Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

This paper proves an exact finite-volume identity: in the SU(N) center sheet model, maximum-likelihood decoding compares center-twisted Yang-Mills partition functions, and the syndrome-pair likelihood is the center monopole correlator.

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

2026-08-04 07:02 UTC pith:AFUOWOWL

load-bearing objection The Euclidean decoding dictionary is real and worth engaging; the Hamiltonian PSU(N) claim is explicitly conditional, and the paper mostly says so. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.02452 v1 pith:AFUOWOWL submitted 2026-08-03 hep-th

Confinement as Decoding: Higher Form Codes and Lattice Yang-Mills Theory

Ning Bao This is my paper
classification hep-th PACS 11.15.Ha03.67.Pp
keywords quantum error correctionlattice Yang-Mills theoryconfinementcenter symmetryhigher-form gauge theorytopological codesNishimori ensemblemass gap
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper is trying to establish that the mathematical content of confinement—which topological flux sectors are suppressed, and what mass the vacuum can support—can be read off from the optimal decoding of a topological quantum code. Its central exact claim is that after a syndrome is measured, the posterior probability of each logical sector equals a ratio of center-twisted SU(N) Yang-Mills partition functions with different global completions of the vortex sheet. A second identity turns the likelihood of a separated pair of syndrome worldlines into the center monopole correlator, whose decay defines a transfer-matrix mass. This separates two things often conflated: suppression of global flux sectors (a topological question about information) and the local spectral gap (a dynamical question about the spectrum). A sympathetic reader would care because a hard dynamical problem becomes a well-defined Bayesian inference problem, and lattice Monte Carlo data for twisted partition functions become decoding data.

Core claim

The core claim: maximum-likelihood decoding of a finite Abelian homological code is a comparison of topological-sector weights in a quenched higher-form gauge theory, and in the SU(N) center sheet model this is realized literally by lattice Yang-Mills theory. For a syndrome J=dB, the conditional posterior is P(h|J) = Z_β[B_J+B_h]/Σ_k Z_β[B_J+B_k], a ratio of center-twisted Wilson partition functions; stabilizer equivalence coincides with one-form gauge invariance. The strong-coupling expansion shows only topologically nontrivial polymers can distinguish logical sectors (so mixing is suppressed by the systolic area), while contractible polymers generate a local syndrome action led by the elem

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the finite-curvature center sheet model: a lattice theory with SU(N) links and a Z_N plaquette field B, where the syndrome is J=dB and the logical class is [B] ∈ H²(Λ; Z_N). The identity that carries the argument is Theorem 9.2—conditioned on J, the posterior equals the ratio of center-twisted Wilson partition functions—together with Theorem 13.1, which identifies the core renormalized pair likelihood with the twisted plaquette center monopole correlator. The strong-coupling character expansion decomposes log Z_β[B] into an exponentially local potential of J plus a remainder suppressed by exp(-τ A_sys), which is what allows local correlations to decay while global

Load-bearing premise

Apart from the Euclidean identities, the interpretation of a confining PSU(N) vacuum as an N³-dimensional code rests on Assumption 7.1—a unique gapped vacuum, unbroken electric center symmetry with a Wilson area law, and untwisted gauging of the center—plus two unproved uniformity conditions (R1, R2) on the Schrieffer-Wolff reduction to the center Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

On a 4⁴ periodic lattice at strong coupling, jointly sample (U,B) and measure (i) the conditional histogram of the H² class at fixed syndrome versus Z_β[B_J+B_h]/Σ_k Z_β[B_J+B_k]; and (ii) the connected pair-correlator effective mass versus the predicted SU(2) branch am = -4 log u + 2u² - (98/3)u⁴ + O(u⁶). Disagreement beyond statistical error inside the convergent region |u(β)| < u₀ would falsify Theorems 9.2 and 13.1; agreement would validate the dictionary.

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

If this is right

  • If Theorem 9.2 is right, decoding the center sheet code is literally a computation of twisted 't Hooft flux partition functions, so existing lattice algorithms for those sectors directly measure decoding failure probabilities.
  • Theorem 10.1 implies that in the strong-coupling regime the conditional logical posterior is asymptotically uniform (success → 1/|H²|) while local syndrome correlations still decay exponentially—global mixing and local clustering decouple.
  • Theorems 13.1 and 14.2 imply the decoder correlation length equals a vortex-source mass; for SU(2) at strong coupling this mass agrees with the scalar glueball branch am = -4 log u + 2u² - (98/3)u⁴ + O(u⁶).
  • Equation (12.2) turns a decoding exponent into a charged-sector gap: if the thermal memory's failure probability decays as e^{-γτ}, every nonzero electric flux sector has energy at least γ above the vacuum.
  • Global twist data cannot by themselves prove a full mass gap—the product counterexample (Proposition 12.1) shows that a spectral-completeness condition is necessary.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The dictionary suggests a testable split: measure the strong-coupling cube coefficient λ_N(β) (with its predicted sign) separately from the syndrome correlation length; agreement with the series would validate the whole construction, while disagreement would point to missing nonperturbative terms.
  • The Fourier duality between the receiver posterior and the environment Gram matrix should extend beyond homological codes—any group-structured noise channel has the same duality, making environment distinguishability a diagnostic for code performance in more general stabilizer settings.
  • The composite-group filtration (Theorem 4.7) suggests memory failure is a sequence of partial condensations in the subgroup lattice; the Z₄ example implies a Yang-Mills analogue: a divisor-biased PSU(4) channel with an intermediate SU(4)/Z₂ logical sector between two Nishimori transitions.
  • Because the κ-fugacity drops out of the conditional posterior but controls the averaged failure probability, varying κ provides a clean experimental knob to test whether syndrome-ensemble changes are driven by defect density or by conditional topological weights—a canary for the two notions of confinement.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a dictionary between quantum error correction and lattice gauge theory. Part I derives exact finite-volume identities for decoding finite Abelian homological codes: the logical posterior is an orbit sum over topological sectors (Thm 2.2), logical odds are dual Wilson amplitudes (Thm 3.1), and threshold criteria are given by contour and fractional-moment bounds (Thm 4.1, Prop 4.2). Part II studies the 4D Z_N toric code and argues, under Assumption 7.1, that a confining PSU(N) vacuum could inherit an N^3-dimensional code sector; the strong-coupling Hamiltonian reduction is left conditional on conditions R1/R2 (Sec. 8.3). Part III defines a finite-curvature SU(N) center-sheet model and proves the exact posterior identity (Thm 9.2): after conditioning on the syndrome, the logical probabilities are center-twisted Wilson partition functions; a strong-coupling expansion gives a local syndrome action and mixing of logical sectors (Thms 10.1–10.3). Part IV relates syndrome-pair likelihoods to center-monopole correlators (Thm 13.1) and derives a transfer-matrix spectral interpretation (Thm 14.2). The paper is careful to separate finite-volume exact statements from the dynamical assumptions needed for the Hamiltonian PSU(N) interpretation.

Significance. If the results stand, the paper provides a clean finite-volume dictionary between Bayesian decoding and lattice Yang–Mills observables. The exact identities (Thms 9.2 and 13.1) are proven directly from definitions and are internally consistent; the strong-coupling leading cube coefficient is correctly computed, and the paper is admirably explicit about which claims are conditional. The construction of a noise model whose logical posterior is a twisted Yang–Mills partition function is a new and potentially useful tool for relating quantum error correction to confining theories. The paper also gives falsifiable numerical prescriptions (Stages 1–4 in Sec. 16) and identifies a concrete mass observable (the decoder mass) that can be compared with conventional glueball spectra. The main significance is therefore as an exact formal dictionary and a source of new observables, rather than as a proof that actual confining PSU(N) vacua realize a topological code.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 7.2, 8.3] The central physical claim about confining PSU(N) vacua is explicitly conditional. Proposition 7.2 requires Assumption 7.1 and the uniformity conditions R1/R2 listed in Sec. 8.3, none of which is proved. Prop. 8.1 concerns only the center-neutral local sector and the paper itself states it does not establish a topological gap after gauging the center. The Discussion (Sec. 17) concedes that the Hamiltonian construction requires uniform control of the effective center Hamiltonian and its phase. The title and abstract therefore overstate the unconditional content: the exact results are the Euclidean dictionary (Thms 9.2, 13.1), while the N^3 code sector in a confining PSU(N) vacuum is a conjecture. Please reframe the abstract and title to separate these sharply.
  2. [Sec. 10.1, 10.4] The proof of Theorems 10.1 and 10.3 is only a sketch. It invokes a convergent strong-coupling cluster expansion (Kotecky–Preiss) without verifying the polymer activities in the presence of a non-flat background B_{k,r}; the localization of F_beta[J] and the remainder bound (10.6) are asserted rather than proved. These theorems underlie the syndrome action, logical mixing (Thm 10.2), and exponential syndrome decoupling, so the missing estimates are load-bearing for the new dynamical results of Part III. Either provide a full proof with explicit cluster bounds or state these results as formal asymptotic expansions.
  3. [Sec. 9.3, 9.4] The identity (9.12) is exact but it is a dictionary by construction: the channel (9.8) is defined with weight Z_beta[B], and Lemma 9.1 collapses the orbit sum. The paper does not derive this noise model from the real-time dynamics of Yang–Mills theory. This is not a circularity error, but the abstract should state more prominently that the model is an inference problem and not a microscopic derivation. The text already does this in Section 1; the abstract should match.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 10.2, Eq. (10.14)] The value kappa_c(0) = 0.953297052(33) is quoted from [49] via the duality (10.13). For reproducibility, please also give the corresponding K_c value of the 4D Ising model used in the conversion.
  2. [Sec. 13.2, Eq. (13.2)] On a torus, the pair syndrome has multiple global completions; the paper mentions this only in passing. Please state explicitly that (13.2) is the weight of a fixed completion and that the syndrome likelihood ratio (13.4) requires a relative complex or a sum over completions.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.9)] The phrase 'at uniform noise' should specify that Q is the uniform distribution on all error configurations; otherwise the posterior is not necessarily flat.
  4. [Fig. 1] The figure caption already distinguishes the algebraic homological relation from the conditional PSU(N) interpretation. This distinction should be echoed in the abstract.
  5. [Abstract] Minor typographical issue: 'four dimensional' should be hyphenated as 'four-dimensional'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Center-sheet posterior identities are built into the channel definition; PSU(N) claims are conditional but honestly scoped.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec 9.3-9.4, Eq (9.8) and Theorem 9.2 (Eq 9.12)]
    "We define the correlated Pauli distribution and the corresponding channel by Pβ,κ(B) = 1/Nβ,κ νκ(dB)Zβ[B]. ... Theorem 9.2 (Finite κ Yang–Mills decoding identity): ... the channel in (9.9) obeys Pβ,κ(h|J) = Zβ[BJ +Bh] / Σ_{k∈LΛ} Zβ[BJ +Bk]."

    The posterior is not an external prediction: the prior over B is literally proportional to Zβ[B] (times a syndrome fugacity νκ(dB)). Conditioning on J=dB makes νκ(J) a common prefactor for every logical completion, so Bayes' rule immediately yields the stated ratio. Lemma 9.1 only removes the orbit multiplicity; no dynamical input from the Wilson integral beyond its use as the prior is involved. The model is engineered so that orbit sums collapse to twisted Yang-Mills partition functions, so Theorem 9.2 restates the definition of the channel rather than deriving a new relation.

  2. self definitional [Sec 13.2, Eq (13.2)-(13.3), Theorem 13.1]
    "Define the core renormalized likelihood for the pair by Ck,Lz(r) = νκ(0)/νκ(Jk,r) Wβ,κ(Jk,r,0)/Wβ,κ(0,0). ... For every finite lattice, finiteκ, and β≥0, Ck,Lz(r) = Zβ[Bk,r]/Zβ[0]. The right hand side is the twisted plaquette center monopole correlator studied in [35]."

    The 'likelihood' is defined to be the ratio of unnormalized sector weights W, which by (9.15) already contain νκ(J)Zβ[B]. The prefactor νκ(0)/νκ(Jk,r) cancels the built-in endpoint fugacity, leaving Zβ[Bk,r]/Zβ[0]. Thus the claimed equality between the syndrome-pair likelihood and the center monopole correlator is manufactured by the choice of normalization; it is not an independent bridge connecting decoding evidence to Yang-Mills dynamics. The spectral content resides on the RHS, not in a separately derived decoding quantity.

full rationale

The generic decoding identities in Part I (orbit decomposition, Nishimori identity, Fourier duality, threshold bounds) are self-contained algebraic statements about any positive local Pauli channel and do not reduce to their inputs. The PSU(N) interpretation in Proposition 7.2 is explicitly conditional on Assumption 7.1, and Sections 8.3 and 17 concede that the uniformity conditions R1 and R2 and a Hamiltonian cluster expansion are unproved; this is an honest limitation, not a circularity. The main circular flavor is confined to Part III: the finite-curvature center-sheet channel is defined by using the center-twisted Yang-Mills partition function Zβ[B] as the prior weight of B, so Theorem 9.2 and Theorem 13.1 are near-tautological consequences of that definition plus Bayes' rule. The strong-coupling expansion, the β=0 Wegner-duality anchor, and the transfer-matrix spectral analysis are genuine dynamical outputs that could fail independently and are the paper's real content. Because the central exact posterior identities reduce by construction, but the paper also contains substantial non-circular dynamical analysis, the overall circularity score is 6 rather than higher.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central exact identities rest on standard algebraic facts and the explicit definition of the noise model. The PSU(N) interpretation adds a physics assumption (7.1) and two unproved uniformity estimates (R1, R2). No new particles, forces, or dimensions are postulated; κ is the only hand-chosen model parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • κ (curvature fugacity)
    Introduced in Eq (9.7) as a strictly positive local fugacity for syndrome cubes. It is an input of the model, not fitted; the exact posterior identity holds for all finite κ, but averaged failure probabilities and the β=0 critical point (κ_c=0.953...) depend on it.
axioms (6)
  • standard math U(1) is injective as a Z-module, so Hom(−,U(1)) is exact and commutes with homology.
    Used in Lemma 2.1 to identify the conjugate logical group with the character group of the homology.
  • domain assumption The noise distribution Qθ is strictly positive and local (Eq 2.1).
    Assumed in Sec 2.2 to define sector weights and the Nishimori identity; the paper considers more general correlated noise within this class.
  • domain assumption The code is a finite Abelian homological CSS code with ideal syndrome information and only one Pauli shift error sector.
    Stated in the introduction; circuit-level threshold analysis is explicitly deferred.
  • domain assumption Assumption 7.1: at fixed lattice spacing, the parent SU(N) theory has a unique gapped vacuum, unbroken electric center symmetry, a fundamental Wilson area law, vanishing theta angles, and gauging an unbroken finite 1-form symmetry yields the untwisted finite gauge theory in the infrared.
    This is the load-bearing premise for the PSU(N) vacuum code claim; the paper states it as an assumption.
  • domain assumption The Wilson action is reflection positive and has a positive transfer matrix at zero theta angle.
    Invoked in Sec 14 to obtain the spectral representation of syndrome pair correlators; the paper notes the argument fails at nonzero theta.
  • standard math Strong-coupling cluster expansion converges for |u(β)| < u0 (standard result from [46,47,48]).
    Used in Theorem 10.1 and 10.3 to control the syndrome action and correlations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 29111 in / 19940 out tokens · 176632 ms · 2026-08-04T07:02:54.872368+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the relationship between quantum error correction, confinement, and lattice Yang-Mills theory. We first formulate decoding for finite Abelian homological codes in terms of higher form gauge fields. For positive local noise, the logical classes are topological sectors of a Nishimori ensemble, and the optimal decoding error is determined by the relative weights of the nontrivial sectors. We derive Fourier relations between logical probabilities, disorder operators, and information in the channel environment, and we give contour and fractional moment criteria for a threshold. We then study a four dimensional $\Z_N$ memory and its possible relation to confining $\PSU(N)$ vacua. Finally, we define a finite curvature center sheet model coupled to Wilson $\SU(N)$ link variables. In this model the conditional logical probabilities are center twisted Yang-Mills partition functions. A strong coupling expansion gives the leading effective interaction for the syndrome and shows that local syndrome correlations can decay even when the global sheet sectors are mixed. We also show that the likelihood for a separated pair of syndrome worldlines is the center monopole correlator. Its decay determines a transfer matrix mass. This distinguishes the suppression of global flux sectors from the local spectral information needed to discuss a mass gap.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02452 by Ning Bao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The constructions used in this paper. The homological relation is algebraic. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The finite κ decoding dictionary. The nonabelian links are hidden variables in the correlated Pauli distribution and are not code qudits. then p ML fail(J) = X g̸=0 e −∆FJ (g) 1 + X g̸=0 e −∆FJ (g) . (9.14) Proof. The solutions of dB = J form the affine space BJ + ker d2. Decompose ker d2 into cohomology classes modulo im d1. The unnormalized weight of the class h is Wβ,κ(J, h) = X b∈im d1 Pβ,κ(BJ + Bh + b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A nonzero syndrome used as a spectral probe. The sheet boundary is the measured current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_3.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

51 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Topological quantum memory,

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, “Topological quantum memory,” J. Math. Phys.43, 4452 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0110143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    Confinement–Higgs transition in a disordered gauge theory and the accuracy threshold for quantum memory,

    C. Wang, J. Harrington, and J. Preskill, “Confinement–Higgs transition in a disordered gauge theory and the accuracy threshold for quantum memory,” Ann. Phys.303, 31 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0207088

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    Statistical mechanical models for quantum codes with correlated noise,

    C. T. Chubb and S. T. Flammia, “Statistical mechanical models for quantum codes with correlated noise,” Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré D8, 269 (2021), arXiv:1809.10704

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Superselection rules, quantum error correction, and quantum chromodynamics,

    N. Bao, C. Cao, A. Chatwin-Davies, G. Cheng, and G. Zhu, “Superselection rules, quantum error correction, and quantum chromodynamics,” JHEP05, 236 (2025), arXiv:2306.17230

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Deconfinement and error thresholds in holography,

    N. Bao, C. Cao, and G. Zhu, “Deconfinement and error thresholds in holography,” Phys. Rev. D106, 046009 (2022), arXiv:2202.04710

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Quantum error correction with gauge symmetries,

    A. Rajput, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, “Quantum error correction with gauge symmetries,” npj Quantum Information9, 41 (2023), arXiv:2112.05186

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Quantum error thresholds for gauge-redundant digitizations of lattice field theories,

    M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, “Quantum error thresholds for gauge-redundant digitizations of lattice field theories,” Phys. Rev. D110, 054516 (2024), arXiv:2402.16780

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Fault-tolerant simulation of lattice gauge theories with gauge covariant codes,

    L. Spagnoli, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, “Fault-tolerant simulation of lattice gauge theories with gauge covariant codes,” Quantum10, 1968 (2026), arXiv:2405.19293

    arXiv 1968

  9. [9]

    A correspondence between quantum error correcting codes and quantum reference frames,

    S. Carrozza, A. Chatwin-Davies, P. A. Hoehn, and F. M. Mele, “A correspondence between quantum error correcting codes and quantum reference frames,” arXiv:2412.15317

    arXiv

  10. [10]

    Gauss law codes and vacuum codes from lattice gauge theories,

    J. P. Lacambra, A. Chatwin-Davies, M. Honda, and P. A. Hoehn, “Gauss law codes and vacuum codes from lattice gauge theories,” arXiv:2604.06087

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Quantum error correction codes for truncatedSU(2)lattice gauge theories,

    X. Yao, “Quantum error correction codes for truncatedSU(2)lattice gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D113, 114512 (2026), arXiv:2511.13721

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Perturbative stability and error-correction thresholds of quantum codes,

    Y. Li, N. O’Dea, and V. Khemani, “Perturbative stability and error-correction thresholds of quantum codes,” PRX Quantum6, 010327 (2025), arXiv:2406.15757

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Information-theoretic principle of emergent 1-form symmetries,

    Y.-J. Liu, W.-T. Xu, F. Pollmann, and M. Knap, “Information-theoretic principle of emergent 1-form symmetries,” arXiv:2502.17572

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Phenomenological noise models and optimal thresholds of the 3D toric code,

    J.-Z. Xu, Y. Zhong, M. A. Martin-Delgado, H. Song, and K. Liu, “Phenomenological noise models and optimal thresholds of the 3D toric code,” Quantum Sci. Technol.11, 035022 (2026), arXiv:2510.20489

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Self-correction from higher-form symmetry protection on a boundary,

    C. Stahl, “Self-correction from higher-form symmetry protection on a boundary,” PRX Quantum4, 030341 (2023), arXiv:2206.05294

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Statistics of the two-dimensional ferromagnet. Part I,

    H. A. Kramers and G. H. Wannier, “Statistics of the two-dimensional ferromagnet. Part I,” Phys. Rev.60, 252 (1941)

    1941

  17. [17]

    Duality in generalized Ising models and phase transitions without local order parameters,

    F. J. Wegner, “Duality in generalized Ising models and phase transitions without local order parameters,” J. Math. Phys.12, 2259 (1971)

    1971

  18. [18]

    Determination of an operator algebra for the two-dimensional Ising model,

    L. P. Kadanoff and H. Ceva, “Determination of an operator algebra for the two-dimensional Ising model,” Phys. Rev. B3, 3918 (1971)

    1971

  19. [19]

    Internal energy, specific heat and correlation function of the bond-random Ising model,

    H. Nishimori, “Internal energy, specific heat and correlation function of the bond-random Ising model,” Prog. Theor. Phys.66, 1169 (1981). 42

    1981

  20. [20]

    Diagnostics of mixed-state topological order and breakdown of quantum memory,

    R. Fan, Y. Bao, E. Altman, and A. Vishwanath, “Diagnostics of mixed-state topological order and breakdown of quantum memory,” PRX Quantum5, 020343 (2024), arXiv:2301.05689

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Strong-to-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking in mixed quantum states,

    L. A. Lessa, R. Ma, J.-H. Zhang, Z. Bi, M. Cheng, and C. Wang, “Strong-to-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking in mixed quantum states,” PRX Quantum6, 010344 (2025), arXiv:2405.03639

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Exact calculations of coherent information for toric codes under decoherence: identifying the fundamental error threshold,

    J. Y. Lee, “Exact calculations of coherent information for toric codes under decoherence: identifying the fundamental error threshold,” Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 250601 (2025), arXiv:2402.16937

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,

    A. Y. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,” Ann. Phys.303, 2 (2003), arXiv:quant- ph/9707021

    arXiv 2003

  24. [24]

    Topological quantum order: stability under local perturba- tions,

    S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and S. Michalakis, “Topological quantum order: stability under local perturba- tions,” J. Math. Phys.51, 093512 (2010), arXiv:1001.0344

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    A no-go theorem for a two-dimensional self-correcting quantum memory based on stabilizer codes,

    S. Bravyi and B. M. Terhal, “A no-go theorem for a two-dimensional self-correcting quantum memory based on stabilizer codes,” New J. Phys.11, 043029 (2009), arXiv:0810.1983

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  26. [26]

    Topological order in a three-dimensional toric code at finite temperature,

    C. Castelnovo and C. Chamon, “Topological order in a three-dimensional toric code at finite temperature,” Phys. Rev. B78, 155120 (2008), arXiv:0804.3591

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    Generalized global symmetries,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, “Generalized global symmetries,” JHEP02, 172 (2015), arXiv:1412.5148

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

    Higher symmetry and gapped phases of gauge theories,

    A. Kapustin and R. Thorngren, “Higher symmetry and gapped phases of gauge theories,” arXiv:1309.4721

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Magnetic discrete gauge field in the confining vacua and the supersymmetric index,

    Y. Tachikawa, “Magnetic discrete gauge field in the confining vacua and the supersymmetric index,” JHEP 03, 035 (2015), arXiv:1412.2830

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    On the phase transition towards permanent quark confinement,

    G. ’t Hooft, “On the phase transition towards permanent quark confinement,” Nucl. Phys. B138, 1 (1978)

    1978

  31. [31]

    A property of electric and magnetic flux in non-Abelian gauge theories,

    G. ’t Hooft, “A property of electric and magnetic flux in non-Abelian gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B153, 141 (1979)

    1979

  32. [32]

    Topology ofSU(N)lattice gauge theories coupled withZN 2-form gauge fields,

    M. Abe, O. Morikawa, S. Onoda, H. Suzuki, and Y. Tanizaki, “Topology ofSU(N)lattice gauge theories coupled withZN 2-form gauge fields,” JHEP08, 118 (2023), arXiv:2303.10977

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    ’t Hooft loops, electric flux sectors and confinement inSU (2)Yang–Mills theory,

    P. de Forcrand and L. von Smekal, “’t Hooft loops, electric flux sectors and confinement inSU (2)Yang–Mills theory,” Phys. Rev. D66, 011504 (2002), arXiv:hep-lat/0107018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  34. [34]

    Precision lattice calculation ofSU(2)’t Hooft loops,

    P. de Forcrand and D. Noth, “Precision lattice calculation ofSU(2)’t Hooft loops,” Phys. Rev. D72, 114501 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0506005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  35. [35]

    Screening ofZ(N)monopole pairs in gauge theories,

    P. de Forcrand, C. Korthals-Altes, and O. Philipsen, “Screening ofZ(N)monopole pairs in gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B742, 124 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0510140

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  36. [36]

    Phase diagrams of lattice gauge theories with Higgs fields,

    E. Fradkin and S. H. Shenker, “Phase diagrams of lattice gauge theories with Higgs fields,” Phys. Rev. D 19, 3682 (1979)

    1979

  37. [37]

    Confinement criterion for QCD with dynamical quarks,

    K. Fredenhagen and M. Marcu, “Confinement criterion for QCD with dynamical quarks,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 223 (1986)

    1986

  38. [38]

    Homological quantum rotor codes: logical qubits from torsion,

    C. Vuillot, A. Ciani, and B. M. Terhal, “Homological quantum rotor codes: logical qubits from torsion,” Commun. Math. Phys.405, 53 (2024), arXiv:2303.13723

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Proof of confinement of static quarks in three-dimensionalU(1)lattice gauge theory for all values of the coupling constant,

    M. Göpfert and G. Mack, “Proof of confinement of static quarks in three-dimensionalU(1)lattice gauge theory for all values of the coupling constant,” Commun. Math. Phys.82, 545 (1982)

    1982

  40. [40]

    Existence proof of a nonconfining phase in four-dimensionalU(1)lattice gauge theory,

    A. H. Guth, “Existence proof of a nonconfining phase in four-dimensionalU(1)lattice gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D21, 2291 (1980). 43

    1980

  41. [41]

    Massless phases and symmetry restoration in Abelian gauge theories and spin systems,

    J. Fröhlich and T. Spencer, “Massless phases and symmetry restoration in Abelian gauge theories and spin systems,” Commun. Math. Phys.83, 411 (1982)

    1982

  42. [42]

    The phase structure ofSU(N)/ZN lattice gauge theories,

    I. G. Halliday and A. Schwimmer, “The phase structure ofSU(N)/ZN lattice gauge theories,” Phys. Lett. B101, 327 (1981)

    1981

  43. [43]

    Z2 monopoles in lattice gauge theories,

    I. G. Halliday and A. Schwimmer, “Z2 monopoles in lattice gauge theories,” Phys. Lett. B102, 337 (1981)

    1981

  44. [44]

    Comparison ofSO(3)and SU (2)lattice gauge theory,

    P. de Forcrand and O. Jahn, “Comparison ofSO(3)and SU (2)lattice gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B651, 125 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0211004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  45. [45]

    Construction of a self-adjoint, strictly positive transfer matrix for Euclidean lattice gauge theories,

    M. Lüscher, “Construction of a self-adjoint, strictly positive transfer matrix for Euclidean lattice gauge theories,” Commun. Math. Phys.54, 283 (1977)

    1977

  46. [46]

    Gauge field theories on a lattice,

    K. Osterwalder and E. Seiler, “Gauge field theories on a lattice,” Ann. Phys.110, 440 (1978)

    1978

  47. [47]

    Strong coupling expansions for the mass gap in lattice gauge theories,

    G. Münster, “Strong coupling expansions for the mass gap in lattice gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B190, 439 (1981)

    1981

  48. [48]

    Strong coupling expansion for finite temperature Yang–Mills theory in the confined phase,

    J. Langelage, G. Münster, and O. Philipsen, “Strong coupling expansion for finite temperature Yang–Mills theory in the confined phase,” JHEP07, 036 (2008), arXiv:0805.1163

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [49]

    Revising the universality class of the four-dimensional Ising model,

    P. H. Lundow and K. Markström, “Revising the universality class of the four-dimensional Ising model,” Nucl. Phys. B993, 116256 (2023), arXiv:2209.05292

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Direct Monte Carlo computation of the ’t Hooft partition function,

    O. Morikawa and H. Suzuki, “Direct Monte Carlo computation of the ’t Hooft partition function,” Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2025, 063B04 (2025), arXiv:2501.07042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Direct numerical simulation of the ’t Hooft partition function and (de)confining phases,

    O. Morikawa and H. Suzuki, “Direct numerical simulation of the ’t Hooft partition function and (de)confining phases,” arXiv:2601.20159. 44

    arXiv