Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 20 references

Holography for bulk-boundary local topological order

T0 review · 4 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 Boundary DHR bimodules recover the Walker-Wang boundary topological order.

desk verdict A genuine advance in the operator-algebraic approach to topological order, with a solid Levin-Wen analysis but a load-bearing unproved folding trick in the Walker-Wang boundary theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19969 v2 pith:NC7BUGGN submitted 2025-06-24 math-ph cond-mat.str-elmath.MPmath.OAmath.QAquant-ph

Corey Jones , Pieter Naaijkens , David Penneys This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phcond-mat.str-elmath.MPmath.OAmath.QAquant-ph MSC 46L3781T4581T05
keywords localtopologicalorderboundaryalgebrasDHRbimodulesWalker-WangmodelLevin-Wenbraidedcategoricalnetsenrichedcentersubfactortheory
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 sets out to make topological holography precise for spin systems that have a physical topological boundary, not just a cut in the bulk. It introduces boundary local topological order axioms and shows that a bulk-boundary system has a boundary algebra whose boundary DHR bimodules—the operator-algebraic analogue of superselection sectors—recover the boundary excitations. For Levin-Wen models with a gapped boundary built from a module category $\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{C}}$, the boundary DHR category is the dual category $\operatorname{End}(\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{C}})$. For Walker-Wang models built from a unitary braided fusion category $\mathcal{B}$ with a $\mathcal{B}$-enriched fusion category $\mathcal{X}$, the boundary DHR category is the enriched center $\mathcal{Z}_{\mathcal{B}}(\mathcal{X})$. If true, this gives a model-independent way to extract boundary topological order from local operator algebras.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the boundary LTO axiom system, which assigns to each boundary rectangle a boundary algebra $B^{\partial}(I)$ independent of the surrounding rectangles, plus the folding trick of Section 4.4. To compute $\operatorname{DHR}_{\partial}(\mathcal{X})$, the paper folds the 2D braided-enriched categorical net $\mathcal{X}$ on a lattice with boundary into a 1D fusion module categorical net $\mathcal{M}$ whose multifusion category is $\mathcal{C} = \mathcal{X}^{\mathrm{mp}}\boxtimes_{\mathcal{A}}\mathcal{A}\boxtimes_{\mathcal{A}}\mathcal{X}$. It then uses the subfactor embedding machinery for AF actions of unitary multifusion categories—Q-system realization and the embedding of $\operatorname{End}(\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{C}})$ into bimodules—to show the folded DHR category is $\operatorname{End}(\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{C}}) \cong \mathcal{Z}_{\mathcal{A}}(\mathcal{X})$. The braiding on $\operatorname{DHR}_{\partial}(\mathcal{X})$ is then built from local projective bases, extending the construction for DHR bimodules.

What would settle it

Run the folding bijection on a concrete example, say $\mathcal{A} = \operatorname{Vec}(\mathbb{Z}/p)$ and a faithful $\mathcal{A}$-enriched category $\mathcal{X}$, and check whether every boundary DHR bimodule of the 2D braided categorical net restricted to the complement of a boundary rectangle becomes, under folding, a bimodule localizable in a boundary interval of the 1D net. A single sector whose folded image fails localizability, or two distinct boundary sectors that fold to isomorphic bimodules, would falsify the identification $\operatorname{DHR}_{\partial}(\mathcal{X}) \cong \mathcal{Z}_{\mathcal{A}}(\mathcal{X})$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the physical boundary of a topologically ordered bulk-boundary system carries a net of operator algebras whose localized bimodules—the boundary DHR bimodules—form a unitary braided tensor category that is exactly the topological boundary order. Theorem D states this for Walker-Wang models: given a unitary braided fusion category $\mathcal{B}$ and a $\mathcal{B}$-enriched unitary fusion category $\mathcal{X}$ (equivalently, a braided central functor $\mathcal{B}\to\mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{X})$), the Walker-Wang bulk-boundary system is a boundary LTO, its boundary algebra $\mathcal{X}$ is a braided categorical net, and $\operatorname{DHR}_{\partial}(\mathcal{X})$ is unitarily braided equivalent to $\mathcal{Z}_{\mathcal{B}}(\mathcal{X})$, the Müger centralizer of $\mathcal{B}$ inside $\mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{X})$. The same mechanism gives Theorem E, identifying the bulk Walker-Wang DHR category with the Müger center $\mathcal{Z}_2(\mathcal{B})$, and Theorem A, identifying the Levin-Wen boundary DHR bimodules with $\operatorname{End}(\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{C}})$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the folding-trick assertion in Section 4.4: every boundary DHR bimodule of the 2D net $\mathcal{X}$ is claimed to become, after folding, a boundary DHR bimodule of the 1D fusion module categorical net $\mathcal{M}$ with $\mathcal{C} = \mathcal{X}^{\mathrm{mp}}\boxtimes_{\mathcal{A}}\mathcal{A}\boxtimes_{\mathcal{A}}\mathcal{X}$, and this correspondence is said to preserve localizability and to have no extra or missing sectors. That assertion is not proved in the paper, and it is exactly what converts $\operatorname{DHR}_{\partial}(\mathcal{X})$ into the enriched center $\mathcal{Z}_{\mathcal{A}}(\mathcal{X})$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $\mathcal{B}$-enriched fusion category $\mathcal{X}$, the topological boundary order of the $\mathcal{B}$ Walker-Wang model is the enriched center $\mathcal{Z}_{\mathcal{B}}(\mathcal{X})$, so boundary DHR bimodules provide a model-independent parameterization of boundary excitations.
  • The bulk DHR category of a Walker-Wang model is only the Müger center $\mathcal{Z}_2(\mathcal{B})$; the braided fusion 2-category of the full (3+1)D topological order is not captured by DHR bimodules, and the paper states that a 2-categorical extension of DHR bimodules would be needed.
  • Levin-Wen boundaries from $\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{C}}$ have boundary DHR category $\operatorname{End}(\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{C}})$, matching the classical subfactor description of fusion module spin chains.
  • The braided categorical net in its topological boundary state has type I cone von Neumann algebras with finite-dimensional centers, and its superselection sectors are $\operatorname{Hilb}(\mathcal{B})$; this is the first example of a type I net with nontrivial superselection sectors.
  • Truncating the Walker-Wang boundary algebra to a fusion spin chain recovers $\mathcal{B}$ as a braided fusion category, from which $\mathcal{Z}(\operatorname{Mod}(\mathcal{B}))$ reconstructs the full bulk topological order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the folding trick is made fully rigorous, the same dimensional-reduction strategy should compute boundary DHR categories for more general domain walls between nontrivial phases, replacing $\mathcal{A}$ by the braided fusion category of the wall.
  • The identification $\operatorname{DHR}_{\partial}(\mathcal{X}) \cong \mathcal{Z}_{\mathcal{A}}(\mathcal{X})$ suggests a completeness statement the paper does not make: every $\mathcal{A}$-enriched fusion category arises as the boundary DHR category of some Walker-Wang bulk-boundary system, making the enriched center a complete invariant of boundary sector categories.
  • The type I cone algebras with finite-dimensional centers raise the prospect that a modified superselection theory for non-factorial type I nets could make the braiding of the superselection category directly visible in the net, without passing through the relative tensor product of bimodules.
  • One could test the folding step numerically on small fusion categories by constructing the folded 1D net from the ladder category and checking equality of dimensions of intertwiners between boundary DHR bimodules against $\mathcal{Z}_{\mathcal{A}}(\mathcal{X})$.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' earlier local topological order (LTO) framework to bulk-boundary systems. It introduces boundary LTO axioms for nets on lattices with a boundary, defines a category of boundary DHR bimodules, and applies the framework to Levin-Wen and Walker-Wang models. The main results are: Theorem A, identifying the boundary DHR bimodules of a Levin-Wen bulk-boundary system with End(M_C); Theorem D, identifying the boundary DHR bimodules of the Walker-Wang bulk-boundary system for B -> Z(X) with the enriched center Z_B(X); and Theorem E, identifying the bulk Walker-Wang DHR category with the M\"uger center Z_2(B). Along the way the paper introduces braided categorical nets and braided-enriched fusion categorical nets, studies their superselection sectors, and shows (Theorems B and C) that the cone von Neumann algebras in the canonical boundary state are type I with finite-dimensional centers and that the superselection sector W*-category is Hilb(B).

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper gives a substantial operator-algebraic formalization of topological holography for gapped boundaries, recovering expected categorical data from microscopic spin models. The Levin-Wen analysis is firmly grounded in established subfactor and Q-system techniques, and Appendix A provides a detailed and useful construction of AF actions of unitary multifusion categories; the DHR bimodule construction is explicit and parameter-free. The braided categorical nets are also a new and interesting class of nets with nontrivial superselection theory, and the type-I cone algebra result contrasts nicely with the type II/III behavior found in earlier Levin-Wen examples. However, the central Walker-Wang results depend on a folding-trick identification in Section 4.4 that is asserted rather than proved, and the braiding verification in Theorem 4.21 is only carried out in detail for A = Hilb. These gaps are localized but load-bearing; once they are filled, the significance is high.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.4 (paragraph after Definition 4.16)] The statement that 'any boundary DHR bimodule in DHR^∂(X) can be viewed as a boundary DHR bimodule in DHR^∂(M)' is load-bearing for Proposition 4.19 and for Theorems D and E, but no functor DHR^∂(X) -> DHR^∂(M) is constructed, and no proof is given that localizability in the sense of Definition 2.20 and Lemma 2.21 is preserved by the 'careful bijection Z×N→N'. Without such a proof, the chain DHR^∂(X) ≅ DHR^∂(M) ≅ End(M_C) ≅ Z_A(X) identifies the DHR category of the folded 1D net, not necessarily of the original 2D net. This is the central claim of the paper, so the missing construction and proof must be supplied.
  2. [§4.4, boundary algebraic Haag duality paragraph] The paper asserts that because the 1D fusion module categorical net satisfies boundary algebraic Haag duality by (3.13), the 2D braided-enriched fusion categorical net also satisfies boundary algebraic Haag duality. This transfer is not automatic and is needed for Lemma 2.23 and for the braiding computation in Theorem 4.21. The authors should either prove the 2D boundary Haag duality directly or prove the folding equivalence in enough detail to make the transfer legitimate.
  3. [Theorem 4.21] The proof that the functor Y : Z_A(X) -> DHR^∂(X) is braided is only carried out in detail for A = Hilb, after which the general case is dismissed by saying that the A-strands going 'back into the page' play no role. This is not a proof: the A-enrichment interacts with the braiding through the half-braiding of A in Z(X), and the centralizer condition z ∈ Z_A(X) is exactly what would need to be used to verify that Y(β_{w,z}) agrees with the braiding u_{Λ,Δ}^{Y_w,Y_z} for general A. A complete verification is required before Theorem D and E can be accepted as braided equivalences.
  4. [§4, Definition 4.3 and Remark 4.2] The braided tensor product X^{⊗Λ} over a rectangle is defined via a braid group action coming from choices of homeomorphisms, but the only cited reference, [SW03, Prop. 7.6], is stated in the balanced setting. The paper asserts that balancing is not needed. Since the net structure, including the inclusions X(Λ) ⊂ X(∆) used throughout Section 4 and in Definition 4.16, depends on this construction, the authors should either provide a complete proof for arbitrary braided fusion categories or give a precise reference that covers the non-balanced case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem C and footnote 1] The statement of Theorem C should make explicit that the equivalence is only at the level of W*-categories; the footnote already says the monoidal and braided structures are not analyzed, but the theorem text reads as if the full braided tensor category is identified. Please align the theorem statement with the actual claim.
  2. [§4.1, proof of Theorem 4.8] The sentence 'as we are ignoring the fusion and braiding, it suffices to consider the case of a 1D fusion spin system' needs a short justification, since the 2D braided categorical net is not literally a 1D fusion spin system even at the level of the underlying W*-category.
  3. [Theorems 3.8, 5.6, and 5.7] These theorems are proved by saying that the arguments of [JNPW23, Lem. 4.7 and Thm. 4.8] can be adapted using a variant of the tube/sphere/dome algebra. Since these theorems identify the boundary algebras that are central to the paper, the authors should provide more details or give precise references to the specific statements being adapted.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and notation issues: 'consdider' in §4, inconsistent use of DHR^∂ vs DHR ∂, and the notation X^{⊗Λ} vs A^{⊗Λ} in Definition 4.16. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's DHR categories are computed from independently defined nets and external categorical results, with no fitted parameters or definitional reduction of the target equivalences.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem A computes the boundary DHR category of the Levin-Wen bulk-boundary net from the independently defined fusion module spin chain M and identifies it with End(M_C) via the fully faithful embedding of the multifusion category E into Bim(M⊕N) supplied by published results (BCE+25, CHPJP22) and Lemma 2.15; the target category End(M_C) is not an input to the net construction. Theorem D proceeds by folding the 2D braided-enriched net X to a 1D fusion module categorical net M, then applies Theorem 3.14 to get DHR^∂(M) ≅ End(M_C), and finally invokes the external identification End(M_C) ≅ Z_A(X) from HBJP23 Ex. II.9. Although HBJP23 shares authors, it is a published, parameter-free proof whose assumptions do not include the DHR-theoretic conclusion; it is independent support rather than a self-citation chain. The braided equivalence in Theorem 4.21 is argued graphically, with the general case reduced to the A=Hilb case by saying A-strands 'play no role'; this is a proof gap, not a circular step, since no DHR category is being used as its own input. Likewise the folding observation in §4.4 is asserted rather than proved, and if it failed Theorems D and E would not follow, but that is a correctness risk, not a definitional reduction. There are no fitted parameters, no data-dependent constants, and no equation in which a 'predicted' category is equal to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 4 invented entities

There are no numerically fitted constants; the only inputs are categorical data such as the UFC C, module category M_C, UBFC B, and A-enriched UFC X. The central claims rest on prior published theorems in operator algebras, subfactor theory, and category theory, plus one asserted folding observation in Section 4.4. The invented entities are formal mathematical constructions rather than physical particles or forces.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Unitary fusion categories admit unique spherical structures and canonical twists, and unitary module categories admit traces unique up to positive scalar.
    Used throughout Sections 3 and 4 to define skein-module inner products, quantum dimensions, and gluing operators; cited to LR97, Pen20, and Sch13.
  • domain assumption The LTO axioms from JNPW23 and the new boundary LTO axioms introduced in this paper are the correct axiomatization of topological order and topological boundaries.
    The entire framework is built on these axioms; the paper shows the toric code, Levin-Wen, and Walker-Wang models satisfy them, but the axioms themselves are a modeling choice rather than a derived theorem.
  • standard math Q-system realization and the multifactor embedding theorems of CHPJP22 and BCE+25 fully faithfully embed unitary multifusion categories into categories of Hilbert C*-bimodules.
    This is the technical engine of Appendix A and Section 3.2, used to prove that the functor End(M_C) into DHR_delta(M) is fully faithful and essentially surjective.
  • domain assumption The folding trick identifies boundary DHR bimodules of the 2D braided-enriched net with those of a 1D fusion module categorical net, and the categorical equivalence End(M_C) is isomorphic to the enriched center Z_A(X).
    This is load-bearing for Theorems D and E. The categorical equivalences are cited to BJS21, HBJP23, and KZ18a, but the locality-preservation step is asserted in Section 4.4 rather than proved.
  • ad hoc to paper The braided tensor product X^{otimes Lambda} over the sites of a rectangle is canonical via braid group actions, even when the braided fusion category is not balanced.
    Needed to define braided categorical nets in Section 4. Remark 4.2 notes that SW03 prove well-definedness in the balanced setting and argues that balancing is unnecessary for the construction.
invented entities (4)
  • Boundary LTO axioms (dLTO1)-(dLTO4)
    purpose: To formalize topological boundaries of quantum spin systems and construct boundary algebras on lattices with boundary.
    Introduced in Section 2.4 and justified by examples such as the toric code, Levin-Wen, and Walker-Wang; it is a definitional framework, not an empirically testable entity.
  • Boundary DHR bimodule category DHR_delta(A)
    purpose: To capture boundary topological excitations as localized Hilbert C*-bimodules over the boundary algebra.
    Defined in Section 2.5; its main content is the identification with familiar enriched centers, so it is a new mathematical invariant rather than an entity with independent falsifiable handles.
  • Braided categorical net A(Lambda)=End_B(X^{otimes Lambda})
    purpose: To serve as the 2D boundary algebra of Walker-Wang models and to provide examples of nets with type I cone von Neumann algebras and nontrivial superselection sectors.
    Constructed in Section 4; the paper computes its superselection sectors but leaves the braided-fusion structure as a conjecture, so the entity's full physical content is not yet independently established.
  • Braided-enriched fusion categorical net X(Lambda)=End_X(X^{otimes Lambda cap dL} tensor Phi(A)^{otimes Lambda setminus dL})
    purpose: To act as the boundary algebra of the Walker-Wang model with an A-enriched fusion category topological boundary.
    Defined in Section 4.4 and used to prove DHR_delta(X) is equivalent to the enriched center Z_A(X); its role is structural within the paper's framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holography for bulk-boundary local topological order." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NC7BUGGN

@misc{pith2026250619969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holography for bulk-boundary local topological order},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NC7BUGGN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19969}
}
read the original abstract

In our previous article [arXiv:2307.12552], we introduced local topological order (LTO) axioms for quantum spin systems which allowed us to define a physical boundary (associated to a cut of the lattice) manifested by a net of boundary algebras in one dimension lower. This gives a formal setting for topological holography, where the braided tensor category of DHR bimodules of the physical boundary algebra captures the bulk topological order. In this article, we extend the LTO axioms to quantum spin systems equipped with a topological boundary (domain wall with the trivial phase), again producing a physical boundary algebra for the bulk-boundary system, whose category of (topological) boundary DHR bimodules recovers the topological boundary order. We perform this analysis in explicit detail for Levin-Wen and Walker-Wang bulk-boundary systems. Along the way, we introduce a 2D braided categorical net of algebras built from a unitary braided fusion category (UBFC). Such nets arise as boundary algebras of Walker-Wang models. We consider the canonical state on this braided categorical net corresponding to the standard topological boundary for the Walker-Wang model. Interestingly, in this state, the cone von Neumann algebras are type I with finite dimensional centers, in contrast with the type II and III cone von Neumann algebras from the Levin-Wen models studied in [arXiv:2307.12552]. Their superselection sectors recover the underlying unitary category of our UBFC, and we conjecture the superselection category also captures the fusion and braiding.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A statistical mechanics view on Kitaev's proposal for quantum memories

    [AFH07] R. Alicki, M. Fannes, and M. Horodecki. A statistical mechanics view on Kitaev’s proposal for quan- tum memories.J. Phys. A, 40(24):6451–6467, 2007.MR2345476 DOI:10.1088/1751-8113/40/24/012 arXiv:quant-ph/0702102. [Bae97] John C. Baez. Higher-dimensional algebra. II. 2-Hilbert spaces.Adv. Math., 127(2):125–189,

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  2. [7]

    Boundary algebras of the Kitaev Quantum Double model

    [CHK +24]DOI:10.1063/5.0212164 arXiv:2309.13440. [CHPJP22] Quan Chen, Roberto Hern´ andez Palomares, Corey Jones, and David Penneys. Q-system completion for C ∗ 2-categories.J. Funct. Anal., 283(3):Paper No. 109524, 2022.MR4419534 DOI:10.1016/j.jfa.2022.109524 arXiv:2105.12010. [CHPS21] Desmond Coles, Peter Huston, David Penneys, and Srivatsa Srinivas. Th...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [11]

    Complete W ∗-categories.arXiv:2411.01678,

    [HNP24] Andr´ e Henriques, Nivedita, and David Penneys. Complete W ∗-categories.arXiv:2411.01678,

    arXiv

  4. [13]

    Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997.MR1424954. [BJS21] Adrien Brochier, David Jordan, and Noah Snyder. On dualizability of braided tensor categories.Compos. Math., 157(3):435–483, 2021.MR4228258 DOI:10.1112/s0010437x20007630 arXiv:1804.07538. [BLM04] David P. Blecher and Christian Le Merdy.Operator algebras and their modules—an opera- tor space approac...

    arXiv 1997

  5. [14]

    [Jon83] Vaughan F. R. Jones. Index for subfactors.Invent. Math., 72(1):1–25, 1983.MR696688, DOI:10.1007/BF01389127. 43 [Jon24] Corey Jones. DHR bimodules of quasi-local algebras and symmetric quantum cellular automata.Quantum Topol., 15(3):633–686, 2024.MR4814692 DOI:10.4171/qt/216 arXiv:2304.00068. [JP17] Corey Jones and David Penneys. Operator algebras ...

    arXiv 1983

  6. [15]

    ISBN: 0-521-58420-5, MR1473221

    xii+162 pp. ISBN: 0-521-58420-5, MR1473221. [JSW24] Corey Jones, Kylan Schatz, and Dominic J. Williamson. Quantum cellular automata and categorical dualities of spin chains.arXiv:2410.08884,

    arXiv

  7. [16]

    [Kit97] A. Yu. Kitaev. Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction.Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 52(6(318)):53–112, 1997.MR1611329. [Kit03] A. Yu. Kitaev. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons.Ann. Physics, 303(1):2–30,

    work page 1997

  8. [1989]

    ISBN: 0-387-96979-9,MR999799

    x+288 pp. ISBN: 0-387-96979-9,MR999799. [GHK+24] David Green, Peter Huston, Kyle Kawagoe, David Penneys, Anup Poudel, and Sean Sanford. Enriched string-net models and their excitations.Quantum, 8:1301, 2024.DOI:10.22331/q-2024-03-28-1301 arXiv:2305.14068. [GMP+23] Pinhas Grossman, Scott Morrison, David Penneys, Emily Peters, and Noah Snyder. The Ex- tende...

    arXiv 2024

Show all 20 references
  1. [1996]

    [HBJP23] Peter Huston, Fiona Burnell, Corey Jones, and David Penneys

    Fields, particles, algebras.MR1405610 DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-61458-3. [HBJP23] Peter Huston, Fiona Burnell, Corey Jones, and David Penneys. Composing topological do- main walls and anyon mobility.SciPost Phys., 15(3):Paper No. 076, 85, 2023.MR4640433 doi10.21468/SciPostPhys.15....

    arXiv

  2. [1997]

    [BBC+24] Anupama Bhardwaj, Tristan Brisky, Chian Yeong Chuah, Kyle Kawagoe, Joseph Keslin, David Penneys, and Daniel Wallick

    MR1448713 DOI:10.1006/aima.1997.1617. [BBC+24] Anupama Bhardwaj, Tristan Brisky, Chian Yeong Chuah, Kyle Kawagoe, Joseph Keslin, David Penneys, and Daniel Wallick. Superselection sectors for posets of von Neumann algebras.arXiv:2410.21454,

    1997

  3. [2003]

    [KJS+24] Kyle Kawagoe, Corey Jones, Sean Sanford, David Green, and David Penneys

    MR1951039 DOI:10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00018-0 arXiv:quant-ph/9707021. [KJS+24] Kyle Kawagoe, Corey Jones, Sean Sanford, David Green, and David Penneys. Levin-Wen is a Gauge Theory: Entanglement from Topology.Comm. Math. Phys., 405(11):Paper No. 266, 2024.MR4808260 DOI:10.1007/s0...

    arXiv

  4. [2004]

    [CFH+24] Quan Chen, Giovanni Ferrer, Brett Hungar, David Penneys, and Sean Sanford

    Oxford Science Publications,MR2111973 DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198526599.001.0001. [CFH+24] Quan Chen, Giovanni Ferrer, Brett Hungar, David Penneys, and Sean Sanford. Manifestly unitary higher Hilbert spaces.arXiv:2410.05120,

  5. [2009]

    [HP17] Andr´ e Henriques and David Penneys

    arXiv:0907.2204. [HP17] Andr´ e Henriques and David Penneys. Bicommutant categories from fusion categories.Selecta Math. (N.S.), 23(3):1669–1708, 2017.MR3663592 DOI:10.1007/s00029-016-0251-0 arXiv:1511.05226. [HP23] Andr´ e Henriques and David Penneys. Representations of fusio...

    2017 arXiv

  6. [2013]

    [Sel11] P

    MR3019263 DOI:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2013.01.013 arXiv:1206.5716. [Sel11] P. Selinger. A survey of graphical languages for monoidal categories. InNew structures for physics, volume 813 ofLecture Notes in Phys., pages 289–355. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011.MR2767048 DOI:10.1007/978-3-...

    2013 arXiv

  7. [2017]

    [NY16] Sergey Neshveyev and Makoto Yamashita

    A concise introduction.MR3617688 DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-51458-1. [NY16] Sergey Neshveyev and Makoto Yamashita. Drinfeld center and representation theory for monoidal categories.Comm. Math. Phys., 345(1):385–434, 2016.MR3509018 DOI:10.1007/s00220-016-2642-7 arXiv:1501.07390. [Og...

    2016 arXiv

  8. [2018]

    Drinfeld center of enriched monoidal categories.Adv

    [KZ18b] Liang Kong and Hao Zheng. Drinfeld center of enriched monoidal categories.Adv. Math., 323:411–426, 2018.1704.01447 DOI:10.1016/j.aim.2017.10.038 arXiv:1704.01447. [LLB21] Chien-Hung Lin, Michael Levin, and Fiona J. Burnell. Generalized string-net models: A thorough exp...

    2018

  9. [2020]

    [Pop90] Sorin Popa

    MR4133163 arXiv:1808.00323. [Pop90] Sorin Popa. Classification of subfactors: the reduction to commuting squares.Invent. Math., 101(1):19– 43, 1990.MR1055708,DOI:10.1007/BF01231494. [Pop94] Sorin Popa. Symmetric enveloping algebras, amenability and AFD properties for subfactor...

    1990 arXiv

  10. [2023]

    [DGGJ22] Paramita Das, Mainak Ghosh, Shamindra Ghosh, and Corey Jones

    DOI:10.1103/PhysRevB.107.155136 arXiv:2203.03596. [DGGJ22] Paramita Das, Mainak Ghosh, Shamindra Ghosh, and Corey Jones. Unitary connections on Bratteli di- agrams.DOI:10.1142/S1793525323500589 arXiv:2211.03822, to appear Journal of Topology and Anal- ysis,

    arXiv

  11. [2024]

    Bridgeman, and Corey Jones

    [BBJ19] Daniel Barter, Jacob C. Bridgeman, and Corey Jones. Domain walls in topological phases and the Brauer-Picard ring for Vec(Z/pZ).Comm. Math. Phys., 369(3):1167–1185, 2019.MR3975865 DOI:10.1007/s00220-019-03338-2. [BCE+25] Marcel Bischoff, Ian Charlesworth, Samuel Evingt...

    2019 doi

  12. [2025]

    [BH11] Sergey Bravyi and Matthew B

    MR4916103 DOI:10.4171/dm/1011 arXiv:2010.01067. [BH11] Sergey Bravyi and Matthew B. Hastings. A short proof of stability of topological order under local perturbations.Comm. Math. Phys., 307(3):609–627, 2011.MR2842961 DOI:10.1007/s00220-011-1346-2 arXiv:1001.4363. [BHM10] Serg...

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

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