Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Generalized comodule tube algebras for boundary and domain wall defects of (2+1)D topological order

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that every codimension-2 defect in a string-net topological phase — boundary defects, domain wall defects, and multi-wall junctions — is a representation of an explicitly constructed comodule tube algebra, extending the…

desk verdict A genuinely useful generalization of tube algebras to boundary and domain wall defects, with solid 2-defect proofs but the advertised N-defect scope outruns what is actually demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05071 v1 pith:Y4JQK2M4 submitted 2026-08-05 hep-th cond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MPmath.QA

Zhian Jia , Sheng Tan This is my paper
classification hep-thcond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MPmath.QA MSC 18M2016T0581T45
keywords tubealgebracomoduletopologicalorderLevin-Wenstring-netmodeldomainwalldefectboundaryweakHopfDrinfelddouble
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

Topological excitations — anyons — in a (2+1)D non-chiral topological phase are classified by the tube algebra: irreducible representations of $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C})$ are exactly the simple objects of the Drinfeld center $Z(\mathcal{C})$. This paper extends that dictionary to codimension-2 defects, the point-like junctions where two boundaries, two domain walls, or several walls meet, which were previously understood only in isolated examples such as the toric-code rough-to-smooth defect. The central claim is that each such defect is governed by a defect tube algebra $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M;\mathcal{C}_N)$ that is not itself a weak Hopf algebra (defects do not close under fusion) but a bicomodule algebra over the weak Hopf tube algebras of the two neighboring walls, with the fusion of wall excitations onto the defect encoded by its coactions. The payoff is a uniform classification: $\mathrm{Rep}(\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M;\mathcal{C}_N)) \simeq \mathrm{Fun}_{\mathcal{C}}(M,N)^{\mathrm{op}}$ for boundary defects, the analogous equivalence for domain wall defects, and multicomodule structures for defects joining $N$ walls that reduce to a generalized Drinfeld double when $N=2$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the defect tube algebra $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M;\mathcal{C}_N)$: the span of annular string-net diagrams whose lower and upper boundary edges are labeled by simple objects of the $\mathcal{C}$-module categories $M$ and $N$, with vertices decorated by module-category morphisms, and with multiplication given by gluing annuli. Its decisive extra structure is the bicomodule algebra structure over the weak Hopf tube algebras $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_N)$ and $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M)$, whose coactions $\beta$ and $\rho$ are obtained diagrammatically by peeling an annulus layer off either side of the tube. Two auxiliary maps carry the weight of the proofs: the factorization map $\delta_{M,K,N}$, which cuts a defect through an intermediate wall $K$ and reduces to the coproduct when $M=K=N$, and the antipode-like map $s_{M,N}$, which reverses the two walls. Together they convert the Haar integral $\lambda$ of the weak Hopf tube algebra into the separability idempotent $\Upsilon = (s\otimes \mathrm{id})\circ\delta(\lambda)$, which makes every defect tube algebra semisimple and yields the generalized Schur orthogonality of defect characters. The final equivalence is built from the disk space $H_f = \bigoplus_{s,t}\mathrm{Hom}_N(f(s),t)$ attached to each module functor $f$, together with an inverse reconstruction functor that rebuilds the functor from the wall-label sectors of an abstract representation.

What would settle it

Compute the boundary defect tube algebra $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M;\mathcal{C}_N)$ explicitly from the F-matrices for a fusion category with nontrivial associativity and fusion multiplicities (for instance $\mathcal{C} = \mathrm{Rep}(S_3)$) and two of its module categories, and compare the number and quantum dimensions of its irreducible representations with the simple objects of $\mathrm{Fun}_{\mathcal{C}}(M,N)$ and with the defect characters $\chi_f$ of Proposition 3.15. If the counts disagree, or if the generalized Schur orthogonality identity of Corollary 3.16 fails numerically, the claimed equivalence $\mathrm{Rep}(\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M;\mathcal{C}_N)) \simeq \mathrm{Fun}_{\mathcal{C}}(M,N)^{\mathrm{op}}$ is falsified; the toric-code example of Section 8.1, with trivial F-symbols and a single rough-to-smooth defect, is the degenerate case and does not exercise the machinery.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's organizing result (Theorem 1.1) states that codimension-2 defects in gapped phases described by Turaev–Viro–Barrett–Westbury TQFTs — in particular Levin–Wen string-net models — are characterized by comodule tube algebras, and each defect is a representation of the corresponding comodule tube algebra. Concretely, the boundary defect tube algebra $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M;\mathcal{C}_N)$ carries the structure of a $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_N)|\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M)$-bicomodule algebra, and the disk-space construction yields an equivalence of categories $\mathrm{Rep}(\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M;\mathcal{C}_N)) \simeq \mathrm{Fun}_{\mathcal{C}}(M,N)^{\mathrm{op}}$, so irreducible representations correspond exactly to simple $\mathcal{C}$-module functors between the module categories describing the two boundaries. The same statement holds for defects between two domain walls: $\mathrm{Rep}(\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_{M|D};\mathcal{C}_{N|D})) \simeq \mathrm{Fun}_{\mathcal{C}|D}(M,N)^{\mathrm{op}}$. Because defects do not close under fusion, the defect tube algebra has no coproduct; its comodule coactions express how wall excitations fuse onto the defect from either side, and a factorization map plays the role of the coproduct in the proofs of semisimplicity and of the main equivalences.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, imported from the authors' earlier papers, is that the boundary and domain wall tube algebras $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M)$ and $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_{M|D})$ are finite-dimensional $C^*$ weak Hopf algebras with two-sided Haar integrals and semisimple representation categories; if that foundation fails in some model, the defect comodule algebras, their separability idempotents, and the representation equivalences collapse, and several domain-wall and multimodule verifications are asserted by parallel argument rather than written out in full.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Boundary defects between any two gapped boundaries of a fixed bulk phase are completely classified by the irreducible representations of $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M;\mathcal{C}_N)$, with the fusion of boundary charges into the defect governed by the coactions.
  • Domain wall defects are classified by representations of $\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_{M|D};\mathcal{C}_{N|D})$, and the domain wall defect tube algebra decomposes as a generalized Drinfeld double of the two adjacent boundary defect tube algebras via the gluing operation.
  • A defect joining $N$ codimension-1 walls is described by an $N$-fold multicomodule algebra, so the classification covers junction defects that have no analogue in anyon physics; the $N=2$ case recovers the quantum double, and bulk, boundary, and wall excitations appear as the special case where the walls are regular.
  • Every defect tube algebra carries a separability idempotent, so it is semisimple: every defect Hilbert space is completely reducible, and the generalized Schur orthogonality gives a computable selection rule for defect characters in terms of F-symbols.
  • Tube algebras with different numbers of auxiliary legs are Morita equivalent, so the classification of defects is independent of the tube refinement chosen to present the algebra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equivalence $\mathrm{Rep}(\mathrm{Tube}(\mathcal{C}_M;\mathcal{C}_N)) \simeq \mathrm{Fun}_{\mathcal{C}}(M,N)^{\mathrm{op}}$ holds generally, the defect tube algebra gives a purely algebraic route to defect data: from the F-matrices of the input fusion category one could read off the number, quantum dimensions, and fusion rules of boundary and wall defects without ever constructing the modul
  • The 'generalized Drinfeld double for comodule algebras' defined by the gluing operation appears to be a new algebraic operation; a natural next test is whether it satisfies double-like axioms (a bicrossed product structure with a pairing) and whether it can be rephrased as a categorical center construction for bimodule functor categories.
  • In symmetry topological field theories with defects, the multicomodule tube algebra of an $N$-junction should control the junction's non-invertible symmetry action; checking this on a concrete lattice model such as three domain walls meeting in the toric code would extend the framework beyond the paper's own two examples.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a generalized tube-algebra framework for codimension-2 defects in (2+1)D Levin–Wen / Turaev–Viro–Barrett–Westbury string-net models. For a boundary defect between two gapped boundaries described by C-module categories M and N, it constructs a defect tube algebra Tube(C_M;C_N) and proves that it is a Tube(C_N)|Tube(C_M)-bicomodule algebra; it then gives a direct reconstruction argument (Theorem 3.17) showing that Rep(Tube(C_M;C_N)) is equivalent to Fun_C(M,N)^op. The analogous statement for defects between C|D-bimodule domain walls (Theorem 4.10) is reduced to the boundary case by folding. The paper further sketches multicomodule tube algebras for codimension-2 defects joining N domain walls, multimodule domain wall generalizations, an N-tuple algebra hierarchy, and explicit examples for the toric code and for finite groups.

Significance. If the 2-defect results are correct, this is a substantial advance: it gives an explicit algebraic description of boundary and domain wall defects in terms of finite-dimensional semisimple comodule algebras, including the representation equivalence with module/bimodule functor categories. The reconstruction of a module functor from an arbitrary tube-algebra representation in Theorem 3.17 is a genuine Tannaka–Krein-type input, and the separability idempotent construction provides a useful orthogonality tool. The toric-code and finite-group examples make the formalism concrete and testable. The main advertised extension to N-defects, however, is currently asserted rather than proved, so the paper's demonstrated content is strongest for the two-domain-wall and two-boundary settings.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.2, Proposition 6.3] Proposition 6.3 asserts that the multicomodule tube algebra Tube({M_i}_{1≤i≤N}) has representation category equivalent to Fun(M_in, M_out), where M_in and M_out are the composite bimodule categories of (6.7)–(6.8). No proof or reconstruction argument is supplied. This is a load-bearing point because Theorem 1.1 explicitly advertises codimension-2 defects connecting more than two codimension-1 defects, and the N-defect case is not obtained by folding or by the boundary reconstruction theorem. I recommend either proving Proposition 6.3 with the full five-step reconstruction adapted to N coactions, or restricting the advertised theorem to the cases where proofs are provided.
  2. [Section 6.2, after Figure 4] The paper states that fusing two adjacent domain walls M_{i-1} and M_i over C_{i-1,i} turns the N-defect tube algebra into an (N−1)-defect tube algebra that is 'categorically Morita equivalent' to the original, so that all N-defect tube algebras are Morita equivalent to the twist defect tube algebra. This claim is asserted without proof. Since this inductive reduction would be needed to reduce Proposition 6.3 to the proven 2-defect case, the advertised hierarchical reduction is not currently established. A proof of the claimed Morita equivalence, or a removal of this reduction from the main claims, is needed.
  3. [Section 5, around Eq. (5.8)] The paper asserts that every domain wall defect can be reformulated as a twist defect, using the identification Fun_{C|D}(M,N) ≃ M^op ⊠_C N and relative tensor products of module categories. This equivalence is used to make the N-defect-to-twist-defect correspondence, but no proof is given and the relative tensor product construction is only cited. If this step is meant to support the general N-defect claims, it needs a precise statement and verification; otherwise it should be presented as a heuristic.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3, proof of Proposition 4.14] There is a typo: 'externl labels' should read 'external labels'.
  2. [Section 6.2, first paragraph] The text writes 'T ube({M_i}_{1≤i≤M})' where the upper index should be N; this makes the definition of the N-defect algebra confusing.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The caption contains stray symbols, including '⊿ (3)' and 'Mi→1', which appear to be leftover from editing and should be removed.
  4. [Section 3.2.1, Eqs. (3.37)–(3.38)] The notation '1⟨1⟩ ⊗ 1⟨2⟩' for the factorization of the unit is used before the Sweedler-type notation is fully explained; a sentence clarifying the convention would help.
  5. [Section 5, Eq. (5.6)] The expression involves 'd¯a' in the loop factor; the meaning of the barred label should be spelled out to avoid confusion with the antipode-like map notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the defect tube algebra constructions and representation equivalences are derived from the tube-basis data, and the cited prior weak Hopf results are independent support rather than repackaged conclusions.

full rationale

I find no circular step. The boundary defect tube algebra is defined directly from tube diagrams (Eqs. 3.14 and 3.15), and Theorem 3.4 proves the bicomodule structure by an explicit F-move and loop-move computation rather than assuming it. The main representation equivalences (Theorem 3.17, Theorem 4.10, and Theorem 7.7) are established by explicit reconstruction: from a representation of the defect tube algebra one constructs a module or bimodule functor via sector decomposition and tube actions, and the tube multiplication relations are shown to imply the module functor axioms. The domain wall and multimodule cases are reduced to the boundary case by the folding trick, a standard categorical equivalence, not by assuming the target equivalence. The paper does rely on the authors' earlier results [24,27] for the weak Hopf algebra structure of the non-defect tube algebras and their Haar integrals; however, those cited results are parameter-free algebraic facts about the same tube-basis data and do not include the defect comodule-algebra equivalence as an assumption, so under the review rules they count as independent support and do not raise the circularity score. Separability idempotents are constructed from Haar integrals (Propositions 3.12, 4.5, and 7.3) rather than fitted, and there are no fitted parameters or predictions that reduce to a fit. A separate rigor caveat, which is not circularity: Proposition 6.3 and the claimed categorical Morita equivalence in Section 6.2 for general N-defects are asserted without proof, so that part of Theorem 1.1 is not demonstrated by the supplied derivation; the boundary, domain wall, and multimodule derivations that are supplied are self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no fitted numerical parameters; the normalization constants are ranks and quantum dimensions of the fixed input fusion and module categories. The invented objects are mathematical structures, the defect tube algebras and multicomodule algebras, rather than unexplained physical entities with independent experimental handles. The main external input is the prior weak Hopf tube algebra machinery, which is assumed as established.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The boundary and domain wall tube algebras Tube(C_M) and Tube(C_M|D) are finite-dimensional C* weak Hopf algebras with two-sided Haar integrals and semisimple representation categories.
    This is imported from Refs. [24,27] and used throughout, e.g. Proposition 3.6, Proposition 3.12, Theorem 4.5.
  • domain assumption The string-net F-moves, module F-moves, loop moves, and parallel moves satisfy the standard coherence and unitarity relations, so tube multiplication and coactions are well defined and associative.
    Used in the proofs of Theorem 3.4 and Lemma 4.1, and in the F-symbol expansions throughout Section 3 and 4.
  • standard math The module and bimodule functor categories involved are finite semisimple, so Schur's lemma and the decomposition into simple objects apply.
    Used to prove full faithfulness and irreducibility in Proposition 3.8, Proposition 3.14, and Proposition 4.9.
  • domain assumption The folding trick identifies C|D-bimodule categories with C tensor D^rev-module categories and induces an algebra isomorphism between the domain wall defect tube algebra and the folded boundary defect tube algebra.
    This is the basis of the proofs of Proposition 4.7 and Theorem 4.10.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized comodule tube algebras for boundary and domain wall defects of (2+1)D topological order." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y4JQK2M4

@misc{pith2026260805071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized comodule tube algebras for boundary and domain wall defects of (2+1)D topological order},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y4JQK2M4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05071}
}
abstract

The tube algebra, which carries the structure of a $C^*$ weak Hopf algebra, is a fundamental tool for characterizing topological excitations in topological phases. In this work, we generalize the tube algebra framework to codimension-2 defects in $(2+1)$D gapped phases described by Turaev--Viro--Barrett--Westbury TQFTs, with particular emphasis on Levin--Wen string-net models. We show that such codimension-2 defects are described by a \emph{defect tube algebra}, which naturally carries the structure of a comodule algebra over the weak Hopf tube algebra associated with the topological excitations. Boundary and domain wall defects are then characterized by the representations of the corresponding boundary and domain wall defect tube algebras. In particular, a domain wall defect tube algebra can be regarded as a generalized Drinfeld double of the tube algebras associated with the two adjacent boundary defects. More generally, for a domain wall joining $N$ bulk phases, the associated domain wall defect tube algebra can be viewed as an $N$-tuple algebra. This perspective extends naturally to general $k$-defects, namely codimension-2 defects joining $k$ codimension-1 defects, for which the resulting generalized tube algebra carries the structure of a multicomodule algebra.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On the theory of identical particles,

    J. M. Leinaas and J. Myrheim, “On the theory of identical particles,” Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996)37, 1 (1977)

    work page 1977

  2. [2]

    Wen,Quantum field theory of many-body systems: from the origin of sound to an origin of light and electrons(Oxford University Press on Demand, 2004)

    X.-G. Wen,Quantum field theory of many-body systems: from the origin of sound to an origin of light and electrons(Oxford University Press on Demand, 2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    S. H. Simon,Topological Quantum(Oxford University Press, 2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,

    A. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,” Annals of Physics303, 2 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/9707021 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    Wang,Topological quantum computation, CBMS No

    Z. Wang,Topological quantum computation, CBMS No. 112 (American Mathematical Soc., 2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computation,

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, “Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computation,” Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008), arXiv:0707.1889 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Topological order with a twist: Ising anyons from an Abelian model,

    H. Bombin, “Topological order with a twist: Ising anyons from an Abelian model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 030403 (2010), arXiv:1004.1838 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Superconducting Proximity Effect on the Edge of Fractional Topological Insulators

    M. Cheng, “Superconducting proximity effect on the edge of fractional topological insulators,” Phys. Rev. B86, 195126 (2012), arXiv:1204.6084 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Majorana zero modes and topological quantum computation,

    S. D. Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, “Majorana zero modes and topological quantum computation,” npj Quantum Information1, 15001 (2015), arXiv:1501.02813 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Defects between gapped boundaries in two-dimensional topological phases of matter,

    I. Cong, M. Cheng, and Z. Wang, “Defects between gapped boundaries in two-dimensional topological phases of matter,” Phys. Rev. B96, 195129 (2017), arXiv:1703.03564 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Models for gapped boundaries and domain walls,

    A. Kitaev and L. Kong, “Models for gapped boundaries and domain walls,” Communications in Mathematical Physics313, 351 (2012), arXiv:1104.5047 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chirality for operator algebras,

    A. Ocneanu, “Chirality for operator algebras,” inSubfactors: Proceedings of the Taniguchi Symposium on Operator Algebra(World Sci. Publ., River Edge, 1994) pp. 39–63

    1994

  5. [13]

    Operator algebras, topology and subgroups of quantum symmetry – construction of subgroups of quantum groups –,

    A. Ocneanu, “Operator algebras, topology and subgroups of quantum symmetry – construction of subgroups of quantum groups –,” inTaniguchi Conference on Mathematics Nara’98, Vol. 31 (Mathematical Society of Japan, 2001) pp. 235–264

    2001

  6. [14]

    The structure of sectors associated with Longo–Rehren inclusions I. General theory,

    M. Izumi, “The structure of sectors associated with Longo–Rehren inclusions I. General theory,” Communications in Mathematical Physics213, 127 (2000)

    2000

  7. [15]

    From subfactors to categories and topology II: The quantum double of tensor categories and subfactors,

    M. Müger, “From subfactors to categories and topology II: The quantum double of tensor categories and subfactors,” Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra180, 159 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    D. E. Evans and Y. Kawahigashi,Quantum symmetries on operator algebras(Oxford University Press, 1998)

    1998

  9. [17]

    A few remarks on the tube algebra of a monoidal category,

    S. Neshveyev and M. Yamashita, “A few remarks on the tube algebra of a monoidal category,” Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society61, 735–758 (2018), arXiv:1511.06332 [math.OA]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cohomology andl2-betti numbers for subfactors and quasi-regular inclusions,

    S. Popa, D. Shlyakhtenko, and S. Vaes, “Cohomology andl2-betti numbers for subfactors and quasi-regular inclusions,” International Mathematics Research Notices2018, 2241 (2017), arXiv:1511.07329 [math.QA] . – 103 –

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The annular structure of subfactors,

    V. F. Jones, “The annular structure of subfactors,” arXiv preprint math/0105071 (2001)

    2001 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Drinfeld centers for bimodule categories,

    K. Hoek, “Drinfeld centers for bimodule categories,” Bachelor thesis, Australian National University, Australia (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Tube category, tensor renormalization and topological holography,

    T. Lan, “Tube category, tensor renormalization and topological holography,” Communications in Mathematical Physics406, 196 (2025), arXiv:2412.07198 [math-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Computing data for Levin-Wen with defects,

    J. C. Bridgeman and D. Barter, “Computing data for Levin-Wen with defects,” Quantum4, 277 (2020), arXiv:1907.06692 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    On the representation categories of weak Hopf algebras arising from Levin-Wen models,

    A. Bai and Z.-H. Zhang, “On the representation categories of weak Hopf algebras arising from Levin-Wen models,” (2025), arXiv:2503.06731 [math.QA]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Weak Hopf symmetry and tube algebra of the generalized multifusion string-net model,

    Z. Jia, S. Tan, and D. Kaszlikowski, “Weak Hopf symmetry and tube algebra of the generalized multifusion string-net model,” Journal of High Energy Physics07, 207 (2024), arXiv:2403.04446 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Domain walls in topological phases and the Brauer–Picard ring forVec(Z/pZ),

    D. Barter, J. C. Bridgeman, and C. Jones, “Domain walls in topological phases and the Brauer–Picard ring forVec(Z/pZ),” Communications in Mathematical Physics369, 1167 (2019), arXiv:1806.01279 [math.QA]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Computing associators of endomorphism fusion categories,

    D. Barter, J. C. Bridgeman, and R. Wolf, “Computing associators of endomorphism fusion categories,” SciPost Phys.13, 029 (2022), arXiv:2110.03644 [math.QA]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Weak Hopf tube algebra for domain walls between 2d gapped phases of Turaev-Viro TQFTs,

    Z. Jia and S. Tan, “Weak Hopf tube algebra for domain walls between 2d gapped phases of Turaev-Viro TQFTs,” Journal of High Energy Physics11(2025), arXiv:2507.01515 [hep-th]

    2025

  20. [28]

    Generalized tube algebras, symmetry-resolved partition functions, and twisted boundary states,

    Y. Choi, B. C. Rayhaun, and Y. Zheng, “Generalized tube algebras, symmetry-resolved partition functions, and twisted boundary states,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 407, 62 (2026), arXiv:2409.02159 [hep-th]

    2026

  21. [29]

    Representation theory of solitons,

    C. Cordova, N. Holfester, and K. Ohmori, “Representation theory of solitons,” Journal of High Energy Physics06, 1 (2025), arXiv:2408.11045 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A lattice model for condensation in Levin-Wen systems,

    J. Christian, D. Green, P. Huston, and D. Penneys, “A lattice model for condensation in Levin-Wen systems,” Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 55 (2023), arXiv:2303.04711 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Tube algebras, excitations statistics and compactification in gauge models of topological phases,

    A. Bullivant and C. Delcamp, “Tube algebras, excitations statistics and compactification in gauge models of topological phases,” Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 216 (2019), arXiv:1905.08673 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Asymptotic density of states in 2d CFTs with non-invertible symmetries,

    Y.-H. Lin, M. Okada, S. Seifnashri, and Y. Tachikawa, “Asymptotic density of states in 2d CFTs with non-invertible symmetries,” Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 94 (2023), arXiv:2208.05495 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Full dyon excitation spectrum in extended Levin-Wen models,

    Y. Hu, N. Geer, and Y.-S. Wu, “Full dyon excitation spectrum in extended Levin-Wen models,” Phys. Rev. B97, 195154 (2018), arXiv:1502.03433 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Levin-wen is a gauge theory: Entanglement from topology,

    K. Kawagoe, C. Jones, S. Sanford, D. Green, and D. Penneys, “Levin-wen is a gauge theory: Entanglement from topology,” Communications in Mathematical Physics405, 266 (2024), arXiv:2401.13838 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Quantum cluster state model with haagerup fusion category symmetry,

    Z. Jia, “Quantum cluster state model with haagerup fusion category symmetry,” Advanced Quantum Technologies9, 1 (2025), arXiv:2412.19657 [math.QA]

    2025

  28. [36]

    Quantum cluster state spin chain with ising fusion category symmetry: A perspective from weak hopf symtft,

    Z. Jia, “Quantum cluster state spin chain with ising fusion category symmetry: A perspective from weak hopf symtft,” (2025), arXiv:2508.02424 [hep-th] . – 104 –

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    The quantum double model with boundary: Condensations and symmetries,

    S. Beigi, P. W. Shor, and D. Whalen, “The quantum double model with boundary: Condensations and symmetries,” Communications in Mathematical Physics306, 663 (2011), arXiv:1006.5479 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Protected edge modes without symmetry,

    M. Levin, “Protected edge modes without symmetry,” Phys. Rev. X3, 021009 (2013), arXiv:1301.7355 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hamiltonian and algebraic theories of gapped boundaries in topological phases of matter,

    I. Cong, M. Cheng, and Z. Wang, “Hamiltonian and algebraic theories of gapped boundaries in topological phases of matter,” Communications in Mathematical Physics355, 645 (2017), arXiv:1707.04564 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Electric-magnetic duality in the quantum double models of topological orders with gapped boundaries,

    H. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Hu, and Y. Wan, “Electric-magnetic duality in the quantum double models of topological orders with gapped boundaries,” Journal of High Energy Physics2020, 1 (2020), arXiv:1910.13441 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Topological boundary conditions in abelian Chern–Simons theory,

    A. Kapustin and N. Saulina, “Topological boundary conditions in abelian Chern–Simons theory,” Nuclear Physics B845, 393 (2011), arXiv:1008.0654 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Theory of defects in Abelian topological states,

    M. Barkeshli, C.-M. Jian, and X.-L. Qi, “Theory of defects in Abelian topological states,” Phys. Rev. B88, 235103 (2013), arXiv:1305.7203 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gapped domain walls, gapped boundaries, and topological degeneracy,

    T. Lan, J. C. Wang, and X.-G. Wen, “Gapped domain walls, gapped boundaries, and topological degeneracy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 076402 (2015), arXiv:1408.6514 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Boundary Hamiltonian theory for gapped topological phases on an open surface,

    Y. Hu, Z.-X. Luo, R. Pankovich, Y. Wan, and Y.-S. Wu, “Boundary Hamiltonian theory for gapped topological phases on an open surface,” Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 1 (2018), arXiv:1706.03329 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gapped domain walls between 2+1D topologically ordered states,

    T. Lan, X. Wen, L. Kong, and X.-G. Wen, “Gapped domain walls between 2+1D topologically ordered states,” Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023331 (2020), arXiv:1911.08470 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Boundary and domain wall theories of 2d generalized quantum double model,

    Z. Jia, D. Kaszlikowski, and S. Tan, “Boundary and domain wall theories of 2d generalized quantum double model,” Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 1 (2023), arXiv:2207.03970 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    On weak Hopf symmetry and weak Hopf quantum double model,

    Z. Jia, S. Tan, D. Kaszlikowski, and L. Chang, “On weak Hopf symmetry and weak Hopf quantum double model,” Communications in Mathematical Physics402, 3045 (2023), arXiv:2302.08131 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Generalized cluster states from Hopf algebras: non-invertible symmetry and Hopf tensor network representation,

    Z. Jia, “Generalized cluster states from Hopf algebras: non-invertible symmetry and Hopf tensor network representation,” Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 147 (2024), arXiv:2405.09277 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Weak Hopf non-invertible symmetry-protected topological spin liquid and lattice realization of (1+1)D symmetry topological field theory,

    Z. Jia, “Weak Hopf non-invertible symmetry-protected topological spin liquid and lattice realization of (1+1)D symmetry topological field theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2026, 154 (2026), arXiv:2412.15336 [hep-th]

    2026

  42. [50]

    Invertible bimodule categories and generalized Schur orthogonality,

    J. C. Bridgeman, L. Lootens, and F. Verstraete, “Invertible bimodule categories and generalized Schur orthogonality,” Communications in Mathematical Physics402, 2691 (2023), arXiv:2211.01947 [math.QA]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Alterfold theory and topological modular invariance,

    Z. Liu, S. Ming, Y. Wang, and J. Wu, “Alterfold theory and topological modular invariance,” Communications in Mathematical Physics407, 102 (2026), arXiv:2412.12702 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  44. [52]

    String-net condensation: A physical mechanism for topological phases,

    M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen, “String-net condensation: A physical mechanism for topological phases,” Phys. Rev. B71, 045110 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0404617 [cond-mat.str-el] . – 105 –

    2005 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Some universal properties of Levin-Wen models,

    L. Kong, “Some universal properties of Levin-Wen models,” inXVIIth International Congress on Mathematical Physics(2012) arXiv:1211.4644 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    String-net model of Turaev-Viro invariants,

    A. Kirillov Jr, “String-net model of Turaev-Viro invariants,” (2011), arXiv:1106.6033 [math.AT]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Generalized string-net models: A thorough exposition,

    C.-H. Lin, M. Levin, and F. J. Burnell, “Generalized string-net models: A thorough exposition,” Phys. Rev. B103, 195155 (2021), arXiv:2012.14424 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Etingof, S

    P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik,Tensor categories, Vol. 205 (American Mathematical Soc., 2016) pp. xvi+343

    2016

  49. [57]

    Semisimple and separable algebras in multi-fusion categories,

    L. Kong and H. Zheng, “Semisimple and separable algebras in multi-fusion categories,” (2019), arXiv:1706.06904 [math.QA]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Montgomery,Hopf algebras and their actions on rings, 82 (American Mathematical Soc., 1993)

    S. Montgomery,Hopf algebras and their actions on rings, 82 (American Mathematical Soc., 1993)

    1993

  51. [59]

    From subfactors to categories and topology I: Frobenius algebras in and Morita equivalence of tensor categories,

    M. Müger, “From subfactors to categories and topology I: Frobenius algebras in and Morita equivalence of tensor categories,” Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra180, 81 (2003), arXiv:math/0111204 [math.CT]

    2003 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Electric-magnetic duality andZ2 symmetry enriched cyclic Abelian lattice gauge theory,

    Z. Jia, D. Kaszlikowski, and S. Tan, “Electric-magnetic duality andZ2 symmetry enriched cyclic Abelian lattice gauge theory,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57, 255203 (2024), arXiv:2201.12361 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    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. B100, 115147 (2019), arXiv:1410.4540 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Fusion categories and homotopy theory,

    P. Etingof, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik, “Fusion categories and homotopy theory,” Quantum Topology1, 209 (2010), arXiv:0909.3140 [math.QA]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Topological quasiparticles and the holographic bulk-edge relation in (2 + 1)-dimensional string-net models,

    T. Lan and X.-G. Wen, “Topological quasiparticles and the holographic bulk-edge relation in (2 + 1)-dimensional string-net models,” Phys. Rev. B90, 115119 (2014), arXiv:1311.1784 [cond-mat.str-el] . – 106 –

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.