Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Higher Representations and Quark Confinement

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Baryon symmetry alone distinguishes confined from Higgs phases of scalar QCD.

desk verdict A clearly written categorical proposal for distinguishing confined and adjoint Higgs phases in scalar QCD via the baryon symmetry; the physics is plausible and the math is internally consistent, but the central step—extending a 1+1D representation-theoretic theorem to 3+1D—is explicitly assumed, not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09069 v2 pith:MIYI23W4 submitted 2025-01-15 hep-th cond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MPmath.QA

Finn Gagliano , Andrea Grigoletto , Kantaro Ohmori This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thcond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MPmath.QA PACS 11.15.-q11.30.-j12.38.-t
keywords higherrepresentationtheorystripalgebraquarkconfinementHiggsphasebaryonsymmetrycentervorticesAharonov-BohmeffectscalarQCD
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 argues that, at zero temperature and fixed quark mass, the confined and adjoint Higgs phases of scalar QCD can be distinguished by the way their excitations organize under the baryon symmetry $U(1)_B$. The authors compute the spectrum of genuine particles and strings visible through the baryon symmetry using a higher-categorical version of the 'strip algebra'—a device that encodes how the ultraviolet symmetry acts on the states of a gapped theory. They find that the confined phase admits only baryons, with baryon charges that are multiples of $N$, while the Higgs phase admits bare quarks alongside center vortices, with an Aharonov-Bohm phase between them. The two phases therefore possess genuinely different spectra, giving a diagnostic for confinement where the usual 1-form symmetry and Landau paradigm are absent.

What carries the argument

The central object is the higher strip algebra $\mathrm{Str}_{C}(M)$, a higher-dimensional generalization of the weak Hopf algebra built from a symmetry (higher fusion) category $C$ and a $C$-module category $M$ that encodes the IR gapped phase. The paper assumes the (1+1)-dimensional duality $\mathrm{Rep}[\mathrm{Str}_{C}(M)] = C^{*}_{M} := \mathrm{Hom}_{C}(M,M)$ extends to $d\geq 2$. For pure Yang-Mills, $C = {}^3\mathrm{Vec}(\mathbb{Z}_N[1])$; the modules $M_{\mathrm{conf}} = {}^3\mathrm{Vec}$ and $M_{\mathrm{Higgs}} = C$ give $\mathrm{Rep}_{\mathrm{conf}} = {}^3\mathrm{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_N[1])$ and $\mathrm{Rep}_{\mathrm{Higgs}} = {}^3\mathrm{Vec}(\mathbb{Z}_N[1])$. The RG-flow homomorphism $f: \mathbb{Z}_{k_0}[0] \to B\mathbb{Z}_N[1]$, arising from the Bockstein map of the sequence $\mathbb{Z}_N \to \mathbb{Z}_k \to \mathbb{Z}_{k_0}$, pulls these modules back to the baryon symmetry and produces the categories in (19) and (21).

What would settle it

A direct computation or lattice simulation that exhibits a genuine particle with baryon charge $q$ not a multiple of $N$ in the confined phase of scalar QCD at $T=0$, or a bare quark that does not pick up an Aharonov-Bohm phase around a center vortex in the Higgs phase, would falsify the proposed spectrum distinction. More immediately, any counterexample to the higher-dimensional duality $\mathrm{Rep}[\mathrm{Str}_{C}(M)] = C^{*}_{M}$ for $d \geq 2$ would remove the foundation of the calculation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's notation, the central claim is that $\mathrm{Rep}^{\mathrm{quark}}_{\mathrm{conf}} \simeq {}^3\mathrm{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_{k_0}[0])$ for the confined phase and $\mathrm{Rep}^{\mathrm{quark}}_{\mathrm{Higgs}} \simeq {}^3\mathrm{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_k[0]) \boxtimes_\omega {}^3\mathrm{Vec}(\mathbb{Z}_N[1])$ for the Higgs phase. The confined category has non-trivial particle content only as 2-morphisms, forcing $U(1)_B$ charges $q \equiv 0 \mod N$; hence only baryons are genuine particles. The Higgs category combines the particle representation ${}^3\mathrm{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_k[0])$, which reveals the full baryon group $\mathbb{Z}_k[0]$ and therefore bare quarks, with the vortex category ${}^3\mathrm{Vec}(\mathbb{Z}_N[1])$; the twist $\omega$ encodes the Aharonov-Bohm phase a quark picks up going around a vortex. If correct, these distinct spectra distinguish the phases at $T=0$ and fixed quark mass, where the Wilson-loop area law and Landau paradigm are not available.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the (1+1)-dimensional formula $\mathrm{Rep}[\mathrm{Str}_{C}(M)] = C^{*}_{M}$, together with the companion identity $C \simeq C^{*}_{C}$, remains valid in (3+1) dimensions; the paper states this is assumed, with no proof for weak d-Hopf algebras for $d \geq 2$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the confined phase, all genuine particle excitations carry baryon number a multiple of $N$ ($q \equiv 0 \mod N$); quarks appear only as endpoints of condensation strings and are never isolated.
  • In the Higgs phase, bare quarks coexist with center vortices, and the twist $\omega$ predicts a nontrivial Aharonov-Bohm phase between them—a signature that can be searched for in lattice studies of adjoint Higgs models.
  • The representation categories in (19) and (21) provide a sharp, $T=0$, fixed-mass diagnostic that distinguishes confinement from Higgsing even though the two regimes are connected by Higgs-confinement continuity.
  • Because the pullback construction is functorial, the same method organizes IR spectra according to any UV symmetry that flows to the $\mathbb{Z}_N[1]$ center symmetry, giving a general framework for phases of gauge theories with fundamental matter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the strip-algebra duality is eventually proven for $d \geq 2$, the same recipe would apply to other gauge theories with fundamental matter (e.g., multiple flavors or other gauge groups), giving a general criterion for when 'bare' matter is visible in the IR.
  • The description of baryons as $p$-valent junctions of $N$ confining strings suggests a categorical model of baryon structure that could be compared with lattice flux-tube pictures of baryons.
  • The predicted Aharonov-Bohm phase between bare quarks and center vortices in the Higgs phase might be observable as a statistical phase in quark-vortex scattering, a concrete test beyond the paper's spectrum computation.
  • The paper's zero-temperature, fixed-mass restriction leaves open finite-temperature behavior; a natural extension would replace gapped module categories with thermal or gapless ones to see whether the categorical distinction survives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: In the paper's notation, the central claim is that $\mathrm{Rep}^{\mathrm{quark}}_{\mathrm{conf}} \simeq {}^3\mathrm{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_{k_0}[0])$ for the confined phase and $\mathrm{Rep}^{\mathrm{quark}}_{\mathrm{Higgs}} \simeq {}^3\mathrm{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_k[0]) \boxtimes_\omega {}^3\mathrm{Vec}(\mathbb{Z}_N[1])$ for the Higgs phase. The confined category has non-trivial particle content only as 2-mo

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that, at zero temperature and fixed quark mass, the confined and adjoint Higgs phases of scalar QCD can be distinguished by the organization of their spectra under the baryon symmetry, using higher-categorical representation theory. The authors introduce higher strip algebras and assume a higher-dimensional extension of the (1+1)D relation Rep[StrC(M)] = C*_M (Eq. (3)) to compute the higher representation categories for the confined and Higgs phases of pure Yang-Mills, and then pull these back along the RG-flow homomorphism f: Z_{k0} -> BZ_N (identified with the Bockstein map) to obtain the spectra of scalar QCD. They find that the confined phase, as seen from the baryon symmetry 3Vec(Z_{k0}[0]), contains only baryons with U(1)_B charges q = 0 mod N, while the Higgs phase exhibits bare quarks coexisting with center vortices, together with an Aharonov-Bohm phase described by a twist ω. The central claim is that these two spectra provide a phase distinction where the conventional 1-form symmetry criterion is absent.

Significance. If the underlying conjectures hold, the paper offers a novel higher-categorical diagnostic for Higgs-confinement continuity, a problem of ongoing interest. The framework is timely and connects to recent developments in higher representation theory for generalized symmetries. The manuscript is commendably transparent about its assumptions: it explicitly labels Eq. (3) and Eq. (6) as conjectural in higher dimensions, with footnote 3 acknowledging that no proof exists for weak d-Hopf algebras for d ≥ 2. It also provides a physically intuitive picture of confining strings, center vortices, and baryon structure in Appendix C. However, because the central computations depend on these unproved higher-dimensional extensions, the paper's contribution is conditional: it provides a plausible framework and a concrete set of predictions, rather than a proof of the phase distinction. The paper does not rely on fitted parameters, which is a methodological strength, but the absence of any independent check of the higher-dimensional conjecture limits the force of the physical conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [II.A and footnote 3] The central computations in Eqs. (5a), (5b), (19), and (21) all apply the (1+1)D duality Rep[StrC(M)] = C*_M to (3+1)D, an extension that is explicitly assumed in Section II.A and for which footnote 3 states no proof exists for weak d-Hopf algebras with d ≥ 2. Because this conjecture is load-bearing for the claimed phase distinction, the manuscript should either (i) prove or cite a proof for the specific cases needed here, namely M = 3Vec and M = 3Vec(Z_N[1]) with C = 3Vec(Z_N[1]), or (ii) reformulate the conclusions as explicitly conditional on this conjecture and provide a concrete consistency check, such as matching the known representation theory of 3Vec(Z_N[1]) or a lattice computation. Without this, the central claim is not established.
  2. [IV, Eq. (12), and Appendix B] The identification of the RG-flow symmetry homomorphism with the Bockstein map f: Z_{k0} -> BZ_N is motivated in Appendix B via a Čech-cohomology argument, but it is not proven that this map induces the pullback (15) on the higher representation categories, nor that the twisted extrapolation formula (18) extends functorially to the higher-group map of Eq. (12). Since Eq. (19) relies on this extension, the paper needs to specify the categorical construction of f^* and justify that it commutes with the representation categories; otherwise the result rests on an additional unstated assumption.
  3. [IV, Eq. (21)] The derivation of Eq. (21), Repquark_conf = 3Rep(Z_{k0}[0]), follows directly from setting CQCD = 3Vec(Z_{k0}[0]) and M_conf = 3Vec, so the conclusion that only integer baryon charges survive is essentially contained in the input data. The paper should discuss what physical content beyond the definition of the baryon symmetry and the assumption of a symmetry-preserving gapped IR is being derived, and clarify that the nontrivial step is the Bockstein map connecting CQCD to CYM, not the representation theory of Z_{k0} itself. As written, the statement that 'bare quarks are excluded' risks being a restatement of the assumptions.
  4. [IV, paragraph after Eq. (9)] The analysis of the Higgs phase assumes 'the existence of adjoint matter neutral with respect to U(1)_B,' which is an extra ingredient not present in the scalar QCD model defined earlier. The paper should specify whether the adjoint matter is part of the theory or merely a technical device, and how the conclusion for the Higgs phase depends on this assumption. If the adjoint matter is absent, the Higgsing to the center would not occur as described.
minor comments (5)
  1. [I, Introduction] The phrase 'Aharanov-Bohm' should be corrected to 'Aharonov-Bohm'.
  2. [III, Eq. (7)] The notation p ∈ Z[1]_N is ambiguous; p should be an element of the group Z_N (the charge label) rather than of the 1-form symmetry object Z[1]_N. Please clarify the intended meaning.
  3. [II.B] The term 'd-algebra' is used without a definition; since the paper targets a physics audience, a brief definition or a reference would be helpful.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C3)] The composition B_p ≅ Q_1^N ∘ J_p is written without specifying the domain and codomain of each morphism; adding these details would make the diagram in FIG. 2 easier to interpret.
  5. [References [83] and [84]] References [83] and [84] are listed as 'work in progress' and 'upcoming work'; if the paper relies on these, it should state explicitly what results are used, otherwise it should mark them as non-essential.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is an explicit, conditional application of an assumed higher-dimensional formula; central claims rest on stated assumptions rather than on a reduction to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's chain of reasoning is not circular. The key formula Rep[StrC(M)] = C*_M is a proven (1+1)-dimensional result cited from the authors' prior framework, and the paper explicitly assumes its extension to higher dimensions: 'we assume that the same relation (3) applies to higher dimensional theories' (Sec. II.A), with footnote 3 admitting that a proof for weak d-Hopf algebras with d >= 2 is not yet available. Likewise, C ≅ C*_C is stated as 'assumed to remain valid in higher dimensions as well.' These are unsupported premises, but an assumption is not a circular reduction: the derived categories (5), (19), and (21) are conditional on these premises, not equivalent to them by construction. The module choices M_conf = 3Vec and M_Higgs = 3Vec(Z[1]_N) encode the physical input that the 1-form symmetry is preserved or spontaneously broken; the subsequent computations are applications of the assumed framework. The confined-phase conclusion that only baryons (U(1)_B charges q = 0 mod N) are genuine particles follows from the input symmetry CQCD = 3Vec(Z[0]_{k0}) together with the gauged Z_N quotient encoded in (9) and (11); the paper explicitly frames this as 'consistent with expectations,' i.e., a consistency check of the module data rather than a numerically fitted prediction. The self-citations [28,29,20,21,23] are to the higher-representation framework being extended, and the load-bearing higher-dimensional step is openly assumed rather than justified by the citation itself. There are no fitted parameters, no renamed empirical fit passed off as derivation, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. The main weakness is that the central phase-distinguishing spectra are as reliable as the unproved higher-dimensional generalization of (3); that is a support/correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new Lagrangian or particles. Its free inputs are the baryon subgroup choice k0 and the mass-hierarchy regime, plus several unproved higher-categorical identities and physically motivated module assignments. The central physical conclusion is largely inherited from these choices, with the Higgs-phase twist providing the main additional structure.

free parameters (2)
  • k0 (baryon reduction index) = k0 >= 1 integer, k = N k0
    Introduced in Section IV: the analysis restricts the baryon U(1)_B to a subgroup Z_k with k = N k0, and the quotient Z_k0 becomes the symmetry category CQCD. The charge-confinement conclusion q = 0 mod N is a direct consequence of this parameterization.
  • Mass hierarchy m_phi >> Lambda_YM >> Lambda_conf = m_phi >> Lambda_YM >> Lambda_conf
    Assumed in Section IV so that quarks can be integrated out at an intermediate scale and pure Yang-Mills with emergent Z_N[1] appears. The entire RG-flow map f is defined only in this regime.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Rep[StrC(M)] = C^*_M holds in (d+1)-dimensions for d ≥ 2.
    Stated as an assumption in Section II.B after Eq. (3); footnote 3 acknowledges no proof for weak d-Hopf algebras for d ≥ 2. All Repquark computations depend on this identity.
  • ad hoc to paper C ≃ C^*_C = Rep[StrC(C)] in higher dimensions.
    Section III after Eq. (6): 'known to hold in (1+1)D and assumed to remain valid in higher dimensions as well.' Used to obtain RepHiggs = 3Vec(Z_N[1]).
  • domain assumption The module categories Mconf = 3Vec and MHiggs = 3Vec(Z_N[1]) correctly describe the confined and adjoint Higgs phases.
    Section III, Eq. (4). This assignment encodes the phase structure that the paper aims to characterize, based on standard lore about 1-form symmetry preservation and spontaneous breaking.
  • domain assumption The RG flow of scalar QCD to pure Yang-Mills is captured by the Bockstein homomorphism f: Z_k0 -> BZ_N.
    Eqs. (10)-(13) and Appendix B give a cohomological motivation, but the identification is not a rigorous derivation. The pullback construction in Eqs. (14)-(15) relies on it.
  • domain assumption The IR theory is gapped, T=0, and the module M encodes IR TQFT boundary conditions.
    Footnote 1 states that the T=0 and gapped requirements are important assumptions. This justifies replacing the full dynamics by modular data from an IR TQFT.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher Representations and Quark Confinement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MIYI23W4

@misc{pith2026250109069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher Representations and Quark Confinement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MIYI23W4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09069}
}
abstract

The concept of a (de)confined phase in QFT is well-defined in the presence of $1$-form symmetries and their spontaneous symmetry breaking. However, in scenarios where such symmetries are absent, confinement is not a well-defined phase property. In this work, we propose that, when restricting to a specific submanifold of the parameter space -- namely at zero temperature and fixed quark mass -- the confined and adjoint Higgs phases of scalar QCD can be distinguished through the different organization of their spectra, as seen from the perspective of the baryon symmetry. The analysis is performed in terms of an appropriate higher-categorical representation theory, recently developed for generalized symmetries. Consistent with expectations, we find that the confined phase permits only particles with integer baryon charges, while the Higgs phase is characterized by the coexistence of bare quarks and center vortices, exhibiting a non-trivial Aharonov-Bohm effect between these excitations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09069 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A 1-morphism ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Inner structure of a baryon with its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. SymTFT, Protected Gaplessness, and Spontaneous Breaking of Non-invertible Symmetries

    hep-th 2025-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The authors classify, via Galois theory of cyclotomic polynomials, when finite duality symmetry groups of 4d BF-type SymTFTs admit invariant Lagrangian boundary conditions, thereby determining when symmetry-preserving...

  2. SymTFT for Continuous Symmetries: Non-linear Realizations and Spontaneous Breaking

    hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Continuous-symmetry SymTFTs are extended to non-linear coset realizations and to spontaneous breaking using boundary and corner constructions, recovering CCWZ actions and SSB Ward identities.

  3. Defect Conformal Manifolds from Phantom (Non-Invertible) Symmetries

    hep-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Continuous non-invertible 'phantom' symmetries of the folded theory generate defect conformal manifolds in (1+1)d CFTs and control how the reflection coefficient changes along the manifold.

  4. To Break or Not to Break: A Review of a No-Go Theorem on Chiral Symmetry Breaking in QCD-like Theories

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review showing that if a QCD-like theory with enough massless flavors is fully color-screened in the infrared, then chiral symmetry must be spontaneously broken.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [84]

    Seiberg and S

    N. Seiberg and S. Seifnashri, Symmetry Transmutation and Anomaly Matching

  2. [1]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Wil- lett, Generalized Global Symmetries, JHEP 02, 172, arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  3. [2]

    Chang, Y.-H

    C.-M. Chang, Y.-H. Lin, S.-H. Shao, Y. Wang, and X. Yin, Topological Defect Lines and Renormaliza- tion Group Flows in Two Dimensions, JHEP 01, 026, arXiv:1802.04445 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    Huang, Y.-H

    T.-C. Huang, Y.-H. Lin, and S. Seifnashri, Construction of two-dimensional topological field theories with non- invertible symmetries, JHEP 12, 028, arXiv:2110.02958 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  5. [4]

    D. G. Robbins, E. Sharpe, and T. Vandermeulen, Quan- tum symmetries in orbifolds and decomposition, JHEP 02, 108, arXiv:2107.12386 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  6. [5]

    Inamura, On lattice models of gapped phases with fusion category symmetries, JHEP 03, 036, arXiv:2110.12882 [cond-mat.str-el]

    K. Inamura, On lattice models of gapped phases with fusion category symmetries, JHEP 03, 036, arXiv:2110.12882 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    Y. Choi, C. Cordova, P.-S. Hsin, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Noninvertible duality defects in 3+1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 105, 125016 (2022), arXiv:2111.01139 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    Kaidi, K

    J. Kaidi, K. Ohmori, and Y. Zheng, Kramers-Wannier- like Duality Defects in (3+1)D Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 111601 (2022), arXiv:2111.01141 [hep- th]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 110 references
  1. [8]

    Y. Choi, C. Cordova, P.-S. Hsin, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Non-invertible Condensation, Duality, and Trial- ity Defects in 3+1 Dimensions, Commun. Math. Phys. 402, 489 (2023), arXiv:2204.09025 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    L. Li, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Zheng, Noninvertible duality transformation between symmetry-protected topologi- cal and spontaneous symmetry breaking phases, Phys. Rev. B 108, 214429 (2023), arXiv:2301.07899 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Bhardwaj, L

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, D. Pajer, and S. Sch¨ afer- Nameki, Gapped Phases with Non-Invertible Symme- tries: (1+1)d, (2023), arXiv:2310.03784 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Bhardwaj, L

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, D. Pajer, and S. Schafer- Nameki, Categorical Landau Paradigm for Gapped Phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 161601 (2024), arXiv:2310.03786 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bhardwaj, D

    L. Bhardwaj, D. Pajer, S. Schafer-Nameki, and A. Warman, Hasse Diagrams for Gapless SPT and SSB Phases with Non-Invertible Symmetries, (2024), arXiv:2403.00905 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024

  6. [13]

    Bullivant and C

    A. Bullivant and C. Delcamp, Tube algebras, excita- tions statistics and compactification in gauge models of topological phases, JHEP 10, 216, arXiv:1905.08673 [cond-mat.str-el]

    1905 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Thorngren and Y

    R. Thorngren and Y. Wang, Fusion category symmetry. Part I. Anomaly in-flow and gapped phases, JHEP 04, 132, arXiv:1912.02817 [hep-th]

    1912 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Thorngren and Y

    R. Thorngren and Y. Wang, Fusion category symmetry. Part II. Categoriosities at c = 1 and beyond, JHEP 07, 051, arXiv:2106.12577 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    Bartsch, M

    T. Bartsch, M. Bullimore, A. E. V. Ferrari, and J. Pearson, Non-invertible symmetries and higher rep- resentation theory I, SciPost Phys. 17, 015 (2024), arXiv:2208.05993 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Delcamp, A toy model for categorical charges, (2022), arXiv:2208.07361 [cond-mat.str-el]

    C. Delcamp, A toy model for categorical charges, (2022), arXiv:2208.07361 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bartsch, M

    T. Bartsch, M. Bullimore, A. E. V. Ferrari, and J. Pearson, Non-invertible symmetries and higher rep- resentation theory II, SciPost Phys. 17, 067 (2024), arXiv:2212.07393 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Lin and S.-H

    Y.-H. Lin and S.-H. Shao, Bootstrapping noninvert- ible symmetries, Phys. Rev. D 107, 125025 (2023), arXiv:2302.13900 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Bartsch, M

    T. Bartsch, M. Bullimore, and A. Grigoletto, Higher representations for extended operators, (2023), arXiv:2304.03789 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Bhardwaj and S

    L. Bhardwaj and S. Schafer-Nameki, Generalized charges, part I: Invertible symmetries and higher representations, SciPost Phys. 16, 093 (2024), arXiv:2304.02660 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Bhardwaj and S

    L. Bhardwaj and S. Schafer-Nameki, Generalized Charges, Part II: Non-Invertible Symmetries and the Symmetry TFT, (2023), arXiv:2305.17159 [hep-th]

    2023

  16. [23]

    Bartsch, M

    T. Bartsch, M. Bullimore, and A. Grigoletto, Repre- sentation theory for categorical symmetries, (2023), arXiv:2305.17165 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    B. C. Rayhaun, Bosonic rational conformal field the- ories in small genera, chiral fermionization, and sym- metry/subalgebra duality, J. Math. Phys. 65, 052301 (2024), arXiv:2303.16921 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Cordova and G

    C. Cordova and G. Rizi, Non-Invertible Symmetry in Calabi-Yau Conformal Field Theories, (2023), arXiv:2312.17308 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Copetti, L

    C. Copetti, L. Cordova, and S. Komatsu, Noninvertible Symmetries, Anomalies, and Scattering Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 181601 (2024), arXiv:2403.04835 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Copetti, Defect Charges, Gapped Boundary Conditions, and the Symmetry TFT, (2024), arXiv:2408.01490 [hep-th]

    C. Copetti, Defect Charges, Gapped Boundary Conditions, and the Symmetry TFT, (2024), arXiv:2408.01490 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Cordova, D

    C. Cordova, D. Garc ´ ıa-Sep´ ulveda, and N. Holfester, Particle-soliton degeneracies from spontaneously broken non-invertible symmetry, JHEP 07, 154, arXiv:2403.08883 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  22. [29]

    Cordova, N

    C. Cordova, N. Holfester, and K. Ohmori, Representa- tion Theory of Solitons, (2024), arXiv:2408.11045 [hep- th]. 7

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Copetti, L

    C. Copetti, L. Cordova, and S. Komatsu, S-Matrix Bootstrap and Non-Invertible Symmetries, (2024), arXiv:2408.13132 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Inamura and S

    K. Inamura and S. Ohyama, 1+1d SPT phases with fusion category symmetry: interface modes and non- abelian Thouless pump, (2024), arXiv:2408.15960 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024

  25. [32]

    Bhardwaj, C

    L. Bhardwaj, C. Copetti, D. Pajer, and S. Schafer- Nameki, Boundary SymTFT, (2024), arXiv:2409.02166 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Y. Choi, B. C. Rayhaun, and Y. Zheng, Gener- alized Tube Algebras, Symmetry-Resolved Partition Functions, and Twisted Boundary States, (2024), arXiv:2409.02159 [hep-th]

    2024

  27. [34]

    Y. Choi, B. C. Rayhaun, and Y. Zheng, Nonin- vertible Symmetry-Resolved Affleck-Ludwig-Cardy For- mula and Entanglement Entropy from the Boundary Tube Algebra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 251602 (2024), arXiv:2409.02806 [hep-th]

    2024

  28. [35]

    Cordova, D

    C. Cordova, D. Garc ´ ıa-Sep´ ulveda, and N. Holfester, Particle-Soliton Degeneracy in 2D Quantum Chromo- dynamics, (2024), arXiv:2412.21153 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, Z. Komargodski, and N. Seiberg, Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature, JHEP 05, 091, arXiv:1703.00501 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  30. [37]

    Yamazaki and K

    M. Yamazaki and K. Yonekura, From 4d Yang-Mills to 2d CPN −1 model: IR problem and confinement at weak coupling, JHEP 07, 088, arXiv:1704.05852 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  31. [38]

    Tanizaki and Y

    Y. Tanizaki and Y. Kikuchi, Vacuum structure of bi- fundamental gauge theories at finite topological angles, JHEP 06, 102, arXiv:1705.01949 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  32. [39]

    Shimizu and K

    H. Shimizu and K. Yonekura, Anomaly constraints on deconfinement and chiral phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 97, 105011 (2018), arXiv:1706.06104 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Tanizaki, Y

    Y. Tanizaki, Y. Kikuchi, T. Misumi, and N. Sakai, Anomaly matching for the phase diagram of mass- less ZN -QCD, Phys. Rev. D 97, 054012 (2018), arXiv:1711.10487 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [41]

    M. M. Anber and E. Poppitz, Two-flavor adjoint QCD, Phys. Rev. D 98, 034026 (2018), arXiv:1805.12290 [hep- th]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [42]

    C´ ordova and T

    C. C´ ordova and T. T. Dumitrescu, Candidate phases for SU(2) adjoint QCD 4 with two flavors from N = 2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, SciPost Phys. 16, 139 (2024), arXiv:1806.09592 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    M. M. Anber and E. Poppitz, Anomaly matching, (ax- ial) Schwinger models, and high-T super Yang-Mills do- main walls, JHEP 09, 076, arXiv:1807.00093 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  37. [44]

    M. M. Anber and E. Poppitz, Domain walls in high-T SU(N) super Yang-Mills theory and QCD(adj), JHEP 05, 151, arXiv:1811.10642 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  38. [45]

    P.-S. Hsin, H. T. Lam, and N. Seiberg, Comments on One-Form Global Symmetries and Their Gauging in 3d and 4d, SciPost Phys. 6, 039 (2019), arXiv:1812.04716 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Komargodski, Baryons as Quantum Hall Droplets, (2018), arXiv:1812.09253 [hep-th]

    Z. Komargodski, Baryons as Quantum Hall Droplets, (2018), arXiv:1812.09253 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Z. Wan, J. Wang, and Y. Zheng, New higher anoma- lies, SU(N) Yang–Mills gauge theory and CPN−1 sigma model, Annals Phys. 414, 168074 (2020), arXiv:1812.11968 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Wan and J

    Z. Wan and J. Wang, Adjoint QCD 4, Deconfined Criti- cal Phenomena, Symmetry-Enriched Topological Quan- tum Field Theory, and Higher Symmetry-Extension, Phys. Rev. D 99, 065013 (2019), arXiv:1812.11955 [hep- th]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Yonekura, Anomaly matching in QCD thermal phase transition, JHEP 05, 062, arXiv:1901.08188 [hep-th]

    K. Yonekura, Anomaly matching in QCD thermal phase transition, JHEP 05, 062, arXiv:1901.08188 [hep-th]

    1901 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Hidaka, Y

    Y. Hidaka, Y. Hirono, M. Nitta, Y. Tanizaki, and R. Yokokura, Topological order in the color-flavor locked phase of a ( 3+1 )-dimensional U(N) gauge- Higgs system, Phys. Rev. D 100, 125016 (2019), arXiv:1903.06389 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Z. Wan, J. Wang, and Y. Zheng, Quantum 4d Yang- Mills Theory and Time-Reversal Symmetric 5d Higher- Gauge Topological Field Theory, Phys. Rev. D 100, 085012 (2019), arXiv:1904.00994 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Karasik and Z

    A. Karasik and Z. Komargodski, The Bi-Fundamental Gauge Theory in 3+1 Dimensions: The Vacuum Struc- ture and a Cascade, JHEP 05, 144, arXiv:1904.09551 [hep-th]

    1904 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Poppitz and T

    E. Poppitz and T. A. Ryttov, Possible new phase for adjoint QCD, Phys. Rev. D 100, 091901 (2019), arXiv:1904.11640 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Bolognesi, K

    S. Bolognesi, K. Konishi, and A. Luzio, Gauging 1- form center symmetries in simple SU (N ) gauge theo- ries, JHEP 01, 048, arXiv:1909.06598 [hep-th]

    1909 arXiv

  48. [55]

    M. M. Anber and E. Poppitz, On the baryon-color-flavor (BCF) anomaly in vector-like theories, JHEP 11, 063, arXiv:1909.09027 [hep-th]

    1909 arXiv

  49. [56]

    C´ ordova and K

    C. C´ ordova and K. Ohmori, Anomaly Obstructions to Symmetry Preserving Gapped Phases, (2019), arXiv:1910.04962 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Wang, Y.-Z

    J. Wang, Y.-Z. You, and Y. Zheng, Gauge enhanced quantum criticality and time reversal deconfined do- main wall: SU(2) Yang-Mills dynamics with topo- logical terms, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013189 (2020), arXiv:1910.14664 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Tanizaki and M

    Y. Tanizaki and M. ¨Unsal, Modified instanton sum in QCD and higher-groups, JHEP 03, 123, arXiv:1912.01033 [hep-th]

    1912 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Wan and J

    Z. Wan and J. Wang, Higher anomalies, higher symme- tries, and cobordisms III: QCD matter phases anew, Nucl. Phys. B 957, 115016 (2020), arXiv:1912.13514 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Karasik, Skyrmions, Quantum Hall Droplets, and one current to rule them all, SciPost Phys.9, 008 (2020), arXiv:2003.07893 [hep-th]

    A. Karasik, Skyrmions, Quantum Hall Droplets, and one current to rule them all, SciPost Phys.9, 008 (2020), arXiv:2003.07893 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Bolognesi, K

    S. Bolognesi, K. Konishi, and A. Luzio, Dynamics from symmetries in chiral SU (N ) gauge theories, JHEP 09, 001, arXiv:2004.06639 [hep-th]

    2004 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Sulejmanpasic, Y

    T. Sulejmanpasic, Y. Tanizaki, and M. ¨Unsal, Univer- sality between vector-like and chiral quiver gauge the- ories: Anomalies and domain walls, JHEP 06, 173, arXiv:2004.10328 [hep-th]

    2004 arXiv

  56. [63]

    S. Chen, K. Fukushima, H. Nishimura, and Y. Tanizaki, Deconfinement and CP breaking at θ = π in Yang-Mills theories and a novel phase for SU(2), Phys. Rev. D 102, 034020 (2020), arXiv:2006.01487 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [64]

    M. W. Bub, E. Poppitz, and S. S. Y. Wong, Confinement on R3 × S1 and double-string collapse, JHEP 01, 044, arXiv:2010.04330 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  58. [65]

    M. M. Anber, S. Hong, and M. Son, New anomalies, TQFTs, and confinement in bosonic chiral gauge theo- ries, JHEP 02, 062, arXiv:2109.03245 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  59. [66]

    Tanizaki and M

    Y. Tanizaki and M. ¨Unsal, Center vortex and confine- ment in Yang–Mills theory and QCD with anomaly- 8 preserving compactifications, PTEP 2022, 04A108 (2022), arXiv:2201.06166 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Morikawa, H

    O. Morikawa, H. Wada, and S. Yamaguchi, Phase structure of linear quiver gauge theories from anomaly matching, Phys. Rev. D 107, 045020 (2023), arXiv:2211.12079 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Nguyen, Y

    M. Nguyen, Y. Tanizaki, and M. ¨Unsal, Study of gapped phases of 4d gauge theories using temporal gauging of the ZN 1-form symmetry, JHEP 08, 013, arXiv:2306.02485 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  62. [69]

    Hayashi, Y

    Y. Hayashi, Y. Tanizaki, and H. Watanabe, Semiclassi- cal analysis of the bifundamental QCD on R2 × T 2 with ’t Hooft flux, JHEP 10, 146, arXiv:2307.13954 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  63. [70]

    T. T. Dumitrescu and P.-S. Hsin, Higgs-confinement transitions in QCD from symmetry protected topological phases, SciPost Phys. 17, 093 (2024), arXiv:2312.16898 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [71]

    K. T. K. Chung, R. Flores-Calder´ on, R. C. Torres, P. Ribeiro, S. Moroz, and P. McClarty, Higgs Phases and Boundary Criticality, (2024), arXiv:2404.17001 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2024

  65. [72]

    Hayashi and Y

    Y. Hayashi and Y. Tanizaki, Semiclassics for the QCD vacuum structure through T2-compactification with the baryon-’t Hooft flux, JHEP 08, 001, arXiv:2402.04320 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  66. [73]

    Hayashi, Y

    Y. Hayashi, Y. Tanizaki, and H. Watanabe, Non- supersymmetric duality cascade of QCD(BF) via semi- classics on R2× T2 with the baryon-’t Hooft flux, JHEP 07, 033, arXiv:2404.16803 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  67. [74]

    Del Zotto, S

    M. Del Zotto, S. N. Meynet, D. Migliorati, and K. Ohmori, Emergent Non-Invertible Symmetries Bridging UV and IR Phases – The Adjoint QCD Ex- ample, (2024), arXiv:2408.07123 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Bolognesi, K

    S. Bolognesi, K. Konishi, A. Luzio, and M. Orso, Chi- ral gauge theories, generalized anomalies and break- ing of the color-flavor-locked center symmetry, (2024), arXiv:2410.14598 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [76]

    K. G. Wilson, Confinement of Quarks, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  70. [77]

    ’t Hooft, On the Phase Transition Towards Perma- nent Quark Confinement, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, On the Phase Transition Towards Perma- nent Quark Confinement, Nucl. Phys. B 138, 1 (1978)

    1978

  71. [78]

    Lootens, C

    L. Lootens, C. Delcamp, and F. Verstraete, En- tanglement and the density matrix renormalisation group in the generalised Landau paradigm, (2024), arXiv:2408.06334 [quant-ph]

    2024

  72. [79]

    E. H. Fradkin and S. H. Shenker, Phase Diagrams of Lattice Gauge Theories with Higgs Fields, Phys. Rev. D 19, 3682 (1979)

    1979

  73. [80]

    Banks and E

    T. Banks and E. Rabinovici, Finite Temperature Be- havior of the Lattice Abelian Higgs Model, Nucl. Phys. B 160, 349 (1979)

    1979

  74. [81]

    Osterwalder and E

    K. Osterwalder and E. Seiler, Gauge Field Theories on the Lattice, Annals Phys. 110, 440 (1978)

    1978

  75. [82]

    Cordova and D

    C. Cordova and D. Garc ´ ıa-Sep´ ulveda, Topological Cosets via Anyon Condensation and Applications to Gapped QCD2, (2024), arXiv:2412.01877 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Gagliano, A

    F. Gagliano, A. Grigoletto, and K. Ohmori, Work in progress

  77. [85]

    Kitaev and L

    A. Kitaev and L. Kong, Models for Gapped Bound- aries and Domain Walls, Commun. Math. Phys. 313, 351 (2012), arXiv:1104.5047 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2012 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Lan and X.-G

    T. Lan and X.-G. Wen, Topological quasiparticles and the holographic bulk-edge relation in (2+1) - dimensional string-net models, Phys. Rev. B 90, 115119 (2014), arXiv:1311.1784 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2014 arXiv

  79. [87]

    D. J. Williamson, N. Bultinck, and F. Verstraete, Symmetry-enriched topological order in tensor net- works: Defects, gauging and anyon condensation, (2017), arXiv:1711.07982 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  80. [88]

    J. C. Bridgeman and D. Barter, Computing data for Levin-Wen with defects, Quantum 4, 277 (2020), arXiv:1907.06692 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [89]

    J. C. Bridgeman, L. Lootens, and F. Verstraete, Invert- ible Bimodule Categories and Generalized Schur Or- thogonality, Commun. Math. Phys. 402, 2691 (2023), arXiv:2211.01947 [math.QA]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Johnson-Freyd and D

    T. Johnson-Freyd and D. Reutter, How to build a Hopf algebra, (), To appear

  83. [91]

    Johnson-Freyd and D

    T. Johnson-Freyd and D. Reutter, Quantum homotopy groups and higher S-matrices, (), In preparation

  84. [92]

    Green, Tannaka-Krein reconstruction for fusion 2- categories, (2023), arXiv:2309.05591 [math.CT]

    D. Green, Tannaka-Krein reconstruction for fusion 2- categories, (2023), arXiv:2309.05591 [math.CT]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    A. A. Abrikosov, On the Magnetic properties of super- conductors of the second group, Sov. Phys. JETP 5, 1174 (1957)

    1957

  86. [94]

    H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Vortex Line Models for Dual Strings, Nucl. Phys. B 61, 45 (1973)

    1973

  87. [95]

    Komargodski, T

    Z. Komargodski, T. Sulejmanpasic, and M. ¨Unsal, Walls, anomalies, and deconfinement in quantum antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 97, 054418 (2018), arXiv:1706.05731 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Bhardwaj, M

    L. Bhardwaj, M. Bullimore, A. E. V. Ferrari, and S. Schafer-Nameki, Anomalies of Generalized Symme- tries from Solitonic Defects, SciPost Phys. 16, 087 (2024), arXiv:2205.15330 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Tachikawa, On gauging finite subgroups, SciPost Phys

    Y. Tachikawa, On gauging finite subgroups, SciPost Phys. 8, 015 (2020), arXiv:1712.09542 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Bhardwaj and Y

    L. Bhardwaj and Y. Tachikawa, On finite symmetries and their gauging in two dimensions, JHEP 03, 189, arXiv:1704.02330 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  91. [99]

    Shao, What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries, (2023), arXiv:2308.00747 [hep-th]

    S.-H. Shao, What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries, (2023), arXiv:2308.00747 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Etingof, S

    P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik, Ten- sor Categories, Mathematical surveys and monographs (American Mathematical Society, 2015)

    2015

  93. [101]

    C. L. Douglas and D. J. Reutter, Fusion 2-categories and a state-sum invariant for 4-manifolds (2018), arXiv:1812.11933 [math.QA]

    2018 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Johnson-Freyd, On the classification of topological orders, Communications in Mathematical Physics 393, 989–1033 (2022)

    T. Johnson-Freyd, On the classification of topological orders, Communications in Mathematical Physics 393, 989–1033 (2022)

    2022

  95. [103]

    T. D. D´ ecoppet, Multifusion categories and finite semisimple 2-categories, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 226, 107029 (2022)

    2022

  96. [104]

    T. D. D´ ecoppet, P. Huston, T. Johnson-Freyd, D. Nikshych, D. Penneys, J. Plavnik, D. Reutter, and M. Yu, The classification of fusion 2-categories (2024), arXiv:2411.05907 [math.CT]

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Cordova and K

    C. Cordova and K. Ohmori, Noninvertible Chiral Sym- metry and Exponential Hierarchies, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011034 (2023), arXiv:2205.06243 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Noninvertible Global Symmetries in the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. 9 Lett. 129, 161601 (2022), arXiv:2205.05086 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Copetti, M

    C. Copetti, M. Del Zotto, K. Ohmori, and Y. Wang, Higher Structure of Chiral Symmetry, (2023), arXiv:2305.18282 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Bhardwaj, L

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, S. Schafer-Nameki, and A. Tiwari, Non-invertible higher-categorical symme- tries, SciPost Phys. 14, 007 (2023), arXiv:2204.06564 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Roumpedakis, S

    K. Roumpedakis, S. Seifnashri, and S.-H. Shao, Higher Gauging and Non-invertible Condensation De- fects, Commun. Math. Phys. 401, 3043 (2023), arXiv:2204.02407 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Gaiotto and T

    D. Gaiotto and T. Johnson-Freyd, Condensations in higher categories, (2019), arXiv:1905.09566 [math.CT]. Appendix A: Review of Categorical Symmetry Throughout this letter, we describe discrete higher- form symmetries in terms of categories. We aim to re- view briefly the notat...

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.