Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Anomaly diagnosis via symmetry restriction in two-dimensional lattice systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that any finite symmetry group acting on a 2D lattice by finite-depth quantum circuits carries a computable anomaly class [ω] ∈ H^4(G,U(1)), and that a nontrivial class rules out a unique, gapped, symmetric ground state.

desk verdict A genuine 2D generalization of the Else-Nayak anomaly index, but the obstruction theorem has a real proof gap in Lemma 4.3, stricter than the caveat the authors already flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07430 v2 pith:LGYNPTCI submitted 2025-07-10 cond-mat.str-el hep-thmath-phmath.MP

Kyle Kawagoe , Wilbur Shirley This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elhep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords anomalysymmetryrestrictionfinite-depthquantumcircuitscellularautomataGNVWindexgroupcohomologysymmetry-protectedtopologicalorder2Dlatticesystems
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 claims that any finite unitary symmetry group acting on a 2D lattice by finite-depth quantum circuits carries a well-defined anomaly class [ω] in $H^{4}$(G,U(1)), and that a nontrivial class rules out a symmetric, gapped, local Hamiltonian with a unique invertible ground state. If true, every system with nontrivial [ω] must instead be gapless, spontaneously symmetry-broken, or topologically ordered. The method also produces a secondary class [ν] in $H^{2}$(G,Q+) that obstructs making the symmetry on-site but does not by itself constrain the low-energy spectrum. A worked example with G = Z2×Z2×Z2×Z2 computes the symmetry's anomaly as a nonzero 4-cocycle, showing the method in action.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is symmetry restriction with iterative boundary reduction. Each symmetry operator U_g is restricted to a large disk A, giving U^A_g; products of restricted operators fail the group law by a 1D quantum cellular automaton Ω_{g,h} supported near the boundary. The GNVW index of Ω_{g,h} gives the $H^{2}$(G,Q+) class, and after tensoring with canonical translation operators to cancel that index, a further restriction to an interval I and then to a point a converts the associativity failure into a phase ω(g,h,k,l). The paper proves this phase satisfies the 4-cocycle condition and that changing the arbitrary restriction choices changes ω only by a 4-coboundary.

What would settle it

Construct a 2D bosonic lattice model with a finite unitary symmetry G, a unique gapped invertible ground state, and a G-symmetric local Hamiltonian, for which the paper's restriction procedure yields a nontrivial 4-cocycle [ω] ∈ $H^{4}$(G,U(1)).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the anomaly of a 2D lattice symmetry can be diagnosed by spatially restricting the symmetry operators to a disk and then to a boundary interval, and that the failure of the restricted operators to form a group representation assembles into a 4-cocycle ω : $G^{4}$ → U(1). The cohomology class [ω] is independent of the arbitrary choices made during restriction, so it is a genuine invariant of the symmetry action. The paper proves Theorem 4.1: if the symmetry admits a G-symmetric invertible state, then [ω] must be trivial. Therefore a nontrivial [ω] is an obstruction to a trivially gapped symmetric phase and to an on-site realization of the symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that a nontrivial index rules out a trivially gapped symmetric Hamiltonian assumes the entire restriction procedure and the lemmas of Section 4 still work when quantum cellular automata and finite-depth circuits preserve locality only up to exponentially decaying tails, an extension the authors state they do not treat rigorously.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A nontrivial anomaly class [ω] in H^4(G,U(1)) implies the symmetry cannot have a unique, symmetric, gapped, invertible ground state; the system must be gapless, spontaneously symmetry-broken, or topologically ordered.
  • The method gives a concrete way to identify 3D symmetry-protected topological phases through their 2D boundary theories, whenever the boundary has a tensor-product Hilbert space.
  • The secondary index [ν] in H^2(G,Q+) is an obstruction to onsiteability but not to a trivially gapped symmetric Hamiltonian, so the two indices must be treated separately.
  • The anomaly indices are additive under stacking of G-symmetric systems.
  • The procedure generalizes the Else–Nayak index for 1D systems and reduces to their earlier 2D solution for 'nearly on-site' symmetries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the completeness question the paper leaves open is answered affirmatively, the equivalence classes of 2D G-representations would be fully classified by the pair ([ν], [ω]) in H^2(G,Q+) × H^4(G,U(1)).
  • The diagrammatic 3-cube formulation suggests that the anomaly formula is the lowest-dimensional case of a higher-categorical pasting structure, which could extend to a generalized-cohomology classification of symmetries in all spatial dimensions.
  • Because the procedure computes [ν] as a byproduct, it can identify symmetries that are obstructed from being on-site yet are not anomalous, a distinction that matters for deciding whether a symmetric gapped ground state is allowed.
  • One testable extension would be to apply the restriction procedure to known 3D SPT surface theories and verify that the resulting 4-cocycle matches the bulk cohomology label.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a procedure to compute an anomaly index [omega] in H^4(G,U(1)) and a GNVW-type index [nu] in H^2(G,Q_+) for a finite unitary symmetry group G acting by finite-depth quantum circuits on a two-dimensional lattice. The procedure restricts the symmetry operators to a disk and an interval, records the failure of the restricted operators to form a representation, and packages the resulting phase data into a 4-cocycle; the appendices prove the 4-cocycle condition and analyze the coboundary ambiguities. The authors then argue that a nontrivial [omega] is incompatible with the existence of a G-symmetric invertible ground state, illustrate the method on a Z_2^4 example, and provide a diagrammatic interpretation of the anomaly formula.

Significance. The algebraic core of the paper is a substantial generalization of the 1D Else-Nayak construction, and the worked example reproduces a known type-IV anomaly class without any fitted parameters. If the obstruction theorem can be made rigorous, the paper would supply a widely applicable diagnostic for 2D anomalies and a practical tool for identifying bulk 3D SPT order from boundary data. The self-contained proof of the 4-cocycle condition and the explicit treatment of coboundary ambiguities are genuine strengths. The main limitation is that the dynamical obstruction is proven only under stated unproved assumptions, which currently weakens the central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, opening paragraph before Theorem 4.1] Theorem 4.1 is explicitly conditional on an unproved extension of the entire index construction to QCAs and FDQCs with tails, and the authors state that finite-size effects from the lack of strict locality are not treated rigorously. Since the abstract claims 'We show that a nontrivial index precludes' without this caveat, the theorem as stated is not established. Please either supply the missing rigor or reformulate the theorem and the abstract as a conditional result or conjecture.
  2. [Lemma 4.3, Eq. (36)] The product-state proof asserts that |psi'> = Omega^I |psi> decomposes as |phi>_a tensor |phi>_b tensor |psi>_C, but the manuscript does not explain why the action of Omega^I in the bulk of I is harmless. This step is load-bearing because Lemma 4.3 is invoked twice in the proof of Theorem 4.1. The assertion can be justified under strict locality by noting that Omega^I and Omega coincide on the complement C of the endpoint disks and that Omega |psi> = |psi>, which forces the reduced density matrix of Omega^I |psi> on C to be the pure product density matrix |psi>_C <psi|_C. Please add this argument; without it the proof is incomplete.
  3. [Section 4, immediately before Theorem 4.1] The reduction of arbitrary SRE states to product states assumes that every SRE state can be disentangled by an FDQC without tensoring in an ancillary product state. The authors write that they will ignore the need for ancillas, but this is an assumption rather than a proven fact, and Lemmas 4.2-4.4 rely on it. Please provide a proof or reference for this assumption, or weaken the theorem and its surrounding claims accordingly.
  4. [Step 8, Eq. (28)] The claim that Delta^a_{g,h,(k,l)} is independent of the choices of intervals L,R and of the splitting Omega^I = Omega^L Omega^R is asserted but not demonstrated. This independence is needed for the output 4-cocycle to be well-defined. Please include the short argument, for example by expressing Delta^a as a commutator pairing and noting that a different choice of Omega^L differs only near the interior point c, which is far from a.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Step 6] The sentence 'For every 4-tuple g, h, k, k in G' should read 'g, h, k, l in G'.
  2. [Section 2, after Eq. (1)] The phrase 'By definition, U^A is supported in Ext(A)' is confusing, since Eq. (1) makes U^A act as the identity on Ext(A); please restate this as support in the complement of Ext(A), i.e., near A.
  3. [Lemma 4.2 proof, around Eq. (34)] The statement that |phi>_{partial A} is a 1D invertible state because (U^{A\B})^{-1}(|phi>_{partial A} tensor |phi>_{partial B}) = |psi>_{partial A cup partial B} is compressed; a brief explanation that the reduced state on one 1D region is pure and invertible would improve clarity.
  4. [Appendix C] The proof of the 4-cocycle condition is dense; adding a one-sentence outline at the beginning, indicating which two parenthesizations of the product of five Gamma factors are compared, would make the calculation much more readable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the anomaly index is computed directly from the symmetry operators, and the obstruction theorem is not built into the definition of the index.

full rationale

The paper's central construction is self-contained: the anomaly 4-cocycle is defined by the explicit formula (29) from the operators U_g^A, Omega^I_{g,h}, Gamma^a_{g,h,k}, and Delta^a_{g,h,(k,l)}, which are all derived from the given symmetry operators {U_g}. The arbitrary choices in the procedure are shown, in Section 3.3 and Appendix D, to change the output only by coboundaries, so the cohomology class [omega] is a function of the input symmetry action rather than a quantity fitted to the desired conclusion. The illustrative example is benchmarked against the previously known 'type-IV' anomaly in H^4(Z_2^4, U(1)) via Eq. (48), which is an independent check rather than a relabeling of a known result. The paper's self-citations are not load-bearing for the main derivation: Ref. [20] is background on 1D F-symbol methods, Ref. [28] is cited for the contrast that 1D anomalies are a complete onsiteability obstruction, and Ref. [31] is used only to contextualize the auxiliary H^2(G, Q_+) index. None of these citations supplies the definition of [omega], the cocycle condition, or the obstruction theorem. The paper also openly flags a limitation in Section 4: the procedure is assumed to extend to QCAs and FDQCs 'with tails', with the statement 'there are subtleties involving finite size effects arising from the lack of strict locality; we do not attempt a rigorous treatment here.' Likewise, the product-state decomposition (36) in Lemma 4.3 is asserted rather than proven, which is a potential proof gap in the obstruction argument. These are correctness risks, not circularity: the theorem does not assume the existence of a gapped symmetric state in order to define or trivialize [omega]. The derivation chain is therefore not circular, and no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new physical entities. The arbitrary spatial choices are shown to affect only coboundaries. The principal unproved input is the tail-locality extension assumed in Section 4; the remaining axioms are standard QCA, cohomology, and 1D state facts drawn from the cited literature.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The GNVW index classifies 1D QCAs modulo FDQCs and remains well defined for QCAs with tails.
    Used in Section 3.2 and Section 4; from Refs. [29,34,37].
  • domain assumption Every FDQC admits restrictions to arbitrary finite regions, and restricted operators are supported near the region's boundary.
    Used in Steps 2, 5, and 7 of the procedure; cited to Ref. [34].
  • ad hoc to paper The anomaly computation can be extended to QCAs and FDQCs with tails.
    Assumed at the start of Section 4, with the caveat 'we do not attempt a rigorous treatment here'. This is load-bearing for Theorem 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper In the proof of Theorem 4.1, SRE states can be trivialized to product states without ancillary systems.
    Section 4 states this is 'not strictly necessary' and made to streamline the proof; the result is meant to hold without it.
  • standard math Every 1D bosonic invertible state is short-range entangled.
    Used in Lemma 4.2; cited to Ref. [41].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomaly diagnosis via symmetry restriction in two-dimensional lattice systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGYNPTCI

@misc{pith2026250707430,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomaly diagnosis via symmetry restriction in two-dimensional lattice systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGYNPTCI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07430}
}
abstract

We describe a method for computing the anomaly of any finite unitary symmetry group $G$ acting by finite-depth quantum circuits on a two-dimensional lattice system. The anomaly is characterized by an index valued in the cohomology group $H^4(G,U(1))$, which generalizes the Else-Nayak index for locality preserving symmetries of quantum spin chains. We show that a nontrivial index precludes the existence of a trivially gapped symmetric Hamiltonian; it is also an obstruction to ``onsiteability" of the symmetry action. We illustrate our method via a simple example with $G=\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$. Finally, we provide a diagrammatic interpretation of the anomaly formula which hints at a higher categorical structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07430 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spatial arrangement of the disk A, interval I ∈ ∂A, and its endpoints a and b. near ∂A, the operator ΣU A is also a valid restriction of U to A. 10 Moreover, there is no canonical restriction of U—in general, a choice of restriction of U is inherently arbitrary. 3 The anomaly index In this section, we explain our procedure for computing the anomaly of a finite group G￾symmetry in a 2D lattice system. Before delving … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Decomposition of the interval I into two subintervals L = [a, c] and R = [c, b]. The function ν : G × G → Q+ is a 2-cocycle, i.e. it satisfies condition (55). 4. Introduce an ancillary Hilbert space H∂A describing a 1D chain of qudits living along ∂A, and define the enlarged Hilbert space H′ = H ⊗ H∂A. Define a canonical 1D QCA Tg,h on H∂A with GNVW index ν(g, h) −1 . Finally let Ω′ g,h = Ωg,h ⊗ Tg,h, which is a 1D … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Geometry used in the proof of Lemma 4.2. Here, A is the disk whose boundary is the outer solid line, and B is the disk whose boundary is the inner solid line. The region Ext lies outside the outermost dashed circle, and the region Int lies inside the innermost dashed circle. The annulus ∂A lies between the middle and outer dashed lines (shaded red region), whereas the annulus ∂B lies between the inner and middle das… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Triangular lattice divided into three triangular sublattices Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Exactly Solvable 1+1d Chiral Lattice Gauge Theories

    hep-th 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Anomaly-free chiral U(1) gauge theories in 1+1 dimensions can be written as quadratic, exactly solvable lattice Hamiltonians, with the 34-50 model as an explicit example.

  2. Anomaly-free symmetries with obstructions to gauging and onsiteability

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new class of two-dimensional lattice symmetries is anomaly-free yet obstructs both gauging and on-site realization, with the obstruction classified by H^2(G,Q+).

  3. On two-dimensional tensor network group symmetries

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Tensor network representations of finite group symmetries with a 4-cocycle index are introduced, and their associated gapped phases and SPT models are characterized.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    E. H. Lieb, T. Schultz and D. Mattis, Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain, Annals Phys. 16, 407 (1961), doi:10.1016/0003-4916(61)90115-4

    doi:10.1016/0003-4916(61)90115-4 1961

  2. [2]

    Affleck and E

    I. Affleck and E. H. Lieb, A Proof of Part of Haldane’s Conjecture on Spin Chains , Lett. Math. Phys. 12, 57 (1986), doi:10.1007/BF00400304. 27

    doi:10.1007/bf00400304 1986

  3. [3]

    Oshikawa, Commensurability, Excitation Gap, and Topology in Quantum Many- Particle Systems on a Periodic Lattice , Phys

    M. Oshikawa, Commensurability, Excitation Gap, and Topology in Quantum Many- Particle Systems on a Periodic Lattice , Phys. Rev. Lett. 84(7), 1535 (2000), doi:10.1103/physrevlett.84.1535

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.84.1535 2000

  4. [4]

    M. B. Hastings, Lieb-Schultz-Mattis in higher dimensions , Phys. Rev. B 69, 104431 (2004), doi:10.1103/physrevb.69.104431, cond-mat/0305505

    arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    Ogata and H

    Y. Ogata and H. Tasaki, Lieb–schultz–mattis type theorems for quantum spin chains without continuous symmetry , Communications in Mathematical Physics 372(3), 951–962 (2019), doi:10.1007/s00220-019-03343-5

    doi:10.1007/s00220-019-03343-5 2019

  6. [6]

    Ogata, Y

    Y. Ogata, Y. Tachikawa and H. Tasaki, General Lieb–Schultz–Mattis Type The- orems for Quantum Spin Chains , Commun. Math. Phys. 385(1), 79 (2021), doi:10.1007/s00220-021-04116-9, 2004.06458

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Kapustin and N

    A. Kapustin and N. Sopenko, Anomalous symmetries of quantum spin chains and a generalization of the lieb-schultz-mattis theorem , doi:10.48550/arXiv.2401.02533 (2024), 2401.02533

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.02533 2024

  8. [8]

    C. G. Callan Jr and J. A. Harvey, Anomalies and fermion zero modes on strings and domain walls , Nuclear Physics B 250(1-4), 427 (1985), doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(85)90489-4

    doi:10.1016/0550- 1985

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    S. Ryu, J. E. Moore and A. W. W. Ludwig, Electromagnetic and gravitational re- sponses and anomalies in topological insulators and superconductors, Physical Review B 85(4) (2012), doi:10.1103/physrevb.85.045104

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Levin and Z.-C

    M. Levin and Z.-C. Gu, Braiding statistics approach to symmetry-protected topological phases, Physical Review B 86(11) (2012), doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.115109

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu and X.-G. Wen, Symmetry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group, Physical Review B 87(15) (2013), doi:10.1103/physrevb.87.155114

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Vishwanath and T

    A. Vishwanath and T. Senthil, Physics of three-dimensional bosonic topological in- sulators: Surface-deconfined criticality and quantized magnetoelectric effect , Physical Review X 3(1) (2013), doi:10.1103/physrevx.3.011016

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    X.-G. Wen, Classifying gauge anomalies through symmetry-protected trivial orders and classifying gravitational anomalies through topological orders, Physical Review D 88(4) (2013), doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.045013

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen, Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin systems , Physical Review B 83(3) (2011), doi:10.1103/physrevb.83.035107

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    Schuch, D

    N. Schuch, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa and I. Cirac,Classifying quantum phases using matrix product states and projected entangled pair states , Physical Review B 84(16) (2011), doi:10.1103/physrevb.84.165139

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Pollmann, E

    F. Pollmann, E. Berg, A. M. Turner and M. Oshikawa, Symmetry protection of topological phases in one-dimensional quantum spin systems , Physical Review B 85(7) (2012), doi:10.1103/physrevb.85.075125. 28

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    Kapustin and R

    A. Kapustin and R. Thorngren, Anomalous discrete symmetries in three di- mensions and group cohomology , Physical Review Letters 112(23) (2014), doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.231602

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    D. V. Else and C. Nayak, Classifying symmetry-protected topological phases through the anomalous action of the symmetry on the edge , Phys. Rev. B 90, 235137 (2014), doi:10.1103/physrevb.90.235137

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    Chen, Z.-X

    X. Chen, Z.-X. Liu and X.-G. Wen, Two-dimensional symmetry-protected topological orders and their protected gapless edge excitations , Physical Review B 84(23) (2011), doi:10.1103/physrevb.84.235141

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    Kawagoe and M

    K. Kawagoe and M. Levin, Anomalies in bosonic symmetry-protected topological edge theories: Connection to f-symbols and a method of calculation , Physical Review B 104(11) (2021), doi:10.1103/physrevb.104.115156

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Seifnashri, Lieb-schultz-mattis anomalies as obstructions to gauging (non-on-site) symmetries, SciPost Physics 16(4) (2024), doi:10.21468/scipostphys.16.4.098

    S. Seifnashri, Lieb-schultz-mattis anomalies as obstructions to gauging (non-on-site) symmetries, SciPost Physics 16(4) (2024), doi:10.21468/scipostphys.16.4.098

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    O. M. Sule, X. Chen and S. Ryu, Symmetry-protected topological phases and orbifolds: Generalized laughlin ’s argument , Phys. Rev. B 88, 075125 (2013), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.88.075125

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Bultinck, R

    N. Bultinck, R. Vanhove, J. Haegeman and F. Verstraete, Global anomaly detection in two-dimensional symmetry-protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 156601 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.156601

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Tiwari, X

    A. Tiwari, X. Chen, K. Shiozaki and S. Ryu, Bosonic topological phases of mat- ter: Bulk-boundary correspondence, symmetry protected topological invariants, and gauging, Phys. Rev. B 97, 245133 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.97.245133

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Lin and S.-H

    Y.-H. Lin and S.-H. Shao, 𭟋N symmetries, anomalies, and the modular bootstrap , Phys. Rev. D 103, 125001 (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.125001

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Hsieh, O

    C.-T. Hsieh, O. M. Sule, G. Y. Cho, S. Ryu and R. G. Leigh, Symmetry-protected topological phases, generalized laughlin argument, and orientifolds , Phys. Rev. B 90, 165134 (2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.90.165134

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Kobayashi, Y

    R. Kobayashi, Y. Li, H. Xue, P.-S. Hsin and Y.-A. Chen, Generalized statistics on lattice, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.01886 (2025), 2412.01886

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Seifnashri and W

    S. Seifnashri and W. Shirley, Disentangling anomaly-free symmetries of quantum spin chains, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.09717 (2025), 2503.09717

    2025 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gross, V

    D. Gross, V. Nesme, H. Vogts and R. F. Werner, Index theory of one dimensional quantum walks and cellular automata , Communications in Mathematical Physics 310(2), 419–454 (2012), doi:10.1007/s00220-012-1423-1

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    Kapustin, Higher symmetries and anomalies in quantum lattice systems , doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.04719 (2025), 2505.04719

    A. Kapustin, Higher symmetries and anomalies in quantum lattice systems , doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.04719 (2025), 2505.04719

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Shirley, C

    W. Shirley, C. Zhang, W. Ji and M. Levin, In preparation

  24. [32]

    Farrelly, A review of quantum cellular automata , Quantum 4, 368 (2020), doi:10.22331/q-2020-11-30-368

    T. Farrelly, A review of quantum cellular automata , Quantum 4, 368 (2020), doi:10.22331/q-2020-11-30-368. 29

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    J. Haah, L. Fidkowski and M. B. Hastings, Nontrivial quantum cellular automata in higher dimensions , Communications in Mathematical Physics 398(1), 469–540 (2022), doi:10.1007/s00220-022-04528-1

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Freedman and M

    M. Freedman and M. B. Hastings, Classification of quantum cellular automata , Com- munications in Mathematical Physics 376(2), 1171–1222 (2020), doi:10.1007/s00220- 020-03735-y

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    K. S. Brown, Cohomology of Groups , vol. 87 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics , Springer, ISBN 978-0-387-90688-1, doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-9327-6 (1982)

    1982 doi

  28. [36]

    Muger, Conformal orbifold theories and braided crossed G-categories , Com- mun

    M. Muger, Conformal orbifold theories and braided crossed G-categories , Com- mun. Math. Phys. 260, 727 (2005), doi:10.1007/s00220-005-1291-z, [Erratum: Com- mun.Math.Phys. 260, 763 (2005)], math/0403322

    2005 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ranard, M

    D. Ranard, M. Walter and F. Witteveen, A converse to lieb–robinson bounds in one dimension using index theory , Annales Henri Poincar´ e 23(11), 3905–3979 (2022), doi:10.1007/s00023-022-01193-x

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Kitaev, Toward topological classification of phases with short-range entanglement , Lecture at KITP (2011), doi:https://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/topomat11/kitaev

    A. Kitaev, Toward topological classification of phases with short-range entanglement , Lecture at KITP (2011), doi:https://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/topomat11/kitaev

    2011

  31. [39]

    Kitaev, On the classification of short-range entangled states , Lecture at SCGP (2013), doi:http://scgp.stonybrook.edu/archives/7874

    A. Kitaev, On the classification of short-range entangled states , Lecture at SCGP (2013), doi:http://scgp.stonybrook.edu/archives/7874

    2013

  32. [40]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen, Local unitary transformation, long-range quantum entanglement, wave function renormalization, and topological order , Physical Review B 82(15) (2010), doi:10.1103/physrevb.82.155138

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Kapustin, N

    A. Kapustin, N. Sopenko and B. Yang, A classification of invertible phases of bosonic quantum lattice systems in one dimension , Journal of Mathematical Physics 62(8) (2021), doi:10.1063/5.0055996

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Unpaired majorana fermions in quantum wires , Physics-Uspekhi 44(10S), 131–136 (2001), doi:10.1070/1063-7869/44/10s/s29

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    Yoshida, Gapped boundaries, group cohomology and fault-tolerant logical gates , Annals of Physics 377, 387–413 (2017), doi:10.1016/j.aop.2016.12.014

    B. Yoshida, Gapped boundaries, group cohomology and fault-tolerant logical gates , Annals of Physics 377, 387–413 (2017), doi:10.1016/j.aop.2016.12.014

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    de Wild Propitius, Topological interactions in broken gauge theories , doi:10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/9511195 (1995), hep-th/9511195

    M. de Wild Propitius, Topological interactions in broken gauge theories , doi:10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/9511195 (1995), hep-th/9511195

    1995 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Wang and M

    C. Wang and M. Levin, Topological invariants for gauge theories and symmetry-protected topological phases , Physical Review B 91(16) (2015), doi:10.1103/physrevb.91.165119

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    Chen, Y.-M

    X. Chen, Y.-M. Lu and A. Vishwanath, Symmetry-protected topological phases from decorated domain walls , Nature Communications 5(1) (2014), doi:10.1038/ncomms4507

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    D. M. Long and D. V. Else, Topological phases of many-body localized systems: Beyond eigenstate order, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2408.00825 (2024), 2408.00825

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Gaiotto and T

    D. Gaiotto and T. Johnson-Freyd, Symmetry protected topological phases and generalized cohomology , Journal of High Energy Physics 2019(5) (2019), doi:10.1007/jhep05(2019)007. 30

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    majorana

    R. A. Jones and M. A. Metlitski, 1d lattice models for the boundary of 2d “majorana” fermion spts: Kramers-wannier duality as an exact z2 symmetry, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1902.05957 (2019), 1902.05957

    2019 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg and B. Willett, Generalized global symmetries , Journal of High Energy Physics 2015(2) (2015), doi:10.1007/jhep02(2015)172

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    McGreevy, Generalized symmetries in condensed matter , Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14(1), 57–82 (2023), doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys- 040721-021029

    J. McGreevy, Generalized symmetries in condensed matter , Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14(1), 57–82 (2023), doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys- 040721-021029

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Cordova, T

    C. Cordova, T. T. Dumitrescu, K. Intriligator and S.-H. Shao, Snow- mass white paper: Generalized symmetries in quantum field theory and beyond , doi:10.48550/arXiv.2205.09545 (2022), 2205.09545

    2022 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    Khalaf, H

    E. Khalaf, H. C. Po, A. Vishwanath and H. Watanabe, Symmetry indicators and anomalous surface states of topological crystalline insulators , Phys. Rev. X 8, 031070 (2018), doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.031070

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Song, S.-J

    H. Song, S.-J. Huang, L. Fu and M. Hermele, Topological phases protected by point group symmetry, Physical Review X 7(1) (2017), doi:10.1103/physrevx.7.011020

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    A. M. Czajka, R. Geiko and R. Thorngren, In preparation . 31

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.