Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Quantized Stabilizer-R\'enyi Boundary Response across Fermionic SPT Transitions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The bulk-subtracted boundary term of the stabilizer-Rényi entropy of open free-fermion BDI chains converges to |Δω| ln 2 at Rényi index 1/2, meaning the O(1) boundary response, not the volume law, carries the fermionic SPT index change.

desk verdict A genuinely new exact finite-size identity plus a plausible but numerically conditional quantization claim; the paper deserves review but the ln 2 for the primitive family is not yet proven at the claimed precision. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09749 v1 pith:6MWNW3VV submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph cond-mat.str-elhep-th

M. A. Rajabpour This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-elhep-th
keywords stabilizerRényientropyfermionicSPTphasesBDIchainMajoranazeromodeswindingnumberPfaffianreductionShannon-Rényiboundaryresponse
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 claims that a specific boundary term of the stabilizer Rényi entropy — a measure of non-stabilizerness built from the probabilities of Pauli measurements — is quantized across transitions between fermionic symmetry-protected topological (SPT) phases. For open free-fermion BDI chains in one dimension, the paper compares two gapped phases on opposite sides of a mass inversion, subtracts the nonuniversal bulk contribution independently on each side, and finds that the remaining boundary response approaches |Δω| ln 2 at Rényi index 1/2, where |Δω| is the number of Majorana channels transferred (the change in the winding number). If correct, the O(1) boundary term, rather than the dominant volume law, carries the change in the fermionic SPT index, offering a way to read a topological invariant from the Pauli spectrum of the wave function. Exact finite-chain relations for a shifted-decimated family prove the multiplication of the full crossover by d = |Δω|, and a non-solvable deformation with broken bulk duality and local boundary perturbations is fitted to the same one-channel value ln 2 to within 7.4×10^−6. Through an exact correspondence, the same quantization implies a 2|Δω| ln 2 boundary difference in the computational-basis Shannon–Rényi entropy of the associated SSH-type chain.

What carries the argument

The central object is the α = 1/2 stabilizer-Rényi entropy of a real Gaussian (free-fermion) state, which equals the absolute-minor sum S_L(G) = Σ |det G[I,J]| over the polar factor G of the finite open-chain matrix, with M_{1/2} = 2 ln S_L − L ln 2. In a coherent-sign chamber, this exponentially large sum collapses to a single Pfaffian, S_L(G) = |Pf[R(G) + J]|, allowing polynomial evaluation for large L — the main computational engine. The argument is carried by two complementary families: the shifted-decimated family z^r(h + z^d), whose finite open chain reduces exactly to d independent transverse-field Ising blocks plus r zero-mode blocks, giving the exact identity Δ_{r,d}(x) = d·Δ_TFI(x); and the primitive deformation f_λ(z;h) = h − $z^{{−1}}$ + λ $z^{{−2}}$, chosen because its signed Pfaffian demonstrably fails to be an exact absolute-minor sum, thereby breaking decimation, duality, and sign coherence. Around these sit the subtraction protocol — fitting independent bulk densities per side before extracting O(1) constants — and the positive doubled-Slater bridge, a sign-free Monte Carlo estimator of the exact absolute-minor difference used to rule out an order-unity selector artifact.

What would settle it

Evaluate the exact absolute-minor difference for the primitive family at λ = 0.2 using the positive doubled-Slater bridge at larger sizes than the reported L = 120 and at smaller masses, and check whether Δabs_L − ΔPf_L grows with L beyond the ~3.6×10^−3 level already seen; a growth law in L, or a boundary refinement at window w ≥ 10 revealing negative sectors contributing at order 10^−10 or larger, would break the claimed quantization. Alternatively, build any finite-range BDI deformation with |Δω| = 1 that lies outside the coherent Pfaffian class and fit the same nine-mass global endpoint: a departure from ln 2 exceeding the stated systematic envelope would falsify the universality of the response.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for the free-fermion BDI families studied, the O(1) boundary contribution to the α = 1/2 stabilizer-Rényi entropy, after independent removal of the bulk free-energy density on each side of a mass inversion, is a quantized response equal to R^SPT_{1/2} = |Δω| ln 2, with |Δω| the change in the winding number across the transition. Each Majorana channel that crosses the unit circle in the Laurent symbol leaves an imprint of ln 2 on the reduced boundary response, while modes common to both phases contribute nothing. The claim is established exactly for the shifted-decimated family z^r(h + z^d), where the whole finite-size crossover equals d times the transverse-field Ising crossover, and numerically for a primitive range-two deformation h − $z^{{−1}}$ + λ $z^{{−2}}$ in which the Pfaffian sign structure fails, bulk duality is broken, and local termination changes are applied; there the extrapolated endpoint lies within 7.4×10^−6 of ln 2, with a systematic envelope of 2×10^−5. The paper also argues that the response is not a property of the unprocessed total entropy: individual boundary constants are termination-dependent, and only the bulk-subtracted, same-termination, two-sided difference is universal.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, in the non-solvable test family, the finitely many minors whose signs the Pfaffian formula gets wrong never accumulate enough weight to change the answer at large system sizes; the boundary-pattern analysis only bounds what it can detect, and the independent sign-free check has limited precision, so if hidden sign sectors contributed at order one, the fitted endpoint could move away from ln 2.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At Rényi index 1/2, the independently bulk-subtracted boundary response of the stabilizer-Rényi entropy across a BDI mass inversion equals |Δω| ln 2, so the change in the fermionic SPT index is carried by the O(1) boundary term rather than by the extensive volume law.
  • In the shifted-decimated family z^r(h + z^d), the entire finite-size crossover — not just its asymptotic value — is exactly d = |Δω| times the single-channel transverse-field Ising crossover, and is independent of the background winding r common to both phases.
  • Through the stabilizer–Shannon correspondence, the same quantization yields a computational-basis Shannon–Rényi boundary difference of 2|Δω| ln 2 in the half-filled SSH-type partner chain.
  • The exact min-entropy constraint M_∞ = L ln 2 forces the two-sided boundary difference to vanish at Rényi index infinity, so the response is genuinely index-dependent rather than a fixed constant.
  • The result is compatible with the reported vanishing topological-magic response in the Ising phases, because the present response probes the fermionic BDI boundary index carried by Jordan–Wigner Majoranas rather than nonlocally distributed bosonic SPT resources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the quantization survives beyond free fermions, the α = 1/2 stabilizer-Rényi entropy could serve as a practical scalar diagnostic of fermionic SPT order accessible to Pauli-measurement protocols, since the entropy is assembled directly from Pauli expectation values.
  • The ln 2 value admits a boundary-state-counting reading — one transferred Majorana per end forms a nonlocal complex fermion with a two-dimensional occupation space — which the paper explicitly declines to identify with Affleck–Ludwig g-factors; connecting the two is a natural next step.
  • A testable extension is to map the full Rényi-index function R_α of the strict nested limit, which must interpolate between 2|Δω| ln 2 at α = 1/2 and 0 at α = ∞ and may develop structure at the boundary Rényi transition α = 4; the paper leaves this function open.
  • Because the generic anisotropic XY chain shows no resolved nonlinear boundary mismatch relative to TFI in the accessible fixed-x window, an analogous nested-limit analysis for the XY family — currently out of reach of exact enumeration — is a concrete place to test whether the quantization extends beyond the Pfaffian-solvable classes.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the stabilizer Rényi entropy at Rényi index 1/2 for finite open BDI chains, aiming to isolate a bulk-subtracted boundary response across a mass inversion. The central claim is that this response approaches |Δω| ln 2, where Δω is the change in winding number, so that the boundary term counts the Majorana channels that change the fermionic SPT index. The paper proves an exact finite-size multiplication law for the shifted-decimated family f_{r,d}(z;h)=z^r(h+z^d), showing that the full crossover equals d times the TFI crossover. For a primitive range-two deformation f_λ(z;h)=h−z^{-1}+λz^{-2}, the paper uses Pfaffian evaluations, boundary-pattern decompositions, and a positive doubled-Slater bridge to argue that the one-channel endpoint is ln 2 within numerical accuracy. Extensive supplemental material documents the technical definitions, the limitations of the signed-Pfaffian representation, and the systematic error estimates.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper identifies a genuinely new phenomenon: the O(1) boundary term of the stabilizer-Rényi entropy, not the volume law, carries the change in the fermionic SPT index. The exact finite-size identity for the shifted-decimated family, Eq. (12), is a strong, proved structural result that cleanly separates the background boundary index from the topology-changing channels. The paper is also unusually transparent about its numerical uncertainties: it explicitly states that the boundary-pattern decomposition is not an all-sector upper bound, that the signed-Pfaffian free energy is not the exact absolute-minor sum for the primitive family, and that the independent positive-weight control of the exact observable is at the 10^{-3}–10^{-2} level. These honest limitations are valuable and make the manuscript's claims easy to assess, even where the evidence is incomplete.

major comments (2)
  1. [S6.2–S6.3, Table S6.1] The quantitative claim that the one-channel endpoint equals ln 2 to within 7.4×10^{-6} (Table S6.2) applies to the signed-Pfaffian free energy Φ_L, not to the exact absolute-minor sum S_L. Equations (S2.43)–(S2.44) show that the difference is δ_L = ln(1 + 2W_-(L)/A_L), and the paper's own boundary-pattern decomposition gives only detected lower bounds on W_-/A_L, with no all-sector upper bound. The independent positive bridge in Table S6.1 gives offsets |Δ^{abs}_L − Δ^{Pf}_L| up to 3.6×10^{-3} at the representative points, and the paper conservatively assigns a 10^{-2} mixing scale. Thus the exact absolute-minor observable is presently consistent with ln 2 only at the 10^{-3}–10^{-2} level, not at the 10^{-5} level claimed for the Pfaffian-assisted fits. The main text should either provide a rigorous upper bound on the sign-violating sectors, or explicitly state that the primitive-family quantization to ln 2 is established only at the 10^{-3}–10^{-2} level while the 10^{-5} endpoint refers to the signed-Pfaffian surrogate.
  2. [S4.3, Eqs. (S4.14)–(S4.16)] The exact multiplication law reduces the universal one-channel constant to the TFI limit, but it does not prove that the TFI limit is ln 2. Equation (S4.15) is stated as a numerically supported asymptotic statement, and the supporting data in Sec. S5.3 show convergence only to numerical accuracy. Since the central claim is the quantized value |Δω| ln 2, the manuscript should more carefully separate the proved structural part (multiplication by |Δω|) from the numerically inferred part (the one-channel constant). In particular, the phrase 'exactly in its multiplication by |Δω| and numerically in the primitive one-channel constant' in the main text is honest, but the abstract and introduction state the full equality as the headline result. A revision should make the logical status of ln 2 explicit in the abstract and introduction, or provide an independent derivation of the one-channel constant.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (2)] The notation M_{1/2} = 2 ln S_L − L ln 2 is clear, but S_L is first defined only implicitly as the absolute-minor sum; a one-sentence reminder in the main text that S_L ≡ D_1(G) would help readers who do not consult the supplement.
  2. [Main text, near Eq. (10) and Sec. S6.6] The symbol R^{Pf}_{1/2} appears in the supplemental discussion (Eq. (S6.32)) without being defined in the main text; please define it where the fitted endpoint is first mentioned.
  3. [Sec. S6.6, Eq. (S6.31)] The global fit uses 23 parameters for 45 raw values; the near-critical ansatz terms m ln m, m, m^2 ln m, m^2 are introduced ad hoc. The holdout tests are useful, but a brief justification of why these are the only relevant near-critical terms would strengthen the extrapolation.
  4. [Sec. S6.3] In Table S6.1, the column header Δ^{abs}_L − Δ^{Pf}_L is clear, but the text says the offsets 'should not be interpreted as pointwise compatible with zero' while also noting they do not establish growth with L; please make the statistical interpretation more precise, including whether the between-run dispersions are one sigma or two sigma.
  5. [Sec. S7.3] The discussion of the Rényi-index dependence is appropriately cautious, but the sentence 'no value is assigned here at α = 4, and no interpolation or locked-side branch is assumed' could be moved earlier in the section to avoid any impression that the paper claims a full Rényi-index interpolation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quantized boundary response is not inserted by hand; the exact multiplication law is derived and the one-channel constant is a free numerical fit.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, RSPT_1/2 = |Δω| ln 2, is not circular. The exact shifted-decimated identity, Eq. (12), is derived from the active-block reduction in Sec. S3 and states that the full crossover multiplies by d = |Δω|; this is a theorem, not an input. The one-channel value ln 2 is obtained as a free parameter from large-L Pfaffian fits (Table S6.2) and lands within 7.4e-6 of ln 2; no fitted parameter is defined to be ln 2, so the agreement is an extrapolation, not a definitional identity. The primitive-family analysis explicitly acknowledges that the fixed-selector Pfaffian is not an exact absolute-minor sum (Eq. S2.39) and checks the exact observable with a positive-weight bridge at the 1e-3 to 1e-2 level; this is a transparent correctness limitation, not a circular reduction. Self-cited results from [46, 60] for the stabilizer–Shannon correspondence and the minor-summation Pfaffian are re-derived in Secs. S2.2–S2.4, so those citations are not load-bearing. The paper also openly separates the exact multiplication claim from the numerically supported one-channel constant, explicitly stating 'exactly in its multiplication by |Δω| and numerically in the primitive one-channel constant.' No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own output by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim combines one exact theorem and one numerical extrapolation. The exact theorem (shifted-decimated family) depends on the determinant-sum formalism and BDI root counting. The numerical universal value depends on a chosen large-mass expansion with several fitted parameters and on the unproven smallness of unresolved sign-violating minors in the primitive family.

free parameters (4)
  • One-channel response R_SPT = 0.693145 to 0.693151 across fits (ln2 = 0.693147)
    Fit parameter in Eq. (S6.31), common to all masses; its closeness to ln2 is the central numerical claim.
  • Near-critical coefficients u1, u2, u3, u4 = not quoted
    Coefficients of m ln m, m, m^2 ln m, m^2 in Eq. (S6.31) fitted to the same raw data; validity of this truncation is assumed.
  • Bulk slope difference Delta s(m) per mass = not quoted
    Nuisance parameter fitted at every mass to subtract the nonuniversal bulk contribution; required because generic BDI chains are not self-dual.
  • Overlap amplitude A_ov(m) = not quoted
    Amplitude of the e^{-mL} edge-overlap correction in Eq. (S6.29)/(S6.31), fitted per mass.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Stabilizer-Shannon correspondence: M_alpha(G) = H^ch_alpha(G) from Eq. (S2.13)
    Prior result by Ramirez Trino and Rajabpour [46], one author overlaps; used for the occupation-basis interpretation and min-entropy constraint, not for the raw Pfaffian fits.
  • standard math Pfaffian minor-summation identity Proposition S2.2
    Standard formula [62]; used to reduce the absolute-minor sum to one Pfaffian in coherent sign chambers.
  • ad hoc to paper Massive large-L expansion Eq. (9) and near-critical ansatz Eq. (S6.31)
    The O(1) boundary constant exists after independent bulk subtraction, and the near-critical corrections are truncated as m ln m, m, m^2 ln m, m^2 plus an exponential overlap; no proof that omitted terms are negligible at the 1e-5 level.
  • domain assumption Nested-limit definition Eq. (S7.2): take L to infinity at fixed m first, then m to 0
    This ordering is the definition of the massive boundary response; other orders give different crossover quantities.
  • standard math BDI winding number convention Eq. (S4.2)
    Standard topological classification; used to identify |Delta omega| with the number of roots crossing the unit circle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantized Stabilizer-R\'enyi Boundary Response across Fermionic SPT Transitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6MWNW3VV

@misc{pith2026260809749,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantized Stabilizer-R\'enyi Boundary Response across Fermionic SPT Transitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6MWNW3VV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09749}
}
abstract

Open boundaries host symmetry-protected Majorana modes, yet their imprint on the stabilizer R\'enyi entropy is obscured by a nonuniversal volume law. At R\'enyi index $\alpha=1/2$, we isolate a bulk-subtracted boundary response in free-fermion BDI chains using exact finite-open-chain relations, large-$L$ Pfaffian evaluations, and direct positive-weight checks. Across a mass inversion, this response approaches $|\Delta\omega|\ln 2$, where $\Delta\omega$ is the change in winding number. The response survives primitive bulk deformations, the tested local boundary perturbations, and broken bulk duality. Thus, for the families studied here, the boundary response counts the Majorana channels that change the fermionic SPT index.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09749 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Bulk-subtracted crossover for the shifted-decimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Robustness beyond exact decimation. The independently bulk-subtracted reduced response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1153 (1983)

    1983

  2. [2]

    Affleck, T

    I. Affleck, T. Kennedy, E. H. Lieb, and H. Tasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 799 (1987)

    1987

  3. [3]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Science 338, 1604 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B83, 035107 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    Schuch, D

    N. Schuch, D. Pérez-García, and I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B 84, 165139 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    Senthil, Annu

    T. Senthil, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 299 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Y. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 035005 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Phys.-Usp.44, 131 (2001)

    2001

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    A. P. Schnyder, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B78, 195125 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Kitaev, AIP Conf

    A. Kitaev, AIP Conf. Proc.1134, 22 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    S. Ryu, A. P. Schnyder, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Ludwig, New J. Phys.12, 065010 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Fidkowski and A

    L. Fidkowski and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. B81, 134509 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Fidkowski and A

    L. Fidkowski and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. B83, 075103 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    den Nijs and K

    M. den Nijs and K. Rommelse, Phys. Rev. B40, 4709 (1989)

    1989

  7. [15]

    Pollmann, A

    F. Pollmann, A. M. Turner, E. Berg, and M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. B81, 064439 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    A. M. Turner, F. Pollmann, and E. Berg, Phys. Rev. B 83, 075102 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Pollmann and A

    F. Pollmann and A. M. Turner, Phys. Rev. B86, 125441 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Y.-Z. You, Z. Bi, A. Rasmussen, K. Slagle, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 247202 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Shapourian, K

    H. Shapourian, K. Shiozaki, and S. Ryu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 216402 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. 6 Lett.128, 050402 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. A106, 042426 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Phys. Rev. B107, 035148 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Quantum7, 1092 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Lami and M

    G. Lami and M. Collura, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 180401 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, T. Chanda, and M. Dalmonte, PRX Quantum4, 040317 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Rattacaso, L

    D. Rattacaso, L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. A108, 042407 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Odavić, T

    J. Odavić, T. Haug, G. Torre, A. Hamma, F. Franchini, and S. M. Giampaolo, SciPost Phys.15, 131 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, M. C. Bañuls, and M. Dal- monte, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 010601 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Ahmadi and E

    A. Ahmadi and E. Greplova, SciPost Phys.16, 043 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, M. Dalmonte, and E. Tirrito, Phys. Rev. B110, 045101 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Passarelli, R

    G. Passarelli, R. Fazio, and P. Lucignano, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022436 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    P. R. N. Falcão, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Frau, E. Tirrito, J. Zakrzewski, and M. Dalmonte, Phys. Rev. B111, L081102 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Y.-M. Ding, Z. Wang, and Z. Yan, PRX Quantum6, 030328 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Collura, J

    M. Collura, J. De Nardis, V. Alba, and G. Lami, Quantum 10, 2036 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    Hallam, R

    A. Hallam, R. Smith, and Z. Papić, Phys. Rev. B113, 245113 (2026)

    2026

  28. [36]

    Stéphan, S

    J.-M. Stéphan, S. Furukawa, G. Misguich, and V. Pasquier, Phys. Rev. B80, 184421 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Stéphan, G

    J.-M. Stéphan, G. Misguich, and V. Pasquier, Phys. Rev. B84, 195128 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    F. C. Alcaraz and M. A. Rajabpour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 017201 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Stéphan, Phys

    J.-M. Stéphan, Phys. Rev. B90, 045424 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    F. C. Alcaraz and M. A. Rajabpour, Phys. Rev. B90, 075132 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    D. J. Luitz, F. Alet, and N. Laflorencie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 057203 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Furukawa, V

    S. Furukawa, V. Pasquier, and J. Shiraishi, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 170602 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Tarighi, R

    B. Tarighi, R. Khasseh, M. N. Najafi, and M. A. Ra- jabpour, Phys. Rev. B105, 245109 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Hoshino, M

    M. Hoshino, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Ashida, Phys. Rev. X 16, 011037 (2026)

    2026

  37. [45]

    Hoshino and Y

    M. Hoshino and Y. Ashida, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 080402 (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    E. A. Ramirez Trino and M. A. Rajabpour, arXiv:2509.10700

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Khasseh, E

    R. Khasseh, E. A. Ramirez Trino, and M. A. Rajabpour, arXiv:2606.13810

  40. [48]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  41. [49]

    Ryu and Y

    S. Ryu and Y. Hatsugai, Phys. Rev. B73, 245115 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

    Fidkowski, Phys

    L. Fidkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 130502 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    A. G. Catalano, S. B. Kožić, G. Torre, C. Ciaramelletti, S. Paganelli, F. Franchini, and S. M. Giampaolo, Phys. Rev. B113, 155126 (2026)

    2026

  44. [52]

    Li and P.-Y

    Y.-L. Li and P.-Y. Chang, arXiv:2607.03762

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Nehra, P

    R. Nehra, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Frau, M. Collura, E. Tirrito, and M. Dalmonte, arXiv:2512.16673

  46. [54]

    Verresen, R

    R. Verresen, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. B96, 165124 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Verresen, N

    R. Verresen, N. G. Jones, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 057001 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    N. G. Jones and R. Verresen, J. Stat. Phys.175, 1164 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Verresen, R

    R. Verresen, R. Thorngren, N. G. Jones, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. X11, 041059 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    N. G. Jones and R. Verresen, SIGMA19, 098 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    See the Supplemental Material appended below for the stabilizer–Shannon/SSH correspondence, the exact min-entropy constraint and arbitrary-index scope, the weighted-path sign theorem and trimerized control, the positive doubled-Slater evaluation of the exact absolute- minor re...

  52. [60]

    Khasseh and M

    R. Khasseh and M. A. Rajabpour, arXiv:2606.08606

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Affleck and A

    I. Affleck and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 161 (1991)

    1991

  54. [62]

    Quantized Stabilizer-Rényi Boundary Response across Fermionic SPT Transitions

    M. Ishikawa and M. Wakayama, Linear Multilinear Alge- bra39, 285 (1995). S1 Supplemental Material for “Quantized Stabilizer-Rényi Boundary Response across Fermionic SPT Transitions” M. A. Rajabpour1 1Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Av. Gal. Milton Tavares...

    1995

  55. [63]

    Period-two modulation is the minimal nonuniform example; Sec

    Connected weighted paths.Any invertible bidiagonalZ whose nonzero entries can be gauged to one hopping sign has an exact orientation-adapted coherent selector atα = 1/2. Period-two modulation is the minimal nonuniform example; Sec. S6.8 gives a period-three nondecimated numeri...

  56. [64]

    5.Topological critical chain,f(z) =z(1 +z).This is a special shifted binomial, and the zero-mode sector must be fixed

    Shifted binomial,f(z) =zr(h +zd).In canonical zero-mode sectors there is an exact active-block reduction plus rzero-mode blocks; a single block Pfaffian follows atα= 1/2. 5.Topological critical chain,f(z) =z(1 +z).This is a special shifted binomial, and the zero-mode sector mu...

  57. [65]

    7.Primitive test,f(z) =h−z −1 +λz−2.There is no decimation

    Critical chiral family,f(z) = zm +z−m.For compatible sizes, the known equal-amplitude critical reduction applies [46]; the Pfaffian follows through that reduction. 7.Primitive test,f(z) =h−z −1 +λz−2.There is no decimation. The fixed selector gives a signed-minor Pfaffian rath...

  58. [66]

    The terminationq= 0,1,2cyclically shifts both patterns

    = (0.6145752337021859,2.011337128479881,1.1174095158221562),(S6.47) andh a(m) = emhc a. The terminationq= 0,1,2cyclically shifts both patterns. The products obey hc 1hc 2hc 3 =J 1J2J3 = 1.38125.(S6.48) For a three-site cell, the bulk chiral block is Z(k;m) =   h1(m) 0−J 3e−i...

  59. [67]

    It does not use the minor-summation Pfaffian

    An exact decomposition such asf(z) =g(zd)factorizes Dβ and therefore holds for arbitraryα. It does not use the minor-summation Pfaffian

  60. [68]

    Free-fermion solvability, topology, or decimation alone does not guarantee this sign property

    A single Pfaffian atα = 1/2requires a coherent sign for every minor. Free-fermion solvability, topology, or decimation alone does not guarantee this sign property. For the generic anisotropicXY matrix in Eq. (S1.27), competing directed paths produce parameter-dependent cancell...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.