Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Gauging Quantum Phases: A Matrix Product State Approach

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Twisted gauging of matrix product states maps non-maximally-commutative SPT phases to phases combining MNC order with symmetry breaking, and pairs degenerate SPT phases with SSB phases.

desk verdict Solid main theorem with a real gap in the generalized Kennedy-Tasaki step (Example 4.12) that needs fixing before the paper is accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14380 v2 pith:M5F4GTNA submitted 2025-04-19 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

David Blanik , José Garre-Rubio , Norbert Schuch This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el
keywords twistedgaugingmatrixproductstatessymmetry-protectedtopologicalphasesspontaneoussymmetrybreakingKennedy-TasakitransformationabeliangroupsprojectiverepresentationsMNC
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes a precise rule for how twisted gauging permutes quantum phases of one-dimensional spin chains with finite abelian on-site symmetry, working entirely at the level of matrix product states. The main result, Theorem 4.3, states that an MPS in the phase $(G_u \leq G, [\alpha])$, with $G = G_b \times G_u$ and twist $\tau = \tau_b \cdot \tau_u$, is mapped to the phase $(\hat{G}_b \times \ker \mathrm{Res}^{G_u}_{K_{\tau_u/\alpha}} \leq \hat{G}, [1 \cdot \phi^\star(\tau_u/\alpha)])$, where $K_\gamma$ is the degeneracy of the cocycle $\gamma$ and $\phi$ is the inverse of the slant-product isomorphism. A key consequence is that gauging a non-maximally-commutative (MNC) SPT phase produces a configuration that combines maximally non-commutative SPT order with spontaneous symmetry breaking. The authors use this to propose a generalized Kennedy-Tasaki transformation that also works for non-MNC phases, and they prove that for complemented abelian groups degenerate SPT phases are dual to symmetry-broken phases under gauging. If correct, this gives a route to detecting arbitrary abelian SPT phases through local and string order parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the projective virtual representation of the MPS tensor together with the slant product $\imath_\gamma: G_u \to \hat{G}_u$ of the 2-cocycle $\gamma = \tau_u/\alpha$. The kernel $K_\gamma$ measures the degeneracy of the SPT phase. Lemma 4.1 supplies the identity that carries the argument: $\hat{\imath}_\gamma$ induces an isomorphism $G_u/K_\gamma \cong \ker \mathrm{Res}^{G_u}_{K_\gamma}$, so the cocycle's kernel becomes the unbroken subgroup of the dual symmetry after gauging. The proof block-decomposes the gauged MPS into injective blocks labeled by the irreducible $\gamma$-projective representations, uses the intertwiner property of the original MPS (Lemma 4.2) to control the transfer operator, and reads off the dual symmetry action on and within the blocks.

What would settle it

Construct an explicit MPS for the group chain $\mathbb{Z}_2 < \mathbb{Z}_4$ in the phase $(\mathbb{Z}_2,1)$ and apply untwisted gauging: the conjectured extension predicts the output phase $(\mathbb{Z}_2,1)$ with twofold ground-state degeneracy, so any output whose unbroken dual subgroup is not isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_2$ would refute the conjecture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a phase-level duality: gauging is not just a state transformation but a well-defined map on the set of gapped phases, sending the phase $(G_u,[\alpha])$ to the phase given in Theorem 4.3. The unbroken dual group after gauging is $\hat{G}_b \times \ker \mathrm{Res}^{G_u}_{K_{\tau_u/\alpha}}$; the SPT part is the pullback of $\tau_u/\alpha$ along the canonical isomorphism $G_u/K_\gamma \cong \ker \mathrm{Res}^{G_u}_{K_\gamma}$, trivially extended to the unbroken group, and the broken dual group is $\hat{K}_\gamma$. In the untwisted case this says the degeneracy $K_\alpha$ of the original SPT cocycle becomes the broken subgroup after gauging, while the broken part of the original symmetry becomes the degeneracy of the new SPT cocycle; for complemented abelian groups this proves the conjectured duality between degenerate SPT phases and SSB phases. It also implies that non-MNC SPT phases, whose cocycles have nontrivial kernel, are mapped to phases with MNC order plus symmetry breaking.

Load-bearing premise

The theorem only holds for symmetry groups where the unbroken subgroup $G_u$ has a complement $G_b$ in $G$ and the twist factorizes as $\tau = \tau_b \cdot \tau_u$; for all other groups the correspondence is a conjecture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gauging a non-MNC SPT phase yields a phase with MNC SPT order combined with symmetry breaking, so no abelian SPT phase disappears under gauging: the SPT part of the output is always non-degenerate.
  • For complemented abelian groups, degenerate SPT phases and SSB phases are dual: the degeneracy of the input cocycle becomes the broken subgroup of the output, and the broken part of the input symmetry becomes the degeneracy of the output SPT cocycle (Theorem 5.1).
  • The generalized Kennedy-Tasaki map $\mathcal{G}_\alpha \circ \mathcal{G}$ sends the trivial SPT phase to the phase $(G/K_\alpha,[\alpha])$ and back to $(G,[\alpha])$, matching the ordinary KT transformation in the Haldane/AKLT case.
  • The phase mapping is independent of the broken part $\tau_b$ of the twist, while the permutation of MNC phases under gauging depends on the chosen isomorphism between $G$ and $\hat{G}$.
  • Because the output of gauging always carries MNC order, local and string order parameters tailored to MNC phases can in principle detect arbitrary abelian SPT phases after gauging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could turn the correspondence into a phase-detection protocol: gauge the unknown state, measure the broken subgroup and the MNC string order of the output, and read off the input SPT degeneracy and cocycle; the paper does not propose this protocol.
  • The theorem suggests a Galois-type dictionary between subgroups of abelian groups and cocycle kernels: $K_\gamma$ is mapped to the broken dual subgroup $\hat{K}_\gamma$, which may help organize the non-complemented cases that currently remain conjectural.
  • A natural next test is open-boundary or non-translation-invariant MPS, where the dual symmetry action on edge modes could be compared before and after gauging; the paper restricts to periodic boundary conditions.
  • The dependence on the choice of dual-symmetry isomorphism means gauging as a phase map requires an extra datum; comparing different isomorphisms may explain when two gauging procedures are genuinely different dualities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an MPS/MPO description of twisted gauging for one-dimensional systems with finite abelian symmetry and proves a precise mapping theorem for quantum phases. The central result, Main Theorem 4.3, states that an MPS in the phase (G_u ≤ G, [α]), with G = G_b × G_u and a twist factorizing as τ = τ_b·τ_u, is mapped under τ-gauging to the phase (\hat{G}_b × ker Res^{G_u}_{K_{τ_u/α}} ≤ \hat{G}, [1·φ⋆(τ_u/α)]). The proof proceeds by block-decomposing the gauged MPS, analyzing the transfer operator, and using projective character orthogonality. The authors draw several consequences: gauging non-MNC SPT phases produces configurations combining MNC SPT order with symmetry breaking; the degeneracy of the SPT cocycle becomes the broken dual symmetry; and a generalized Kennedy-Tasaki transformation is proposed in Example 4.12, including an inverse map from symmetry-broken phases back to SPT phases. The assumptions of the Main Theorem, in particular the complement condition and twist factorization, are stated explicitly, and Section 5 discusses the non-complemented case and a conjecture extending the correspondence.

Significance. If the Main Theorem is correct, this is a genuine advance: it provides a parameter-free, MPS-level derivation of the phase mapping under twisted gauging that goes beyond previously studied maximally non-commutative phases. The proof is detailed and the technical lemmas in the appendices are mostly self-contained. The observation that non-MNC SPT phases map to phases with both MNC SPT order and symmetry breaking is new and potentially useful for detecting such phases through local and string order parameters. The paper also gives explicit examples, including Z_2×Z_4, that illustrate the non-trivial interplay between degeneracy and symmetry breaking. However, the advertised generalized Kennedy-Tasaki transformation has a gap in precisely the non-complemented case that is central to the claimed novelty: the inverse step in Example 4.12 is asserted without proof and is not covered by the Main Theorem or by Theorem 5.1.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.3, Example 4.12] The inverse step of the proposed generalized Kennedy-Tasaki map, stated as 'untwisted gauging of this phase in turn produces the SPT phase (G,[α])', is not a consequence of Main Theorem 4.3 unless the unbroken subgroup U = ker Res^G_{K_α} ≤ \hat{G} admits a complement in \hat{G}. For G = Z_2×Z_4 with the unique non-trivial [α], K_α ≅ Z_2 and U ≅ Z_2×Z_2 consists of all elements of order at most two in \hat{G} ≅ Z_2×Z_4, so no complement exists. This is exactly a non-MNC case of the kind the paper advertises as its key generalization. The manuscript should either prove the inverse step for such groups by a direct MPS computation, or explicitly state that this step is conjectural and restrict the claim of a constructed duality to the complemented case.
  2. [Section 5, Theorem 5.1 and Conjecture] Theorem 5.1 establishes the conjectured duality only for complemented abelian groups, and Example 5.2 analyzes only the non-complemented case Z_2 < Z_4. Neither result covers the non-complemented group Z_2×Z_4 that appears as Example 4.6 and is needed for the inverse KT step in Example 4.12. Since the abstract and Section 1 present the generalized Kennedy-Tasaki transformation as a result rather than as a conjecture, the paper overstates what has been proved. The authors should either extend the proof to this case or clearly mark the non-complemented part of the generalized KT transformation as conjectural.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C] There is a typo: 'canoncial form' should be 'canonical form'.
  2. [Section 4.2, proof of Main Theorem] The sentence explaining the notation for \hat{G}_u is confusing because the same symbol appears both for the dual of G_u and for the unbroken part of the dual symmetry; distinct notations such as \widehat{G_u} and \hat{G}_u^{\rm unbroken} would prevent ambiguity.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (86)-(87)] The notation \hat{G}_b is used both for the dual of the broken group G_b and later for the broken part of the dual symmetry \hat{G}/\hat{G}_u; renaming one of them would improve clarity.
  4. [Section 4.3, Example 4.12] The statement 'twisted α gauging of the trivial SPT phase yields the phase (G/K_α,[α])' is a shorthand that should be expanded to identify the output unbroken subgroup with ker Res^G_{K_α} ≤ \hat{G} and the output SPT cocycle with the pullback φ⋆α; this would make the dependence on the choice of dual symmetry explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Main Theorem 4.3 is derived from the gauging MPO and the independent MPS phase classification; the only flagged issue in Example 4.12 is an unproven (non-circular) step for non-complemented dual subgroups.

full rationale

The derivation chain is forward and self-contained. Theorem 4.3 takes as input a phase label (G_u, [alpha]) and twist [tau] and computes the gauged phase via the MPS expression for the gauged state, the block decomposition of the twisted regular representation, the orthogonal transfer-operator computation, and Lemma 4.1's isomorphism. The final phase label is a function of the input cocycles, not an assumed target; no parameter is fitted to the output and no prediction is renamed input. The reliance on the MPS phase classification (reference [18]) is not circular: that classification is an external, parameter-free result whose assumptions do not include the gauging map, and the paper uses it only to set up the input phase. The paper itself flags its main limitation: Theorem 4.3 requires a complement G = G_b x G_u and a factorizing twist, and Section 5 concedes this fails, e.g., for Z_2 inside Z_4. The skeptical gap is real but non-circular: Example 4.12 asserts that untwisted gauging of (G/K_alpha, [alpha]) returns (G, [alpha]) for any alpha, whereas for G = Z_2 x Z_4 the unbroken subgroup ker Res^{G}_{K_alpha} of the dual has no complement in the dual group, so that leg is not justified by Theorem 4.3. This is a missing proof or possible counterexample, not a case where the conclusion is contained in the definition or in a fitted parameter. Hence no circularity score above 1 is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof relies on standard mathematical background (group cohomology, projective representation theory, MPS canonical forms) and on structural assumptions about the symmetry group (complement, twist factorization). No numbers are fitted to data and no new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Phase classification of 1D gapped symmetric systems by (G_u, [α])
    Used throughout; established in [18] and cited in Section 2.2, not reproven here.
  • domain assumption Existence of complement G ≅ G_b × G_u for the unbroken subgroup
    Assumed in Main Theorem 4.3 (Section 4.2, Eq. 66). Restricts scope; not true for e.g. Z_2 ≤ Z_4.
  • domain assumption Twist factorization τ = τ_b·τ_u
    Assumed in Section 4.2, Eq. 67, for the twisted version of the theorem.
  • domain assumption Induced 2-cocycle α_G extending α to G exists
    Stated in Section 5 as a necessary condition for the MPS approach; Example 5.3 shows it can fail.
  • standard math Standard group cohomology and projective representation theory
    Cohomology H², slant product, Pontryagin dual, Great Orthogonality Theorem, used in proofs; standard background.
  • standard math MPS canonical form and fundamental theorem (gauge equivalence)
    Used to derive the intertwiner property in Eq. (16); established in [21].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gauging Quantum Phases: A Matrix Product State Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M5F4GTNA

@misc{pith2026250414380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gauging Quantum Phases: A Matrix Product State Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M5F4GTNA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14380}
}
read the original abstract

Utilizing the framework of matrix product states, we investigate gauging as a method for exploring quantum phases of matter. Specifically, we describe how symmetry-protected topological (SPT) phases and spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) phases in one-dimensional spin systems behave under twisted gauging, a generalization of the well-known gauging procedure for globally symmetric states. Compared to previous, order parameter-based, approaches our analysis is not limited to the case of maximally non-commutative (MNC) phases and we use our findings to propose a generalization of the Kennedy-Tasaki transformation to the non-MNC setting. A key result of our work is that gauging produces configurations characterized by a combination of MNC order and symmetry breaking, when applied to non-MNC SPT phases. More generally, we conjecture a precise correspondence between SSB and non-MNC SPT phases, possibly enabling the detection of such phases using local and string order parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We imagine the original degrees of freedom, now [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Applying the gauging MPO from Lemma 3.4 to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Iterative Gauging is Deconstruction

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Iterative higher-form gauging and dimensional deconstruction are the same construction, linked by dualizing the Goldstone fields of the quiver Higgs branch.

  2. Strange correlator and string order parameter for non-invertible symmetry protected topological phases in 1+1d

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Strange correlators and string order parameters for non-invertible SPT phases in 1+1d are systematically constructed from the interface algebra, giving local detectors of these phases.

  3. Dipoles and Anyonic Directional Confinement via Twisted Toric Codes

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Twisting the toric code by a 2-cocycle confines anyons directionally, producing dipole and fractal excitations, size-dependent logical operators, and 3D generalizations to surface and X-cube codes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Statistics of the Two-Dimensional Ferromagnet. Part I

    H. A. Kramers and G. H. Wannier. “Statistics of the Two-Dimensional Ferromagnet. Part I”. In: Physical Review60.3 (Aug. 1, 1941), pp. 252– 262.doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.60.252

    doi:10.1103/physrev.60.252 1941

  2. [2]

    Quantum Computation on the Edge of a Symmetry-Protected Topologi- cal Order

    Akimasa Miyake. “Quantum Computation on the Edge of a Symmetry-Protected Topologi- cal Order”. In:Physical Review Letters105.4 (July 21, 2010), p. 040501.doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett.105.040501

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Symmetry-Protected Phases for Measurement-Based Quantum Com- putation

    Dominic V. Else et al. “Symmetry-Protected Phases for Measurement-Based Quantum Com- putation”. In:Physical Review Letters108.24 (June 15, 2012), p. 240505.doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett.108.240505

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Resource Quality of a Symmetry-Protected Topologically Ordered Phase for Quantum Computation

    Jacob Miller and Akimasa Miyake. “Resource Quality of a Symmetry-Protected Topologically Ordered Phase for Quantum Computation”. In: Physical Review Letters114.12 (Mar. 26, 2015), p. 120506.doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 114 . 120506

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Computational Power of Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases

    David T. Stephen et al. “Computational Power of Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases”. In: Physical Review Letters119.1 (July 5, 2017), p. 010504.doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 119 . 010504

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Hidden Sym- metry Breaking and the Haldane Phase in S=1 Quantum Spin Chains

    Tom Kennedy and Hal Tasaki. “Hidden Sym- metry Breaking and the Haldane Phase in S=1 Quantum Spin Chains”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics147.3 (July 1, 1992), pp. 431–484.doi: 10.1007/BF02097239

    doi:10.1007/bf02097239 1992

  7. [7]

    Rigorous Results on Valence- Bond Ground States in Antiferromagnets

    Ian Affleck et al. “Rigorous Results on Valence- Bond Ground States in Antiferromagnets”. In: Physical Review Letters59.7 (Aug. 17, 1987), pp. 799–802.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.799

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.799 1987

  8. [8]

    From Symmetry-Protected Topological Order to Landau Order

    Kasper Duivenvoorden and Thomas Quella. “From Symmetry-Protected Topological Order to Landau Order”. In:Physical Review B88.12 (Sept. 9, 2013), p. 125115.doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevB.88.125115

    work page 2013

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Hidden Symmetry-Breaking Picture of Symmetry-Protected Topological Or- der

    Dominic V. Else, Stephen D. Bartlett, and An- drew C. Doherty. “Hidden Symmetry-Breaking Picture of Symmetry-Protected Topological Or- der”. In:Physical Review B88.8 (Aug. 15, 2013), p. 085114.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.085114

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Detec- tion of Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases in One Dimension

    Frank Pollmann and Ari M. Turner. “Detec- tion of Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases in One Dimension”. In:Physical Review B86.12 (Sept. 24, 2012), p. 125441.doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevB.86.125441

    2012

  3. [11]

    Noninvertible Duality Transformation between Symmetry-Protected Topological and Sponta- neous Symmetry Breaking Phases

    Linhao Li, Masaki Oshikawa, and Yunqin Zheng. “Noninvertible Duality Transformation between Symmetry-Protected Topological and Sponta- neous Symmetry Breaking Phases”. In:Physical Review B108.21 (Dec. 22, 2023), p. 214429.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.214429

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Realizing Triality and P-Ality by Lattice Twisted Gauging in (1+1)d Quantum Spin Sys- tems

    Da-Chuan Lu, Zhengdi Sun, and Yi-Zhuang You. “Realizing Triality and P-Ality by Lattice Twisted Gauging in (1+1)d Quantum Spin Sys- tems”. In:SciPost Physics17.5 (Nov. 15, 2024), p. 136.doi: 10 . 21468 / SciPostPhys . 17 . 5 . 136. arXiv: 2405.14939

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hidden Z2*Z2 Symmetry in Quantum Spin Chains with Arbitrary Integer Spin

    M. Oshikawa. “Hidden Z2*Z2 Symmetry in Quantum Spin Chains with Arbitrary Integer Spin”. In:Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 4.36 (Sept. 1992), p. 7469.doi: 10.1088/0953- 8984/4/36/019

    1992 doi

  6. [14]

    Entanglement and the Density Ma- trix Renormalization Group in the Generalized Landau Paradigm

    Laurens Lootens, Clement Delcamp, and Frank Verstraete. “Entanglement and the Density Ma- trix Renormalization Group in the Generalized Landau Paradigm”. In:Nature Physics(Aug. 15, 2025), pp. 1–7.doi: 10.1038/s41567-025-02961- 2

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    Ver- sion 1

    Bram Vancraeynest-De Cuiper and Clement Del- camp.Twisted Gauging and Topological Sectors in (2+1)d Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories. Ver- sion 1. 2025. arXiv: 2501.16301. Pre-published

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    An Area Law for One- Dimensional Quantum Systems

    M. B. Hastings. “An Area Law for One- Dimensional Quantum Systems”. In:Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2007.08 (Aug. 2007), P08024.doi: 10.1088/1742- 5468/2007/08/P08024

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    Area Laws in Quan- tum Systems: Mutual Information and Correla- tions

    Michael M. Wolf et al. “Area Laws in Quan- tum Systems: Mutual Information and Correla- tions”. In:Physical Review Letters100.7 (Feb. 20, 2008), p. 070502.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100. 070502

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Classifying Quantum Phases Using Matrix Product States and PEPS

    Norbert Schuch, David Perez-Garcia, and Igna- cio Cirac. “Classifying Quantum Phases Using Matrix Product States and PEPS”. In:Physical Review B84.16 (Oct. 31, 2011), p. 165139.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.165139. arXiv: 1010.3732

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Gauging Quantum States: From Global to Local Symmetries in Many-Body Systems

    Jutho Haegeman et al. “Gauging Quantum States: From Global to Local Symmetries in Many-Body Systems”. In:Physical Review X 5.1 (Feb. 27, 2015), p. 011024.doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevX.5.011024. arXiv: 1407.1025

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Matrix Product State Representations

    David Perez-Garcia et al. “Matrix Product State Representations”. In:Quantum Information & Computation7 (July 1, 2007), pp. 401–430.doi: 10.26421/QIC7.5-6-1

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    Normal Projected Entan- gled Pair States Generating the Same State

    Andras Molnar et al. “Normal Projected Entan- gled Pair States Generating the Same State”. In: New Journal of Physics20.11 (Nov. 12, 2018), p. 113017.doi: 10 . 1088 / 1367 - 2630 / aae9fa. arXiv: 1804.04964

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Classification of Gapped Symmetric Phases in One-Dimensional Spin Systems

    Xie Chen, Zheng-Cheng Gu, and Xiao-Gang Wen. “Classification of Gapped Symmetric Phases in One-Dimensional Spin Systems”. In:Physical Review B83.3 (Jan. 13, 2011), p. 035107.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.035107. 23

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    Classification of Symmetry Pro- tected Topological Phases in Quantum Spin Chains

    Yoshiko Ogata. “Classification of Symmetry Pro- tected Topological Phases in Quantum Spin Chains”. In:Current Developments in Mathe- matics2020.1 (2020), pp. 41–104.doi: 10.4310/ CDM.2020.v2020.n1.a2. arXiv: 2110.04671

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Version 1

    Jose Garre Rubio, Andras Molnar, and Yoshiko Ogata.Classifying Symmetric and Symmetry- Broken Spin Chain Phases with Anomalous Group Actions. Version 1. 2024. arXiv: 2403 . 18573. Pre-published

    2024

  17. [25]

    Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States: Concepts, Symmetries, Theorems

    J. Ignacio Cirac et al. “Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States: Concepts, Symmetries, Theorems”. In:Reviews of Modern Physics93.4 (Dec. 17, 2021), p. 045003.doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.045003. arXiv: 2011. 12127

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Topological Phases, Symme- tries and Open Systems

    Caroline de Groot. “Topological Phases, Symme- tries and Open Systems”. https://hdl.handle. net/21.11116/0000-000F-406D-F. PhD thesis. Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Matrix Product Operators for Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases: Gauging and Edge Theories

    Dominic J. Williamson et al. “Matrix Product Operators for Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases: Gauging and Edge Theories”. In:Phys- ical Review B94.20 (Nov. 30, 2016), p. 205150. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.205150. arXiv: 1412. 5604

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Fusion Cat- egory Symmetry. Part I. Anomaly in-Flow and Gapped Phases

    Ryan Thorngren and Yifan Wang. “Fusion Cat- egory Symmetry. Part I. Anomaly in-Flow and Gapped Phases”. In:Journal of High Energy Physics2024.4 (Apr. 24, 2024), p. 132.doi: 10. 1007/JHEP04(2024)132. arXiv: 1912.02817

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Dualities in One- Dimensional Quantum Lattice Models: Symmet- ric Hamiltonians and Matrix Product Operator Intertwiners

    Laurens Lootens et al. “Dualities in One- Dimensional Quantum Lattice Models: Symmet- ric Hamiltonians and Matrix Product Operator Intertwiners”. In:PRX Quantum4.2 (June 29, 2023), p. 020357.doi: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.4. 020357. arXiv: 2112.09091

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Emergent (2+1)D Topologi- cal Orders from Iterative (1+1)D Gauging

    Jos´ e Garre-Rubio. “Emergent (2+1)D Topologi- cal Orders from Iterative (1+1)D Gauging”. In: Nature Communications15.1 (Sept. 12, 2024), p. 7986.doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52320-7

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Laurens Lootens, Clement Delcamp, and Frank Verstraete.Dualities in One-Dimensional Quan- tum Lattice Models: Topological Sectors. Jan. 10,

  24. [32]

    Inaccessible En- tanglement in Symmetry Protected Topological Phases

    Caroline De Groot et al. “Inaccessible En- tanglement in Symmetry Protected Topological Phases”. In:Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53.33 (Aug. 21, 2020), p. 335302. doi: 10.1088/1751- 8121/ab98c7. arXiv: 2003. 06830

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Berkoviˇ c and E

    Jakov G. Berkoviˇ c and E. M. ˇZmud’.Characters of Finite Groups. Part 1. Translations of Mathe- matical Monographs 172. Providence, RI: Amer- ican Math. Soc, 1998. 382 pp

    1998

  26. [34]

    A Character Theory for Projective Representations of Finite Groups

    Chuangxun Cheng. “A Character Theory for Projective Representations of Finite Groups”. In: Linear Algebra and its Applications469 (Mar. 2015), pp. 230–242.doi: 10 . 1016 / j . laa . 2014 . 11.027

    2015

  27. [35]

    Matrix Product Density Oper- ators: Renormalization Fixed Points and Bound- ary Theories

    J. I. Cirac et al. “Matrix Product Density Oper- ators: Renormalization Fixed Points and Bound- ary Theories”. Version 3. In:Annals of Physics 378 (Mar. 2017), pp. 100–149.doi: 10.1016/j. aop.2016.12.030. arXiv: 1606.00608. 24

    2017 arXiv

  28. [2024]

    Pre-published

    arXiv: 2211.03777. Pre-published

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.