Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

The strongly deformed toric code admits a gapped, exponentially-local parent Hamiltonian, placing it in the trivial gapped phase despite perimeter-law Wilson loops.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 00:31 UTC pith:2TZPFCCV

load-bearing objection A genuinely new construction: the strongly deformed toric code has a gapped, exponentially local parent Hamiltonian for large β, and the paper's proof is rigorous. The 00-sector uniqueness claim, however, sits in a stated tension with the dual Hamiltonian's two-fold degeneracy. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28740 v1 pith:2TZPFCCV submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Gapped Parent Hamiltonians for the Strongly Deformed Toric Code

Nandagopal Manoj , Zack Weinstein , Jason Alicea This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords deformed toric codeparent Hamiltoniananyon condensation1-form symmetryWilson loop perimeter lawMayer cluster expansiongapped phaselocality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper constructs explicit gapped parent Hamiltonians for the strongly deformed toric code, a state previously conjectured to be intrinsically gapless. The authors show that the state is the unique ground state of a Hamiltonian whose terms decay exponentially with diameter, the standard notion of locality used to define gapped phases. If correct, this places the strongly deformed toric code in the trivial gapped phase and shows that perimeter-law Wilson loops do not signal spontaneous breaking of 1-form symmetry. The construction relies on a Mayer cluster expansion that expresses the state as a local deformation of the trivial product state, with exponentially decaying cluster weights. The paper also extends the result to the exactly 1-form-symmetric '00' state, for which the parent Hamiltonian satisfies a weaker, aspect-ratio-dependent locality bound, evading a recent no-go theorem by what it argues is a benign relaxation.

Core claim

The strongly deformed toric code state |ψ(β)⟩ can be written as e^W|0⟩, where W = log Z is the free energy of a hard-core polymer model. Using the Mayer cluster expansion, W decomposes into a sum of connected clusters with weights decaying exponentially in cluster size. The parent Hamiltonian H(β) = Σ_e(e^{-2W_e} − Z_e) is then frustration-free, and the cluster bounds ensure each term is exponentially localized, satisfying the standard exponential-in-diameter locality bound. By gap-stability theorems, H(β) is gapped and nondegenerate for sufficiently large β, adiabatically connected to the trivial Hamiltonian H_0. Hence the state lies in the trivial gapped phase, and perimeter-law Wilson loo

What carries the argument

The central object is the operator W = log Z(β), where Z(β) = Σ_L e^{-β|L|}X_L is the operator-valued partition function of a hard-core polymer model whose polymers are connected closed loops. The Mayer cluster expansion expresses W as Σ_C f(C)X_C with coefficients f(C) decaying exponentially with cluster size. The key bound, Σ_{C∋e}|f(C)| ≤ C_clus e^{-4β}, controls the locality of each term in H(β)=Σ_e(e^{-2W_e}−Z_e) and is what turns the apparently nonlocal deformation e^W|0⟩ into an exponentially-local parent Hamiltonian.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on accepting exponential-in-diameter decay (with constants that may depend on aspect ratio) as the definition of locality; if the correct notion of a gapped phase requires strictly finite-range or aspect-ratio-independent bounds, the strongly deformed toric code would not be gapped.

What would settle it

Numerically diagonalize H(β) (Eq. 9) on L×L tori for β=5 and check that the spectral gap remains above the predicted lower bound ~2[1 − c_1 J(β)] with J(β)≈4×10^5 e^{-4β}; alternatively, directly compute the cluster-expansion coefficients f(C) and test the bound Σ_{C∋e}|f(C)| ≤ 5.115×10^3 e^{-4β} on a large lattice — if the bound fails at any edge, the locality proof collapses.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, perimeter-law Wilson loops in a gapped ground state do not imply spontaneous 1-form symmetry breaking; the standard diagnostic fails within this locality class.
  • The strongly deformed toric code is in the trivial gapped phase for sufficiently large β, adiabatically connected to the paramagnet H_0.
  • Dual statement: a 2D gapped Ising-symmetric ground state can simultaneously exhibit long-range ferromagnetic order and perimeter-law disorder correlations, a combination forbidden in 1D.
  • Strongly Pauli-Z-decohered toric code is separable as a convex sum of short-range-entangled pure states for sufficiently large decoherence strength, completing an earlier separability argument.
  • A novel high/low-temperature duality emerges: the 2D classical Ising ferromagnet at low temperature is dual to a Z2 gauge theory with exponentially decaying interactions at high temperature.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The aspect-ratio dependence of the exact '00' parent Hamiltonian suggests that the physically correct locality notion in 1-form symmetric systems may require Wilson-loop operators to be suppressed by the area they enclose, not their perimeter; if so, a more restrictive no-go theorem could be restored.
  • Because the construction is frustration-free and the state is exactly known for all β, the parent Hamiltonian provides a concrete starting point for numerical studies of the Ising-type transition at β_c ≈ 0.441 from the strongly deformed side.
  • The same cluster-expansion machinery may extend to other non-unitary deformations or anyon-condensed states in string-net models, providing a general route to gapped parent Hamiltonians for deformed topological states.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs gapped parent Hamiltonians for strongly deformed toric code states. Starting from the representation |ψ(β)⟩ = e^{W(β)}|0⟩, the authors use a Mayer cluster expansion to write W as a sum of loop operators with exponentially decaying coefficients, yielding a frustration-free Hamiltonian H(β) = Σ_e(e^{-2W_e} - Z_e). For β larger than a threshold β* ≈ 3.1 they prove a cluster-expansion bound (Eq. (13)) and then use Bravyi-Hastings-Michalakis gap stability to show that H(β) is gapped with |ψ(β)⟩ as its unique ground state. They further construct an exact 1-form-symmetric parent Hamiltonian H^(00)(β) for the 'no-go' state |ψ00(β)⟩, at the price of an aspect-ratio-dependent locality bound, and claim that this evades the no-go theorem of Ref. 18 in a thermodynamically benign way. The paper draws corollaries for mixed-state separability of the decohered toric code, a dual Ising wavefunction with simultaneous long-range order and perimeter-law disorder correlations, and a high/low-temperature duality between the 2D Ising model and a Z2 gauge theory.

Significance. If the main claims are correct, the paper substantially sharpens the notion of locality needed to define gapped phases and challenges the interpretation of perimeter-law Wilson loops as evidence of 1-form symmetry breaking. The construction is parameter-free and the central cluster-expansion bound is proved with explicit constants, which is a genuine technical achievement. The corollaries for the decohered toric code and for classical dualities are interesting and, where proven, go beyond previous numerical or heuristic work. However, the manuscript has an unresolved internal inconsistency concerning the uniqueness of the ground state of H^(00)(β) and the two-fold degeneracy claimed for its Wegner dual, as well as a significant gap between the aspect-ratio-dependent locality of H^(00) and the aspect-ratio-independent locality assumed in the no-go theorem. These issues must be addressed before the central no-go evasion can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [End Matter, 'Dual Ising Wavefunction'; SM §SV C; main text 'Consistency with the no-go theorem'] The manuscript claims simultaneously that H^(00)(β) has |ψ00(β)⟩ as a unique gapped ground state (main text p.4 and SM §SV C) and that H^(00)(β) is dual by Wegner duality to H_dual(β), a gapped Z2-symmetric Hamiltonian with an exact two-fold degeneracy at large β (End Matter). Because Wegner duality is a unitary isomorphism, the spectra of the two Hamiltonians must coincide. Uniqueness and exact two-fold degeneracy cannot both hold. If the dual degeneracy is only a thermodynamic-limit effect, the paper must explain how H^(00) can have a finite gap while its dual has an exponentially small splitting; if the duality is only approximate, the phrase 'is dual to' is misleading. This point is load-bearing for the exact-1-form-symmetry part of the no-go evasion and needs to be resolved.
  2. [Main text 'Consistency with the no-go theorem'; SM §SV] The construction of H^(00)(β) is explicitly stated to satisfy the exponential-in-diameter locality bound Eq. (15) only for fixed aspect ratio a_xy, and to violate that bound if the constants μ, s are required to be independent of aspect ratio. The no-go theorem of Ref. 18 assumes exactly such an aspect-ratio-independent locality bound. Therefore H^(00) does not provide a counterexample within the standard locality class; at best it shows that relaxing the aspect-ratio independence opens a loophole. The claim that the violation is 'benign in the thermodynamic limit' (because |ψ++⟩ and |ψ00⟩ have fidelity 1−e^{-O(L)}) turns an exact parent Hamiltonian into an approximate one and should be stated as such. The discussion should be revised to distinguish clearly between exact and approximate 1-form symmetry, and between fixed-aspect-ratio and uniform locality.
  3. [SM §SVII and main text Discussion (p.5)] The paper states in the main text that both H(β) and H^(00)(β) satisfy the stronger exponential-in-volume locality bound, referring to SM §SVII. The proof there, however, is written for the ++ polymer model: it relies on Eq. (13) (Lemma 5) and assumes that the regions R(C_1,...,C_n) are connected because all clusters contain a common edge. For H^(00), type-2 polymers are pairs of disconnected non-contractible loops; their union is not a connected subregion, so the grouping in Eq. (S82) does not apply. The norm bounds for the type-2 remainder V'_v in §SV C are not converted into exponential-in-volume bounds. As written, the claim that H^(00) is exponential-in-volume local is unsupported. Either supply the missing proof or remove the claim.
  4. [Abstract and Discussion (p.5)] The abstract and discussion state the results as applying to the strongly deformed toric code in the full β > β_c regime, but the proof of Eq. (13) requires β > β* = 2 + log 3 ≈ 3.1, and some steps use β > 2β*. The paper does note that the full regime is a conjecture, but the abstract's phrasing 'we rigorously construct local gapped parent Hamiltonians for these strongly deformed toric code states' should be qualified to 'for sufficiently large β'. This is a presentation issue, but it matters because the physically interesting regime β_c ≈ 0.44 is far below the proven range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3) and surrounding text] The norm identity draws on the 2D Ising partition function with periodic and antiperiodic boundary conditions; the notation is terse. A few sentences explaining the mapping between loop sectors and boundary conditions would improve readability.
  2. [SM §SV C] Typo: 'nondegnerate' should be 'nondegenerate'.
  3. [Main text, Eq. (14)] The constant J(β) is quoted in the main text as e^{-4β} × 4.11×10^5, while the SM defines ilde J ≈ 4.11×10^5 and then J(β) = ilde J e^{-4β}. The notation is slightly inconsistent between the main text and SM; please align.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The figure shows the phase boundary at β_c ≈ 0.44, while the proven gap exists only for β > β* ≈ 3.1. Marking the proven region on the phase diagram or adding a note would avoid over-reading the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the parent Hamiltonian is constructed to have |ψ(β)> as a ground state, but locality, gap, and uniqueness are established by independent cluster-expansion and gap-stability arguments.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is: |ψ(β)> ∝ Σ_L e^{-β|L|}X_L|0> = e^W|0>; one defines W = log Z and H(β) = Σ_e(e^{-2W_e} - Z_e). Each term of H(β) manifestly annihilates |ψ(β)> by construction, so having |ψ(β)> as a ground state is definitional for a parent-Hamiltonian construction and is not a circular prediction. The nontrivial content is that H(β) is exponentially local and gapped with the stated unique ground state. That content is supplied independently: the Mayer cluster expansion gives the coefficient bound Σ_{C∈S_e}|f(C)| ≤ C_clus e^{-4β} [Eq. (13)], the decomposition into r×r-local terms gives ∥V_{r,A}∥ ≤ J(β)e^{-r} [Eq. (14)], and the Bravyi–Hastings–Michalakis stability theorem then yields the gap lower bound. No parameter is fitted to the target state's properties; no load-bearing result is imported by self-citation (the cited gap-stability and no-go results are external); and the evasion of the no-go theorem is an explicitly stated definitional choice about aspect-ratio-dependent vs aspect-ratio-independent locality, not a hidden assumption. I find no step in which a claimed prediction is equivalent by construction to an input. One non-circular caveat should be flagged for correctness: the End Matter states that H_dual(β), the Wegner dual of H^(00)(β), has an exact two-fold degeneracy at large β, while the main text claims H^(00)(β) has a unique gapped ground state; if the duality is exact, those statements appear inconsistent. This is an internal consistency/correctness concern, not a circularity, and does not change the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on standard cluster expansion and stability theorems plus the contested locality-class assumption; there are no fitted parameters or new postulated degrees of freedom.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Mayer cluster expansion and Kotecky–Preiss convergence criterion for polymer models
    Used in Eqs. (10)-(13) and SM SII to expand W=log Z and to bound cluster coefficients.
  • standard math Bravyi–Hastings–Michalakis gap stability theorem for local perturbations
    Used to prove H(β) is gapped from the locality bound Eq. (14); see SM SIII and Theorem 2.
  • domain assumption Standard definition of a local Hamiltonian with exponentially decaying interactions (Eq. 15; Hastings–Koma)
    The entire claim that the state realizes a trivial gapped phase is relative to this notion of locality; the paper's constructions are not finite-range.
  • domain assumption Relaxation of the no-go theorem's aspect-ratio-independent locality bound is benign in the thermodynamic limit
    For the exact 1-form-symmetric state |ψ00>, H^(00) only satisfies Eq. (15) for fixed aspect ratio; the paper argues the violating terms are e^{-O(L)} and irrelevant in the thermodynamic limit.
  • standard math Wegner duality relates deformed toric code to 2D Ising ferromagnet
    Used in the dual statements and the disorder-parameter coexistence discussion.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 36170 in / 14989 out tokens · 157789 ms · 2026-08-03T00:31:27.089322+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Local non-unitary deformations of topologically ordered wavefunctions can drive transitions into peculiar states that challenge modern perspectives on gapped quantum matter. The strongly deformed toric code offers a curious case, hosting $m$ anyon condensation alongside perimeter-law scaling of Wilson loops charged under an exact 1-form symmetry---properties that typically do not coexist in gapped ground states. Nevertheless, we rigorously construct local gapped parent Hamiltonians for these strongly deformed toric code states. The Hamiltonians we construct are not strictly finite-range, but contain sums of Wilson loop operators whose coefficients decay exponentially in their diameter. If one adopts standard locality bounds used to define gapped phases---which allow for such exponentially decaying terms---our construction shows that these states realize a trivial gapped phase. Within this locality class, we demonstrate that perimeter-law scaling of Wilson loops does not imply a spontaneously broken 1-form symmetry, and from a dual perspective, that long-range ferromagnetic order and perimeter-law disorder parameter correlations can coexist in a 2D gapped ground state. We evade a recent no-go theorem [Sahay et al., arXiv:2503.01977] by relaxing its assumptions in a manner that we quantify as benign in the thermodynamic limit. More broadly, our results highlight that stronger notions of locality are necessary for prohibiting these counterintuitive properties within a gapped phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28740 by Jason Alicea, Nandagopal Manoj, Zack Weinstein.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Properties of the deformed toric code stat |ω(ε)→Fε bd itil dftitth ε FIG. 1. (a) Properties of the deformed toric code state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Ford= 1, we haveh 1(γ) =g 1(γ) =w(γ)

  2. [2]

    M. B. Hastings, Locality in quantum systems, arXiv:1008.5137 (2010)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Continuum dynamics of the 1-D Heisenberg antiferromagnet: Identification with the O(3) nonlinear sigma model, Phys. Lett. A93, 464 (1983)

    1983

  4. [4]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Nonlinear field theory of large-spin heisenberg antiferromagnets: Semiclassically quantized solitons of the one-dimensional easy-axis N´ eel state, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1153 (1983)

    1983

  5. [5]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Local unitary trans- formation, long-range quantum entanglement, wave func- tion renormalization, and topological order, Phys. Rev. B82, 155138 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B83, 035107 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Schuch, D

    N. Schuch, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, and I. Cirac, Classifying quantum phases using matrix product states and pro- jected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B84, 165139 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  9. [9]

    ¨Ostlund and S

    S. ¨Ostlund and S. Rommer, Thermodynamic limit of den- sity matrix renormalization, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3537 (1995)

    1995

  10. [10]

    Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entan- gled quantum computations, Phys

    G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entan- gled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 147902 (2003)

    2003

  11. [11]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states rep- resent ground states faithfully, Phys. Rev. B73, 094423 (2006)

    2006

  12. [12]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 045003 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Castelnovo and C

    C. Castelnovo and C. Chamon, Quantum topological phase transition at the microscopic level, Phys. Rev. B 77, 054433 (2008)

    2008

  14. [14]

    Huxford, D

    J. Huxford, D. X. Nguyen, and Y. B. Kim, Gaining insights on anyon condensation and 1-form symmetry breaking across a topological phase transition in a de- formed toric code model, SciPost Phys.15, 253 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, Gen- eralized global symmetries, J. High Energy Phys.2015, 172

    2015

  16. [16]

    McGreevy, Generalized Symmetries in Condensed Matter, Annu

    J. McGreevy, Generalized Symmetries in Condensed Matter, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.14, 57 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Burnell, Anyon Condensation and Its Applications, Annu

    F. Burnell, Anyon Condensation and Its Applications, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.9, 307 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Sahay, C

    R. Sahay, C. von Keyserlingk, R. Verresen, and C. Zhang, Enforced Gaplessness from States with Exponentially Decaying Correlations, arXiv:2503.01977 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys.303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  20. [20]

    (3) sums over all periodic and anti- periodic boundary conditions for the 2D Ising model

    Since there is no constraint that the loops be homolog- ically trivial, Eq. (3) sums over all periodic and anti- periodic boundary conditions for the 2D Ising model

  21. [21]

    Levin and X.-G

    M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Detecting Topological Order in a Ground State Wave Function, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 110405 (2006)

    2006

  22. [22]

    Kitaev and J

    A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Topological Entanglement En- tropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 110404 (2006)

    2006

  23. [23]

    F. J. Wegner, Duality in Generalized Ising Models and Phase Transitions without Local Order Parameters, J. Math. Phys.12, 2259 (1971)

    1971

  24. [24]

    J. B. Kogut, An introduction to lattice gauge theory and spin systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.51, 659 (1979)

    1979

  25. [25]

    Zinn-Justin,Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phe- nomena, fifth edition ed., International Series of Mono- graphs on Physics No

    J. Zinn-Justin,Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phe- nomena, fifth edition ed., International Series of Mono- graphs on Physics No. 171 (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Kardar,Statistical Physics of Fields(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge ; New York, 2007)

    M. Kardar,Statistical Physics of Fields(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge ; New York, 2007)

    2007

  27. [27]

    See the Supplemental Material, which contains Refs. [44– 51], for further details of the cluster expansion, details of the proof of locality for the parent Hamiltonian (includ- ing exponential-in-volume locality), a detailed discussion of the parent Hamiltonian for the deformed toric code in the ‘00’ sector, equivalence of locality bounds (14) and (15), a...

  28. [28]

    Friedli and Y

    S. Friedli and Y. Velenik, Cluster expansion, inStatis- tical Mechanics of Lattice Systems: A Concrete Mathe- matical Introduction(Cambridge University Press, 2017) p. 232–261

    2017

  29. [29]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and S. Michalakis, Topological quantum order: Stability under local perturbations, J. Math. Phys.51, 093512 (2010)

    2010

  30. [30]

    Bravyi and M

    S. Bravyi and M. B. Hastings, A Short Proof of Stability of Topological Order under Local Perturbations, Com- mun. Math. Phys.307, 609 (2011)

    2011

  31. [31]

    Fern´ andez and A

    R. Fern´ andez and A. Procacci, Cluster Expansion for Ab- stract Polymer Models. New Bounds from an Old Ap- proach, Commun. Math. Phys.274, 123 (2007)

    2007

  32. [32]

    Penrose, Convergence of fugacity expansions for clas- sical systems, inStatistical Mechanics: Foundations and Applications, edited by A

    O. Penrose, Convergence of fugacity expansions for clas- sical systems, inStatistical Mechanics: Foundations and Applications, edited by A. Bak (W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1967) pp. 101–109

    1967

  33. [33]

    Koteck´ y and D

    R. Koteck´ y and D. Preiss, Cluster expansion for abstract polymer models, Commun. Math. Phys.103, 491 (1986)

    1986

  34. [34]

    29 and 30 assume anL×Ltorus in their proofs, the proof generalizes to arbitrary aspect ratio with no changes

    Although Refs. 29 and 30 assume anL×Ltorus in their proofs, the proof generalizes to arbitrary aspect ratio with no changes

  35. [35]

    Creating twoeanyons from the ground state costs energy proportional to their separation, although 7 this is not reflected in thexy-oriented Wilson loops

    We note that the expectation values of Wilson loops ori- ented in thexτoryτplanes in Euclidean spacetime, de- fined via imaginary time evolution byH(β), displayarea- lawscaling. Creating twoeanyons from the ground state costs energy proportional to their separation, although 7 this is not reflected in thexy-oriented Wilson loops

  36. [36]

    The two locality bounds (14) and (15) are equivalent; see the Supplemental Material [27] for a simple proof

  37. [37]

    Chen and T

    Y.-H. Chen and T. Grover, Separability Transitions in Topological States Induced by Local Decoherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 170602 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    T.-T. Wang, M. Song, Z. Y. Meng, and T. Grover, Analog of Topological Entanglement Entropy for Mixed States, PRX Quantum6, 010358 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Levin, Constraints on Order and Disorder Parameters in Quantum Spin Chains, Commun

    M. Levin, Constraints on Order and Disorder Parameters in Quantum Spin Chains, Commun. Math. Phys.378, 1081 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    B. T. McDonough, C. Yin, A. Lucas, and C. Zhang, Lieb- Robinson Bounds with Exponential-in-Volume Tails, PRX Quantum6, 040322 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    B. Shi, K. Kato, and I. H. Kim, Fusion rules from entan- glement, Ann. Phys.418, 168164 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    Shi and I

    B. Shi and I. H. Kim, Entanglement bootstrap approach for gapped domain walls, Phys. Rev. B103, 115150 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    I. H. Kim, T.-C. Lin, D. Ranard, and B. Shi, Strict area law implies commuting parent Hamiltonian, arXiv:2404.05867 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topo- logical quantum memory, J. Math. Phys.43, 4452 (2002)

    2002

  45. [45]

    R. Fan, Y. Bao, E. Altman, and A. Vishwanath, Diagnos- tics of Mixed-State Topological Order and Breakdown of Quantum Memory, PRX Quantum5, 020343 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    Yin and A

    C. Yin and A. Lucas, Low-Density Parity-Check Codes as Stable Phases of Quantum Matter, PRX Quantum6, 030329 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    De Roeck, V

    W. De Roeck, V. Khemani, Y. Li, N. O’Dea, and T. Rakovszky, Low-Density Parity-Check Stabilizer Codes as Gapped Quantum Phases: Stability under Graph-Local Perturbations, PRX Quantum6, 030330 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    J. B. Kruskal, On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem, Proc. Am. Math. Soc.7, 48 (1956)

    1956

  49. [49]

    Kleinberg and ´E

    J. Kleinberg and ´E. Tardos,Algorithm Design (Pearson/Addison-Wesley, Boston, 2006)

    2006

  50. [50]

    Ueltschi, Cluster expansions and correlation functions, arXiv:math-ph/0304003 (2003)

    D. Ueltschi, Cluster expansions and correlation functions, arXiv:math-ph/0304003 (2003)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  51. [51]

    mean-field

    E. Fradkin and J. E. Moore, Entanglement entropy of 2d conformal quantum critical points: Hearing the shape of a quantum drum, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 050404 (2006). 8 END MA TTER Exact expression for the parent Hamilto- nian.We now provide exact expressions for the coeffi- cientsf(C) appearing in Eq. (12), thereby fully specifying the parent HamiltonianH(β) ...

    2006

  52. [52]

    In other words, wheneverh≤b, we also haveJ[h]≤b

    the functionb(γ)≡w(γ)e |γ| is anupper-barrier: for anyh≤b, we have J[h](γ)≤ J[b](γ) =w(γ) exp    X γ′≁γ w(γ)e |γ|    ≤w(γ)e |γ| =b(γ),(S45) where we have used the result of Lemma 2. In other words, wheneverh≤b, we also haveJ[h]≤b. To prove Eq. (S43), let us recursively define the sequence of functionsh n : Γ→Rbyh 0(γ)≡0 andh d ≡ J[hd−1] for d≥1; fro...

  53. [53]

    Ford= 2, we haveh 2(γ) =w(γ)e P γ′ ≁γ w(γ ′). On the other hand, by dropping theE extra product in the definition ofg 2, we obtain the inequality g2(γ1)≤ X n≥1 1 (n−1)! X γ2,...,γn≁γ1 nY j=1 w(γj) =w(γ 1)e P γ′ ≁γ1 w(γ ′) =h 2(γ1),(S47) i.e.,g 2 ≤h 2

  54. [54]

    More generally, supposeg n−1 ≤h n−1. Then, by following an identical strategy to the proof of Lemma 3, we obtain the inequality gd(γ)≤w(γ)e P γ′ ≁γ gd−1(γ′) ≤w(γ)e P γ′ ≁γ hd−1(γ′) =h d(γ),(S48) where the first inequality follows from noting that the subtrees (T 1, . . . , Tk) of a depth-dtreeTeach have depth d−1. By induction, we therefore learn thatg d ...

  55. [55]

    type-1” and “type-2

    The set of connected, closed (possibly self-intersecting) loops with trivial homology, and 2.Pairsof connected, closed (possibly self-intersecting) loops withnon-trivialhomology, such that they are dis- connected from each other. For brevity, we will call these “type-1” and “type-2” polymers respectively. The disconnected condition in the second case impl...

  56. [56]

    Given a loop configurationL, there is a unique decomposition into connected loops such that all connected loops are mutually disconnected

  57. [57]

    For a givenL, if there are no non-contractible connected loops in this decomposition, thenLis reproduced exactly by a subset Γ ′ ⊂Γ on the right-hand side containing only type-1 polymers, where each polymer corresponds to a connected loop inL

  58. [58]

    If the decomposition ofLcontains two non-contractible connected loops wrapping the same cycle of the torus (a single non-contractible loop is disallowed),Lis reproduced by a subset Γ ′ containing a single type-two polymer

  59. [59]

    The nontrivial case is whenLis decomposed into four or more non-contractible connected loops, each wrapping the same cycle of the torus (Fig. S1). Naively, ifLcontains 2nsuch loops, there are (2n−1)!! ways to pair these loops into type-2 polymers. The middle condition in the interaction (S58) ensures that only one of these pairings gives a nonzero contrib...

  60. [60]

    We therefore find that BHM locality implies exponential-in-diameter locality, for some decay constantµ < µ′/ √ 2 and strengths∝Jgiven explicitly by the above sum. SVII. EXPONENTIAL-IN-VOLUME LOCALITY BOUNDS In this Appendix, we show that our parent HamiltonianH(β) not only satisfies the exponential-in-diameter and BHM locality conditions described in Appe...

  61. [61]

    This follows by noting that Z ˜L commutes with √ρp, so thatZ ˜L √ρp |0⟩= √ρp |0⟩

    One-form symmetry: forcontractibleloops ˜Lin the dual lattice,Z ˜L |ϕ(p)⟩=|ϕ(p)⟩. This follows by noting that Z ˜L commutes with √ρp, so thatZ ˜L √ρp |0⟩= √ρp |0⟩. Alternatively,Z ˜L ads a contractible closed loop to the disorder realization{x e}, leaving the partition functionsZ K({xe}) invariant

  62. [62]

    loop-wave

    Condensedmanyons: if we instead consider an open string ˜Pthrough the dual lattice, we find ⟨ϕ(p)|Z ˜P |ϕ(p)⟩ ⟨ϕ(p)|ϕ(p)⟩ = X E (1−p) Ne−|E|p|E| s Zp(E⊕ ˜P) Zp(E) .(S96) This quantity is a two-point disorder parameter correlator in the Nishimori random-bond Ising model; it decays exponentially forp < pc and is long-range ordered forp > pc. We therefore fi...