Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 130 references

Tilts from 2-Groups

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Any line operator charged under the 1-form part of a 2-group global symmetry must explicitly break the 0-form symmetry, enforced by a 'family anomaly' that makes the line one member of a symmetry-related family of defects.

desk verdict The uniform WZ-consistency machinery for 2-group line defects holds up; the exceptions (connected continuous G^(0), non-simple lines) are honestly delimited, and the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04248 v1 pith:ICHIZGPZ submitted 2026-08-04 hep-th cond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MP

Sven Harder , Theodore Jacobson , Zhengdi Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thcond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MP
keywords 2-groupsymmetrieslineoperatorsfamilyanomalytiltoperatorPostnikovclassWess-ZuminoconsistencyhigherBerryphasegeneralizedglobal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish a universal fact about line defects in quantum field theories with 2-group global symmetries: whenever the 2-group has a non-trivial Wilson-surface anomaly, a line operator charged under the 1-form subgroup cannot be invariant under the 0-form subgroup. The reason is a generalized Wess-Zumino consistency condition: the Wilson surface ending on the line carries a 2d anomaly proportional to the Postnikov class, and on a surface with boundary that anomaly is inconsistent unless the line breaks the 0-form symmetry explicitly. The breaking is not an accident of any model: it produces a 'family anomaly' that organizes charged lines into families parameterized by the broken 0-form generators, and the family structure is protected by the quantized Postnikov class along RG flows. The authors work out the mechanism for continuous nonabelian, continuous abelian, and discrete 2-groups, and compute explicit 'tilt operators' that measure the line's linear response to the broken symmetry. If the argument is right, 2-group symmetry has a built-in hierarchy: the 1-form symmetry must emerge before the 0-form symmetry in any RG flow that restores both.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the generalized Wess-Zumino consistency condition (1.5), which says that any functional of 2-group background fields must be invariant under the combined non-commutativity of two 0-form gauge transformations and the compensating 1-form transformation $\Lambda^{(1)}=\alpha^{(1)}$. The paper shows that a Wilson surface ending on a charged line violates this condition by a boundary term, and the violation can only be cancelled by letting the line break $G^{(0)}$, i.e. by coupling it to a spurion $U\in G^{(0)}$ and accepting an anomalous phase $\nu^{(1)}(\lambda,U,A)$ called the family anomaly. The tilt operator is the linearized response to a modulated spurion, with higher tilt operators capturing the nonlinear action that is needed to match the anomaly. The discrete analog is the associativity constraint (4.10) with phases $\nu_i(g,h)$ and the Postnikov class $\beta(g,h,k)$, whose induced class in $H^3(G^{(0)},U(1))$ is the complete obstruction to a symmetric simple line. The Postnikov class is the characteristic class measuring how the 1-form background field shifts under $G^{(0)}$, equivalently how 1-form symmetry defects terminate on triple junctions of 0-form symmetry defects.

What would settle it

Find or construct a quantum field theory with a 2-group whose Postnikov class induces a non-trivial anomaly in $H^3(G^{(0)},U(1))$, and exhibit a simple line operator charged under $A^{(1)}$ that is exactly invariant under $G^{(0)}$ with no spurion and no tilt; equivalently, in such a theory compute the integrated 3-point tilt response, since the paper predicts a nonzero coefficient proportional to the Postnikov level $\kappa$ in the Ward identity (2.44), and observing a vanishing coefficient while the Postnikov class remains quantized would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a 2-group with 0-form symmetry $G^{(0)}$ and 1-form symmetry $A^{(1)}$, a line operator charged under $A^{(1)}$ cannot be invariant under $G^{(0)}$. The argument is kinematic: the line is the boundary of a Wilson surface built from the 2-form background field $B^{(2)}$, and under $G^{(0)}$ the field $B^{(2)}$ shifts by the 2d anomaly density $\alpha^{(2)}(\lambda,A)$ dictated by the Postnikov class. A Wess-Zumino consistency check shows that the surface alone cannot be consistent on a manifold with boundary, so a $G^{(0)}$-symmetric line leads to a contradiction. Consistency is restored only when the line explicitly breaks $G^{(0)}$, with the 0-form action holding up to an anomalous phase, the family anomaly, that compensates the boundary term. This forces the line into a family labeled by the broken generators, and the flux of the associated higher Berry connection on the moduli space is fixed by the Postnikov class, making the family stable under renormalization group flow. In the discrete case the same obstruction appears as a non-trivial induced class $\chi_q(\beta)\in H^3(G^{(0)},U(1))$: when that class is non-trivial, no simple $G^{(0)}$-singlet charged line exists, whereas for connected continuous $G^{(0)}$ the induced class is trivial and symmetric lines may exist.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the only way to make a charged line consistent with a 2-group background is the generalized Wess-Zumino consistency condition, and that the anomalous phase left on the line's boundary cannot be removed by local terms living on the line itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every theory with a 2-group and a non-trivial Wilson-surface anomaly must have families of charged line defects; no simple $G^{(0)}$-invariant line exists.
  • The family structure is RG-stable: the flux of the higher Berry connection on the defect moduli space is quantized by the Postnikov class, so the moduli space cannot collapse to a point while the 2-group is intact.
  • In continuous nonabelian cases the anomaly appears in response functions: the integrated 3-point tilt function obeys the scheme-independent Ward identity (2.44), forcing a partial-contact or separated-point contribution.
  • If the 1-form symmetry is explicitly broken by summing over charged lines, the 0-form symmetry is necessarily broken in the bulk, which sharpens the emergence hierarchy: $A^{(1)}$ must appear before $G^{(0)}$ in any RG flow that restores both.
  • In discrete cases with a non-trivial induced class, non-simple lines can appear to restore symmetry only at the cost of extending the symmetry algebra by defect-local or non-faithful symmetry operators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable diagnostic follows: the tilt operator, or its 3-point response, could be used in a bulk-defect system to detect an active 2-group Postnikov class even when the 1-form symmetry is not directly measurable, for instance through a scattering length proportional to the structure constant $\kappa$ in a defect coupled to a rotor.
  • The same Wess-Zumino-with-boundary logic plausibly applies to higher $n$-groups: surface operators charged under a 2-form subgroup should be forced to break lower-form symmetries, with higher tilt towers playing the role of the family anomaly.
  • In lattice or condensed-matter settings, the rigidity of the family anomaly suggests that boundary defects of 2-group-enriched phases cannot be tuned to a fully symmetric point without a phase transition or an enlarged symmetry, which could be observed as protected degeneracies in defect spectra.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. Starting from the 2-group background gauge transformation rules (1.1), the paper derives generalized Wess-Zumino consistency conditions (1.5), (3.11), and (4.10) for functionals of 2-group backgrounds. It argues that a line operator charged under the 1-form symmetry, when attached to a Wilson surface, gives a partition function whose WZ inconsistency is proportional to the boundary integral of the descent one-form α^(1); since this cannot be removed by line-local counterterms, the line must break the 0-form symmetry. The resolution introduces a spurion U labeling a family of line defects, with an anomalous phase ν^(1) that cancels α^(1); this family anomaly is computed for SU(N) to all orders in ω (Sec. 2.1, App. A), constrained by a higher Berry connection whose flux is fixed by the Postnikov class (Sec. 2.2, App. D), and probed by tilt operators. Continuous abelian 2-groups are treated by differential cohomology (Sec. 3), with the obstruction coming from large gauge transformations and the abelian Goldstone-Maxwell model as the main example. Discrete 2-groups are treated via symmetry-defect associativity, leading to the obstruction χ_q(β)∈H^3(G^(0),U(1)) for simple lines (Eq. (4.10)); exceptions are analyzed in Secs. 4.2.1 and 4.3.1-4.3.3.

Significance. Assuming the main claim, the paper identifies a universal and previously underappreciated consequence of 2-group symmetry for defect operators: charged line defects must come in families labeled by the broken 0-form symmetry, with a rigid, topologically quantized family anomaly. The formalism is a substantial technical contribution: the generalized WZ consistency condition with a 1-form transformation on the functional, the inflow/spurion construction for boundaries, the all-orders formula for ν^(1) in the SU(N) case, the differential-cohomology description of abelian 2-group bundles, and the translation of the continuous anomaly into a discrete associativity constraint. The examples are concrete and the response-function Ward identity (2.44) and rotor scattering length (3.50) are falsifiable. The paper is also careful to delimit the regime of validity: connected continuous G^(0) yields no symmetry-breaking constraint (Sec. 4.2.1), non-simple lines and extended symmetries can evade the obstruction (Secs. 4.3.1-4.3.3), and the intuitive emergence-hierarchy argument is flagged as not fully rigorous.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1 (boxed claim)] The boxed statement 'Line operators charged under A^(1) must explicitly break G^(0)' is stronger than the conditions under which it is proven; the paper itself shows in Sec. 4.2.1 that connected continuous G^(0) never enforces breaking, and in Secs. 4.3.1-4.3.3 that non-simple lines and extended symmetries can evade the obstruction. Please add the qualifiers (simple line, faithful A^(1) charge, non-trivial induced anomaly) to the boxed claim or cross-reference the exceptions there.
  2. [Sec. 4.2.1] The phrase 'For a proof of this statement, see here' is not a usable citation; please provide a proper reference for H^3(BG,U(1))≃H^4(BG,Z) and the claim that finite-order classes vanish when G is connected.
  3. [Eq. (2.44) / Sec. 2.2.2] The argument that no pure contact term can saturate the integrated Ward identity assumes that H(E_1,E_2,E_3) in Eq. (2.48) is a polynomial; please state this assumption explicitly and clarify the allowed class of distributions (partial contact terms) that are admitted.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.2] The renormalized rotor moment of inertia I_r in Eq. (3.50) is the only free parameter in the scattering length; a sentence on how I_r is fixed by the UV completion (or why it remains a free low-energy parameter) would improve the presentation.
  5. [General] There are several minor typographical issues (e.g., 'it is not globally well-defined' in Sec. 1 and 'this is the square-root of the phase' in Sec. 4.2.1 could be simplified); a careful copyedit is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the family-anomaly obstruction is derived from Wess-Zumino consistency and then matched in explicit Lagrangians; flagged exceptions are explicitly delimited.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The generalized Wess-Zumino consistency condition in Eq. (1.5) is fixed by the 2-group composition law (1.2)–(1.4), and the contradiction for a G(0)-symmetric charged line follows from the boundary-anomaly obstruction in Eqs. (2.5)–(2.8), not from an assumption of the conclusion. The family anomaly is then solved for through the inflow/descent equations (2.12)–(2.14), with its leading terms computed explicitly from the Wess-Zumino-Witten action in Eqs. (2.24)–(2.26). The tilt operators in the examples are computed from the actual Lagrangians or boundary conditions (e.g. Eqs. (2.70), (3.35), (E.22)) rather than fitted to reproduce the anomaly, and their nontrivial scheme-independent imprints are cross-checked via the Ward identity (2.44) and the partial-contact-term analysis of App. C. The exceptions in Sec. 4.2.1 (connected continuous G(0)) and Sec. 4.3.1 (non-simple lines) are explicitly acknowledged and do not undo the refined claim for simple lines with non-trivial induced anomaly. The self-citations present (e.g. [15], [74]) are used as references for examples or peripheral symmetry-fractionalization statements; they are not load-bearing inputs for the main derivation. No equation was found that reduces to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to target data in this paper. The central derivation (Secs. 2-4) uses only the 2-group data (Postnikov class, charges, automorphism rho) as inputs and derives the family anomaly and tilt operators from WZ consistency; the examples are anomaly matchings. The single listed free parameter, I_r, controls a prediction (s-wave scattering length in the rotor defect) that the paper itself leaves scheme and UV dependent. Axioms are the standard framework of anomalies (WZ consistency, inflow/descent), the standard 2-group transformation rules, standard mathematical facts about group cohomology (one of which is referenced by a hyperlink placeholder), and standard monopole-fermion boundary-condition physics. No new entities are postulated: the family anomaly is a derived quantity, and the spurion and tilt structures are background sources and operators from prior literature.

free parameters (1)
  • Renormalized rotor moment of inertia I_r = undetermined (finite part of renormalized I_epsilon)
    Appears in the abelian Goldstone-Maxwell rotor defect (Sec. 3.2.2, App. G). The s-wave scattering length ell = (q kappa / 2 pi)^2 / (2 v^2 I_r) depends on I_r, so the scattering prediction is not numerically fixed without a UV completion of the defect. The paper states this dependence explicitly.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Generalized Wess-Zumino consistency: any functional of 2-group background fields must satisfy Eq. (1.5), including the compensating 1-form gauge transformation delta_{Lambda(1)=alpha(1)(lambda1,lambda2,A)}.
    Invoked in Sec. 1 (Eqs. (1.2)-(1.5)) and used throughout to derive the contradiction for symmetric lines. This is an extension of the standard WZ condition to 2-group backgrounds; if a weaker condition sufficed, the symmetry-breaking conclusion would fail.
  • domain assumption The Wilson surface attached to a charged line transforms as a 2d QFT with G(0) anomaly density alpha(2)(lambda,A) determined by the Postnikov class, and its WZ inconsistency on a surface with boundary (Eq. (2.8)) cannot be removed by local counterterms.
    Identified in Sec. 1 (items 1-3) and Sec. 2.1 (Eqs. (2.3)-(2.8)). This identification carries the physical content linking 2-group structure to line symmetry breaking.
  • standard math Standard 2-group background field transformation rules (Eq. (2.2)), including B(2) -> B(2) + alpha(2)(lambda,A), taken from [1,2].
    These rules are established in the cited literature and form the kinematic input for the WZ analysis.
  • standard math For connected continuous G(0), H^3(BG(0),U(1)) is isomorphic to H^4(BG(0),Z), so Postnikov classes induce only trivial 2d anomaly classes; for disconnected G(0) the induced class can be nontrivial.
    Used in Sec. 4.2.1 to conclude that connected continuous 0-form symmetries never constrain charged lines. The paper cites [118] and a bare hyperlink ('For a proof of this statement, see here') instead of a citable reference.
  • standard math In discrete 2-groups, the Postnikov class beta in H^3_rho(G(0),A(1)) is equivalently the failure of associativity of 0-form symmetry defects up to 1-form defects (diagram (4.2)), from [2].
    Basis of the discrete calculation leading to the consistency condition (4.10) in Sec. 4.1.
  • domain assumption Self-adjointness of the fermion Hamiltonian in a monopole background forces boundary conditions on the line that break flavor symmetry (Kazama-Yang-Goldhaber [91]).
    Used in App. E to derive the tilt operator for 't Hooft lines in massless QED (Eq. (E.22)). This is a standard physics input from the monopole-fermion literature.
  • standard math A finite group cohomology class in degree greater than 2 can be trivialized by a finite group extension (used in Sec. 4.3.2 for Postnikov class resolution).
    Cited as [127], arXiv:2601.04374 (a 2026 preprint whose correctness could not be checked in this review).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tilts from 2-Groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ICHIZGPZ

@misc{pith2026260804248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tilts from 2-Groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ICHIZGPZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04248}
}
read the original abstract

2-group global symmetries intertwine 0-form and 1-form symmetries in an interesting way. We analyze universal constraints on lines which are charged under the 1-form subgroup of a 2-group, and show that they generically break the 0-form symmetry explicitly. This gives rise to a family of line defects parameterized by the broken symmetry generators, whose existence is invariant under the renormalization group flow of the bulk-defect system. The symmetry breaking is enforced by a `family anomaly,' which is a topological obstruction to a symmetric defect. Our main tools are the Wess-Zumino consistency condition and a generalized anomaly inflow formalism for defects and boundaries. For nonabelian continuous 2-groups the family anomaly stems from a higher Berry connection on the moduli space of defects, and constrains response functions that probe the local action of the broken symmetry. In the continuous abelian case we apply differential cohomology to the 2-group background fields to uncover a subtle generalization of the Wess-Zumino condition, while in the discrete case we recast it in terms of the associativity of symmetry defects. We give numerous illustrative examples, computing when possible explicit forms of the tilt operator (which probes the linear response of the defect to the broken symmetry) and its higher analogs, which are crucial for matching the family anomaly. We also discuss universal features such as how symmetry violation by charged line defects is related to symmetry breaking hierarchies in the bulk, and highlight a number of subtle points including the distinction between simple and non-simple lines, and Postnikov class resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04248 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The anomalous transformation of a charged line operator on γ attached to a Wilson surface Σ is Wess-Zumino consistent if it can be cancelled by anomaly inflow. This requires a second trivially gapped topological boundary theory on M2 for the 3d SPT phase I (3) . To formulate the inflow picture, we imagine extending the Wilson surface Σ into a bulk 3-manifold M3. 18 The manifold M3 must have an additional boundary co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of a triple intersection of patches. The orientation of each region is such that e.g. ∂σ1 ⊃ σ12 and ∂σ12 ⊃ −σ123. On the right, we show the associated partitioning of the Wilson surface Σ with boundary γ. Locally, the 2-group background gauge fields consist of a R-valued 1-form A(1) and 2-form B(2) in each patch. The gauge fields in neighboring patches are related on double overlaps by (δA(1))ij = dΦ (0) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Derivation of the consistency condition (4.10) by the above topological manip￾ulations of the triple junction of G(0) symmetry operators around a line operator charged under A(1) . 53 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Exploring 2-Group Global Symmetries,

    C. C´ ordova, T. T. Dumitrescu, and K. Intriligator, “Exploring 2-Group Global Symmetries,”JHEP02(2019) 184,arXiv:1802.04790 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    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]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Generalized Global Symmetries,

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

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Notes on generalized global symmetries in QFT,

    E. Sharpe, “Notes on generalized global symmetries in QFT,”Fortsch. Phys.63 (2015) 659–682,arXiv:1508.04770 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Generalized Symmetries in Condensed Matter,

    J. McGreevy, “Generalized Symmetries in Condensed Matter,”Ann. Rev. Condensed Matter Phys.14(2023) 57–82,arXiv:2204.03045 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Snowmass White Paper: Generalized Symmetries in Quantum Field Theory and Beyond,

    C. Cordova, T. T. Dumitrescu, K. Intriligator, and S.-H. Shao, “Snowmass White Paper: Generalized Symmetries in Quantum Field Theory and Beyond,” in2022 Snowmass Summer Study. 5, 2022.arXiv:2205.09545 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible generalized symmetries,

    S. Schafer-Nameki, “ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible generalized symmetries,” Phys. Rept.1063(2024) 1–55,arXiv:2305.18296 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Introduction to generalized global symmetries in qft and particle physics,

    T. D. Brennan and S. Hong, “Introduction to generalized global symmetries in qft and particle physics,”arXiv:2306.00912 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Show all 130 references
  1. [9]

    Jena lectures on generalized global symmetries: principles and applications,

    N. Iqbal, “Jena lectures on generalized global symmetries: principles and applications,” 7, 2024.arXiv:2407.20815 [hep-th]. 91

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Simons Lectures on Categorical Symmetries,

    D. Costaet al., “Simons Lectures on Categorical Symmetries,” 11, 2024. arXiv:2411.09082 [math-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Introduction to Generalized Symmetries,

    J. Kaidi, “Introduction to Generalized Symmetries,”arXiv:2603.08798 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    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]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Phases of Wilson lines: conformality and screening,

    O. Aharony, G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, M. Mezei, and A. Raviv-Moshe, “Phases of Wilson lines: conformality and screening,”JHEP12(2023) 183,arXiv:2310.00045 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Berry phase on boundary conformal manifolds

    Y. Choi, “Berry phase on boundary conformal manifolds.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pefjHTEcJvE. Talk at IHES

  7. [15]

    Gauging C on the lattice,

    T. Jacobson, “Gauging C on the lattice,”JHEP05(2025) 138,arXiv:2406.12075 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Non-invertible Gauss law and axions,

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, “Non-invertible Gauss law and axions,”JHEP 09(2023) 067,arXiv:2212.04499 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Generalized symmetries and emergence in axion effective field theories,

    D. Sehayek and N. Craig, “Generalized symmetries and emergence in axion effective field theories,”arXiv:2604.11877 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    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]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    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]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    ’t Hooft anomalies and boundaries,

    K. Jensen, E. Shaverin, and A. Yarom, “’t Hooft anomalies and boundaries,”JHEP 01(2018) 085,arXiv:1710.07299 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Anomalous Symmetries End at the Boundary,

    R. Thorngren and Y. Wang, “Anomalous Symmetries End at the Boundary,”JHEP 09(2021) 017,arXiv:2012.15861 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Discrete theta angles, symmetries and anomalies,

    P.-S. Hsin and H. T. Lam, “Discrete theta angles, symmetries and anomalies,” SciPost Phys.10no. 2, (2021) 032,arXiv:2007.05915 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Higher symmetry in gauge theory

    T. Dumitrescu, “Higher symmetry in gauge theory.” https://scgp.stonybrook.edu/video/video.php?id=4972. Talk at Kickoff Meeting for Simons Collaboration on Global Categorical Symmetries

  16. [24]

    Consequences of anomalous Ward identities,

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Consequences of anomalous Ward identities,”Phys. Lett. B 37(1971) 95–97. 92

    1971

  17. [25]

    CHIRAL ANOMALIES AND DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY: LECTURES GIVEN AT LES HOUCHES, AUGUST 1983,

    B. Zumino, “CHIRAL ANOMALIES AND DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY: LECTURES GIVEN AT LES HOUCHES, AUGUST 1983,” inLes Houches Summer School on Theoretical Physics: Relativity, Groups and Topology, pp. 1291–1322. 10, 1983

    1983

  18. [26]

    Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, Z. Komargodski, and N. Seiberg, “Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature,”JHEP05(2017) 091,arXiv:1703.00501 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Vacuum structure of bifundamental gauge theories at finite topological angles,

    Y. Tanizaki and Y. Kikuchi, “Vacuum structure of bifundamental gauge theories at finite topological angles,”JHEP06(2017) 102,arXiv:1705.01949 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Global inconsistency, ’t Hooft anomaly, and level crossing in quantum mechanics,

    Y. Kikuchi and Y. Tanizaki, “Global inconsistency, ’t Hooft anomaly, and level crossing in quantum mechanics,”PTEP2017no. 11, (2017) 113B05, arXiv:1708.01962 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    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]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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.8no. 1, (2020) 001,arXiv:1905.09315 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Generalized Families of QFTs,

    T. D. Brennan and K. Intriligator, “Generalized Families of QFTs,” arXiv:2602.09105 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    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]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Constraints on symmetry-preserving gapped phases from coupling constant anomalies,

    T. D. Brennan, “Constraints on symmetry-preserving gapped phases from coupling constant anomalies,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 4, (2024) L041701,arXiv:2404.11660 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    ’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]

  27. [35]

    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,”JHEP04(2026) 071,arXiv:2508.14963 [hep-th]

    2026

  28. [36]

    Berry Phase in Quantum Field Theory: Diabolical Points and Boundary Phenomena,

    P.-S. Hsin, A. Kapustin, and R. Thorngren, “Berry Phase in Quantum Field Theory: Diabolical Points and Boundary Phenomena,”Phys. Rev. B102(2020) 245113, arXiv:2004.10758 [cond-mat.str-el]. 93

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Higher-dimensional generalizations of Berry curvature,

    A. Kapustin and L. Spodyneiko, “Higher-dimensional generalizations of Berry curvature,”Phys. Rev. B101no. 23, (2020) 235130,arXiv:2001.03454 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Critical behaviour of semi-infinite systems,

    A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, “Critical behaviour of semi-infinite systems,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General10no. 11, (Nov, 1977) 1927. https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/10/11/021

    1977 doi

  31. [39]

    Boundary criticality of the O(N) model in d = 3 critically revisited,

    M. A. Metlitski, “Boundary criticality of the O(N) model in d = 3 critically revisited,”SciPost Phys.12no. 4, (2022) 131,arXiv:2009.05119 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    The extraordinary boundary transition in the 3d o(n) model via conformal bootstrap,

    J. Padayasi, A. Krishnan, M. A. Metlitski, I. Gruzberg, and M. Meineri, “The extraordinary boundary transition in the 3d o(n) model via conformal bootstrap,” SciPost Phys.12(2022) 190. https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.12.6.190

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    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,”Journal of High Energy Physics2022no. 11, (Nov.,

  34. [42]

    Spontaneous symmetry breaking on surface defects,

    G. Cuomo and S. Zhang, “Spontaneous symmetry breaking on surface defects,” JHEP03(2024) 022,arXiv:2306.00085 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Inversion and integral identities in dcfts,

    G. Sakkas, “Inversion and integral identities in dcfts,” 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05243

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    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,” 2025.https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08519

    2025

  37. [45]

    Monodromy pinning defects in the critical O( 2N) model,

    P. Kravchuk and A. Radcliffe, “Monodromy pinning defects in the critical O( 2N) model,”JHEP07(2026) 073,arXiv:2510.02281 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Consequences of symmetry-breaking on conformal defect data,

    B. Girault, M. F. Paulos, and P. van Vliet, “Consequences of symmetry-breaking on conformal defect data,” 2026.https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.26561

    2026

  39. [47]

    Flowing with Displacements and Tilts: Surface Operators inO(N) Models,

    J. Belton, N. Drukker, and B. Sahoo, “Flowing with Displacements and Tilts: Surface Operators inO(N) Models,”arXiv:2606.03974 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Nonlinearly Realised Defect Symmetries and Anomalies,

    N. Drukker, Z. Kong, and P. Kravchuk, “Nonlinearly Realised Defect Symmetries and Anomalies,”arXiv:2512.15913 [hep-th]

  41. [49]

    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]. 94

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    On finite symmetries and their gauging in two dimensions,

    L. Bhardwaj and Y. Tachikawa, “On finite symmetries and their gauging in two dimensions,”JHEP03(2018) 189,arXiv:1704.02330 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Topological Defect Lines and Renormalization Group Flows in Two Dimensions,

    C.-M. Chang, Y.-H. Lin, S.-H. Shao, Y. Wang, and X. Yin, “Topological Defect Lines and Renormalization Group Flows in Two Dimensions,”JHEP01(2019) 026, arXiv:1802.04445 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Generalized charges, part I: Invertible symmetries and higher representations,

    L. Bhardwaj and S. Schafer-Nameki, “Generalized charges, part I: Invertible symmetries and higher representations,”SciPost Phys.16no. 4, (2024) 093, arXiv:2304.02660 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    2-Group Global Symmetries and Anomalies in Six-Dimensional Quantum Field Theories,

    C. Cordova, T. T. Dumitrescu, and K. Intriligator, “2-Group Global Symmetries and Anomalies in Six-Dimensional Quantum Field Theories,”JHEP04(2021) 252, arXiv:2009.00138 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Quantum Information Theory of the Gravitational Anomaly,

    S. Hellerman, D. Orlando, and M. Watanabe, “Quantum Information Theory of the Gravitational Anomaly,”arXiv:2101.03320 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Continuous Generalized Symmetries in Three Dimensions,

    J. A. Damia, R. Argurio, and L. Tizzano, “Continuous Generalized Symmetries in Three Dimensions,”JHEP05(2023) 164,arXiv:2206.14093 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Dimensionally reducing generalized symmetries from (3+1)-dimensions,

    E. Nardoni, M. Sacchi, O. Sela, G. Zafrir, and Y. Zheng, “Dimensionally reducing generalized symmetries from (3+1)-dimensions,”JHEP07(2024) 110, arXiv:2403.15995 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    2-group global symmetries, hydrodynamics and holography,

    N. Iqbal and N. Poovuttikul, “2-group global symmetries, hydrodynamics and holography,”SciPost Phys.15no. 2, (2023) 063,arXiv:2010.00320 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Anomalies of Duality Groups and Extended Conformal Manifolds,

    N. Seiberg, Y. Tachikawa, and K. Yonekura, “Anomalies of Duality Groups and Extended Conformal Manifolds,”PTEP2018no. 7, (2018) 073B04, arXiv:1803.07366 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Axions, higher-groups, and emergent symmetry,

    T. D. Brennan and C. Cordova, “Axions, higher-groups, and emergent symmetry,” JHEP02(2022) 145,arXiv:2011.09600 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Higher-form symmetries and 3-group in axion electrodynamics,

    Y. Hidaka, M. Nitta, and R. Yokokura, “Higher-form symmetries and 3-group in axion electrodynamics,”Phys. Lett. B808(2020) 135672,arXiv:2006.12532 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Global 3-group symmetry and ’t Hooft anomalies in axion electrodynamics,

    Y. Hidaka, M. Nitta, and R. Yokokura, “Global 3-group symmetry and ’t Hooft anomalies in axion electrodynamics,”JHEP01(2021) 173,arXiv:2009.14368 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Higher-group structure in 2n-dimensional axion-electrodynamics,

    T. Nakajima, T. Sakai, and R. Yokokura, “Higher-group structure in 2n-dimensional axion-electrodynamics,”JHEP01(2023) 150,arXiv:2211.13861 [hep-th]. 95

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Global aspects of 3-form gauge theory: implications for axion-Yang-Mills systems,

    M. M. Anber and S. Y. L. Chan, “Global aspects of 3-form gauge theory: implications for axion-Yang-Mills systems,”JHEP10(2024) 113,arXiv:2407.03416 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Codimension-2 defects and higher symmetries in (3+1)D topological phases,

    M. Barkeshli, Y.-A. Chen, S.-J. Huang, R. Kobayashi, N. Tantivasadakarn, and G. Zhu, “Codimension-2 defects and higher symmetries in (3+1)D topological phases,”SciPost Phys.14no. 4, (2023) 065,arXiv:2208.07367 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Higher-group symmetry of (3+1)D fermionicZ 2 gauge theory: Logical CCZ, CS, and T gates from higher symmetry,

    M. Barkeshli, P.-S. Hsin, and R. Kobayashi, “Higher-group symmetry of (3+1)D fermionicZ 2 gauge theory: Logical CCZ, CS, and T gates from higher symmetry,” SciPost Phys.16no. 5, (2024) 122,arXiv:2311.05674 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Modified instanton sum in QCD and higher-groups,

    Y. Tanizaki and M. ¨Unsal, “Modified instanton sum in QCD and higher-groups,” JHEP03(2020) 123,arXiv:1912.01033 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Lifetimes of near eternal false vacua,

    A. Cherman and T. Jacobson, “Lifetimes of near eternal false vacua,”Phys. Rev. D 103no. 10, (2021) 105012,arXiv:2012.10555 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Topological axion electrodynamics and 4-group symmetry,

    Y. Hidaka, M. Nitta, and R. Yokokura, “Topological axion electrodynamics and 4-group symmetry,”Phys. Lett. B823(2021) 136762,arXiv:2107.08753 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Global 4-group symmetry and ’t Hooft anomalies in topological axion electrodynamics,

    Y. Hidaka, M. Nitta, and R. Yokokura, “Global 4-group symmetry and ’t Hooft anomalies in topological axion electrodynamics,”PTEP2022no. 4, (2022) 04A109, arXiv:2108.12564 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Higher-group structure in lattice Abelian gauge theory under instanton-sum modification,

    N. Kan, O. Morikawa, Y. Nagoya, and H. Wada, “Higher-group structure in lattice Abelian gauge theory under instanton-sum modification,”Eur. Phys. J. C83no. 6, (2023) 481,arXiv:2302.13466 [hep-th]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 22 (2024)]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Anomalies and symmetry fractionalization,

    D. G. Delmastro, J. Gomis, P.-S. Hsin, and Z. Komargodski, “Anomalies and symmetry fractionalization,”SciPost Phys.15no. 3, (2023) 079,arXiv:2206.15118 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Line Defect Quantum Numbers & Anomalies,

    T. D. Brennan, C. Cordova, and T. T. Dumitrescu, “Line Defect Quantum Numbers & Anomalies,”arXiv:2206.15401 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    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]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Consequences of symmetry fractionalization without 1-form global symmetries,

    T. D. Brennan, T. Jacobson, and K. Roumpedakis, “Consequences of symmetry fractionalization without 1-form global symmetries,”JHEP11(2025) 153, arXiv:2504.08036 [hep-th]

    2025

  67. [75]

    Space of conformal boundary conditions from the view of higher Berry phase: Flow of Berry curvature in parametrized BCFTs,

    X. Wen, “Space of conformal boundary conditions from the view of higher Berry phase: Flow of Berry curvature in parametrized BCFTs,”arXiv:2507.12546 [hep-th]. 96

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    The Structure of Gauge and Gravitational Anomalies,

    L. Alvarez-Gaume and P. H. Ginsparg, “The Structure of Gauge and Gravitational Anomalies,”Annals Phys.161(1985) 423. [Erratum: Annals Phys. 171, 233 (1986)]

    1985

  69. [77]

    Algebraic Study of Chiral Anomalies,

    J. Manes, R. Stora, and B. Zumino, “Algebraic Study of Chiral Anomalies,” Commun. Math. Phys.102(1985) 157

    1985

  70. [78]

    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

    1985

  71. [79]

    Symmetry Protected Topological Phases, Anomalies, and Cobordisms: Beyond Group Cohomology,

    A. Kapustin, “Symmetry Protected Topological Phases, Anomalies, and Cobordisms: Beyond Group Cohomology,”arXiv:1403.1467 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Anomalies and Invertible Field Theories,

    D. S. Freed, “Anomalies and Invertible Field Theories,”Proc. Symp. Pure Math.88 (2014) 25–46,arXiv:1404.7224 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Reflection positivity and invertible topological phases,

    D. S. Freed and M. J. Hopkins, “Reflection positivity and invertible topological phases,”arXiv:1604.06527 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    A Modern Point of View on Anomalies,

    S. Monnier, “A Modern Point of View on Anomalies,”Fortsch. Phys.67no. 8-9, (2019) 1910012,arXiv:1903.02828 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    The hamiltonian formalism and a many-valued analogue of morse theory,

    S. P. Novikov, “The hamiltonian formalism and a many-valued analogue of morse theory,”Russian Math. Surveys37no. 5, (1982) 1–56.https://www.mathnet.ru/ php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=rm&paperid=3819&option_lang=eng

    1982

  76. [84]

    Theory of nonabelian goldstone bosons in two dimensions,

    A. Polyakov and P. Wiegmann, “Theory of nonabelian goldstone bosons in two dimensions,”Physics Letters B131no. 1, (1983) 121–126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269383911048

    1983

  77. [85]

    Effective actions in non-Abelian theories,

    A. D’Adda, A. C. Davis, and P. Di Vecchia, “Effective actions in non-Abelian theories,”Phys. Lett. B121(1983) 335–338.https://cds.cern.ch/record/141193

    1983

  78. [86]

    Nonabelian bosonization in two dimensions,

    E. Witten, “Nonabelian bosonization in two dimensions,”Communications in Mathematical Physics92no. 4, (1984) 455 – 472

    1984

  79. [87]

    Comments on scale and conformal invariance,

    A. Bzowski and K. Skenderis, “Comments on scale and conformal invariance,”JHEP 08(2014) 027,arXiv:1402.3208 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Scale Invariance, Conformality, and Generalized Free Fields,

    A. Dymarsky, K. Farnsworth, Z. Komargodski, M. A. Luty, and V. Prilepina, “Scale Invariance, Conformality, and Generalized Free Fields,”JHEP02(2016) 099, arXiv:1402.6322 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Realization of impossible anomalies,

    Y. Nakayama, “Realization of impossible anomalies,”Phys. Rev. D98no. 8, (2018) 085002,arXiv:1804.02940 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Moduli Anomalies and Local Terms in the Operator Product Expansion,

    A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen, “Moduli Anomalies and Local Terms in the Operator Product Expansion,”JHEP07(2018) 110,arXiv:1805.04202 [hep-th]. 97

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Scattering of a Dirac Particle with Charge Ze by a Fixed Magnetic Monopole,

    Y. Kazama, C. N. Yang, and A. S. Goldhaber, “Scattering of a Dirac Particle with Charge Ze by a Fixed Magnetic Monopole,”Phys. Rev. D15(1977) 2287–2299

    1977

  84. [92]

    Holographic Duals of Symmetry Broken Phases,

    A. Antinucci, F. Benini, and G. Rizi, “Holographic Duals of Symmetry Broken Phases,”Fortsch. Phys.72no. 12, (2024) 2400172,arXiv:2408.01418 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Soft theorems from higher symmetries,

    J. Berean-Dutcher, M. Derda, and J. Parra-Martinez, “Soft theorems from higher symmetries,”JHEP03(2026) 193,arXiv:2505.03566 [hep-th]

    2026

  86. [94]

    Current Algebra, Baryons, and Quark Confinement,

    E. Witten, “Current Algebra, Baryons, and Quark Confinement,”Nucl. Phys. B223 (1983) 433–444

    1983

  87. [95]

    Global Aspects of Current Algebra,

    E. Witten, “Global Aspects of Current Algebra,”Nucl. Phys. B223(1983) 422–432

    1983

  88. [96]

    Homological classification of topological terms in sigma models on homogeneous spaces,

    J. Davighi and B. Gripaios, “Homological classification of topological terms in sigma models on homogeneous spaces,”JHEP09(2018) 155,arXiv:1803.07585 [hep-th]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 143 (2018)]

    2018 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Revisiting Wess-Zumino-Witten terms,

    Y. Lee, K. Ohmori, and Y. Tachikawa, “Revisiting Wess-Zumino-Witten terms,” SciPost Phys.10no. 3, (2021) 061,arXiv:2009.00033 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  90. [98]

    WZW terms without anomalies: Generalised symmetries in chiral Lagrangians,

    J. Davighi and N. Lohitsiri, “WZW terms without anomalies: Generalised symmetries in chiral Lagrangians,”SciPost Phys.17no. 6, (2024) 168, arXiv:2407.20340 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    D Branes on a Gauged WZW Model,

    S. Elitzur and G. Sarkissian, “D Branes on a Gauged WZW Model,”Nucl. Phys. B 625(2002) 166–178,arXiv:hep-th/0108142

    2002 arXiv

  92. [100]

    WZW Branes and Gerbes,

    K. Gawedzki and N. Reis, “WZW Branes and Gerbes,”Rev. Math. Phys.14(2002) 1281–1334,arXiv:hep-th/0205233

    2002 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Topological Quantization and Cohomology,

    O. Alvarez, “Topological Quantization and Cohomology,”Commun. Math. Phys. 100(1985) 279

    1985

  94. [102]

    A class of topological actions,

    M. Bauer, G. Girardi, R. Stora, and F. Thuillier, “A class of topological actions,” Journal of High Energy Physics2005no. 08, (Aug., 2005) 027–027. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2005/08/027

    2005 doi

  95. [103]

    The Uncertainty of Fluxes,

    D. S. Freed, G. W. Moore, and G. Segal, “The Uncertainty of Fluxes,”Commun. Math. Phys.271(2007) 247–274,arXiv:hep-th/0605198

    2007 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Heisenberg Groups and Noncommutative Fluxes,

    D. S. Freed, G. W. Moore, and G. Segal, “Heisenberg Groups and Noncommutative Fluxes,”Annals Phys.322(2007) 236–285,arXiv:hep-th/0605200

    2007 arXiv

  97. [105]

    A Minicourse on Generalized Abelian Gauge Theory, Self-Dual Theories, and Differential Cohomology,

    G. Moore, “A Minicourse on Generalized Abelian Gauge Theory, Self-Dual Theories, and Differential Cohomology,”. 98

  98. [106]

    Coupling a QFT to a TQFT and Duality,

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

    2014 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Differential cohomology and topological actions in physics,

    J. Davighi, B. Gripaios, and O. Randal-Williams, “Differential cohomology and topological actions in physics,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.27no. 7, (2023) 2045–2085, arXiv:2011.05768 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Symmetry-enriched quantum spin liquids in (3 + 1)d,

    P.-S. Hsin and A. Turzillo, “Symmetry-enriched quantum spin liquids in (3 + 1)d,” JHEP09(2020) 022,arXiv:1904.11550 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Lorentz Symmetry Fractionalization and Dualities in (2+1)d,

    P.-S. Hsin and S.-H. Shao, “Lorentz Symmetry Fractionalization and Dualities in (2+1)d,”SciPost Phys.8(2020) 018,arXiv:1909.07383 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Symmetry transmutation and anomaly matching,

    N. Seiberg and S. Seifnashri, “Symmetry transmutation and anomaly matching,” JHEP09(2025) 014,arXiv:2505.08618 [hep-th]

    2025

  103. [111]

    Lattice chiral symmetry from bosons in 3+1d,

    Z. Lu, S. Seifnashri, and S.-H. Shao, “Lattice chiral symmetry from bosons in 3+1d,” arXiv:2604.06307 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  104. [112]

    Monopole Catalysis: The Fermion Rotor System,

    J. Polchinski, “Monopole Catalysis: The Fermion Rotor System,”Nucl. Phys. B242 (1984) 345–363

    1984

  105. [113]

    Monopole-fermion scattering and the solution to the semiton/unitarity puzzle,

    V. Loladze and T. Okui, “Monopole-fermion scattering and the solution to the semiton/unitarity puzzle,” 2024.https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.04577

    2024 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Dynamics of the fermion-rotor system,

    V. Loladze, T. Okui, and D. Tong, “Dynamics of the fermion-rotor system,”JHEP 01(2026) 052,arXiv:2508.21059 [hep-th]

    2026

  107. [115]

    Zero Modes of the Vortex - Fermion System,

    R. Jackiw and P. Rossi, “Zero Modes of the Vortex - Fermion System,”Nucl. Phys. B 190(1981) 681–691

    1981

  108. [116]

    Index Calculations for the Fermion-Vortex System,

    E. J. Weinberg, “Index Calculations for the Fermion-Vortex System,”Phys. Rev. D 24(1981) 2669

    1981

  109. [117]

    Higher Representations for Extended Operators,

    T. Bartsch, M. Bullimore, and A. Grigoletto, “Higher Representations for Extended Operators,”arXiv:2304.03789 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  110. [118]

    Disconnected 0-form and 2-group symmetries,

    L. Bhardwaj and D. S. W. Gould, “Disconnected 0-form and 2-group symmetries,” JHEP07(2023) 098,arXiv:2206.01287 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Higher SPT’s and a generalization of anomaly in-flow,

    R. Thorngren and C. von Keyserlingk, “Higher SPT’s and a generalization of anomaly in-flow,”arXiv:1511.02929 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv

  112. [120]

    On gauging finite subgroups,

    Y. Tachikawa, “On gauging finite subgroups,”SciPost Phys.8no. 1, (2020) 015, arXiv:1712.09542 [hep-th]. 99

    2020 arXiv

  113. [121]

    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]

    2022 arXiv

  114. [122]

    When Symmetries Twist: Anomaly Inflow on Monodromy Defects,

    C. Copetti, “When Symmetries Twist: Anomaly Inflow on Monodromy Defects,” arXiv:2605.16482 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  115. [123]

    Realizing anomalous anyonic symmetries at the surfaces of three-dimensional gauge theories,

    L. Fidkowski and A. Vishwanath, “Realizing anomalous anyonic symmetries at the surfaces of three-dimensional gauge theories,”Phys. Rev. B96no. 4, (2017) 045131, arXiv:1511.01502 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  116. [124]

    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]

    2019 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Finite group modular data,

    A. Coste, T. Gannon, and P. Ruelle, “Finite group modular data,”Nucl. Phys. B 581(2000) 679–717,arXiv:hep-th/0001158

    2000 arXiv

  118. [126]

    SymSETs and self-dualities under gauging non-invertible symmetries,

    D.-C. Lu, Z. Sun, and Z. Zhang, “SymSETs and self-dualities under gauging non-invertible symmetries,”arXiv:2501.07787 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  119. [127]

    Arbitrary classes in¿ 2-degree cohomology of a finite group with arbitrary coefficients may be trivialized in a finite extension,

    A. D. Meunier, “Arbitrary classes in¿ 2-degree cohomology of a finite group with arbitrary coefficients may be trivialized in a finite extension,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04374(2026)

    2026

  120. [128]

    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.401no. 3, (2023) 3043–3107, arXiv:2204.02407 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Detecting Higher Berry Phase via Boundary Scattering,

    C.-Y. Lo and X. Wen, “Detecting Higher Berry Phase via Boundary Scattering,” arXiv:2602.21301 [cond-mat.str-el]. 100

  122. [2022]

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2022)018

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.