Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 90 references

ADE triality via (non-)invertible symmetry gauging

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper establishes the third leg of ADE triality: gauging the non-invertible symmetry $A_2 = 1 + L_{(1,4,2)}$ in the E-series minimal model $M(A_{10},E_6)$ yields the D-series minimal model $M(A_{10},D_7)$, and gauging the dual $A_2^*…

desk verdict The forward D-E gauging is an explicit, believable computation; the reverse leg is asserted rather than demonstrated, so the triality claim is not yet fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15158 v2 pith:4FNVU7ME submitted 2025-06-18 hep-th

Takahilo Tanaka , Yu Nakayama This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords non-invertiblesymmetrygaugingVirasorominimalmodelsADEclassificationtopologicaldefectlinesbinaryalgebracharacterinvolutionduality
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

Virasoro minimal models are organised by the ADE Dynkin diagrams. It was known that gauging the invertible $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry exchanges A-series with D-series, and that gauging a non-invertible symmetry exchanges A-series with E-series. This paper completes the triangle by showing that gauging another non-invertible symmetry exchanges the D-series and E-series minimal models. Concretely, gauging the algebra $A_2 = 1 + L_{(1,4,2)}$ in $M(A_{10},E_6)$ produces the partition function of $M(A_{10},D_7)$, and gauging its dual $A_2^* = 1 + L_{(1,7)}$ in $M(A_{10},D_7)$ returns $M(A_{10},E_6)$. The result matters because it shows that “what’s done can be undone”: a network of non-invertible symmetries can be gauged reversibly, even though each individual line is not invertible.

What carries the argument

The machinery is gauging a non-invertible symmetry through a symmetric separable special Frobenius algebra $A$: one inserts a fine mesh of the defect line $A$ on the torus with a multiplication morphism $m$ satisfying associativity, and sums with weights. For the binary algebra $A = 1 + L_x$, the consistency conditions fix the multiplication morphism in terms of F-symbols; for instance, equations (65)-(67) give $m^{L_{(1,4,2)}}_{L_{(1,4,2)}L_{(1,4,2)}} = \sqrt{(\sqrt{3}-1)/(3+\sqrt{3})}$. The second key object is the character involution $\zeta(s)$ (even $s\mapsto 12-s$), which relates the twisted partition functions of $M(A_{10},A_{11})$ and $M(A_{10},D_7)$, letting the authors transfer the already-solved diagram computations for $L_{(1,2,2)}$ to $L_{(1,4,2)}$.

What would settle it

Explicitly sum the five diagram contributions in $M(A_{10},D_7)/A_2^*$ and compare the even-$s$ sector with $Z_{M(A_{10},E_6)}$: if the coefficient of any character pair such as $\chi_{r,2}\bar\chi_{r,10}$ is not equal to the corresponding partner under $s\mapsto 12-s$, or the sum is not invariant under that map, then the reverse leg of the triality fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the D-E leg of the ADE triality is mediated by a binary algebra object, that is, an algebra $A = 1 + L_x$ built from the identity and one self-dual topological defect line. In the minimal model $M(A_{10},E_6)$ the line $L_{(1,4,2)}$ has the right quantum dimension and the unique multiplication morphism, so the gauged partition function can be evaluated diagram by diagram. The explicit computation gives equation (78): $Z_{M(A_{10},E_6)/A_2} = Z_{M(A_{10},D_7)}$, where $A_2 = 1 + L_{(1,4,2)}$. The reverse operation uses $A_2^* = 1 + L_{(1,7)}$ in $M(A_{10},D_7)$; the paper shows that the twisted partition functions differ from those in $M(A_{10},A_{11})$ only through the character involution $\zeta(s)$ that sends even $s$ to $12-s$, and asserts that the final sum is invariant under this involution, so the result is $Z_{M(A_{10},E_6)}$. Together with the known A-D and A-E exchanges, this closes the triangle of ADE, more precisely ADE$_6$, triality.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that after adding the five contributions in the reverse gauging, the final partition function is unchanged when every even index $s$ is replaced by $12-s$; the paper states this invariance but does not display the summed result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The three classes A, D, and E$_6$ of Virasoro minimal models are now pairwise connected by symmetry gauging, so any one can be reached from any other by at most two gauging steps.
  • The gauging operation is reversible: the gauged theory carries a dual non-invertible line with the same quantum dimension, and gauging that dual line returns the original model, making the network of non-invertible symmetries invertible as a whole.
  • The character-involution shortcut gives a practical way to compute gauged partition functions by reusing the parent A-series diagram computations instead of evaluating every diagram from scratch.
  • RG flows that preserve the gauged line commute with the exchange, so flows previously constructed for one series can be exported to the other series, as the authors note for integer $k$.
  • The same strategy is the natural next step for E$_7$ and E$_8$, whose algebra objects $1 + L_{(1,9)} + L_{(1,17)}$ and $1 + L_{(1,11)} + L_{(1,19)} + L_{(1,29)}$ are not binary and would require more involved multiplication morphisms and more diagrams.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same involution-based shortcut may prove the E$_7$ and E$_8$ legs, because those algebra objects satisfy the same quantum-dimension product formula; an explicit even-sector check analogous to the one missing here would be the first step.
  • Editorial extension: because the forward direction is proven by an explicit sum and the reverse only by an asserted invariance, the triality would be on firmer ground if the reverse sum were displayed; one test is to compare the summed reverse partition function with the E$_6$ partition function term by term in the even sector rather than only up to the involution.
  • Editorial extension: the Morita equivalence between $A_1 = N(1 + L_{(1,4,2)})N$ and $A_2 = 1 + L_{(1,4,2)}$ suggests that gauging different algebra objects with the same quantum dimension can produce identical theories; it would be worth testing whether other binary lines in $M(A_{10},E_6)$ with the same quantum dimension also produce $M(A_{10},D_7)$, and whether the multiplication morphism alone
  • Editorial extension: the construction should extend to $M(A_{h-1},D_7)$ and $M(A_{h-1},E_6)$ for other values of $h$, since the quantum dimensions of $L_{(1,2,2)}$ and $L_{(1,4,2)}$ depend on $h$ modulo 12; verifying equation (78) for $h\neq 11$ would confirm that the triality is a property of the ADE structure rather than of the specific $(A_{10},E_6)$ representative.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the ADE classification of Virasoro minimal models from the perspective of non-invertible symmetry gauging. The authors consider the models M(A10,E6) and M(A10,D7) with Coxeter number 12 and propose that gauging the binary algebra A2 = 1 + L(1,4,2) in M(A10,E6) produces M(A10,D7), while gauging the dual algebra A*2 = 1 + L(1,7) in M(A10,D7) returns M(A10,E6), thereby completing a triality among A, D, and E series. The forward direction is computed in detail: using the formalism of topological defect lines and F-move constraints, the authors derive the twisted partition functions and obtain in eq (78) that the gauged partition function exactly equals the known partition function of M(A10,D7). The reverse direction is treated more heuristically: the paper asserts that the relevant diagrams differ from the E6 case only by the involution (76) and that the summed partition function is invariant under this involution, but no explicit computation of M(A10,D7)/A*2 is presented.

Significance. The forward computation is a genuine technical achievement: it is explicit, involves no fitted parameters, and the final result (78) is cross-checked against the known D7 partition function. The use of F-symbol constraints to fix the multiplication morphism (eqs (65)-(67)) is sound as far as it goes. If the reverse direction were established, the paper would complete a clean triality picture and provide another nontrivial example of the 'gauging undo' phenomenon. However, the reverse leg is currently asserted rather than demonstrated, and since the title and abstract promise the full triality, the paper is not yet complete.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 (after eq (79))] The reverse gauging M(A10,D7)/A*2 = M(A10,E6) is not computed. The text states that each diagram in the second line of (63) differs only in the even-s sector and that the summed partition function is invariant under the involution (76), but no analogue of eq (77) for the L(1,7) line in M(A10,D7) is given, and the claimed invariance of the full sum is not demonstrated. This is a load-bearing step for the paper's central claim of completing the ADE triality.
  2. [Section 3.2, eqs (72)-(77)] The forward derivation relies on the assertion that 'the F-move constraint can be exchanged under the involution.' This exchange is used to conclude that the matrix elements (^L(1,4,2))^{(r,s)(r',s')}_{L(1,4,2)} are solutions of (47). No proof of the exchange is provided. Although the final partition function (78) matches the known D7 result, the intermediate step (77) is not independently justified; please provide a direct check of (77) against the constraint (47).
  3. [Section 3.2, eq (79) and following] The identification of A*2 = 1+L(1,7) excludes 1+L(1,5) on the grounds that it is 'not compatible with the involution.' This appeal is precisely the unproven property identified in the reverse-gauging argument, so the identification of the dual algebra is not yet robust. An independent computation of the quantum dimensions and the algebra structure, or an explicit computation of the candidate gauging, would be needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page] The author name 'Takahilo Tanaka' is likely a typo for 'Takahiro Tanaka.'
  2. [Section 3.1, footnote 8] Equation (58) appears inside a footnote before it is referenced; please renumber or move the displayed equation into the main text.
  3. [Section 3.2, eq (63)] The diagrammatic expansion in eq (63) is clear in principle, but the actual partition functions for the five diagrams are only given later in the text; a short table identifying which displayed equation corresponds to which diagram would improve readability.
  4. [Throughout] The notation 'M(A10,E 6)' with a space before the subscript is inconsistent; use 'M(A10,E6)' consistently.
  5. [References] The authors cite [20] for the solution of the F-move constraints in eq (72); it would be helpful to also point the reader to the original Petkova-Zuber papers [48,49] for the twisted partition functions used in eqs (69) and (73).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forward gauging is explicitly computed and matched to the known D7 partition function; the reverse leg relies on an unproven involution invariance, which is a soundness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central forward result is a direct computation. The multiplication morphism for A2 is fixed by the algebra constraints (62)-(67), with the F-symbol gauge (66) and the resulting morphisms (67) used to sum the five diagrams of (63); the final sum in (78) is then compared with the known M(A10,D7) partition function, which is an external benchmark rather than an input. The comparison with Petkova-Zuber twisted partition functions (25) and the quoted result [20] are independent supports, not self-citations, and no parameter is fitted to the target Z_M(A10,D7). The reverse leg M(A10,D7)/A*2 = M(A10,E6) is not computed explicitly: the paper asserts, after (79), that each diagram 'differs only in the even s sector' and that the resulting partition function 'is invariant under the involution,' without exhibiting the analogue of (77) for L(1,7) on M(A10,D7) or proving the F-move exchange under the involution. The exclusion of the alternative candidate 1+L(1,5) by 'not compatible with the involution' likewise invokes the same unproved property. These are genuine unproven steps, and the reverse direction should be regarded as an assertion rather than a derivation, but they are not circular: the target partition function is not used to define the algebra or morphisms, and the forward claim does not reduce by construction to its input. The self-citation [53] appears only in the discussion of applying the triality to RG flows and is not load-bearing for the gauging computation. Accordingly the appropriate circularity score is low (1), with the main caveat being the unproven reverse-leg assumption rather than any equivalence between inputs and outputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on the standard ADE classification, the Petkova-Zuber TDL construction, and the Frobenius-algebra formulation of non-invertible gauging. It introduces no free parameters and no new entities. The two ad hoc axioms concern the invariance of F-move constraints and of the reverse-gauging partition function under the involution zeta; these are unproven and load-bearing.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Petkova-Zuber formulas (25) give all TDL twisted partition functions for Virasoro minimal models.
    Section 2.3 uses these as input; no independent derivation is given.
  • domain assumption ADE classification of modular invariant partition functions (21)-(24) is complete.
    Section 2.3 starts from this classification.
  • domain assumption Ocneanu graph fusion algebra controls TDL fusion rules (20) and is correctly tabulated for D7 and E6 in Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4.
    The fusion rules (35) and (39) are taken from Petkova-Zuber and related work.
  • domain assumption The non-invertible gauging procedure defined by a symmetric separable special Frobenius algebra is valid, and F-move constraints (47) are necessary and sufficient.
    Section 3.1 follows the framework of [11,58,72].
  • ad hoc to paper The F-move constraints are exchanged under the involution zeta between L(1,2,2) and L(1,4,2).
    Section 3.2 after equation (77); stated without proof and load-bearing for the forward computation.
  • ad hoc to paper The partition function of M(A10,D7)/A*2 is invariant under zeta, so the reverse gauging equals M(A10,E6).
    Section 3.2 final paragraph; the reverse direction is asserted rather than computed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ADE triality via (non-)invertible symmetry gauging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4FNVU7ME

@misc{pith2026250615158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ADE triality via (non-)invertible symmetry gauging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4FNVU7ME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15158}
}
abstract

It is long known that A-series minimal models and D-series minimal models are exchanged by gauging the invertible $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry. More recently, it has been shown that A-series minimal models and E-series minimal models are exchanged by gauging a non-invertible symmetry. We complete the triality picture by showing that D-series minimal models and E-series minimal models are exchanged by gauging another non-invertible symmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15158 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ADE graphs. We also denote the parent of each graph in parentheses. The unit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The conditions on A and m(m∨ ). We require associativity which corresponds to an anomaly-free condition in a finite group symmetry. The bottom right figure represents the invariance under the change of the triangulation. conditions and correspond to the anomaly-free conditions of gauging a finite group G. The 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The conditions on A, m(m∨ ) and u(u ∨ ). which satisfies the above conditions are called a symmetric separable special Frobenius algebra [11, 72, 73]. We will simply denote it as A or (A, m) when there is no confusion. Given a symmetric separable special Frobenius algebra A, we define the gauged theory T /A by inserting a fine-enough mesh of A4 ZT /A = A A A m m∨ = X Lx,Ly,Lz∈A Lz∈Lx×Ly mz xy(m∨ ) z yx Lx Ly Lz . (4… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The topological interface between T and T /A from half-space gauging. middle region of the spacetime. When we narrow its width, the gauged region in which a mesh of A inserted becomes smaller. The effect of the gauging, then eventually reduces to the configuration wher…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The fusion of the topological interface IT |T /A and its orientation reversal IT |T /A gives the algebra object A. Conversely, an algebra object A∗ which implements the inverse gauging is A ∗ = IT /A|T × IT |T /A = IT |T /A × IT |T /A. (49) Let us show two useful appli…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shao, (2023), 2308.00747

    S.-H. Shao, (2023), 2308.00747

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, JHEP02, 172 (2015), 1412.5148

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Davighi, PoS DISCRETE2024, 076 (2025), 2504.05960

    J. Davighi, PoS DISCRETE2024, 076 (2025), 2504.05960

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    McGreevy, Ann

    J. McGreevy, Ann. Rev. Condensed Matter Phys. 14, 57 (2023), 2204.03045

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Schafer-Nameki, Phys

    S. Schafer-Nameki, Phys. Rept. 1063, 1 (2024), 2305.18296

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    T. D. Brennan and S. Hong, (2023), 2306.00912. 28

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Iqbal, Jena lectures on generalized global symmetries: principles and applications, 2024, 2407.20815

    N. Iqbal, Jena lectures on generalized global symmetries: principles and applications, 2024, 2407.20815

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Luo, Q.-R

    R. Luo, Q.-R. Wang, and Y.-N. Wang, Phys. Rept. 1065, 1 (2024), 2307.09215

    arXiv 2024

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Bhardwaj et al

    L. Bhardwaj et al. , Phys. Rept. 1051, 1 (2024), 2307.07547

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cordova, T

    C. Cordova, T. T. Dumitrescu, K. Intriligator, and S.-H. Shao, Snowmass White Paper: Generalized Symmetries in Quantum Field Theory and Beyond, in Snowmass 2021, 2022, 2205.09545

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bhardwaj and Y

    L. Bhardwaj and Y. Tachikawa, JHEP 03, 189 (2018), 1704.02330

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chang, Y.-H

    C.-M. Chang, Y.-H. Lin, S.-H. Shao, Y. Wang, and X. Yin, JHEP 01, 026 (2019), 1802.04445

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    E. P. Verlinde, Nucl. Phys. B 300, 360 (1988)

    1988

  6. [14]

    Oshikawa and I

    M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2604 (1996), hep-th/9606177

    1996 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Oshikawa and I

    M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck, Nucl. Phys. B 495, 533 (1997), cond-mat/9612187

    1997 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Frohlich, J

    J. Frohlich, J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 070601 (2004), cond-mat/0404051

    2004 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Frohlich, J

    J. Frohlich, J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, Nucl. Phys. B 763, 354 (2007), hep-th/0607247

    2007 arXiv

  10. [18]

    G. W. Moore and N. Seiberg, Commun. Math. Phys. 123, 177 (1989)

    1989

  11. [19]

    Thorngren and Y

    R. Thorngren and Y. Wang, JHEP 04, 132 (2024), 1912.02817

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Thorngren and Y

    R. Thorngren and Y. Wang, JHEP 07, 051 (2024), 2106.12577

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Huang, Y.-H

    T.-C. Huang, Y.-H. Lin, and S. Seifnashri, JHEP 12, 028 (2021), 2110.02958

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    I. M. Burbano, J. Kulp, and J. Neuser, JHEP 10, 186 (2022), 2112.14323

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Y.-H. Lin, M. Okada, S. Seifnashri, and Y. Tachikawa, JHEP 03, 094 (2023), 2208.05495. 29

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chang, J

    C.-M. Chang, J. Chen, and F. Xu, SciPost Phys. 15, 216 (2023), 2208.02757

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Lu and Z

    D.-C. Lu and Z. Sun, JHEP 02, 173 (2023), 2208.06077

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Lin and S.-H

    Y.-H. Lin and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 107, 125025 (2023), 2302.13900

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Nagoya and S

    Y. Nagoya and S. Shimamori, JHEP 12, 062 (2023), 2309.05294

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Hong, and L.-T. Wang, JHEP 05, 325 (2024), 2309.05636

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Putrov and J

    P. Putrov and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 125028 (2024), 2302.14862

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Yamamoto and R

    N. Yamamoto and R. Yokokura, JHEP 07, 045 (2023), 2305.01234

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Buican and R

    M. Buican and R. Radhakrishnan, Commun. Math. Phys. 405, 217 (2024), 2309.15181

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Hong, S. Koren, and K. Ohmori, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031033 (2024), 2211.07639

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cordova and K

    C. Cordova and K. Ohmori, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011034 (2023), 2205.06243

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Y. Choi, C. Cordova, P.-S. Hsin, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Commun. Math. Phys. 402, 489 (2023), 2204.09025

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Y. Choi, C. Cordova, P.-S. Hsin, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 105, 125016 (2022), 2111.01139

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, JHEP 09, 067 (2023), 2212.04499

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 161601 (2022), 2205.05086

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Hong, and S. Koren, (2024), 2402.12453

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Yokokura, (2022), 2212.05001

    R. Yokokura, (2022), 2212.05001

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hidaka, M

    Y. Hidaka, M. Nitta, and R. Yokokura, (2024), 2411.05434

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 131602 (2023), 2208.04331. 30

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Y. Choi, M. Forslund, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 121601 (2024), 2309.03937

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Cordova and K

    C. Cordova and K. Ohmori, Phys. Rev. D 109, 105019 (2024), 2307.12927

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Del Zotto, M

    M. Del Zotto, M. Dell’Acqua, and E. Riedel G˚ arding, (2024), 2411.09685

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Arbalestrier, R

    A. Arbalestrier, R. Argurio, and L. Tizzano, Phys. Rev. D 110, 105012 (2024), 2405.06596

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Cappelli, C

    A. Cappelli, C. Itzykson, and J. B. Zuber, Commun. Math. Phys. 113, 1 (1987)

    1987

  39. [47]

    Cappelli and J.-B

    A. Cappelli and J.-B. Zuber, Scholarpedia 5, 10314 (2010), 0911.3242

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    V. B. Petkova and J. B. Zuber, Phys. Lett. B 504, 157 (2001), hep-th/0011021

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    V. B. Petkova and J. B. Zuber, Nucl. Phys. B 603, 449 (2001), hep-th/0101151

    2001 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kikuchi, (2021), 2109.02672

    K. Kikuchi, (2021), 2109.02672

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Kikuchi, (2022), 2209.00016

    K. Kikuchi, (2022), 2209.00016

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Nakayama and K

    Y. Nakayama and K. Kikuchi, JHEP 03, 240 (2023), 2212.06342

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Nakayama and T

    Y. Nakayama and T. Tanaka, JHEP 11, 137 (2024), 2407.21353

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. Senechal, Conformal Field Theory Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997)

    1997

  47. [55]

    Frohlich, J

    J. Frohlich, J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, Defect Lines, Dualities and Generalised Orbifolds, in 16th International Congress on Mathematical Physics , pp. 608–613, 2010, 0909.5013

    2010 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Carqueville and I

    N. Carqueville and I. Runkel, Quantum Topol. 7, 203 (2016), 1210.6363

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Brunner, N

    I. Brunner, N. Carqueville, and D. Plencner, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 88, 231 (2014), 1310.0062

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Diatlyk, C

    O. Diatlyk, C. Luo, Y. Wang, and Q. Weller, JHEP 03, 127 (2024), 2311.17044

    2024

  51. [59]

    Choi, D.-C

    Y. Choi, D.-C. Lu, and Z. Sun, JHEP 01, 142 (2024), 2310.19867. 31

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Perez-Lona, D

    A. Perez-Lona, D. Robbins, E. Sharpe, T. Vandermeulen, and X. Yu, JHEP 02, 154 (2024), 2311.16230

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Perez-Lona, D

    A. Perez-Lona, D. Robbins, E. Sharpe, T. Vandermeulen, and X. Yu, JHEP 05, 066 (2025), 2408.16811

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Yu and H

    X. Yu and H. Y. Zhang, (2025), 2504.05374

    2025

  55. [63]

    Petkova and J.-B

    V. Petkova and J.-B. Zuber, Prog. Math. Phys. 23, 415 (2002), hep-th/0108236

    2002 arXiv

  56. [64]

    V. B. Petkova, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 76, 1268 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    R. E. Behrend, P. A. Pearce, V. B. Petkova, and J.-B. Zuber, Nucl. Phys. B 570, 525 (2000), hep-th/9908036

    2000 arXiv

  58. [66]

    C. H. O. Chui, C. Mercat, and P. A. Pearce, J. Phys. A 36, 2623 (2003), hep- th/0210301

    2003

  59. [67]

    C. H. Otto Chui and P. A. Pearce, J. Stat. Mech. 0506, P06008 (2005), hep- th/0505085

    2005

  60. [68]

    Coquereaux and G

    R. Coquereaux and G. Schieber, J. Geom. Phys. 42, 216 (2002), hep-th/0107001

    2002 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Gu and X

    X. Gu and X. Xie, (2023), 2310.15487

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    P. A. Pearce and J. Rasmussen, (2024), 2409.06236

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Chung, M

    S.-w. Chung, M. Fukuma, and A. D. Shapere, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9, 1305 (1994), hep-th/9305080

    1994 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Ostrik, Transform

    V. Ostrik, Transform. Groups 8, 177 (2003), math/0111139

    2003 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Fuchs, I

    J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, Nucl. Phys. B 646, 353 (2002), hep- th/0204148

    2002

  66. [74]

    Chen and Q

    J. Chen and Q. Jia, JHEP 04, 043 (2025), 2411.18056

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Putrov and R

    P. Putrov and R. Radhakrishnan, (2024), 2405.04619

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Etingof, S

    P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik, Tensor CategoriesMathematical Surveys and Monographs (American Mathematical Society, 2016). 32

    2016

  69. [77]

    Y. Choi, B. C. Rayhaun, Y. Sanghavi, and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 108, 125005 (2023), 2305.09713

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Kirillov, Jr

    A. Kirillov, Jr. and V. Ostrik, (2001), math/0101219

    2001 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Roumpedakis, S

    K. Roumpedakis, S. Seifnashri, and S.-H. Shao, Commun. Math. Phys. 401, 3043 (2023), 2204.02407

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    I. R. Klebanov, V. Narovlansky, Z. Sun, and G. Tarnopolsky, JHEP 02, 066 (2023), 2211.07029

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Katsevich, I

    A. Katsevich, I. R. Klebanov, and Z. Sun, JHEP 03, 170 (2025), 2410.11714

    2025

  74. [82]

    Kikuchi, (2024), 2412.08935

    K. Kikuchi, (2024), 2412.08935

    2024

  75. [83]

    Seifnashri, S.-H

    S. Seifnashri, S.-H. Shao, and X. Yang, (2025), 2503.02925

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Sinha, F

    M. Sinha, F. Yan, L. Grans-Samuelsson, A. Roy, and H. Saleur, (2023), 2310.19703

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Nivesvivat and S

    R. Nivesvivat and S. Ribault, (2025), 2502.14295

    2025 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Furlan, A

    P. Furlan, A. C. Ganchev, and V. B. Petkova, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 5, 2721 (1990), [Erratum: Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 5, 3641 (1990)]

    1990

  79. [87]

    V. B. Petkova and J. B. Zuber, Nucl. Phys. B 438, 347 (1995), hep-th/9410209

    1995 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Konechny, J

    A. Konechny, J. Phys. A 50, 145403 (2017), 1610.07489

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Hsieh, Y

    C.-T. Hsieh, Y. Nakayama, and Y. Tachikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 195701 (2021), 2002.12283

    2021 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Kulp, JHEP 03, 124 (2021), 2003.04278

    J. Kulp, JHEP 03, 124 (2021), 2003.04278. 33

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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