

work page 2024

[3] [35]

Putrov and R

P. Putrov and R. Radhakrishnan, Non-anomalous non- invertible symmetries in 1+1d from gapped boundaries of symtfts (2024), arXiv:2405.04619 [hep-th]

arXiv 2024

[4] [1]

SPT phase 1: product state 5

work page

[5] [2]

trivial phase,

SPT phase 2 From here on, we will fixG=A 4 andH=Z 2×Z 2⊂ G. A state corresponding to Rep ω(Z2×Z 2) can be con- structed as follows. We define matrices Q(e) =1, Q(a) =Z, Q(b) =X, Q(c) =iY(10) whereX,Y,Zare Pauli matrices acting on the bond space. We may think ofQ:H→GL(2) as the pro- jective representation ofH. The SPT state is defined as an MPS with 2d bon...

work page

[6] [3]

Dirichlet

Symmetric entangler as an MPU 5 IV. Discussion 7 A.L-symbols and torus partition functions for Rep(A4) SPT phases 7 References 8 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Recently, non-invertible SPT phases, i.e. phases with a unique ground state protected by a non-invertible sym- metry, have received much attention, especially in 1+1 dimensions where the symmetry f...

arXiv 2025

[7] [4]

overall group element

SPT phase 1: product state We can construct an SPT state corresponding to Rep(1) as a product state 3 |Ψ1⟩=|e,e,e,···⟩(9) whereeis the identity element. As an MPS, it is trivial: the bond space is 1d. It is clear this is symmetric under the Rep(A 4) symmetry MPOs, as the MPO action only depends on the “overall group element” (the product of group elements...

work page

[8] [5]

internal

Symmetric entangler as an MPU Now, we construct a symmetric entangler connecting the two SPT states. First,A 4 has a unique projective ir- rep of degree 2. We denote this again byQ, using the fact that the projective representationQofHdefined before arise as a restriction of this projective representation to H(up to some phase freedom). Explicitly, we cho...

work page