Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 51 references

This paper aims to establish that bosonic beyond-cohomology invertible phases begin as a mod-3 effect tied to the first Pontryagin class, and that a 6+1-dimensional Dijkgraaf-Witten phase can detect simplicial complexes that are not manifol

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

2026-08-02 01:27 UTC pith:FVF26GHI

load-bearing objection Solid mod-3 AHSS analysis and a genuinely new Dijkgraaf-Witten class tied to Steenrod's problem; the 'non-manifold detecting phase' claim is an extrapolation the authors themselves flag. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14662 v1 pith:FVF26GHI submitted 2026-07-16 hep-th math.AT

Bosonic SPT and invertible phases and its relation to Steenrod's problem

Shota Saito , Yuji Tachikawa , Yi Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-th math.AT MSC 55N2255T2555S1057R56
keywords bosonic SPT phasesinvertible phasesbeyond-cohomology phasesAtiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequencemod-3 Steenrod powersDijkgraaf-Witten phasesSteenrod problemoriented bordism
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 aims to establish that the first genuinely beyond-cohomology bosonic invertible and symmetry-protected phases are a mod-3 phenomenon, not the mod-2 phenomenon familiar from fermionic phases. The organizing mechanism is a single differential in the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence for oriented bordism, built from the mod-3 Steenrod power P^1 and the Bockstein, and tied to the integrality of the first Pontryagin class divided by 3. As a sharp consequence, the authors write down an explicit 6+1-dimensional Dijkgraaf-Witten phase (a topological phase labelled by a group-cohomology class) with Z3×Z3 symmetry that is a nonzero cohomology class but evaluates to zero on every closed oriented smooth manifold, so it is a phase that detects whether a simplicial complex is a manifold. This is relevant because it turns the classical Steenrod problem about homology cycles without manifold representatives into a concrete statement about lattice topological phases.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the first two nontrivial rows of the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence for oriented bordism are controlled by the differential d5 = i_{Z3→R/Z} P^1 β in the Pontryagin-dual formulation, and d5 = β P^1 ρ in the Anderson-dual formulation. This makes the first beyond-cohomology bosonic phase appear in 5+1 dimensions as an order-9 Z3-symmetric phase, and it yields a 6+1-dimensional phase specified by P^1β(x x̃) = (βx)^3 x̃ − x(βx̃)^3 ∈ H^7(B(Z3×Z3); U(1)). That class is nonzero in cohomology, yet its integral over every closed oriented manifold vanishes because ∫ P^1βu = −∫ (βp1)u = 0 via the Wu formula; dually, it pairs nontrivially with

What carries the argument

The central object is the mod-3 Steenrod power P^1 combined with the Bockstein β, acting as the differential d5 = iP^1β that connects H^{n−4}(X;R/Z) to H^n(X;R/Z) in the Pontryagin dual of oriented bordism; equivalently d5 = βP^1ρ in the Anderson dual. The mechanism's bite comes from the Wu formula ∫ P^1x = ∫ p1 x on closed oriented manifolds, which makes p1/3 an integral class and forces the combination P^1β to vanish on manifolds. This is what converts Steenrod's problem—homology classes not realizable by manifolds—into a statement about invertible phases.

Load-bearing premise

The physical interpretation of the 6+1-dimensional class as a topological phase presupposes that Dijkgraaf-Witten actions may be evaluated on arbitrary finite simplicial complexes; if invertible phases are only meaningful on smooth manifolds with boundary, the phase is indistinguishable from zero, since its pairing with every closed oriented manifold vanishes.

What would settle it

Find a closed oriented 7-manifold M with a map f:M→B(Z3×Z3) for which ∫_M f^*(P^1β(x x̃)) is nonzero; this would contradict the paper's vanishing theorem. Alternatively, produce an explicit Hamiltonian lattice model on a simplicial complex where the phase's value on the paper's 7-cycle in S^7/Z3 × S^7/Z3 is nonzero, or show that every triangulation of that space bounds a smooth manifold, which would remove the claimed non-manifold detection.

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

If this is right

  • The Z3-symmetric invertible phases in 4+1 dimensions form the group Z9, with the beyond-cohomology generator obtained from p1 c1/3 − c1^3/3.
  • For G = Z3×Z3 in 6+1 dimensions, the phase P^1β(x x̃) is killed by the differential, so the natural map from H^7(BG;U(1)) to Hom(Ω^SO_7(BG), U(1)) is not injective.
  • For K(Z,4) symmetry (and therefore F4, E6, E7, E8), the differential is nontrivial and removes the 1/3-normalized generator, while for G2 it is absent, producing a factor-of-three difference in allowed beyond-cohomology phases.
  • The first two rows of the spectral sequence can be captured by a two-stage Postnikov truncation whose invariant is βP^1, and this truncation is realized by BSpin(k) for k≥9, making the phases index-theoretic quantities.
  • A bosonic analogue of Gu-Wen supercohomology requires a cochain-level representative of P^1β and a correction cochain realizing the Wu formula; the paper outlines this structure but does not complete it.
  • The 6+1-dimensional phase is nonzero as a cohomology class but gives zero on every closed oriented manifold, meaning it detects whether a simplicial complex is a manifold without reference to smooth structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the vanishing-on-manifolds result is physically realizable, then a Hamiltonian lattice model on a triangulation of S^7/Z3 × S^7/Z3 should exhibit a new invariant—the value of ∫ P^1β(x x̃) over the constructed 7-cycle—that distinguishes non-manifold lattice geometries; constructing such a model would be a decisive test.
  • The mod-3 structure suggests that bosonic beyond-cohomology classifications should be analyzed prime-by-prime, with odd primes entering through Pontryagin classes; this may predict further mod-3 anomalies at higher AHSS rows before any mod-2 effects beyond the second Stiefel-Whitney class appear.
  • Because spectral-sequence differentials also govern boundary anomalies, the same class should give a 6+1-dimensional anomaly that cannot be realized on a smooth 6-dimensional boundary, which could be probed by placing the boundary theory on a non-manifold simplicial complex.
  • The relation to BSpin(k) suggests that the full two-stage bosonic phase group for finite groups could be computed by classifying maps BG→BSpin(k); finding the explicit extension cocycle would yield a closed-form bosonic analogue of fermionic supercohomology.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies bosonic SPT and invertible phases using the Atiyah–Hirzebruch spectral sequence for oriented bordism, arguing that the first systematic 'beyond-cohomology' phenomenon is a mod-3 one, governed by the Steenrod power P^1 and the first Pontryagin class. The central example is a 6+1-dimensional Dijkgraaf–Witten phase with Z3×Z3 symmetry, specified by the class P^1β(x x̃)=(βx)^3 x̃−x(βx̃)^3 in H^7(B(Z3×Z3);U(1)). The paper proves this class is nonzero in cohomology yet integrates to zero on every closed oriented smooth manifold, giving a cohomological counterpart of Thom's solution to Steenrod's problem. The systematic part computes several bordism groups and extension problems using AHSS, Adams spectral sequence, eta invariants, and Brown–Peterson methods.

Significance. If the mathematical claims stand, this is a valuable contribution: it gives an explicit, simple finite-group symmetry for which a Dijkgraaf–Witten cohomology class detects non-manifold cycles, and it explains the mod-3 nature of the first bosonic beyond-cohomology phenomena. The explicit integral-cohomology check in Sec. 2.5 and the multiple independent methods for extension problems (eta invariants, BP theory, Anderson dual) are strengths. The paper is also honest in flagging that a Hamiltonian lattice construction is missing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.6, Eqs. (3.48)–(3.50)] The computation of d5 on E^{3,4} is incorrect. For a=i(xβx)∈H^3(BG;U(1)), d5(a)=iP^1β_{U(1)→Z3}(a)=iP^1((βx)^2)=2i((βx)^4). The authors claim this vanishes because (βx)^4 is a reduction of the integral class Y^4, but i∘ρ:H^8(BG;Z)→H^8(BG;U(1)) is not zero: it is the coefficient homomorphism n↦n/3 mod 1, which maps the generator Y^4 to a nonzero generator. Hence i((βx)^4)≠0, so d5 is nonzero on these generators. Consequently E∞^{3,4} is not equal to E_2^{3,4}, and the claimed group (3.52) is not established. This is a load-bearing error for the systematic calculation in that subsection.
  2. [Sec. 2.5 and Sec. 4] The physical statement that the constructed cohomology class is 'a Dijkgraaf-Witten phase which is nontrivial on general simplicial complexes but trivial on manifolds' is not supported by a Hamiltonian or state-sum construction. A standard Dijkgraaf-Witten phase is an invertible TQFT on manifolds; evaluating a cohomology class on a non-manifold cycle is a mathematical pairing, not a quantum phase. The authors explicitly defer the Hamiltonian lattice perspective, so the advertised physical interpretation overreaches the established mathematics. This can be fixed by rewording the abstract/title to distinguish the proven cohomological statement from the conjectural phase interpretation, or by providing such a construction.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B.2] The non-split extension for Ω^SO_7(K(Z,3)) is cited to [JWZ26], a paper including an author of the present work. Since this is load-bearing for the computation of Ω^SO_8(K(Z,4)), please include the argument or state the dependence more explicitly.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.6, Eq. (3.52)] Once the d5 computation is corrected, the extension problem and the final group structure should be revisited. The Brown–Peterson method is only sketched for the product group; please provide the details for BZ3×BZ3.
  3. [Throughout] There are minor grammatical issues (e.g., the title 'its relation') and some unclear diagram labels in the AHSS figures. These do not affect the content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the central cohomology computation is self-contained, and the non-manifold 'phase' interpretation is an explicitly acknowledged open step, not a circular input.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters and no prediction that reduces by construction to its inputs. The central claim—that the class (2.50) is nonzero in H^7(BG;U(1)) and evaluates to zero on every closed oriented manifold—is established in Sec. 2.5 directly from the Künneth formula and the Wu formula (2.28), before any AHSS machinery is used. The systematic AHSS analysis in Sec. 3 derives the differential d5=iP^1β from the known group of stable cohomology operations [BMT13] together with Troué's theorem [Tro66]; the only calibration is a sign convention in Appendix C ('Fixing the sign so that it agrees with the explicit examples in Section 2'), and the relevant mathematical content is invariant under that sign choice, so this is not a fitted prediction. Self-citations to [JWZ26] and [BSTT25] occur only in supporting or alternative computations: Appendix B.2 uses the [JWZ26] bordism result, but Appendix B.1 independently gives the same Ω̃^SO_8(K(Z,4)) result from the Anderson dual computed in Sec. 3.2.7, and the [BSTT25] homotopy facts in Sec. 3.2.7 are auxiliary to the main example. Thus no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation. The physical extrapolation—calling the class a phase that detects non-manifoldness—is explicitly left open by the authors (Sec. 1, Sec. 2.5, and Sec. 4: 'Another glaring omission in this paper is that we have only considered the Euclidean action on general manifolds, and have not discussed at all the Hamiltonian lattice perspective'); that is a genuine limitation or overclaim, but it is not circularity in the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities such as particles or forces; the 'two-stage truncation' space P_n is a convenient resummation of known MSO Postnikov data, not a new ontology. There are no free parameters fitted to data: coefficient choices such as x=−1 for K(Z,4) are normalization conventions, and the coefficient y=−1/3 in the G2 case is fixed by the generalized signature theorem. The main assumptions are standard stable-homotopy facts plus the physical classification of invertible phases via bordism; the most fragile input is the self-cited [JWZ26] extension computation.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Bosonic invertible phases in d+1 dimensions with background X are classified by Hom(Ω^SO_{d+1}(X), U(1)) and (I_ZΩ^SO)^{d+2}(X).
    Invoked in Sec. 3.1, citing [FH16, Yon18]. This external classification is what turns bordism groups into physical phases.
  • standard math Wu formulas: ∫_M βx = 0 and ∫_M P^1 x = ∫_M p1 x for closed oriented manifolds, with p1 the mod-3 reduction of the first Pontryagin class.
    Eq. (2.28), attributed to Hirzebruch; used throughout Secs. 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, and Appendix C.
  • standard math The Postnikov invariant of the two-stage truncation of the MSO spectrum is ±βP^1, with no 2-torsion contribution.
    Used in Appendix C to determine the d5 differentials, relying on [Tro66] and [BMT13].
  • standard math MSO_(3) ≃ BP ∨ Σ^8BP ∨ ⋯ in the relevant range, with BP relations 3z1=0, 3z2=0, 3z3+v1z1=0, 3z4+v1z2=0.
    Appendix A.3, based on [BP66, Mil58, JW85, Han16]; used to resolve extension problems.
  • standard math Known integral cohomology tables for K(Z,3), K(Z,4), BZ3×BZ3, BG2, and BSpin(k).
    Used in Secs. 3.2.5–3.2.8; sources include [BMT13], [BW95], and standard textbooks.
  • domain assumption The non-split extension Ω^SO_7(K(Z,3)) ≅ Z3 as stated in [JWZ26].
    Used in Sec. 3.2.5 and Appendix B.2. This is a self-cited preprint result (coauthor Y. Zhang) and not independently proven here; it is partially cross-checked via the Anderson-dual route in Appendix B.1.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 33723 in / 23108 out tokens · 219268 ms · 2026-08-02T01:27:42.728002+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Bosonic invertible and symmetry-protected topological (SPT) phases are well-known to be described by ordinary cohomology groups in low dimensions, but `beyond-cohomology' phases appear in higher dimensions. We make a systematic study of them, and find that the first major non-triviality is a mod-3 phenomenon, and not a mod-2 phenomenon as in the case of fermionic phases. We also point out that this is a dual manifestation of the classic question of Steenrod, namely the issue of the existence of homology cycles without manifold representatives. Thom developed the theory of cobordisms to answer this question, and we explain how the same analysis leads to Dijkgraaf-Witten phases which are nontrivial on general simplicial complexes but become trivial on manifolds.

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 · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Beaudry and J

    A. Beaudry and J. A. Campbell, A Guide for Computing Stable Homotopy Groups , http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.07530 arXiv:1801.07530 [math.AT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    C. Bohr, B. Hanke, and D. Kotschick, Cycles, submanifolds, and structures on normal bundles, Manuscripta Math. 108 (2002) 483--494 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002290200279, http://arxiv.org/abs/0011178 arXiv:0011178 [math.GT]

    arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Brumfiel and J

    G. Brumfiel and J. Morgan, The Pontrjagin Dual of 3-Dimensional Spin Bordism , http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.02860 arXiv:1612.02860 [math.AT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    , The Pontrjagin Dual of 4-Dimensional Spin Bordism , http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08147 arXiv:1803.08147 [math.GT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    , Quadratic Functions of Cocycles and Pin Structures , http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.10484 arXiv:1808.10484 [math.AT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Breen, R

    L. Breen, R. Mikhailov, and A. Touz\' e , Derived functors of the divided power functors, Geom. Topol. 20 (2016) 257--352 https://doi.org/10.2140/gt.2016.20.257, http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.5676 arXiv:1312.5676 [math.AT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [8]

    Becker, E

    K. Becker, E. Sezgin, D. Tennyson, and Y. Tachikawa, Global anomalies in 6D gauged supergravities , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2026)092 JHEP 01 (2026) 092 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22127 arXiv:2507.22127 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [9]

    Benson and J

    D. Benson and J. A. Wood, Integral invariants and cohomology of b spin(n), Topology 34 (1995) 13--28 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0040938394E0019G

    arXiv 1995

  9. [10]

    P. E. Conner and E. E. Floyd, Differentiable periodic maps, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, (N.F.), vol. Band 33, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-G\"ottingen-Heidelberg; Academic Press, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1964

    1964

  10. [11]

    Crowley and M

    D. Crowley and M. Grant, Immersed but not embedded homology classes, http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15359 arXiv:2412.15359 [math.GT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [12]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Symmetry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.155114 Phys. Rev. B 87 (2013) 155114 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4772 arXiv:1106.4772 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [13]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Symmetry protected topological orders in interacting bosonic systems, 2013. http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0861 arXiv:1301.0861 [cond-mat.str-el] . https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0861

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [14]

    Cantero-Mor\'an and A

    F. Cantero-Mor\'an and A. M. Medina-Mardones, An effective proof of the C artan formula: odd primes , http://dx.doi.org/10.4310/hha.2025.v27.n1.a12 Homology Homotopy Appl. 27 (2025) 207--234 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08973 arXiv:2305.08973 [math.AT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [15]

    P. E. Conner, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0063217 Differentiable periodic maps , 2nd ed., Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 738, Springer, Berlin, 1979

    doi:10.1007/bfb0063217 1979

  15. [16]

    J. F. Davis and P. Kirk, http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/gsm/035 Lecture notes in algebraic topology , Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 35, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001. http://www.indiana.edu/ jfdavis/teaching/m623/book.pdf

    doi:10.1090/gsm/035 2001

  16. [17]

    Dijkgraaf and E

    R. Dijkgraaf and E. Witten, Topological Gauge Theories and Group Cohomology , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02096988 Commun. Math. Phys. 129 (1990) 393

    doi:10.1007/bf02096988 1990

  17. [18]

    Eilenberg, On the problems of topology, Annals of Mathematics 50 (1949) 247--260 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1969448

    S. Eilenberg, On the problems of topology, Annals of Mathematics 50 (1949) 247--260 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1969448

    arXiv 1949

  18. [19]

    Fomenko and D

    A. Fomenko and D. Fuchs, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23488-5 Homotopical topology , second ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 273, Springer, 2016

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23488-5 2016

  19. [20]

    D. S. Freed and M. J. Hopkins, Reflection Positivity and Invertible Topological Phases , http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/gt.2021.25.1165 Geom. Topol. 25 (2021) 1165--1330 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.06527 arXiv:1604.06527 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [21]

    Fidkowski, J

    L. Fidkowski, J. Haah, and M. B. Hastings, Exactly solvable model for a 4+1D beyond-cohomology symmetry-protected topological phase , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.101.155124 Phys. Rev. B 101 (2020) 155124 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.05565 arXiv:1912.05565 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [22]

    D. S. Freed and G. W. Moore, Setting the Quantum Integrand of M-theory , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-005-1482-7 Commun. Math. Phys. 263 (2006) 89--132 , http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0409135 arXiv:hep-th/0409135

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  22. [23]

    D. S. Freed, Anomalies and Invertible Field Theories , http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/pspum/088/01462 Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 88 (2014) 25--46 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.7224 arXiv:1404.7224 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [24]

    Y. Feng, H. Xue, Y. Li, M. Cheng, R. Kobayashi, P.-S. Hsin, and Y.-A. Chen, Anyonic Membranes and Pontryagin Statistics , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/4jww-6b6t Phys. Rev. Lett. 136 (2026) 086601 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.14314 arXiv:2509.14314 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  24. [25]

    P. B. Gilkey, The eta invariant and the K-theory of odd dimensional spherical space forms , Inventiones mathematicae 76 (1984) 421--453 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01388468

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01388468 1984

  25. [26]

    P. B. Gilkey, Invariance theory, the heat equation, and the atiyah-singer index theorem, Publish or Perish, USA, 1984. https://pages.uoregon.edu/gilkey/dirPDF/InvarianceTheory1Ed.pdf

    1984

  26. [27]

    Gaiotto and T

    D. Gaiotto and T. Johnson-Freyd, Symmetry Protected Topological Phases and Generalized Cohomology , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2019)007 JHEP 05 (2019) 007 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07950 arXiv:1712.07950 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [28]

    Gaiotto and A

    D. Gaiotto and A. Kapustin, Spin TQFTs and Fermionic Phases of Matter , http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X16450445 Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31 (2016) 1645044 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.05856 arXiv:1505.05856 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [29]

    Gu and X.-G

    Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen, Symmetry-protected topological orders for interacting fermions: Fermionic topological nonlinear models and a special group supercohomology theory , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.115141 Phys. Rev. B 90 (2014) 115141 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2648 arXiv:1201.2648 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [30]

    Hanke, Bordism of elementary abelian groups via inessential brown–peterson homology, Journal of Topology 9 (2016) 725–746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/jtopol/jtw009

    B. Hanke, Bordism of elementary abelian groups via inessential brown–peterson homology, Journal of Topology 9 (2016) 725–746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/jtopol/jtw009

    work page doi:10.1112/jtopol/jtw009 2016

  30. [31]

    Hirzebruch, On Steenrod reduced powers in oriented manifolds

    F. Hirzebruch, On Steenrod reduced powers in oriented manifolds . https://hirzebruch.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/id/eprint/173/. unpublished

  31. [32]

    Hsieh, Y

    C.-T. Hsieh, Y. Tachikawa, and K. Yonekura, Anomaly Inflow and P-Form Gauge Theories , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-022-04333-w Commun. Math. Phys. 391 (2022) 495--608 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.11550 arXiv:2003.11550 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  32. [33]

    Joyce and M

    D. Joyce and M. Upmeier, Bordism categories and orientations of moduli spaces , http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20456 arXiv:2503.20456 [math.AT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [34]

    D. C. Johnson and W. S. Wilson, The brown-peterson homology of elementary p-groups, American Journal of Mathematics 107 (1985) 427--453 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2374422

    arXiv 1985

  34. [35]

    Jia, Y.-N

    W. Jia, Y.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhang, On Quantum Aspects of 1-Form Symmetries II: Bordism, Invertible Phases, and Anomalies , http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.07056 arXiv:2606.07056 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [36]

    Kapustin, Symmetry Protected Topological Phases, Anomalies, and Cobordisms: Beyond Group Cohomology , http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1467 arXiv:1403.1467 [cond-mat.str-el]

    A. Kapustin, Symmetry Protected Topological Phases, Anomalies, and Cobordisms: Beyond Group Cohomology , http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1467 arXiv:1403.1467 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [37]

    R. M. Kaufmann and A. M. Medina-Mardones, Cochain level M ay- S teenrod operations , http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/forum-2020-0296 Forum Math. 33 (2021) 1507--1526 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02571 arXiv:2010.02571 [math.AT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [38]

    Kapustin, R

    A. Kapustin, R. Thorngren, A. Turzillo, and Z. Wang, Fermionic Symmetry Protected Topological Phases and Cobordisms , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2015)052 JHEP 12 (2015) 052 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7329 arXiv:1406.7329 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [39]

    Milnor, The S teenrod algebra and its dual , http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1969932 Ann

    J. Milnor, The S teenrod algebra and its dual , http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1969932 Ann. of Math. 2nd ser. 67 (1958) 150--171

    doi:10.2307/1969932 1958

  39. [40]

    Miller, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/12132 Lectures on algebraic topology , Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, 2022 (English)

    H. Miller, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/12132 Lectures on algebraic topology , Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, 2022 (English). https://math.mit.edu/ hrm/papers/lectures-905-906.pdf

    work page doi:10.1142/12132 2022

  40. [41]

    J. W. Milnor and J. D. Stasheff, Characteristic classes, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 76, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1974

    1974

  41. [42]

    Putrov and J

    P. Putrov and J. Wang, Categorical symmetry of the standard model from gravitational anomaly , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.125028 Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 125028 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.14862 arXiv:2302.14862 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [43]

    D. C. Ravenel, Complex cobordism and stable homotopy groups of spheres, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 121, Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL, 1986. https://www.sas.rochester.edu/mth/sites/doug-ravenel/mu.html

    1986

  43. [44]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Paired States of Fermions in Two-Dimensions with Breaking of Parity and Time Reversal Symmetries, and the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.61.10267 Phys. Rev. B 61 (2000) 10267 , http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9906453 arXiv:cond-mat/9906453

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  44. [45]

    Y. B. Rudyak, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77751-9 On T hom spectra, orientability, and cobordism , Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77751-9 1998

  45. [46]

    Thom, Quelques propri \'e t \'e s globales des vari \'e t \'e s diff \'e rentiables , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02566923 Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici 28 (1954) 17--86

    R. Thom, Quelques propri \'e t \'e s globales des vari \'e t \'e s diff \'e rentiables , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02566923 Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici 28 (1954) 17--86

    doi:10.1007/bf02566923 1954

  46. [47]

    Trou\'e, The orders of the P ostnikov invariants of the T hom spectrum MSO , Illinois J

    J. Trou\'e, The orders of the P ostnikov invariants of the T hom spectrum MSO , Illinois J. Math. 10 (1966) 592--604 http://projecteuclid.org.utokyo.idm.oclc.org/euclid.ijm/1256054898

    arXiv 1966

  47. [48]

    Wan and J

    Z. Wan and J. Wang, Higher Anomalies, Higher Symmetries, and Cobordisms I: Classification of Higher-Symmetry-Protected Topological States and Their Boundary Fermionic/Bosonic Anomalies via a Generalized Cobordism Theory , http://dx.doi.org/10.4310/AMSA.2019.v4.n2.a2 Ann. Math. Sci. Appl. 4 (2019) 107--311 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.11967 arXiv:1812.11967...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [49]

    Z. Wan, J. Wang, and S.-T. Yau, Fermion Families and Pontryagin Class: Topological Field Theory via Colour Symmetry Extension , http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.26202 arXiv:2605.26202 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [50]

    C. Z. Xiong, Minimalist Approach to the Classification of Symmetry Protected Topological Phases , http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aae0b1 J. Phys. A 51 (2018) 445001 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00004 arXiv:1701.00004 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [51]

    Yang and M

    X. Yang and M. Cheng, Gapped Boundary of (4+1)D Beyond-Cohomology Bosonic SPT Phase , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.045137 Phys. Rev. B 110 (2024) 045137 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00719 arXiv:2303.00719 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [52]

    Yonekura, On the Cobordism Classification of Symmetry Protected Topological Phases , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03439-y Commun

    K. Yonekura, On the Cobordism Classification of Symmetry Protected Topological Phases , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03439-y Commun. Math. Phys. 368 (2019) 1121--1173 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10796 arXiv:1803.10796 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019