Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 56 references

A Z4^{×3}-symmetric SPT paramagnet is shown to have a gapless edge whose continuum limit matches the SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3 coset CFT.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:58 UTC pith:JLK3IZMN

load-bearing objection The Z4×3 cocycle construction is a genuine extension of the Z3 program, but the DMRG c≈11/5 claim appears to come from simulating only one of two decoupled boundary chains, so the full edge central charge would be about 4.38. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.18460 v2 pith:JLK3IZMN submitted 2025-12-20 cond-mat.str-el hep-thmath-phmath.MP

Topological edge states in two-dimensional mathbb{Z}₄ Potts paramagnet protected by the mathbb{Z}₄^(times 3) symmetry

Hrant Topchyan , Tigran Hakobyan , Mkhitar Mirumyan , Tigran A. Sedrakyan , Ara Sedrakyan This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el hep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords symmetry-protected topological phasesPotts modelgroup cohomologyboundary CFTcentral chargecoset CFTDMRGgapless edge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper constructs a two-dimensional symmetry-protected topological (SPT) paramagnet with on-site Z4^{×3} symmetry, starting from a paramagnetic three-component Z4 Potts model on a triangular lattice. The goal is to show that this phase has a nontrivial, gapless boundary and to identify the conformal field theory describing that boundary. The authors pick an antisymmetrized 'colorless' 3-cocycle that generates an order-two element of H^3(Z4^{×3},U(1)), apply a cocycle-induced nonlocal unitary and symmetry averaging, and derive the exact boundary Hamiltonian: one color sector decouples, and the nontrivial edge reduces to a single interacting Z4 chain with next-to-nearest-neighbor constraints. DMRG on open chains finds the boundary gapless, with the lowest gap scaling as 1/L and entanglement entropy consistent with c=2.191(4) ≈ 11/5, matching the coset SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3. The paper argues this coset CFT is the continuum description of the edge, while noting that confirming it requires matching conformal towers beyond the central charge.

Core claim

The central claim is that the boundary of the Z4^{×3} SPT paramagnet built from the antisymmetrized cocycle ω^a_3 is gapless, and that its low-energy limit is the rational conformal field theory with central charge c=11/5, realized as the coset SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3. The paper derives the boundary Hamiltonian exactly, showing that the color-A sector decouples while the B,C sectors combine into a single translation-invariant Z4 chain, Eqs. (20)–(21), in a dressed-Potts form with next-to-nearest-neighbor constraints. DMRG calculations for open chains of sizes up to about 160 sites provide evidence for gaplessness: the lowest excitation gap closes as 1/L and the entanglement-entropy profile follows t

What carries the argument

The central object is the antisymmetrized 3-cocycle ω^a_3(n1,n2,n3)=i^{n1^A(n2^B n3^C - n2^C n3^B)}, an order-two representative in the 'colorless' Z4 factor of H^3(Z4^{×3},U(1))≅Z4^{×7}. This cocycle generates the nonlocal unitary U in Eq. (11); symmetry averaging over the full group restores the on-site Z4^{×3} symmetry and produces the SPT bulk Hamiltonian. The antisymmetry property (16) guarantees a shape-independent edge Hamiltonian. The argument then rests on an explicit reduction of the boundary Hamiltonian to a single Z4 chain with next-to-nearest-neighbor constraints, Eq. (21), a compact dressed-Potts form amenable to DMRG. The numerical analysis uses standard open-chain CFT finite-

Load-bearing premise

The boundary reduction is exact—after the color-A sector decouples, the remaining degrees of freedom form the single dressed-Potts Z4 chain of Eqs. (20)–(21) with no extra boundary couplings from the nonlocal unitary or symmetrization—and the open-chain DMRG data for lengths up to ~160 are in the CFT scaling regime described by Eqs. (22)–(23).

What would settle it

A periodic-boundary DMRG or exact-diagonalization study resolving the low-lying spectrum and momenta would settle the CFT identification: if the bulk weights and momentum quantization do not match the SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3 coset towers, or if larger-system open-chain DMRG yields a central charge that deviates from 11/5 beyond error bars, the proposal is falsified. A direct check of the boundary reduction would verify whether the full symmetrized boundary Hamiltonian contains terms beyond Eq. (21) when the decoupling approximation is not imposed.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the construction is correct, the Z4^{×3} SPT phase cannot have a symmetry-preserving trivially gapped boundary; the edge must remain gapless, and the c=11/5 CFT is a concrete prediction for its low-energy sector.
  • The one-dimensional chain in Eq. (21) is a new critical lattice model with next-to-nearest-neighbor interactions; its predicted central charge c=11/5 can be tested independently by exact diagonalization or other tensor-network methods.
  • A full confirmation requires matching several low-lying boundary scaling dimensions and degeneracies to the SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3 conformal towers; the paper's preliminary estimate h1^b≈0.04 is expected to be refined by periodic-boundary calculations.
  • The same cocycle and symmetrization procedure can be extended to the remaining six generators of H^3(Z4^{×3},U(1)); the paper leaves that extension to future work, and each generator may yield its own boundary theory.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the coset identification survives tower matching, the dressed-Potts Hamiltonian (21) becomes a lattice realization of the SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3 coset universality class, which would be a useful new representative for studying this rational CFT.
  • The decoupling of the color-A sector suggests a factorization structure in the full three-color edge; a testable question is whether the complete boundary spectrum factorizes into a trivial sector and the nontrivial Z4 chain, and whether any residual coupling between sectors affects the 1/L gap.
  • The current boundary scaling dimension h1^b≈0.04 does not match the simplest coset operators; if this persists at larger sizes, it would indicate that the open boundary realizes a nontrivial conformal boundary condition, and identifying that condition could become a separate problem.
  • Applying the antisymmetrization trick to other cocycles in the Z4^{×7} classification may yield a family of critical edges with different central charges, potentially mapping the full cohomology group to a zoo of boundary CFTs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a two-dimensional bosonic SPT Hamiltonian for the on-site symmetry group G = Z_4^{×3}, starting from a three-component Z_4 Potts paramagnet on a triangular lattice. The construction uses a group-cocycle unitary generated by an antisymmetrized 'colorless' 3-cocycle, followed by symmetrization over G. For an open geometry the authors derive an effective boundary Hamiltonian and claim that, after one color sector decouples, the nontrivial edge reduces to a single interacting Z_4 chain with next-to-nearest-neighbor constraints. DMRG on this chain is reported to show gaplessness with the lowest gap scaling as 1/L and an entanglement entropy compatible with central charge c = 2.191(4) ≈ 11/5, which the authors identify as a candidate for the SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3 coset CFT. The paper concludes that this is strong evidence for the coset description, while acknowledging that operator-content matching is still needed.

Significance. If correct, this would extend the Z_3 and Z_3^{×3} SPT edge constructions of Refs. [44–46] to Z_4^{×3} and provide a concrete lattice realization of a gapless edge whose low-energy theory is the c = 11/5 coset CFT. The algebraic parts of the paper are explicit and checkable: the cocycle is written down in Eq. (14), the boundary reduction is carried through Eqs. (17)–(21), and the DMRG data are presented in a form that invites comparison with Eq. (22). The evidence for gaplessness (decreasing 1/L gap) is plausible and is not the main point of concern. However, the central quantitative claim that the full Z_4^{×3} edge has c = 11/5 is undermined by a structural mismatch between the boundary Hilbert space derived in Sec. II and the one-chain model actually simulated in Sec. III. The paper's own derivation indicates that the B/C sector splits into two decoupled Z_4 chains for the open, even-length geometries used in the DMRG, so the reported c is at best the central charge of one of those chains, not of the full edge.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.C (after Eq. (19)) and Sec. III (Fig. 3)] The full B/C sector of the edge does not reduce to the single chain (21) that is simulated. Equation (19) shows that X^B_p is multiplied by a projector depending on C_{p±1}, and X^C_p by a projector depending on B_{p±1}. On an open chain p = 1,...,L, the interaction graph therefore has two disconnected components: {B_p with p odd, C_p with p even} and {C_p with p odd, B_p with p even}. Each component is governed by the same dressed-Potts Hamiltonian (20)/(21). The paper itself states that for an even-length edge the terms split into two distinct Z_4 chains. The DMRG uses L = 78, 86, 92, 98, 104, 110, 116, 134, all even, and simulates one chain with L sites and 4^L states. For an edge with L boundary sites, the full B/C sector has 16^L = 4^{2L} states, i.e. two such chains. Thus the fitted c = 2.191(4) is the central charge of one of the two edge chains, not of the full Z_4^{×3} edge. If
  2. [Sec. III (Figs. 3 and 4)] The numerical evidence for c = 2.191(4) and for the coset identification is not fully reported. No DMRG bond dimension, truncation error, number of sweeps, or extrapolation is given, so the quoted error bar has no demonstrated systematic content. The difference between the fitted c and 11/5 is 0.009, about 2.3σ of the quoted statistical error. Moreover, the extracted boundary scaling dimension h_1^{(b)} = 0.04 ± 0.02 from Eq. (23) is, as the authors acknowledge, not one of the simplest values expected from the SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3 coset. Since the coset identification rests only on the central charge, and since the central charge was extracted from a single chain rather than from the full edge, the conclusion 'c = 11/5 for the Z_4^{×3} edge' is unsupported. The authors should provide full convergence information and, at minimum, simulate the full two-chain edge or give a rigorous argument tha
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (14) and Eq. (15)] The exponent n^B_2 n^C_3 - n^C_2 n^B_3 is an integer; since i is evaluated modulo 4 in this construction, the power should be specified modulo 4.
  2. [Sec. II.B] The line 'ω^a_3 = ω^o_3 ω^c_3 ≡ (ω^a_3)^2' appears to contain a typo; it should presumably read '(ω^o_3)^2'. Please correct and clarify.
  3. [Sec. IV] The conclusion states R[ω^a_3] = -1, but the only explicit R evaluation in the paper, Eq. (13), is for ω^o_3 and gives i. Please show the R[ω^a_3] computation.
  4. [Sec. III] All DMRG lengths are even, which is exactly the regime where the paper says the B/C terms split into two chains. Please clarify whether the reported entanglement entropy is the entropy of one chain or of the combined two-chain system; the text and the abstract appear inconsistent on this point.
  5. [Eq. (23)] When extracting h_1^{(b)}, the fit uses the central charge c as an input. Please state explicitly how the error in c propagates into h_1^{(b)} and whether the fit to E_0(L) and E_1(L) is global or separate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No substantive circularity: the cocycle construction is explicit and c≈11/5 is measured, not imposed.

full rationale

The bulk-to-boundary derivation is not circular. The starting cocycle ω_a^3 is written out (Eq. 14), its closedness and nontriviality are checked via R[ω_a^3]=−1, and the boundary terms (Eq. 19) follow by an explicit similarity transformation from Eq. (17); the simulated Hamiltonian (Eq. 21) is the resulting dressed-Potts chain, not an ansatz containing the target central charge. The DMRG value c=2.191±0.004 is extracted by fitting entanglement entropy to the external Calabrese–Cardy formula (Eq. 22), so 11/5 is a matched candidate, not a fitted input. The paper explicitly withholds the stronger claim that the coset identification is proven: it calls SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3 “a candidate” and notes h_1^b=0.04±0.02 “does not obviously coincide with one of the simplest values,” deferring tower-level checks. The only self-citation burden is methodological: the R[ω_3] triviality criterion is quoted from Ref. [44], and the construction follows Refs. [44–46], but those do not smuggle in the Z4^{×3} result and the relevant algebra is displayed in the text. The k=3 selection is post hoc from the measured c, which is a matching choice, not a definitional equivalence. The two-chain/single-chain issue raised by the skeptic is a possible validity error in the boundary reduction or the DMRG target, not a circularity, because the measured c is not defined in terms of the claimed coset central charge. No load-bearing prediction reduces to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The main construction is a standard group-cohomology SPT toolkit applied to a new symmetry group; the numeric CFT identification carries two extra assumptions: converged DMRG extrapolation and the post-hoc choice k=3. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the only new object is a cocycle representative within the existing cohomology group H^3(Z4^×3,U(1)).

free parameters (4)
  • central charge c = 2.191 ± 0.004
    Fitted from the slope of DMRG entanglement entropy vs ln((L/π)sin(πl/L)) (Fig. 3); central to the 11/5 comparison.
  • boundary scaling dimension h_1^b = 0.04 ± 0.02 (equivalently (0.019±0.009)c)
    Fitted from the L-dependence of the first excitation gap (Fig. 4); used as a diagnostic and it does not match the simplest coset operators.
  • coset level k = 3
    Chosen by hand because SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3 has c=11/5; not derived from the microscopic model, making the CFT identification post hoc.
  • entropy intercept a = 1.186
    Fit constant in Eq. (22); not central to the physics.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption H^{d+1}(G,U(1)) classifies d-dimensional bosonic SPT phases with on-site symmetry G.
    The paper uses this standard classification to claim the constructed phase is nontrivial (Sec. II.A, refs [16,18]).
  • domain assumption The cocycle-induced nonlocal unitary U and symmetry averaging in Eq. (11) produce a valid SPT Hamiltonian for the chosen cocycle.
    Carried over from the authors' own Z3 program [44-46] and Yoshida [40,49].
  • standard math The antisymmetrized cocycle ω^a_3 in Eq. (14) is closed, nontrivial, and satisfies the antisymmetry condition (16) needed for a shape-independent edge.
    The paper states this is 'easily checked' and gives R[ω^a_3] = -1; no explicit derivation is shown.
  • domain assumption The Calabrese-Cardy formula (22) with coefficient c/6 correctly describes entanglement entropy of the open-chain edge model.
    Standard CFT result [51]; the paper uses it to extract c from open-chain DMRG (Fig. 3).
  • domain assumption The finite-size energy formulas (23) with boundary scaling dimensions apply to the open chain, and DMRG results are converged at the reported sizes.
    Uses boundary CFT scaling [34,52-54]; convergence is not documented (no bond dimension/truncation error).
  • domain assumption c(SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3)=11/5 and this coset is a plausible candidate for the edge.
    The WZW central-charge formula (25) is standard; the candidate identification is acknowledged as not yet proven.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10654 in / 17058 out tokens · 156723 ms · 2026-08-03T14:58:38.889454+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We construct a two-dimensional bosonic symmetry-protected topological (SPT) paramagnet protected by an on-site $G=\mathbb{Z}_4^{\times 3}$ symmetry, starting from a three-component $\mathbb{Z}_4$ Potts paramagnet on a triangular lattice. Within the group-cohomology framework, $H^{3}(G,U(1))\cong \mathbb{Z}_4^{\times 7}$, we focus on a "colorless" cocycle representative obtained by antisymmetrizing the basic $\mathbb{Z}_4$ three-cocycle, and generate the corresponding SPT Hamiltonian via a cocycle-induced nonlocal unitary transformation followed by symmetry averaging. For open geometry, we derive the boundary theory explicitly: one color sector decouples, while the nontrivial edge reduces to an interacting $\mathbb{Z}_4$ chain with next-to-nearest-neighbor constraints that admits a compact dressed-Potts form. Using DMRG we show that the boundary model is gapless, with the lowest gap scaling as $1/L$ and an entanglement-entropy scaling consistent with a conformal field theory of central charge $c=2.191(4)\simeq 11/5$. The rational value $c=11/5$ matches the coset $SU(3)_3/SU(2)_3$, making it a candidate for the continuum description of the $\mathbb{Z}_4^{\times 3}$ edge; we outline spectral and symmetry-resolved diagnostics needed to test this identification at the level of conformal towers beyond the central charge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.18460 by Ara Sedrakyan, Hrant Topchyan, Mkhitar Mirumyan, Tigran A. Sedrakyan, Tigran Hakobyan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The schematic depiction of interactions. The gray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The ground state energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, and X.-G. Wen,Quan- tum Information Meets Quantum Matter: From Quan- tum Entanglement to Topological Phases of Many-Body Systems, 1st ed., Quantum Science and Technology (Springer, New York, NY, 2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phases of Matter(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2023)

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phases of Matter(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    colorless

    =δω 3δω ′ 3 (7) andR[ω 3ω′ 3] =R[ω 3]R[ω′ 3] (10). (ω o 3)2 and (ω o 3)3, which correspond to the group elementsq 2 andq 3, respectively, are thus nontrivial cocycles as well. Since allq,q 2 andq 3 are nontrivial,qis the generator of the cohomology group componentZ 4, and the different degrees ofω o 3 cover the whole space of substantially different cocyc...

  4. [4]

    L. D. Landau, On the theory of phase transitions, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.7, 19 (1937)

    1937

  5. [5]

    Landau and L

    L. Landau and L. E.M.,Statistical Physics. Vol. 5(Else- vier Science, 2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Gu and X.-G

    Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen, Tensor-entanglement-filtering renormalization approach and symmetry-protected topo- logical order, Phys. Rev. B80, 155131 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Senthil, Symmetry-protected topological phases of quantum matter, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics6, 299 (2015)

    T. Senthil, Symmetry-protected topological phases of quantum matter, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics6, 299 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev

    X.-G. Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041004 (2017)

    2017

  9. [9]

    Pollmann, E

    F. Pollmann, E. Berg, A. M. Turner, and M. Os- hikawa, Symmetry protection of topological phases in one-dimensional quantum spin systems, Phys. Rev. B85, 075125 (2012)

    2012

  10. [10]

    Pollmann, A

    F. Pollmann, A. M. Turner, E. Berg, and M. Oshikawa, Entanglement spectrum of a topological phase in one di- mension, Phys. Rev. B81, 064439 (2010)

    2010

  11. [11]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Local unitary trans- formation, long-range quantum entanglement, wave func- tion renormalization, and topological order, Phys. Rev. B82, 155138 (2010)

    2010

  12. [12]

    Fidkowski and A

    L. Fidkowski and A. Kitaev, Topological phases of fermions in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B83, 075103 (2011)

    2011

  13. [13]

    Schuch, D

    N. Schuch, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, and I. Cirac, Classifying quantum phases using matrix product states and pro- jected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B84, 165139 (2011)

    2011

  14. [14]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Colloquium: Topological insulators, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  15. [15]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Topological insulators and su- perconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  16. [16]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Nonlinear field theory of large-spin heisenberg antiferromagnets: Semiclassically quantized solitons of the one-dimensional easy-axis n´ eel state, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1153 (1983)

    1983

  17. [17]

    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

  18. [18]

    ’t Hooft, Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and sponta- neous chiral symmetry breaking, NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft, Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and sponta- neous chiral symmetry breaking, NATO Sci. Ser. B59, 135 (1980)

    1980

  19. [19]

    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, Phys. Rev. B87, 155114 (2013)

    2013

  20. [20]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B83, 035107 (2011)

    2011

  21. [21]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Complete classifica- tion of one-dimensional gapped quantum phases in inter- acting spin systems, Phys. Rev. B84, 235128 (2011)

    2011

  22. [22]

    Kawagoe and M

    K. Kawagoe and M. Levin, Anomalies in bosonic symmetry-protected topological edge theories: Connec- tion tofsymbols and a method of calculation, Phys. Rev. B104, 115156 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Maeda and T

    J. Maeda and T. Oishi, N-ality symmetry and SPT phases in (1+1)d, JHEP12, 063, arXiv:2504.20151 [hep- th]

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Levin and Z.-C

    M. Levin and Z.-C. Gu, Braiding statistics approach to symmetry-protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. B86, 10.1103/physrevb.86.115109 (2012)

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.115109 2012

  25. [25]

    Thorngren and Y

    R. Thorngren and Y. Wang, Fusion category symmetry. part I. Anomaly in-flow and gapped phases, JHEP2024 (04), 132, arXiv:1912.02817 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  26. [26]

    Seiberg, S

    N. Seiberg, S. Seifnashri, and S.-H. Shao, Non-invertible symmetries and LSM-type constraints on a tensor product Hilbert space, SciPost Phys.16, 154 (2024), arXiv:2401.12281 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Bhardwaj, L

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, D. Pajer, and S. Sch¨ afer- Nameki, Gapped phases with non-invertible symmetries: (1+1)d, SciPost Phys.18, 032 (2025), arXiv:2310.03784 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Antinucci, C

    A. Antinucci, C. Copetti, and S. Sch¨ afer-Nameki, SymTFT for (3+1)d gapless SPTs and obstruc- tions to confinement, SciPost Phys.18, 114 (2025), arXiv:2408.05585 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Jia and Z

    Q. Jia and Z. Jia, Subsystem symmetry-protected topo- logical phases from subsystem SymTFT of 2-foliated exotic tensor gauge theory, JHEP2025(09), 170, 7 arXiv:2505.22261 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  30. [30]

    Seiberg, S.-H

    N. Seiberg, S.-H. Shao, and W. Zhang, LSM and CPT, JHEP2025(11), 116, arXiv:2508.17115 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  31. [31]

    Seiberg and S

    N. Seiberg and S. Seifnashri, Symmetry transmutation and anomaly matching, JHEP09, 014, arXiv:2505.08618 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  32. [32]

    Wang and T

    K. Wang and T. A. Sedrakyan, Universal finite-size scal- ing around tricriticality between topologically ordered, symmetry-protected topological, and trivial phases, Phys. Rev. B101, 035410 (2020)

    2020

  33. [33]

    Wang and T

    K. Wang and T. A. Sedrakyan, Universal finite-size am- plitude and anomalous entanglement entropy ofz= 2 quantum Lifshitz criticalities in topological chains, Sci- Post Phys.12, 134 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Li, Y.-T

    L.-Y. Li, Y.-T. Hsieh, Y. Yao, and M. Oshikawa, Bound- ary conditions and anomalies of conformal field theories in dimensionsD≥3, Phys. Rev. B110, 045118 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    Y. Liu, H. Shimizu, A. Ueda, and M. Oshikawa, Finite- size corrections to the energy spectra of gapless one- dimensional systems in the presence of boundaries, Sci- Post Phys.17, 099 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Ding, H.-R

    K. Ding, H.-R. Zhang, B.-T. Liu, and S. Yang, Bound- ary anomaly detection in two-dimensional subsystem symmetry-protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. B 111, 205125 (2025), arXiv:2412.07563 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Loo and Q.-R

    K. Loo and Q.-R. Wang, Systematic construction of inter- faces and anomalous boundaries for fermionic symmetry- protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. B111, 205102 (2025), arXiv:2412.18528 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Xu and C.-M

    Y. Xu and C.-M. Jian, Average-exact mixed anomalies and compatible phases, Phys. Rev. B111, 125128 (2025), arXiv:2406.07417 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Guo and S

    Y. Guo and S. Yang, Strong-to-weak spontaneous sym- metry breaking meets average symmetry-protected topo- logical order, Phys. Rev. B111, L201108 (2025), arXiv:2410.13734 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Chen, Y.-M

    X. Chen, Y.-M. Lu, and A. Vishwanath, Symmetry- protected topological phases from decorated domain walls, Nature Communications5, 3507 (2014)

    2014

  41. [41]

    Yoshida, Topological phases with generalized global symmetries, Phys

    B. Yoshida, Topological phases with generalized global symmetries, Phys. Rev. B93, 155131 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    T. A. Sedrakyan, V. M. Galitski, and A. Kamenev, Topo- logical spin ordering via chern-simons superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B95, 094511 (2017)

    2017

  43. [43]

    R. Wang, B. Wang, and T. Sedrakyan, Chern-simons su- perconductors and their instabilities, Phys. Rev. B105, 054404 (2022)

    2022

  44. [44]

    R. Wang, B. Wang, and T. A. Sedrakyan, Chern-simons fermionization approach to two-dimensional quantum magnets: Implications for antiferromagnetic magnons and unconventional quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B98, 064402 (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    Topchyan, V

    H. Topchyan, V. Iugov, M. Mirumyan, S. Khachatryan, T. Hakobyan, and T. Sedrakyan,Z 3 and (×Z3)3 symme- try protected topological paramagnets, JHEP2023(12)

  46. [46]

    Topchyan, SPT extension ofZ 2 quantum ising model’s ferromagnetic phase, Phys

    H. Topchyan, SPT extension ofZ 2 quantum ising model’s ferromagnetic phase, Phys. Lett. A517, 129669 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Topchyan, V

    H. Topchyan, V. Iugov, M. Mirumyan, T. Hakobyan, T. A. Sedrakyan, and A. G. Sedrakyan, Two-dimensional topological paramagnets protected byZ 3 symmetry: Properties of the boundary Hamiltonian, SciPost Phys. 18, 068 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    L. Li, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Zheng, Decorated defect con- struction of gapless-SPT states, SciPost Phys.17, 013 (2024), arXiv:2204.03131 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Mesaros and Y

    A. Mesaros and Y. Ran, Classification of symmetry en- riched topological phases with exactly solvable models, Phys. Rev. B87, 155115 (2013)

    2013

  50. [50]

    Yoshida, Gapped boundaries, group cohomology and fault-tolerant logical gates, Annals of Physics377, 387 (2017)

    B. Yoshida, Gapped boundaries, group cohomology and fault-tolerant logical gates, Annals of Physics377, 387 (2017)

    2017

  51. [51]

    de Wild Propitius,Topological interactions in bro- ken gauge theories, Ph.D

    M. de Wild Propitius,Topological interactions in bro- ken gauge theories, Ph.D. thesis, - (1995), arXiv:hep- th/9511195 [hep-th]

    arXiv 1995

  52. [52]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical42, 504005 (2009)

    2009

  53. [53]

    H. W. J. Bl¨ ote, J. L. Cardy, and M. P. Nightingale, Con- formal invariance, the central charge, and universal finite- size amplitudes at criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 742 (1986)

    1986

  54. [54]

    J. L. Cardy, Operator content of two-dimensional con- formally invariant theories, Nuclear Physics B270, 186 (1986)

    1986

  55. [55]

    J. L. Cardy, Effect of boundary conditions on the op- erator content of two-dimensional conformally invariant theories, Nuclear Physics B275, 200 (1986)

    1986

  56. [56]

    Di Francesco, P

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

    1997