pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16482 · v1 · pith:HXAXAA3Enew · submitted 2026-05-15 · ✦ hep-th · cond-mat.str-el

When Symmetries Twist: Anomaly Inflow on Monodromy Defects

Christian Copetti This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 16:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th cond-mat.str-el
keywords monodromy defectsanomaly inflowsymmetry defectsSPT phaseschiral symmetriestopological orderdomain wallsbackground flux
0
0 comments X

The pith

Background flux sources anomalies that force monodromy defects to be defined as domain walls to anomaly-induced topological orders.

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

The paper studies monodromy defects, which mark where topological symmetry operators terminate dynamically and are sourced by localized background magnetic flux. In gapped symmetry-protected topological phases and in gapless theories with anomalous symmetries, this flux acts as an anomaly source that changes how the defect can be defined. The defect must now be understood as a domain wall separating the symmetry generator from a topological order generated by the anomaly itself. This dressing produces observable effects including protected chiral edge modes along the defect and the adiabatic pumping of gapless modes tied to the moving flux. The claims are checked in concrete examples of anomalous chiral symmetries both in continuum field theory and on the lattice.

Core claim

Monodromy defects describe a dynamical termination of topological symmetry operators and are sourced by localized background magnetic flux. In the presence of an anomaly the background flux acts as a source for the anomaly, so the monodromy defect can only be defined as a domain wall between the symmetry generator and a topological order induced by the anomaly. The topological dressing produces protected chiral edge modes on the defect worldvolume and adiabatic pumping of gapless degrees of freedom bound to the localized flux.

What carries the argument

Anomaly inflow from a higher-dimensional bulk that supplies the topological dressing of the monodromy defect when the defect is sourced by localized background magnetic flux.

If this is right

  • Monodromy defects host protected chiral edge modes on their worldvolume.
  • Gapless degrees of freedom are adiabatically pumped when the localized background flux is moved.
  • The same structure appears for anomalous chiral symmetries both in continuum theories and on the lattice.
  • The defect definition changes from a simple termination of a symmetry operator to a domain wall involving anomaly-induced topological order.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar flux-induced dressing may appear for other defects such as vortices or monopoles when anomalies are present.
  • Lattice models with engineered anomalies could be used to observe the predicted chiral modes and pumping in quantum simulators.
  • The mechanism links anomaly inflow to the classification of defect operators in theories with higher-form symmetries.

Load-bearing premise

Anomaly inflow from a higher-dimensional bulk directly determines the topological dressing of the monodromy defect without additional dynamical corrections or lattice-specific artifacts.

What would settle it

A lattice or continuum simulation of an anomalous chiral symmetry in which a monodromy defect is created by localized flux but shows neither chiral edge modes on its worldvolume nor net pumping of gapless modes when the flux is adiabatically moved would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16482 by Christian Copetti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A monodromy defect M(g) can be thought of as a dynamical termination of a symmetry operator U(g), which imposes twisted boundary conditions in the angular direction. Alternatively, it is sourced by a localized G-flux (fractional, in the discrete case). 1 Introduction The space of defects in a quantum system has been the subject of intense recent study: defects arise naturally as impurities in condensed-mat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: The monodromy defect M(g) defined as a domain wall between the symmetry defect U(g) and the topological decoration T(g). Right: The radial quantization frame S 2 × R around a point on the monodromy defect. The surfaces U(g) and T(g) intersect the spatial S 2 slice along meridians meeting at the poles. In this presentation, the action of a bulk symmetry U(h) ∈ CG(g) on the monodromy defect M(g) is enc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: a) An SPT in the presence of a topological defect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The inflow setup to describe an anomalous monodromy defect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Using the topological decoration T(g) to correctly define a twisted Hilbert space. The cyan region represents the stacking of τ (g); rotating T(g) around the junction M(g) recasts the setup as a single composite defect U(g) ⊗ T† (g). of the properties of M(g) from the inflow analysis of T(g), without resorting to a detailed analysis of the gapless theory T . We can recover a purely boundary perspective by … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The spectral pump along the parameter space of the monodromy defect. As the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left, the spectrum in the presence of a monodromy defect. The white area contains the singular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Above, the combined spectral sea for the Dirac fermion. The left and right Weyl fermion copies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Chiral modes bound to a fractional axion string: inside the core the UV fermions are deconfined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: The monodromy defect M(g) defined as the endpoint of a symmetry defect U(g) on the dual lattice, gauge fields Aℓ = g ±1 are turned on along the marked links. The green plaquette hosts flux for Aℓ . Right: The action of the composite translation Tγ around a closed loop γ on the standard lattice, traversing exactly one dual link. Monodromy defects The monodromy defect M(g), instead, can only be define… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Monodromy defects describe a dynamical termination of topological symmetry operators, and are sourced by a localized background magnetic flux. We study their properties in gapped SPT phases and, by inflow, in gapless theories with an anomalous symmetry. The background flux acts as a source for the anomaly, impacting the definition of the monodromy defect, which can only be defined as a domain wall between the symmetry generator and a topological order induced by the anomaly. The topological dressing has several consequences, such as the presence of protected chiral edge modes on the defect's worldvolume, and the adiabatic pumping of gapless degrees of freedom bound to the localized flux. We verify our predictions in several examples, focusing on monodromy defects for anomalous chiral symmetries, both in the continuum and on the lattice.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies monodromy defects sourced by localized background magnetic flux in gapped SPT phases and, via anomaly inflow, in gapless theories with anomalous symmetries. It argues that the flux sources the anomaly such that the defect can only be realized as a domain wall between the symmetry generator and an anomaly-induced topological order, with consequences including protected chiral edge modes on the defect worldvolume and adiabatic pumping of gapless modes bound to the flux. These predictions are checked in examples for anomalous chiral symmetries, both in the continuum and on the lattice.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work clarifies how anomaly inflow constrains the topological dressing of monodromy defects, offering a concrete mechanism linking background flux to protected modes and pumping phenomena. This could inform classifications of defects in anomalous QFTs and SPT phases. The multi-example verification (continuum plus lattice) is a positive feature, as is the parameter-free character of the inflow-based predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Introduction and the section on defect definition via anomaly inflow] The central claim that the monodromy defect 'can only be defined as a domain wall between the symmetry generator and a topological order induced by the anomaly' rests on treating the localized background flux as an external source that induces topological order via inflow without backreaction or dynamical corrections. This assumption is load-bearing for the defect definition and its consequences (chiral modes, pumping), yet the manuscript provides no explicit analysis of possible corrections or lattice artifacts that could alter the effective dressing.
  2. [Examples section (continuum and lattice verifications)] The verification of predictions in several examples is stated in the abstract and presumably detailed later, but the manuscript does not supply full derivations, explicit data-exclusion criteria, or error analysis for the lattice and continuum checks. This leaves the empirical support for the inflow-based dressing only partially documented.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Section introducing the anomaly inflow setup] Notation for the anomaly polynomial and the induced topological order should be introduced with a clear reference to the inflow formula used; the current presentation assumes familiarity that may not be universal.
  2. [Examples section] A short table or diagram summarizing the protected modes and pumping charges across the checked examples would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address the major comments point by point below. Where the comments identify opportunities for clarification, we have revised the text accordingly while preserving the core arguments based on anomaly inflow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Introduction and the section on defect definition via anomaly inflow] The central claim that the monodromy defect 'can only be defined as a domain wall between the symmetry generator and a topological order induced by the anomaly' rests on treating the localized background flux as an external source that induces topological order via inflow without backreaction or dynamical corrections. This assumption is load-bearing for the defect definition and its consequences (chiral modes, pumping), yet the manuscript provides no explicit analysis of possible corrections or lattice artifacts that could alter the effective dressing.

    Authors: We agree that the defect definition is formulated in the effective field theory regime where the background flux is treated as a fixed source. In this setting the anomaly inflow fixes the topological dressing at leading order, with backreaction and dynamical corrections being irrelevant operators that cannot cancel the inflow. The lattice examples already demonstrate consistency with this picture, as the observed chiral modes and pumping match the inflow predictions without additional dressing. To make this reasoning explicit, we have added a short paragraph in the introduction and in the defect definition section discussing the suppression of corrections and the absence of lattice artifacts that would alter the topological order. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Examples section (continuum and lattice verifications)] The verification of predictions in several examples is stated in the abstract and presumably detailed later, but the manuscript does not supply full derivations, explicit data-exclusion criteria, or error analysis for the lattice and continuum checks. This leaves the empirical support for the inflow-based dressing only partially documented.

    Authors: The examples section contains explicit continuum derivations for the chiral anomaly cases together with lattice simulation results that exhibit the predicted chiral edge modes and adiabatic pumping. We acknowledge that the presentation would benefit from expanded step-by-step derivations and quantitative error analysis. In the revised manuscript we have included the full derivations for the continuum examples and added error bars together with the data-selection criteria used in the lattice checks. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained via external anomaly inflow

full rationale

The paper derives monodromy defect properties from standard anomaly inflow applied to localized background flux, treating the flux as an external source that induces topological order. Central claims about domain-wall realization, chiral modes, and pumping are presented as consequences of this inflow and are verified against independent continuum and lattice examples. No equations or steps reduce by construction to internally fitted quantities, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the derivation remains independent of the paper's own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard domain assumptions from quantum field theory and condensed-matter literature regarding anomaly inflow and symmetry-protected topological phases; no free parameters or newly invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Anomaly inflow from a higher-dimensional bulk resolves the inconsistency on the defect worldvolume
    Invoked to define the topological dressing of the monodromy defect when background flux sources the anomaly.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5653 in / 1256 out tokens · 64475 ms · 2026-05-20T16:29:26.368545+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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 141 canonical work pages · 48 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Generalized Global Symmetries

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, “Generalized Global Symmetries,”JHEP02(2015) 172,arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Topological constraints on defect dynamics,

    A. Antinucci, C. Copetti, G. Galati, and G. Rizi, “Topological constraints on defect dynamics,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 6, (2025) 065025,arXiv:2412.18652 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Defect Anomalies, a Spin-Flux Duality, and Boson-Kondo Problems,

    Z. Komargodski, F. K. Popov, and B. C. Rayhaun, “Defect Anomalies, a Spin-Flux Duality, and Boson-Kondo Problems,”arXiv:2508.14963 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    Noninvertible Symmetries, Anomalies, and Scattering Amplitudes,

    C. Copetti, L. Cordova, and S. Komatsu, “Noninvertible Symmetries, Anomalies, and Scattering Amplitudes,”Phys. Rev. Lett.133no. 18, (2024) 181601,arXiv:2403.04835 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    S-matrix bootstrap and non-invertible symmetries,

    C. Copetti, L. Cordova, and S. Komatsu, “S-matrix bootstrap and non-invertible symmetries,”JHEP03 (2025) 204,arXiv:2408.13132 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Particle-soliton degeneracies from spontaneously broken non-invertible symmetry,

    C. Cordova, D. Garc´ ıa-Sep´ ulveda, and N. Holfester, “Particle-soliton degeneracies from spontaneously broken non-invertible symmetry,”JHEP07(2024) 154,arXiv:2403.08883 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Representation Theory of Solitons,

    C. Cordova, N. Holfester, and K. Ohmori, “Representation Theory of Solitons,” (8, 2024) , arXiv:2408.11045 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Monopoles, scattering, and generalized symmetries,

    M. van Beest, P. Boyle Smith, D. Delmastro, Z. Komargodski, and D. Tong, “Monopoles, scattering, and generalized symmetries,”JHEP03(2025) 014,arXiv:2306.07318 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Fermion-monopole scattering in the Standard Model,

    M. van Beest, P. Boyle Smith, D. Delmastro, R. Mouland, and D. Tong, “Fermion-monopole scattering in the Standard Model,”JHEP08(2024) 004,arXiv:2312.17746 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Dynamics of the Fermion-Rotor System,

    V. Loladze, T. Okui, and D. Tong, “Dynamics of the Fermion-Rotor System,”arXiv:2508.21059 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  11. [11]

    Universal Constraints for Conformal Line Defects,

    B. Gabai, A. Sever, and D.-l. Zhong, “Universal Constraints for Conformal Line Defects,” (1, 2025) , arXiv:2501.06900 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Integral Identities from Symmetry Breaking of Conformal Defects,

    Z. Kong, “Integral Identities from Symmetry Breaking of Conformal Defects,” in14th International Workshop on Lie Theory and Its Applications in Physics. 9, 2025.arXiv:2509.23797 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    There and Back Again: Bulk-to-Defect via Ward Identities,

    J. Belton and Z. Kong, “There and Back Again: Bulk-to-Defect via Ward Identities,”arXiv:2510.08519 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  14. [14]

    't Hooft anomalies and boundaries

    K. Jensen, E. Shaverin, and A. Yarom, “’t Hooft anomalies and boundaries,”JHEP01(2018) 085, arXiv:1710.07299 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    Anomalous symmetries end at the boundary,

    R. Thorngren and Y. Wang, “Anomalous symmetries end at the boundary,”JHEP09(2021) 017, arXiv:2012.15861 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Higher Structures on Boundary Conformal Manifolds: Higher Berry Phase and Boundary Conformal Field Theory,

    Y. Choi, H. Ha, D. Kim, Y. Kusuki, S. Ohyama, and S. Ryu, “Higher Structures on Boundary Conformal Manifolds: Higher Berry Phase and Boundary Conformal Field Theory,”arXiv:2507.12525 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  17. [17]

    ’t Hooft Anomalies and Defect Conformal Manifolds: Topological Signatures from Modulated Effective Actions,

    C. Copetti, “’t Hooft Anomalies and Defect Conformal Manifolds: Topological Signatures from Modulated Effective Actions,”arXiv:2507.15466 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    Charge pumps, pivot Hamiltonians, and symmetry-protected topological phases,

    N. G. Jones, R. Thorngren, R. Verresen, and A. Prakash, “Charge pumps, pivot Hamiltonians, and symmetry-protected topological phases,”Phys. Rev. B112no. 16, (2025) 165123,arXiv:2507.00995 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    A Long Exact Sequence in Symmetry Breaking: order parameter constraints, defect anomaly-matching, and higher Berry phases

    A. Debray, S. K. Devalapurkar, C. Krulewski, Y. L. Liu, N. Pacheco-Tallaj, and R. Thorngren, “A long exact sequence in symmetry breaking: order parameter constraints, defect anomaly-matching, and higher Berry phases,”JHEP07(2025) 007,arXiv:2309.16749 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Higher gauging and non-invertible condensation defects,

    K. Roumpedakis, S. Seifnashri, and S.-H. Shao, “Higher gauging and non-invertible condensation defects,” Commun. Math. Phys.401(2023) 3043–3107,arXiv:2204.02407 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Higher Structure of Chiral Symmetry,

    C. Copetti, M. Del Zotto, K. Ohmori, and Y. Wang, “Higher Structure of Chiral Symmetry,” arXiv:2305.18282 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  22. [22]

    Symmetry Fractionalization, Defects, and Gauging of Topological Phases,

    M. Barkeshli, P. Bonderson, M. Cheng, and Z. Wang, “Symmetry Fractionalization, Defects, and Gauging of Topological Phases,”Phys. Rev. B100no. 11, (2019) 115147,arXiv:1410.4540 [cond-mat.str-el]. 38

    work page arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    The holography of non-invertible self-duality symmetries,

    A. Antinucci, F. Benini, C. Copetti, G. Galati, and G. Rizi, “The holography of non-invertible self-duality symmetries,”arXiv:2210.09146 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    Rigid Surface Operators

    S. Gukov and E. Witten, “Rigid Surface Operators,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.14no. 1, (2010) 87–178, arXiv:0804.1561 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    Surface Defects and Chiral Algebras

    C. Cordova, D. Gaiotto, and S.-H. Shao, “Surface Defects and Chiral Algebras,”JHEP05(2017) 140, arXiv:1704.01955 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Superconformal surfaces in four dimensions,

    L. Bianchi and M. Lemos, “Superconformal surfaces in four dimensions,”JHEP06(2020) 056, arXiv:1911.05082 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Superconformal monodromy defects in N=4 SYM and LS theory,

    I. Arav, J. P. Gauntlett, Y. Jiao, M. M. Roberts, and C. Rosen, “Superconformal monodromy defects in N=4 SYM and LS theory,”JHEP08(2024) 177,arXiv:2405.06014 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Superconformal monodromy defects in ABJM and mABJM theory,

    I. Arav, J. P. Gauntlett, Y. Jiao, M. M. Roberts, and C. Rosen, “Superconformal monodromy defects in ABJM and mABJM theory,”JHEP11(2024) 008,arXiv:2408.11088 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Monodromy defects in free field theories,

    L. Bianchi, A. Chalabi, V. Proch´ azka, B. Robinson, and J. Sisti, “Monodromy defects in free field theories,” JHEP08(2021) 013,arXiv:2104.01220 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    The $\epsilon$-expansion of the codimension two twist defect from conformal field theory

    S. Yamaguchi, “Theϵ-expansion of the codimension two twist defect from conformal field theory,”PTEP 2016no. 9, (2016) 091B01,arXiv:1607.05551 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Anomalous Dimensions in the WF O($N$) Model with a Monodromy Line Defect

    A. S¨ oderberg, “Anomalous Dimensions in the WF O(N) Model with a Monodromy Line Defect,”JHEP03 (2018) 058,arXiv:1706.02414 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Monodromy defects from hyperbolic space,

    S. Giombi, E. Helfenberger, Z. Ji, and H. Khanchandani, “Monodromy defects from hyperbolic space,” JHEP02(2022) 041,arXiv:2102.11815 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Söderberg Rousu,The O(N)-flavoured replica twist defect,JHEP07(2023) 022 [2304.08116]

    A. S¨ oderberg Rousu, “The O(N)-flavoured replica twist defect,”JHEP07(2023) 022,arXiv:2304.08116 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Bootstrapping line defects with O(2) global symmetry,

    A. Gimenez-Grau, E. Lauria, P. Liendo, and P. van Vliet, “Bootstrapping line defects with O(2) global symmetry,”JHEP11(2022) 018,arXiv:2208.11715 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Monodromy Pinning Defects in the Critical O(2N) Model,

    P. Kravchuk and A. Radcliffe, “Monodromy Pinning Defects in the Critical O(2N) Model,” arXiv:2510.02281 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  36. [36]

    Line defects in the 3d Ising model

    M. Bill´ o, M. Caselle, D. Gaiotto, F. Gliozzi, M. Meineri, and R. Pellegrini, “Line defects in the 3d Ising model,”JHEP07(2013) 055,arXiv:1304.4110 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  37. [37]

    Bootstrapping the 3d Ising twist defect

    D. Gaiotto, D. Mazac, and M. F. Paulos, “Bootstrapping the 3d Ising twist defect,”JHEP03(2014) 100, arXiv:1310.5078 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Scaling of the disorder operator at (2+1)d U(1) quantum criticality,

    Y.-C. Wang, M. Cheng, and Z. Y. Meng, “Scaling of the disorder operator at (2+1)d U(1) quantum criticality,”Phys. Rev. B104no. 8, (2021) 081109,arXiv:2101.10358 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Scaling of the disorder operator at deconfined quantum criticality,

    Y.-C. Wang, N. Ma, M. Cheng, and Z. Y. Meng, “Scaling of the disorder operator at deconfined quantum criticality,”SciPost Phys.13no. 6, (2022) 123,arXiv:2106.01380 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Symmetry fractionalization and twist defects

    L. Fidkowski, N. H. Lindner, and N. Tarantino, “Symmetry fractionalization and twist defects,”New J. Phys.18no. 3, (2016) 035006,arXiv:1506.06754 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Disclinations, Dislocations, and Emanant Flux at Dirac Criticality,

    M. Barkeshli, C. Fechisin, Z. Komargodski, and S. Zhong, “Disclinations, Dislocations, and Emanant Flux at Dirac Criticality,”Phys. Rev. X16no. 1, (2026) 011017,arXiv:2501.13866 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Pinning the order: the nature of quantum criticality in the Hubbard model on honeycomb lattice

    F. F. Assaad and I. F. Herbut, “Pinning the order: the nature of quantum criticality in the Hubbard model on honeycomb lattice,”Phys. Rev. X3(2013) 031010,arXiv:1304.6340 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  43. [43]

    Factorizing Defects from Generalized Pinning Fields,

    F. K. Popov and Y. Wang, “Factorizing Defects from Generalized Pinning Fields,” (4, 2025) , arXiv:2504.06203 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Topological Insulators

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, “Colloquium: Topological insulators,”Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2010) 3045, arXiv:1002.3895 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  45. [45]

    Symmetry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group

    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. B87no. 15, (2013) 155114,arXiv:1106.4772 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    Preroughening transitions in crystal surfaces and valence-bond-solid phases in quantum spin chains,

    M. den Nijs and K. Rommelse, “Preroughening transitions in crystal surfaces and valence-bond-solid phases in quantum spin chains,”Phys. Rev. B40(1989) 4709

    work page 1989

  47. [47]

    Hidden symmetry breaking and the Haldane phase inS= 1 quantum spin chains,

    T. Kennedy and H. Tasaki, “Hidden symmetry breaking and the Haldane phase inS= 1 quantum spin chains,”Commun. Math. Phys.147(1992) 431–484. 39

    work page 1992

  48. [48]

    Symmetry protection of topological order in one-dimensional quantum spin systems

    F. Pollmann, E. Berg, A. M. Turner, and M. Oshikawa, “Symmetry protection of topological phases in one-dimensional quantum spin systems,”Phys. Rev. B85no. 7, (2012) 075125,arXiv:0909.4059 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  49. [49]

    Where Non-Invertible Symmetries End: Twist Defects for Electromagnetic Duality,

    S.-H. Shao and S. Zhong, “Where Non-Invertible Symmetries End: Twist Defects for Electromagnetic Duality,”arXiv:2509.21279 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  50. [50]

    Monodromy Defects for Electric-Magnetic Duality, Hyperbolic Space, and Lines

    V. Bashmakov, “Monodromy Defects for Electric-Magnetic Duality, Hyperbolic Space, and Lines,” arXiv:2604.15117 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Anomalies in the space of coupling constants and their dynamical applications I,

    C. C´ ordova, D. S. Freed, H. T. Lam, and N. Seiberg, “Anomalies in the space of coupling constants and their dynamical applications I,”SciPost Phys.8(2020) 001,arXiv:1905.09315 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Anomalies in the Space of Coupling Constants and Their Dynamical Applications II,

    C. C´ ordova, D. S. Freed, H. T. Lam, and N. Seiberg, “Anomalies in the Space of Coupling Constants and Their Dynamical Applications II,”SciPost Phys.8no. 1, (2020) 002,arXiv:1905.13361 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Anomalies and fermion zero modes on strings and domain walls,

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and J. A. Harvey, “Anomalies and fermion zero modes on strings and domain walls,” Nucl. Phys. B250(1985) 427–436

    work page 1985

  54. [54]

    Padayasi, A

    J. Padayasi, A. Krishnan, M. A. Metlitski, I. A. Gruzberg, and M. Meineri, “The extraordinary boundary transition in the 3d O(N) model via conformal bootstrap,”SciPost Phys.12no. 6, (2022) 190, arXiv:2111.03071 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Boundary conformal field theory at large charge,

    G. Cuomo, M. Mezei, and A. Raviv-Moshe, “Boundary conformal field theory at large charge,”JHEP10 (2021) 143,arXiv:2108.06579 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    Broken Global Symmetries and Defect Conformal Manifolds,

    N. Drukker, Z. Kong, and G. Sakkas, “Broken Global Symmetries and Defect Conformal Manifolds,”Phys. Rev. Lett.129no. 20, (2022) 201603,arXiv:2203.17157 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Tilting space of boundary conformal field theories,

    C. P. Herzog and V. Schaub, “Tilting space of boundary conformal field theories,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 6, (2024) L061701,arXiv:2301.10789 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Symmetry protected topological phases from decorated domain walls

    X. Chen, Y.-M. Lu, and A. Vishwanath, “Symmetry-protected topological phases from decorated domain walls,”Nature Communications5(2014) 3507,arXiv:1303.4301 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  59. [59]

    Domain Wall Decorations, Anomalies and Spectral Sequences in Bosonic Topological Phases,

    Q.-R. Wang, S.-Q. Ning, and M. Cheng, “Domain Wall Decorations, Anomalies and Spectral Sequences in Bosonic Topological Phases,”arXiv:2104.13233 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv

  60. [60]

    Anomaly Obstructions to Symmetry Preserving Gapped Phases,

    C. C´ ordova and K. Ohmori, “Anomaly Obstructions to Symmetry Preserving Gapped Phases,” arXiv:1910.04962 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 1910

  61. [61]

    Symmetric Gapped Interfaces of SPT and SET States: Systematic Constructions

    J. Wang, X.-G. Wen, and E. Witten, “Symmetric Gapped Interfaces of SPT and SET States: Systematic Constructions,”Phys. Rev. X8no. 3, (2018) 031048,arXiv:1705.06728 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  62. [62]

    Quantum Orders and Symmetric Spin Liquids

    X.-G. Wen, “Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids,”Phys. Rev. B65no. 16, (2002) 165113, arXiv:cond-mat/0107071 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  63. [63]

    Classifying fractionalization: symmetry classification of gapped Z2 spin liquids in two dimensions

    A. M. Essin and M. Hermele, “Classifying fractionalization: symmetry classification of gappedZ 2 spin liquids in two dimensions,”Phys. Rev. B87(2013) 104406,arXiv:1212.0593 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  64. [64]

    Anomalous Symmetry Fractionalization and Surface Topological Order

    X. Chen, F. J. Burnell, A. Vishwanath, and L. Fidkowski, “Anomalous Symmetry Fractionalization and Surface Topological Order,”Phys. Rev. X5(2015) 041013,arXiv:1403.6491 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [65]

    On 2-Group Global Symmetries and Their Anomalies

    F. Benini, C. C´ ordova, and P.-S. Hsin, “On 2-group global symmetries and their anomalies,”JHEP03 (2019) 118,arXiv:1803.09336 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    Line Defect Quantum Numbers and Anomalies,

    T. D. Brennan, C. C´ ordova, and T. T. Dumitrescu, “Line Defect Quantum Numbers and Anomalies,” (2022) ,arXiv:2206.15401 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    Anomalies and Symmetry Fractionalization,

    D. Delmastro, J. Gomis, P.-S. Hsin, and Z. Komargodski, “Anomalies and Symmetry Fractionalization,” SciPost Phys.15(2023) 079,arXiv:2206.15118 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    On gauging finite subgroups,

    Y. Tachikawa, “On gauging finite subgroups,”SciPost Phys.8no. 1, (2020) 015,arXiv:1712.09542 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    Anomalous (3+1)d Fermionic Topological Quantum Field Theories via Symmetry Extension,

    Z. Wan and J. Wang, “Anomalous (3+1)d Fermionic Topological Quantum Field Theories via Symmetry Extension,”arXiv:2512.25038 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  70. [70]

    How to Build Anomalous (3+1)d Topological Quantum Field Theories,

    A. Debray, W. Ye, and M. Yu, “How to Build Anomalous (3+1)d Topological Quantum Field Theories,” arXiv:2510.24834 [math-ph]

    work page arXiv

  71. [71]

    Symmetric Gapped States and Symmetry-Enforced Gaplessness in 3-dimension,

    A. Debray, M. Yu, and W. Ye, “Symmetric Gapped States and Symmetry-Enforced Gaplessness in 3-dimension,”arXiv:2602.12335 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  72. [72]

    Models for gapped boundaries and domain walls

    A. Kitaev and L. Kong, “Models for Gapped Boundaries and Domain Walls,”Commun. Math. Phys.313 no. 2, (2012) 351–373,arXiv:1104.5047 [cond-mat.str-el]. 40

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  73. [73]

    Gauging spatial symmetries and the classification of topological crystalline phases

    R. Thorngren and D. V. Else, “Gauging Spatial Symmetries and the Classification of Topological Crystalline Phases,”Phys. Rev. X8no. 1, (2018) 011040,arXiv:1612.00846 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [74]

    Crystalline topological phases as defect networks

    D. V. Else and R. Thorngren, “Crystalline topological phases as defect networks,”Phys. Rev. B99no. 11, (2019) 115116,arXiv:1810.10539 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    Quantization of particle transport,

    D. J. Thouless, “Quantization of particle transport,”Phys. Rev. B27(May, 1983) 6083–6087

    work page 1983

  76. [76]

    1+1d SPT phases with fusion category symmetry: interface modes and non-abelian Thouless pump,

    K. Inamura and S. Ohyama, “1+1d SPT phases with fusion category symmetry: interface modes and non-abelian Thouless pump,”arXiv:2408.15960 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv

  77. [77]

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

    J. Kaidi, K. Ohmori, and Y. Zheng, “Kramers-Wannier-like Duality Defects in (3+1)D Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128no. 11, (2022) 111601,arXiv:2111.01141 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    Topological Operators and Completeness of Spectrum in Discrete Gauge Theories,

    T. Rudelius and S.-H. Shao, “Topological Operators and Completeness of Spectrum in Discrete Gauge Theories,”JHEP12(2020) 172,arXiv:2006.10052 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    Symmetries and strings of adjoint QCD2,

    Z. Komargodski, K. Ohmori, K. Roumpedakis, and S. Seifnashri, “Symmetries and strings of adjoint QCD2,”JHEP03(2021) 103,arXiv:2008.07567 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    Comments on One-Form Global Symmetries and Their Gauging in 3d and 4d

    P.-S. Hsin, H. T. Lam, and N. Seiberg, “Comments on One-Form Global Symmetries and Their Gauging in 3d and 4d,”SciPost Phys.6no. 3, (2019) 039,arXiv:1812.04716 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.