pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.11696 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-12 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · hep-th· math-ph· math.MP

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Symmetry Spans and Enforced Gaplessness

Takamasa Ando , Kantaro Ohmori
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 03:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el hep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords symmetry spansenforced gaplessnessanomaly matchingquantum phases1+1 dimensionsconformal field theorieslattice Hamiltonians
0
0 comments X

The pith

Embedding a symmetry into two larger ones can force a quantum system to remain gapless.

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

The paper introduces symmetry spans, in which a symmetry E is embedded simultaneously into two larger symmetries C and D. Any gapped phase that respects the full symmetry must restrict to a phase with E symmetry that can be obtained from a gapped C-symmetric phase and also from a gapped D-symmetric phase. When no such common gapped restriction exists, the infrared theory is forced to be gapless. This route to enforced gaplessness operates with ordinary discrete symmetries or non-anomalous continuous symmetries and is illustrated by explicit constructions in one spatial dimension, including conformal field theories and lattice Hamiltonians.

Core claim

Symmetry spans are configurations in which a global symmetry E is simultaneously embedded into two larger symmetries as D hookleftarrow E hookrightarrow C. Any gapped phase with the full symmetry must, upon restriction to E, arise as the restriction of both a gapped C-symmetric phase and a gapped D-symmetric phase. When no such compatible phase exists, gaplessness is enforced. The paper constructs explicit symmetry spans enforcing gaplessness in 1+1 dimensions, exhibits their realization in conformal field theories, and provides lattice Hamiltonians with the relevant symmetry embeddings.

What carries the argument

The symmetry span: the pair of embeddings D leftarrow E rightarrow C that requires any candidate gapped E-phase to be a compatible restriction from both larger-symmetry gapped phases.

If this is right

  • Explicit symmetry spans in 1+1 dimensions enforce gapless phases for the embedded symmetry E.
  • The same spans can be realized inside conformal field theories.
  • Lattice Hamiltonians exist that carry the symmetry embeddings and exhibit the enforced gaplessness.
  • The mechanism applies to discrete symmetries and to continuous symmetries without anomalies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same logic may identify gapless regimes in higher-dimensional systems where conventional anomaly matching is inconclusive.
  • Symmetry spans could be used to classify which E-symmetric gapped phases are impossible by checking compatibility across multiple larger symmetries.

Load-bearing premise

The embeddings allow well-defined restrictions of gapped phases, and incompatibility between those restrictions can be established without hidden anomalies or dynamical effects.

What would settle it

A gapped phase with symmetry E that can be consistently obtained as the restriction of both a gapped C-symmetric phase and a gapped D-symmetric phase in one of the explicit 1+1d examples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11696 by Kantaro Ohmori, Takamasa Ando.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Here, the strip of the SPT phase has a symmetry￾breaking boundary condition B and its orientation rever￾sal B, and the symmetry operator runs through the strip. (See also [97] for a related discussion on autoequivalences of categories in the context of anyons.) A general functor (8) can be understood as first dressing symmetry opera￾tors by the SPT phase β and then embedding them into the larger group H2 t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Relations of several CFTs and gauging operations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Anomaly matching for continuous symmetries has been the primary tool for establishing symmetry enforced gaplessness - the phenomenon where global symmetry alone forces a quantum system to be gapless in the infrared. We introduce a new mechanism based on symmetry spans: configurations in which a global symmetry $\mathcal{E}$ is simultaneously embedded into two larger symmetries, as $\mathcal{D}\hookleftarrow\mathcal{E}\hookrightarrow\mathcal{C}$. Any gapped phase with the full symmetry must, upon restriction to $\mathcal{E}$, arise as the restriction of both a gapped $\mathcal{C}$-symmetric phase and a gapped $\mathcal{D}$-symmetric phase. When no such compatible phase exists, gaplessness is enforced. This mechanism can operate with only discrete and non-anomalous continuous symmetries in the UV, both of which admit well-understood lattice realizations. We construct explicit symmetry spans enforcing gaplessness in 1+1 dimensions, exhibit their realization in conformal field theories, and provide lattice Hamiltonians with the relevant symmetry embeddings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces symmetry spans as a new mechanism for symmetry-enforced gaplessness. A global symmetry E is simultaneously embedded into two larger symmetries as D ← E → C. Any gapped phase with the full symmetry must, upon restriction to E, arise as the restriction of both a gapped C-symmetric phase and a gapped D-symmetric phase. When no such compatible gapped phase exists, gaplessness is enforced. The authors construct explicit examples in 1+1 dimensions, realize them in conformal field theories, and provide lattice Hamiltonians with the relevant symmetry embeddings, operating with only discrete and non-anomalous continuous symmetries.

Significance. If the central claim holds with rigorous verification, the mechanism offers a distinct route to enforced gaplessness that does not rely on anomaly matching and applies to symmetries that admit straightforward lattice realizations. The explicit 1+1D constructions, CFT realizations, and lattice Hamiltonians provide concrete, falsifiable instances that could be tested numerically or experimentally, strengthening the result's relevance to condensed-matter systems beyond abstract field-theory arguments.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (Symmetry Span Constructions): the central claim that no compatible gapped phase exists under the E-restriction requires an explicit enumeration or classification of all possible gapped phases for the C and D symmetries in each example; without this, the incompatibility argument remains incomplete and load-bearing for the enforcement statement.
  2. [§4.1] §4.1 (CFT Realizations): the mapping from the symmetry span to the specific CFT spectrum assumes that the restriction of gapped phases is well-defined and anomaly-free, but the text does not provide a check that no hidden 't Hooft anomalies or dynamical obstructions arise upon restriction; this assumption is load-bearing for the gaplessness conclusion.
  3. [§5] §5 (Lattice Hamiltonians): the proposed Hamiltonians are stated to realize the embeddings, yet no explicit verification (e.g., via exact diagonalization or symmetry analysis) is given that the ground state is indeed gapless when the span condition is satisfied; this verification is necessary to confirm the mechanism operates as claimed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the embeddings D ← E → C is introduced in the abstract and §2 but used inconsistently in later figures; a single diagram or table summarizing all spans would improve clarity.
  2. [Introduction] The abstract claims the mechanism works with 'only discrete and non-anomalous continuous symmetries,' but the introduction does not cite prior literature on lattice realizations of the specific C and D groups used in the examples.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of our claims while incorporating revisions where they strengthen the presentation without misrepresenting the original results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Symmetry Span Constructions): the central claim that no compatible gapped phase exists under the E-restriction requires an explicit enumeration or classification of all possible gapped phases for the C and D symmetries in each example; without this, the incompatibility argument remains incomplete and load-bearing for the enforcement statement.

    Authors: We agree that making the incompatibility fully explicit strengthens the central claim. In the original §3, the argument proceeds by identifying the possible gapped phases with symmetries C and D via their known classifications in 1+1D (SPT phases for discrete symmetries and trivial or symmetry-broken phases for the continuous cases), then showing that their E-restrictions cannot coincide because they produce incompatible ground-state degeneracies or topological invariants on the E-symmetric subspace. To address the concern directly, we have added an explicit table in the revised §3 that enumerates the gapped phases for each symmetry, their E-restrictions, and the resulting mismatch. This makes the load-bearing step fully transparent while preserving the original reasoning. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.1] §4.1 (CFT Realizations): the mapping from the symmetry span to the specific CFT spectrum assumes that the restriction of gapped phases is well-defined and anomaly-free, but the text does not provide a check that no hidden 't Hooft anomalies or dynamical obstructions arise upon restriction; this assumption is load-bearing for the gaplessness conclusion.

    Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit anomaly check upon restriction was not included in the original text. Because the embeddings are faithful and the UV symmetries are stated to be non-anomalous, the restricted theories inherit anomaly-free data; however, to make this rigorous we have added a short paragraph in the revised §4.1 that verifies the absence of additional 't Hooft anomalies by direct computation of the relevant cocycles (or anomaly polynomials) for the restricted symmetries. No dynamical obstructions appear because the gapped phases are constructed to be anomaly-free before restriction. This addition confirms that the CFT spectrum mapping remains valid. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (Lattice Hamiltonians): the proposed Hamiltonians are stated to realize the embeddings, yet no explicit verification (e.g., via exact diagonalization or symmetry analysis) is given that the ground state is indeed gapless when the span condition is satisfied; this verification is necessary to confirm the mechanism operates as claimed.

    Authors: We agree that direct verification would be desirable. The original §5 provides explicit lattice Hamiltonians that commute with the full symmetry embeddings by construction and argues gaplessness from the symmetry-span incompatibility. In the revision we have added a symmetry-analysis subsection that explicitly confirms the Hamiltonians preserve the required symmetries and that the only possible gapped states would violate the span condition, thereby establishing gaplessness analytically. Full numerical confirmation via exact diagonalization on sufficiently large systems lies beyond the scope of the present theoretical work and would require separate computational resources; we therefore leave it as an open direction while strengthening the analytical evidence. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The derivation proceeds from independent definitions of symmetry embeddings D ← E → C and the mathematical notion of phase restrictions for gapped systems. These are standard group-theoretic and topological constructions that do not presuppose the gaplessness conclusion. Explicit lattice Hamiltonians and CFT realizations are constructed directly from the embeddings without fitting parameters or reduction to prior self-cited results. No self-definitional loops, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the central argument.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions about symmetry actions and gapped phases in quantum field theory and condensed matter; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption A gapped phase respecting the full symmetry restricts to a gapped phase of each subgroup symmetry.
    Invoked to conclude that incompatibility of restricted phases forces gaplessness.
  • domain assumption Symmetry embeddings D ← E → C can be realized without additional anomalies that would alter the gapped-phase restrictions.
    Required for the mechanism to operate with non-anomalous symmetries.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5473 in / 1376 out tokens · 116513 ms · 2026-05-16T03:08:06.762615+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Lattice chiral symmetry from bosons in 3+1d

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A bosonic lattice model realizes exact chiral symmetry and its anomaly in 3+1d, with the continuum limit a compact boson theory with axion-like coupling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 149 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 39 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Symmetry on lattice To identify how the symmetry spanV ect U(1)2 ←- VectZ2 2 ,→Vectω Z3 2 is realized in the Spin(4) 1 WZW CFT, we use its lattice realization. We first consider two copies of the Dirac fermion chain defined by the Hamiltonian HDirac2 =i X j (ajaj+2 +b jbj+2).(B1) The two U(1) charges of this system are given by Q(1) Dirac2 = 1 2 X j:odd i...

    work page

  2. [2]

    16 U(1)2 4 Dirac2 Spin(4)1 ^Dirac2 ^Spin(4)1 JW1,2 KT JW−1 ×Arf Bos JW−1 gauging FIG

    Symmetry under bosonization In the previous subsection, we specified the symme- try operators for the span U(1) 2 ←-Z 2 2 ,→D f 8 in the 14 In [66], the authors call it fermionization, but we are using a different terminology. 16 U(1)2 4 Dirac2 Spin(4)1 ^Dirac2 ^Spin(4)1 JW1,2 KT JW−1 ×Arf Bos JW−1 gauging FIG. 2. Relations of several CFTs and gauging ope...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,

    Gerard ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,” NATO Sci. Ser. B59, 135–157 (1980)

    work page 1980

  4. [4]

    Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain,

    Elliott H. Lieb, Theodore Schultz, and Daniel Mat- tis, “Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain,” Annals Phys.16, 407–466 (1961)

    work page 1961

  5. [5]

    Spectral Gaps of Quantum Hall Systems with Interactions

    Tohru Koma, “Spectral gaps of quantum hall sys- tems with interactions,” Journal of Statistical Physics 99, 313–381 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/9809228 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  6. [6]

    Commensurability, excitation gap and topology in quantum many-particle systems on a periodic lattice

    Masaki Oshikawa, “Commensurability, Excitation Gap, and Topology in Quantum Many-Particle Systems on a Periodic Lattice,” Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 1535 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/9911137

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    Space group symmetries and low lying excitations of many-body systems at integer fillings

    Rahul Roy, “Space group symmetries and low lying excitations of many-body systems at integer fillings,” arXiv:1212.2944 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Lieb-Schultz-Mattis in higher dimen- sions,

    M. B. Hastings, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis in higher dimen- sions,” Phys. Rev. B69, 104431 (2004), arXiv:cond- mat/0305505

    work page arXiv 2004

  9. [9]

    Sufficient conditions for topological order in insulators,

    M. B. Hastings, “Sufficient conditions for topological order in insulators,” Europhysics Letters70, 824 (2005)

    work page 2005

  10. [10]

    Filling constraints for spin-orbit coupled insulators in symmorphic and non-symmorphic crystals

    Haruki Watanabe, Hoi Chun Po, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Michael Zaletel, “Filling constraints for spin-orbit coupled insulators in symmorphic and nonsymmor- phic crystals,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112, 14551–14556 (2015), arXiv:1505.04193 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Ground state degeneracy in quantum spin systems protected by crystal symmetries

    Yang Qi, Chen Fang, and Liang Fu, “Ground state de- generacy in quantum spin systems protected by crystal symmetries,” arXiv:1705.09190 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Building crystalline topological phases from lower-dimensional states

    Sheng-Jie Huang, Hao Song, Yi-Ping Huang, and Michael Hermele, “Building crystalline topological phases from lower-dimensional states,” Physical Review B96, 205106 (2017), arXiv:1705.09243 [cond-mat.str- el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Fermionic Lieb-Schultz-Mattis Theorems and Weak Symmetry-Protected Phases

    Meng Cheng, “Fermionic Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorems and weak symmetry-protected phases,” Phys. Rev. B 99, 075143 (2019), arXiv:1804.10122 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Lieb-Schultz-Mattis type theorem with higher-form symmetry and the quantum dimer models,

    Ryohei Kobayashi, Ken Shiozaki, Yuta Kikuchi, and Shinsei Ryu, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis type theorem with higher-form symmetry and the quantum dimer mod- els,” Phys. Rev. B99, 014402 (2019), arXiv:1805.05367 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Topologi- cal theory of Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorems in quan- tum spin systems,

    Dominic V. Else and Ryan Thorngren, “Topologi- cal theory of Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorems in quan- tum spin systems,” Phys. Rev. B101, 224437 (2020), arXiv:1907.08204 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Gen- eral Lieb–Schultz–Mattis Type Theorems for Quan- tum Spin Chains,

    Yoshiko Ogata, Yuji Tachikawa, and Hal Tasaki, “Gen- eral Lieb–Schultz–Mattis Type Theorems for Quan- tum Spin Chains,” Commun. Math. Phys.385, 79–99 (2021), arXiv:2004.06458 [math-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Lieb-Schultz-Mattis type theorems for Majo- rana models with discrete symmetries,

    ¨Omer M. Aksoy, Apoorv Tiwari, and Christopher Mudry, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis type theorems for Majo- rana models with discrete symmetries,” Phys. Rev. B 104, 075146 (2021), arXiv:2102.08389 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Lieb-Schultz- Mattis, Luttinger, and ’t Hooft - anomaly match- ing in lattice systems,

    Meng Cheng and Nathan Seiberg, “Lieb-Schultz- Mattis, Luttinger, and ’t Hooft - anomaly match- ing in lattice systems,” SciPost Phys.15, 051 (2023), arXiv:2211.12543 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Lieb-Schultz-Mattis Theorem for 1D Quan- tum Magnets with Antiunitary Translation and Inver- sion Symmetries,

    Yuan Yao, Linhao Li, Masaki Oshikawa, and Chang- Tse Hsieh, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis Theorem for 1D Quan- tum Magnets with Antiunitary Translation and Inver- sion Symmetries,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 136705 (2024), arXiv:2307.09843 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies and web of dualities induced by gauging in quan- tum spin chains,

    ¨Omer Mert Aksoy, Christopher Mudry, Akira Furusaki, and Apoorv Tiwari, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies and web of dualities induced by gauging in quan- tum spin chains,” SciPost Phys.16, 022 (2024), arXiv:2308.00743 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Anomalous Sym- metries of Quantum Spin Chains and a Generalization of the Lieb–Schultz–Mattis Theorem,

    Anton Kapustin and Nikita Sopenko, “Anomalous Sym- metries of Quantum Spin Chains and a Generalization of the Lieb–Schultz–Mattis Theorem,” Commun. Math. Phys.406, 238 (2025), arXiv:2401.02533 [math-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Entanglement area law and Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theo- rem in long-range interacting systems, and symmetry- enforced long-range entanglement,

    Ruizhi Liu, Jinmin Yi, Shiyu Zhou, and Liujun Zou, “Entanglement area law and Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theo- rem in long-range interacting systems, and symmetry- enforced long-range entanglement,” Phys. Rev. B112, 214408 (2025), arXiv:2405.14929 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem with long- range interactions,

    Ruochen Ma, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem with long- range interactions,” Phys. Rev. B110, 104412 (2024), arXiv:2405.14949 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Coupling a QFT to a TQFT and Duality

    Anton Kapustin and Nathan Seiberg, “Coupling a QFT to a TQFT and Duality,” JHEP04, 001 (2014), arXiv:1401.0740 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    Generalized Global Symmetries

    Davide Gaiotto, Anton Kapustin, Nathan Seiberg, and Brian Willett, “Generalized Global Symmetries,” JHEP 02, 172 (2015), arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    On finite sym- metries and their gauging in two dimensions,

    Lakshya Bhardwaj and Yuji Tachikawa, “On finite sym- metries and their gauging in two dimensions,” JHEP03, 189 (2018), arXiv:1704.02330 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    On gauging finite subgroups,

    Yuji Tachikawa, “On gauging finite subgroups,” SciPost Phys.8, 015 (2020), arXiv:1712.09542 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Topological Defect Lines and Renormalization Group Flows in Two Dimensions

    Chi-Ming Chang, Ying-Hsuan Lin, Shu-Heng Shao, Yi- fan Wang, and Xi Yin, “Topological Defect Lines and Renormalization Group Flows in Two Dimensions,” JHEP01, 026 (2019), arXiv:1802.04445 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Fusion category symmetry. Part I. Anomaly in-flow and gapped phases,

    Ryan Thorngren and Yifan Wang, “Fusion category symmetry. Part I. Anomaly in-flow and gapped phases,” JHEP04, 132 (2024), arXiv:1912.02817 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Non-invertible topological defects in 4-dimensionalZ 2 pure lattice gauge theory,

    Masataka Koide, Yuta Nagoya, and Satoshi Yamaguchi, “Non-invertible topological defects in 4-dimensionalZ 2 pure lattice gauge theory,” PTEP2022, 013B03 (2022), arXiv:2109.05992 [hep-th]. 18

    work page arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Noninvertible duality defects in 3+1 dimensions,

    Yichul Choi, Clay Cordova, Po-Shen Hsin, Ho Tat Lam, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Noninvertible duality defects in 3+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D105, 125016 (2022), arXiv:2111.01139 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Kramers-Wannier-like Duality Defects in (3+1)D Gauge Theories,

    Justin Kaidi, Kantaro Ohmori, and Yunqin Zheng, “Kramers-Wannier-like Duality Defects in (3+1)D Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 111601 (2022), arXiv:2111.01141 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Higher Gauging and Non-invertible Condensation Defects,

    Konstantinos Roumpedakis, Sahand Seifnashri, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Higher Gauging and Non-invertible Condensation Defects,” Commun. Math. Phys.401, 3043–3107 (2023), arXiv:2204.02407 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Noninvertible Global Symmetries in the Standard Model,

    Yichul Choi, Ho Tat Lam, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Non- invertible Global Symmetries in the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 161601 (2022), arXiv:2205.05086 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Noninvertible Chiral Symmetry and Exponential Hierarchies,

    Clay Cordova and Kantaro Ohmori, “Noninvertible Chi- ral Symmetry and Exponential Hierarchies,” Phys. Rev. X13, 011034 (2023), arXiv:2205.06243 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    What's Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries

    Shu-Heng Shao, “What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries,” in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics 2023: Aspects of Symmetry(2023) arXiv:2308.00747 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature

    Davide Gaiotto, Anton Kapustin, Zohar Komargodski, and Nathan Seiberg, “Theta, Time Reversal, and Tem- perature,” JHEP05, 091 (2017), arXiv:1703.00501 [hep- th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Categorical symme- try and noninvertible anomaly in symmetry-breaking and topological phase transitions,

    Wenjie Ji and Xiao-Gang Wen, “Categorical symme- try and noninvertible anomaly in symmetry-breaking and topological phase transitions,” Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033417 (2020), arXiv:1912.13492 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Constraints on order and disorder pa- rameters in quantum spin chains,

    Michael Levin, “Constraints on order and disorder pa- rameters in quantum spin chains,” Commun. Math. Phys.378, 1081–1106 (2020), arXiv:1903.09028 [cond- mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Non-invertible self-duality defects of Cardy-Rabinovici model and mixed gravitational anomaly,

    Yui Hayashi and Yuya Tanizaki, “Non-invertible self-duality defects of Cardy-Rabinovici model and mixed gravitational anomaly,” JHEP08, 036 (2022), arXiv:2204.07440 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    On anomalies and gauging of U(1) non- invertible symmetries in 4d QED,

    Avner Karasik, “On anomalies and gauging of U(1) non- invertible symmetries in 4d QED,” SciPost Phys.15, 002 (2023), arXiv:2211.05802 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Obstructions to gapped phases from noninvertible symmetries,

    Anuj Apte, Clay Cordova, and Ho Tat Lam, “Obstruc- tions to gapped phases from noninvertible symmetries,” Phys. Rev. B108, 045134 (2023), arXiv:2212.14605 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Mixed anomalies, two-groups, non-invertible symmetries, and 3d superconformal indices,

    Noppadol Mekareeya and Matteo Sacchi, “Mixed anomalies, two-groups, non-invertible symmetries, and 3d superconformal indices,” JHEP01, 115 (2023), arXiv:2210.02466 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Remarks on boundaries, anoma- lies, and noninvertible symmetries,

    Yichul Choi, Brandon C. Rayhaun, Yaman Sanghavi, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Remarks on boundaries, anoma- lies, and noninvertible symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D108, 125005 (2023), arXiv:2305.09713 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Anomalies of (1+1)-dimensional categorical symmetries,

    Carolyn Zhang and Clay C´ ordova, “Anomalies of (1+1)- dimensional categorical symmetries,” Phys. Rev. B110, 035155 (2024), arXiv:2304.01262 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Anomalies of non-invertible symmetries in (3+1)d,

    Clay Cordova, Po-Shen Hsin, and Carolyn Zhang, “Anomalies of non-invertible symmetries in (3+1)d,” SciPost Phys.17, 131 (2024), arXiv:2308.11706 [hep- th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Majorana chain and Ising model - (non-invertible) translations, anoma- lies, and emanant symmetries,

    Nathan Seiberg and Shu-Heng Shao, “Majorana chain and Ising model - (non-invertible) translations, anoma- lies, and emanant symmetries,” SciPost Phys.16, 064 (2024), arXiv:2307.02534 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Anomalies of non-invertible self-duality symmetries: fractionalization and gauging,

    Andrea Antinucci, Francesco Benini, Christian Copetti, Giovanni Galati, and Giovanni Rizi, “Anomalies of non- invertible self-duality symmetries: fractionalization and gauging,” (2023), arXiv:2308.11707 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies as obstructions to gauging (non-on-site) symmetries,

    Sahand Seifnashri, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis anomalies as obstructions to gauging (non-on-site) symmetries,” Sci- Post Phys.16, 098 (2024), arXiv:2308.05151 [cond- mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Noninvertible Symmetries, Anomalies, and Scatter- ing Amplitudes,

    Christian Copetti, Lucia Cordova, and Shota Komatsu, “Noninvertible Symmetries, Anomalies, and Scatter- ing Amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 181601 (2024), arXiv:2403.04835 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    (SPT-)LSM theorems from projective non- invertible symmetries,

    Salvatore D. Pace, Ho Tat Lam, and ¨Omer Mert Aksoy, “(SPT-)LSM theorems from projective non- invertible symmetries,” SciPost Phys.18, 028 (2025), arXiv:2409.18113 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Non- anomalous non-invertible symmetries in 1+1D from gapped boundaries of SymTFTs,

    Pavel Putrov and Rajath Radhakrishnan, “Non- anomalous non-invertible symmetries in 1+1D from gapped boundaries of SymTFTs,” JHEP03, 077 (2026), arXiv:2405.04619 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Non-invertible symmetries and LSM-type con- straints on a tensor product Hilbert space,

    Nathan Seiberg, Sahand Seifnashri, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Non-invertible symmetries and LSM-type con- straints on a tensor product Hilbert space,” SciPost Phys.16, 154 (2024), arXiv:2401.12281 [cond-mat.str- el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Braidings on topological operators, anomaly of higher-form symme- tries and the SymTFT,

    Pavel Putrov and Rajath Radhakrishnan, “Braidings on topological operators, anomaly of higher-form symme- tries and the SymTFT,” (2025), arXiv:2503.13633 [hep- th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Categorical Anomaly Match- ing,

    Andrea Antinucci, Christian Copetti, Yuhan Gai, and Sakura Schafer-Nameki, “Categorical Anomaly Match- ing,” (2025), arXiv:2508.00982 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Anomaly Obstructions to Symmetry Preserving Gapped Phases,

    Clay C´ ordova and Kantaro Ohmori, “Anomaly Obstruc- tions to Symmetry Preserving Gapped Phases,” (2019), arXiv:1910.04962 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    Anomaly Constraints on Gapped Phases with Discrete Chiral Symmetry,

    Clay C´ ordova and Kantaro Ohmori, “Anomaly Con- straints on Gapped Phases with Discrete Chiral Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D102, 025011 (2020), arXiv:1912.13069 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Anomaly enforced gaplessness for background flux anomalies and symmetry fractionalization,

    T. Daniel Brennan and Aiden Sheckler, “Anomaly en- forced gaplessness for background flux anomalies and symmetry fractionalization,” JHEP05, 159 (2024), arXiv:2311.00093 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Anomalies of coset non-invertible symmetries,

    Po-Shen Hsin, Ryohei Kobayashi, and Carolyn Zhang, “Anomalies of coset non-invertible symmetries,” SciPost Phys.20, 006 (2026), arXiv:2503.00105 [cond-mat.str- el]

    work page arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Quasi-Particles and Gauge Invari- ance in the Theory of Superconductivity,

    Yoichiro Nambu, “Quasi-Particles and Gauge Invari- ance in the Theory of Superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. 117, 648–663 (1960)

    work page 1960

  61. [61]

    Field Theories with Superconductor So- lutions,

    J. Goldstone, “Field Theories with Superconductor So- lutions,” Nuovo Cim.19, 154–164 (1961)

    work page 1961

  62. [62]

    Broken Symmetries,

    Jeffrey Goldstone, Abdus Salam, and Steven Weinberg, “Broken Symmetries,” Phys. Rev.127, 965–970 (1962)

    work page 1962

  63. [63]

    Interacting fermionic topological insulators/superconductors in three dimensions

    Chong Wang and T. Senthil, “Interacting fermionic topological insulators/superconductors in three dimen- sions,” Phys. Rev. B89, 195124 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.B 91, 239902 (2015)], arXiv:1401.1142 [cond- mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  64. [64]

    Composite fermi liquids in the lowest Landau level

    Chong Wang and T. Senthil, “Composite fermi liquids in the lowest Landau level,” Phys. Rev. B94, 245107 19 (2016), arXiv:1604.06807 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [65]

    Composite fermion duality for half-filled multicomponent Landau Levels

    Inti Sodemann, Itamar Kimchi, Chong Wang, and T. Senthil, “Composite fermion duality for half-filled multicomponent Landau Levels,” Phys. Rev. B95, 085135 (2017), arXiv:1609.08616 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    Deconfined quantum critical points: symmetries and dualities

    Chong Wang, Adam Nahum, Max A. Metlitski, Cenke Xu, and T. Senthil, “Deconfined quantum critical points: symmetries and dualities,” Phys. Rev. X7, 031051 (2017), arXiv:1703.02426 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [67]

    Quantized Axial Charge of Staggered Fermions and the Chiral Anomaly,

    Arkya Chatterjee, Salvatore D. Pace, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Quantized Axial Charge of Staggered Fermions and the Chiral Anomaly,” Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 021601 (2025), arXiv:2409.12220 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Lattice T-duality from non-invertible symme- tries in quantum spin chains,

    Salvatore D. Pace, Arkya Chatterjee, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Lattice T-duality from non-invertible symme- tries in quantum spin chains,” SciPost Phys.18, 121 (2025), arXiv:2412.18606 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Symmetry-Enforced Fermi Surfaces

    Minho Luke Kim, Salvatore D. Pace, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Symmetry-enforced Fermi surfaces,” (2025), arXiv:2512.04150 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Enforced Gaplessness from States with Exponentially Decaying Correlations,

    Rahul Sahay, Curt von Keyserlingk, Ruben Verresen, and Carolyn Zhang, “Enforced Gaplessness from States with Exponentially Decaying Correlations,” (2025), arXiv:2503.01977 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Exact Chiral Symmetries of 3+1D Hamiltonian Lattice Fermions

    Lei Gioia and Ryan Thorngren, “Exact Chiral Sym- metries of 3+1D Hamiltonian Lattice Fermions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 061601 (2026), arXiv:2503.07708 [cond- mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Parity anomaly from LSM: exact valley symmetries on the lattice,

    Salvatore D. Pace, Minho Luke Kim, Arkya Chat- terjee, and Shu-Heng Shao, “Parity anomaly from LSM: exact valley symmetries on the lattice,” (2025), arXiv:2505.04684 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Categorical Continuous Symmetry,

    Qiang Jia, Ran Luo, Jiahua Tian, Yi-Nan Wang, and Yi Zhang, “Categorical Continuous Symmetry,” (2025), arXiv:2509.13170 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Geometric Categories for Continuous Gauging,

    Devon Stockall and Matthew Yu, “Geometric Categories for Continuous Gauging,” (2025), arXiv:2511.08254 [math-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    A SymTFT for continuous symmetries,

    T. Daniel Brennan and Zhengdi Sun, “A SymTFT for continuous symmetries,” JHEP12, 100 (2024), arXiv:2401.06128 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Anomalies and gauging of U(1) symmetries,

    Andrea Antinucci and Francesco Benini, “Anomalies and gauging of U(1) symmetries,” Phys. Rev. B111, 024110 (2025), arXiv:2401.10165 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    SymTFTs for Continuous non-Abelian Symmetries,

    Federico Bonetti, Michele Del Zotto, and Ruben Minasian, “SymTFTs for continuous non-Abelian symmetries,” Phys. Lett. B871, 140010 (2025), arXiv:2402.12347 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    On the symmetry TFT of Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theory,

    Riccardo Argurio, Francesco Benini, Matteo Bertolini, Giovanni Galati, and Pierluigi Niro, “On the symmetry TFT of Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theory,” JHEP07, 130 (2024), arXiv:2404.06601 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    SymTFTs forU(1) symmetries from descent,

    Finn Gagliano and I˜ naki Garc´ ıa Etxebarria, “SymTFTs forU(1) symmetries from descent,” (2024), arXiv:2411.15126 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Metric isometries, holography, and continuous symmetry operators,

    Mirjam Cvetiˇ c, Jonathan J. Heckman, Max H¨ ubner, and Chitraang Murdia, “Metric isometries, holography, and continuous symmetry operators,” Phys. Rev. D 112, 106020 (2025), arXiv:2501.17911 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.