Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 75 references

A lattice duality done on only part of spacetime yields a non-invertible particle-vortex duality defect in the (2+1)D charge-n XY model.

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

2026-08-02 06:05 UTC pith:TBEF2ZCI

load-bearing objection Half dualization is a genuinely new way to build non-invertible duality defects from any local lattice duality, and the charge-n XY construction is clear and mostly careful; the precise fusion product (Eq. 9) rests on a formal lattice identification that needs tightening before it is established. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13138 v1 pith:TBEF2ZCI submitted 2026-07-14 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.str-elhep-lathep-th

Half dualization and non-invertible particle-vortex duality defect on lattice

Zhi-Qiang Gao This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.str-elhep-lathep-th
keywords half dualizationnon-invertible duality defectparticle-vortex dualitycharge-n XY modelZ_n gauge theorylattice Villain model3D XY* transitionduality wall
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 introduces half dualization: apply a known duality transformation to only a subregion of a lattice, leaving an interface between the original model and its dual. In the (2+1)-dimensional Villainized charge-n XY model, this interface hosts a non-invertible particle-vortex duality defect when n>1. Fusing the defect with its orientation reverse produces a (1+1)-dimensional Z_n gauge theory on the fusion surface, showing the defect is not group-like. When the Z_n branch structure is promoted to a dynamical gauge field, the interface becomes a gauge-covariant duality wall that flows to an invertible duality defect in the infrared. The construction is dimension-independent and gives a concrete lattice route to non-invertible duality defects.

Core claim

The central claim is that half dualization is a general principle for constructing non-invertible duality defects. Demonstrated on a cubic lattice in the charge-n XY model, the duality defect D, shown in lattice variables as exp(i Σ_e n θ_e (∇×u)_e), is non-invertible for n>1: its fusion with its orientation reverse produces a surface theory that is a dynamical Z_n gauge theory, Eq. (9), rather than the identity. The non-invertibility originates from the Z_n branch structure of the charge-n XY model, which makes sequentially applying duality and its inverse land in a different physical configuration. Under gauging of that Z_n structure, the defect loses gauge invariance and becomes a duality

What carries the argument

Half dualization itself: taking a lattice theory with a local duality transformation, performing that transformation only in a subregion, and leaving an interface coupling the original variables θ on one boundary to dual variables u on the other. The workhorse is the lattice duality defect D[θ,u] = exp(Σ_e in θ_e (∇×u)_e), whose continuum form is exp((in/2π) ∫_Σ θ da). The non-invertibility is established by computing the fusion D × D̄ and showing that integrating out the surface u-field yields delta functions enforcing flatness of a Z_n gauge field on the fusion surface, Eq. (9).

Load-bearing premise

The fusion calculation assumes the two lattice surfaces supporting the defect and its reverse can be formally identified (modulo a half-lattice translation) and that integrating out surface degrees of freedom in the topological limit gives the Z_n gauge theory; if that identification is not a controlled lattice procedure, the claimed non-invertibility for n>1 is not established.

What would settle it

On a finite cubic lattice with n=2, explicitly sum over all surface degrees of freedom in the fusion D × D̄ without the formal half-translation identification. If the resulting expression is not a flat Z_2 gauge theory on the surface—for example, if it contains additional local terms—the claimed non-invertibility fails. Alternatively, a Monte Carlo measurement of correlation functions across the defect could check whether the fractional-monopole operator e^{i(p/n)∮a} appears.

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

If this is right

  • The charge-n XY model (with K' < n^2 K) hosts a genuine non-invertible particle-vortex duality defect for n>1, and an invertible one for n=1.
  • Fusing the duality defect with its orientation reverse produces a (1+1)-dimensional Z_n gauge theory on the fusion surface, a hallmark of non-invertibility.
  • Half dualization works in any spacetime dimension, so similar non-invertible duality defects can be constructed whenever an exact lattice duality is available.
  • In the Z_n-gauged XY model relevant to the 3D XY* transition, the interface is a gauge-covariant duality wall rather than a genuine defect, and flows to an invertible duality defect when the gauge field is confined or Higgsed.
  • Across the defect, a vertex operator e^{ipθ} with p not a multiple of n becomes a monopole of fractional magnetic charge p/n, making the defect non-invertible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same half-dualization construction could extend to boson-fermion dualities with exact lattice realizations, potentially producing duality defects tied to fermion parity or spin structure; the author flags this as a promising direction.
  • If the fusion identification is taken seriously, the appearance of a Z_n gauge theory on the fusion surface suggests that the non-invertibility is a lattice manifestation of a finite 'branch' sector that, when gauged, becomes bulk gauge degrees of freedom and removes the non-invertibility.
  • A numerical test could look for the fractional monopole operator across the defect, or directly measure the fusion outcome, by evaluating the partition function of a finite cubic lattice with n=2.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes 'half dualization' as a general method for constructing non-invertible duality defects: apply an exact lattice duality transformation only in a subregion of spacetime and regard the resulting interface as a defect. The construction is worked out for the Villainized charge-n XY model on a cubic lattice. The paper derives the half-dualized partition function, defines the duality defect D (Eq. (6)), and claims that fusing D with its orientation reverse produces a (1+1)-dimensional Z_n gauge theory on the fusion surface (Eq. (9)), establishing non-invertibility for n>1. It then considers the Z_n-gauged model relevant to the 3D XY* transition and argues that the half-dualization interface becomes a gauge-covariant duality wall that flows to an invertible defect in confined/Higgsed phases. The End Matter supplies the duality derivation and the finite-K' extension.

Significance. If the central fusion computation were made rigorous, this would be a useful lattice construction: it extends the half-gauging idea to duality transformations in odd spacetime dimension, gives a concrete microscopic realization of a non-invertible particle-vortex duality defect, and connects the defect to the physics of vestigial charge-2n superconductors and the 3D XY* transition. Strengths of the paper are the explicit End Matter derivation of Eq. (4), the clear operator diagnostic via fractional monopoles, and the falsifiable expectation that gauging Z_n removes the non-invertibility. However, the main non-invertibility claim currently rests on a formal topological-limit identification of defect supports, so the manuscript is not yet at the level of a controlled lattice construction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Non-invertibility of the duality defect, between Eqs. (8) and (9)] The derivation of the fusion product is not a controlled lattice identity. The text states that identifying the supports of D and its reverse is 'not exactly achievable' because they differ by a half lattice translation, and the sum over the surface degree of freedom is performed 'in the topological limit' without specifying a regulator or limiting procedure. Eq. (9) is therefore not a consequence of Eq. (8) in the same sense that the earlier partition function Eq. (4) is. Since the abstract and the non-invertibility conclusion advertise specifically the Z_n gauge-theory fusion product, this gap is load-bearing. The fractional-monopole argument below Eq. (9) is a useful qualitative diagnostic but does not determine the fusion algebra. Please provide an exact computation on a doubled lattice, or a continuum construction with a well-defined limit, or explicitly state Eq. (9) as a conjectur
  2. [Equation (9) and the Z_n gauge-theory identification] Even if the topological limit is accepted, the passage from the surface sums in Eq. (8) to a product of periodic delta functions with independent link variables z_{ee'} is underjustified. One must show that the integration over u produces a normalized sum over flat Z_n connections on an arbitrary surface, including global holonomies and boundary terms, and that the constraints on δθ assemble into the standard plaquette flatness condition with z as a dynamical field rather than a derived combination of δθ. The current text merely states this. Please spell out the integration, or at least derive Eq. (9) on a small lattice patch and state the global-sector treatment. The End Matter's comment about suppressing flux sectors via U(1) orbifolding also needs to be made precise here.
  3. [Half dualization and Fig. 1] The interface is asserted to be topological ('local changes of the cut ... leave the partition function invariant'), but no proof or exact statement is given. A non-invertible symmetry defect must be topological; a duality interface that depends on the detailed shape of Σ would not qualify. Because the paper's title and abstract present D as a defect, this is also load-bearing. Please provide a lattice demonstration of deformation invariance for D, or state precisely the class of deformations under which the partition function is invariant.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Notation] The orientation-reversed defect \bar D is used before being defined; specify the orientation reversal convention explicitly.
  2. [Eq. (4) and surrounding text] The support of D is described as 'Σ S \tildeΣ' in the main text; the union symbol should be used.
  3. [Between Eqs. (8) and (9)] The phrase 'topological limit' should be defined explicitly even if the full derivation is deferred.
  4. [Promoting Z_n branch to dynamical gauge field] The statements about IR flow to an invertible defect in the confined/Higgsed phases are heuristic, based on the κ→∞ or K'→∞ limits. Please label this as a physical argument rather than a derivation, or provide additional support.
  5. [Fig. 2] The phase diagram labels are ambiguous, particularly 'TO No SF'. The axes and the 3D XY and XY* transition lines should be labeled more clearly.
  6. [End Matter, Eq. (18)] The expression 'ZZn' appears to have a formatting error; it should be the partition function of the Z_n gauge theory. Also, the assumption about boundary conditions (torus vs open) should be stated before the flux-sector suppression is invoked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the fusion product (Eq. 9) is an evaluated consequence of the constructed defect (Eq. 6), and the cited charge-n duality transformation is re-derived in the End Matter.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The half-dualized partition function (Eq. 4) is obtained by an explicit Villain/Poisson-step derivation in the End Matter: Poisson summation over m, integration over θ in the dualized region, solving ∇·l=0 with a dual integer field u, and identifying W2 and D. Eq. (6) is therefore constructed, not stipulated. The fusion computation starts from the definition of fusion D × Dbar (Eq. 8) and evaluates the sum over the surface u-field to produce the Z_n gauge-theory fusion product (Eq. 9); the non-invertibility for n>1 is a consequence, not an input. The paper cites the author's earlier work [69] for the charge-n duality and for the finite-K' Z_n gauge sector, but the K'=0 core is re-derived here, and [69] is published independent support rather than a self-fulfilling premise. The paper explicitly flags a lattice limitation in the paragraph between Eqs. (8) and (9): 'on the lattice this is not exactly achievable' when identifying supports of D and Dbar, and the 'topological limit' is not regulated. That is a technical rigor gap in deriving Eq. (9), not a circularity: the result is claimed as the output of a limiting procedure, not assumed as the input. No parameters are fitted and renamed as predictions; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors; no known result is merely relabeled. The appropriate concern, if any, is correctness risk in the uncontrolled fusion limit, outside the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

All couplings (K, K', κ, n) are physical model inputs rather than fitted parameters; no empirical fitting is performed in the paper. No new physical entities are introduced; the duality wall is an interface object, not a new particle, force, or conserved charge.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Villain approximation faithfully represents the charge-n XY model (with K'=0 and K'<n^2 K) including its Z_n branch structure.
    Invoked at Eq. (3) and End Matter Eq. (14)-(15); the entire duality derivation starts from the Villainized partition function.
  • standard math Poisson summation and the integer dual-variable solution l_ij = (curl u)_ij, with torus flux sectors suppressed.
    Used in End Matter after Eq. (15) to derive Eq. (4); standard lattice Poisson duality.
  • domain assumption Local changes of the cut are implemented by local duality transformations and leave the partition function invariant.
    Stated in the 'Half dualization' paragraph; this gives the interface its topological character but is asserted rather than proved.
  • ad hoc to paper Supports of D and its orientation reverse can be identified modulo half-lattice translation and the surface field integrated out in the topological limit.
    Between Eqs. (8) and (9); the text admits this is 'not exactly achievable' on the lattice.
  • standard math A vertex operator e^{ipθ} crossing the defect turns into a fractionally charged monopole with da/(2π) = (p/n)δ(x).
    Used in the operator-correspondence paragraph after Eq. (7); a semi-classical equation-of-motion argument.
  • domain assumption In the gauged model, large-κ confinement or large-K' Higgsing permits z_ij or u to be integrated out, so the IR contains an invertible defect.
    Gauged-model section, paragraphs on confined and Higgsed limits; heuristic RG reasoning.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10667 in / 18599 out tokens · 167858 ms · 2026-08-02T06:05:31.775470+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce half dualization as a general principle to construct non-invertible duality defects. The construction performs a duality transformation only in a subregion of spacetime, leaving an interface between the original theory and its dual. A non-invertible duality defect can be hosted on this interface. Half dualization is applicable whenever a local duality transformation is available, and does not depend on the spacetime dimension. We demonstrate the construction procedure in the (2+1)-dimensional Villainized charge-$n$ XY model on a cubic lattice. Half dualization yields a non-invertible particle-vortex duality defect whose fusion with its orientation reverse produces a (1+1)-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_n$ gauge theory on the fusion surface. We then apply half dualization to the $\mathbb{Z}_n$-gauged XY model relevant to the 3D XY$^\ast$ transition. In the gauged model, the half dualization interface hosts a gauge covariant duality wall, rather than a genuine gauge invariant duality defect. It flows to an invertible duality defect in infrared when the $\mathbb{Z}_n$ gauge theory is confined or Higgsed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13138 by Zhi-Qiang Gao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Duality defect constructed from half dualization of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic phase diagram of the gauged XY model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.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

75 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Shao, What’s done cannot be undone: Tasi lectures on non-invertible symmetries (2024), arXiv:2308.00747 [hep-th]

    S.-H. Shao, What’s done cannot be undone: Tasi lectures on non-invertible symmetries (2024), arXiv:2308.00747 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Petkova and J.-B

    V. Petkova and J.-B. Zuber, Physics Letters B504, 157–164 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    Chang and Y.-H

    C.-M. Chang and Y.-H. Lin, Journal of High Energy Physics2021, 125 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Thorngren and Y

    R. Thorngren and Y. Wang, Fusion category symme- try ii: Categoriosities at c = 1 and beyond (2021), arXiv:2106.12577 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Sharpe, An introduction to decomposition (2022), arXiv:2204.09117 [hep-th]

    E. Sharpe, An introduction to decomposition (2022), arXiv:2204.09117 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Gukov and E

    S. Gukov and E. Witten, Gauge theory, ramification, and the geometric langlands program (2007), arXiv:hep- th/0612073 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Gukov and E

    S. Gukov and E. Witten, Rigid surface operators (2008), arXiv:0804.1561 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Wen, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B99, 205139 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    Rudelius and S.-H

    T. Rudelius and S.-H. Shao, Journal of High Energy Physics2020, 172 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    Nguyen, Y

    M. Nguyen, Y. Tanizaki, and M. ¨Unsal, Journal of High Energy Physics2021, 238 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    Heidenreich, J

    B. Heidenreich, J. McNamara, M. Montero, M. Reece, T. Rudelius, and I. Valenzuela, Journal of High Energy Physics2021, 203 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Kaidi, Z

    J. Kaidi, Z. Komargodski, K. Ohmori, S. Seifnashri, and S.-H. Shao, SciPost Physics13, 067 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Antinucci, G

    A. Antinucci, G. Galati, and G. Rizi, Journal of High Energy Physics2022, 061 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Wang and Y.-Z

    J. Wang and Y.-Z. You, Gauge enhanced quantum crit- icality between grand unifications: Categorical higher symmetry retraction (2022), arXiv:2111.10369 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    C´ ordova, K

    C. C´ ordova, K. Ohmori, and T. Rudelius, Journal of High Energy Physics2022, 154 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Arias-Tamargo and D

    G. Arias-Tamargo and D. Rodr ´ ıguez-G´ omez, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 093 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Yu, Gauging categorical symmetries in 3d topological orders and bulk reconstruction (2023), arXiv:2111.13697 [hep-th]

    M. Yu, Gauging categorical symmetries in 3d topological orders and bulk reconstruction (2023), arXiv:2111.13697 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Benini, C

    F. Benini, C. Copetti, and L. Di Pietro, SciPost Physics 14, 019 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    McGreevy, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 57–82 (2023)

    J. McGreevy, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 57–82 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    Kapustin and N

    A. Kapustin and N. Saulina, Surface operators in 3d topological field theory and 2d rational conformal field theory (2010), arXiv:1012.0911 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  21. [21]

    Fuchs, C

    J. Fuchs, C. Schweigert, and A. Valentino, Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics321, 543–575 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    T. Lan, J. C. Wang, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 076402 (2015)

    2015

  23. [23]

    Carqueville, I

    N. Carqueville, I. Runkel, and G. Schaumann, Quantum Topology10, 399–439 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    Koide, Y

    M. Koide, Y. Nagoya, and S. Yamaguchi, Non-invertible topological defects in 4-dimensionalZ 2 pure lattice gauge theory (2021), arXiv:2109.05992 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 161601 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Kaidi, K

    J. Kaidi, K. Ohmori, and Y. Zheng, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 111601 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    Y. Choi, C. C´ ordova, P.-S. Hsin, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. D105, 125016 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 131602 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Roumpedakis, S

    K. Roumpedakis, S. Seifnashri, and S.-H. Shao, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics401, 3043–3107 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    W. Cui, B. Haghighat, and L. Ruggeri, Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 159 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Villain, Journal de Physique36, 581 (1975)

    J. Villain, Journal de Physique36, 581 (1975)

    1975

  32. [32]

    Banks, R

    T. Banks, R. Myerson, and J. Kogut, Nuclear Physics B 129, 493 (1977). 6

    1977

  33. [33]

    M. E. Peskin, Annals of Physics113, 122 (1978)

    1978

  34. [34]

    Dasgupta and B

    C. Dasgupta and B. Halperin, Physical Review Letters 47, 1556 (1981)

    1981

  35. [35]

    M. P. A. Fisher and D. H. Lee, Physical Review B39, 2756 (1989)

    1989

  36. [36]

    Aharony, Journal of High Energy Physics2016, 093 (2016)

    O. Aharony, Journal of High Energy Physics2016, 093 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

    Seiberg, T

    N. Seiberg, T. Senthil, C. Wang, and E. Witten, Annals of Physics374, 395–433 (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    Karch and D

    A. Karch and D. Tong, Phys. Rev. X6, 031043 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. X5, 031027 (2015)

    2015

  40. [40]

    Kachru, M

    S. Kachru, M. Mulligan, G. Torroba, and H. Wang, Phys. Rev. B92, 235105 (2015)

    2015

  41. [41]

    D. F. Mross, J. Alicea, and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 016802 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    M. A. Metlitski and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B93, 245151 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    Hsin and N

    P.-S. Hsin and N. Seiberg, Journal of High Energy Physics2016, 095 (2016)

    2016

  44. [44]

    Aharony, F

    O. Aharony, F. Benini, P.-S. Hsin, and N. Seiberg, Jour- nal of High Energy Physics2017, 072 (2017)

    2017

  45. [45]

    C. Wang, A. Nahum, M. A. Metlitski, C. Xu, and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. X7, 031051 (2017)

    2017

  46. [46]

    M. A. Metlitski, A. Vishwanath, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. B95, 205137 (2017)

    2017

  47. [47]

    Huang and D.-H

    Y.-T. Huang and D.-H. Lee, Nuclear Physics B972, 115565 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    Han and J.-Y

    Z. Han and J.-Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. B105, 155130 (2022)

    2022

  49. [49]

    Han and J.-Y

    Z. Han and J.-Y. Chen, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 130 (2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    Huang and D.-H

    Y.-T. Huang and D.-H. Lee, Nuclear Physics B986, 116043 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    J.-Y. Chen, J. H. Son, C. Wang, and S. Raghu, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 016602 (2018)

    2018

  52. [52]

    Aitken, A

    K. Aitken, A. Baumgartner, A. Karch, and B. Robinson, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 053 (2018)

    2018

  53. [53]

    J. H. Son, J.-Y. Chen, and S. Raghu, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 038 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    Senthil, A

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, Science303, 1490 (2004)

    2004

  55. [55]

    Senthil, L

    T. Senthil, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. A. Fisher, Physical Review B70, 144407 (2004)

    2004

  56. [56]

    O. I. Motrunich and A. Vishwanath, Physical Review B 70, 075104 (2004)

    2004

  57. [57]

    Grover and T

    T. Grover and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 247202 (2007)

    2007

  58. [58]

    Grover and T

    T. Grover and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 156804 (2008)

    2008

  59. [59]

    F. Wang, S. A. Kivelson, and D.-H. Lee, Nature Physics 11, 959–963 (2015)

    2015

  60. [60]

    Roberts, S

    B. Roberts, S. Jiang, and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. B 99, 165143 (2019)

    2019

  61. [61]

    Senthil, D

    T. Senthil, D. T. Son, C. Wang, and C. Xu, Physics Re- ports827, 1–48 (2019)

    2019

  62. [62]

    Zhang and M

    C. Zhang and M. Levin, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 026801 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    Lu, SciPost Phys

    D.-C. Lu, SciPost Phys. Core6, 047 (2023)

    2023

  64. [64]

    Y.-Q. Wang, C. Liu, and Y.-M. Lu, Phys. Rev. B109, 195165 (2024)

    2024

  65. [65]

    S. D. Pace, SciPost Phys.17, 080 (2024)

    2024

  66. [66]

    X. Wu, H. Yang, and Y.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B110, 125122 (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    Z.-Q. Gao, H. Yang, and Y.-Q. Wang, Journal of High Energy Physics2026, 155 (2026)

    2026

  68. [68]

    D. H. Lee and G. Grinstein, Physical Review Letters55, 541 (1985)

    1985

  69. [69]

    Gao, Y.-T

    Z.-Q. Gao, Y.-T. Huang, and D.-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 106, L121105 (2022)

    2022

  70. [70]

    Here by local interactions we mean there exists a cutoffℓ in distance, beyond which microscopic variables are not coupled

  71. [71]

    E. Berg, E. Fradkin, and S. A. Kivelson, Nature Physics 5, 830 (2009)

    2009

  72. [72]

    How- ever, as it couples to an integer-valued vortex current, the allowed monopole insertions carry integer units of 2πflux according to Dirac’s quantization condition

    Here by noncompact we mean the gauge potential takes the value ofR, rather than over a compact interval. How- ever, as it couples to an integer-valued vortex current, the allowed monopole insertions carry integer units of 2πflux according to Dirac’s quantization condition

  73. [73]

    Argurio, A

    R. Argurio, A. Collinucci, G. Galati, O. Hul ´ ık, and E. Paznokas, SciPost Physics18, 089 (2025)

    2025

  74. [74]

    Xu, International Journal of Modern Physics B26, 1230007 (2012)

    C. Xu, International Journal of Modern Physics B26, 1230007 (2012)

    2012

  75. [75]

    S. V. Isakov, R. G. Melko, and M. B. Hastings, Science 335, 193–195 (2012). End Matter With a nonvanishingK ′ term in Eq. (2), the Vil- lainized partition function becomes [69], Z= Z D[θ] Y ⟨ij⟩ X m′ ij∈Z X pij∈Zn Vij,(14) where the Boltzmann weightV ij is, Vij = exp − n2K 2 θi −θ j −2πm ′ ij − 2π n pij 2 ×exp −∆ 1−cos 2πpij n .(15) Here ∆≈K ′/(1−cos (2π/...

    2012