Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 98 references

When an entangling interval is bounded by duality interfaces, the reduced density matrix is the vacuum RDM projected onto a single symmetry sector.

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

2026-08-01 04:41 UTC pith:NIGM5HGR

load-bearing objection Genuinely new projector mechanism for duality-interface RDMs, but the claim that the interface alone imposes the projection outruns the evidence: the projected sector depends on the untheorized choice of entangling-edge boundary conditions. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22451 v1 pith:NIGM5HGR submitted 2026-07-24 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Entanglement in Presence of Topological Interfaces and Dualities

Christian Northe , Riccardo Poletti , Paolo Rossi This is my paper
classification hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph MSC 81T4081P40 PACS 11.25.Hf03.67.Mn
keywords entanglement entropytopological interfacesduality defectsconformal field theorysymmetry resolutionreduced density matrixfree bosonRényi entropy
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 tries to establish that entanglement through a duality interface in two-dimensional conformal field theory is described by a reduced density matrix that acts as a projector onto one charge sector of a symmetry group intrinsic to the interface. That is, the projection which in symmetry resolution is imposed by hand arises here from the physical interface itself, so duality interfaces literally reflect quantum correlations back into the entangling interval. The authors prove this mechanism in three settings: diagonal rational CFTs (exemplified by the Ising model), non-diagonal rational CFTs, and the compact free boson under T-duality. They also show that grouplike defects in the free boson merely reshuffle correlations, leaving the vacuum entanglement unchanged. If correct, this resolves the conflict between earlier interface-entropy predictions and numerical results by providing the full reduced density matrix, not just an entropy formula.

Core claim

For an entangling interval whose edges terminate on duality interfaces I_σ, the reduced density matrix of the interface vacuum field is ρ^{1σ,β}_{σσ} = q^{H^P_{σσ}} P_β / χ_β(q), where P_β projects onto a single irreducible representation β of the interface's stabilizer group and χ_β(q) is the corresponding character of the boundary Hilbert space. In the free boson case the analogous RDM projects onto representations of a Z_N subgroup of the full Z_MN stabilizer. This is a physical realization of symmetry resolution: the interface itself, not a manual projector, selects the sector. A direct consequence is that the entanglement spectrum in the presence of the duality interface is a fixed-char

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the duality interface I_σ together with its left and right stabilizer subgroups S_l, S_r (abelian and isomorphic for self-dual interfaces). The argument uses the Hilbert-space factorization homomorphism that associates to a single interval a strip Hilbert space with conformal boundary conditions at the entangling edges; the interface then acts on that boundary Hilbert space. The fusing matrices of the defect network furnish characters of the stabilizer, which are assembled into the projector P_α⊗β appearing in the RDM. The same mechanism appears in the free boson as a projector onto Z_N sectors induced by T-duality.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes a specific choice of conformal boundary conditions at the two entangling edges (α=β=σ for rational CFTs, Neumann boundaries for the free boson), and the paper gives no first-principles rule for this choice; if the correct entangling-surface boundary conditions differ, the projected sector—or even which subgroup of the stabilizer is realized—could change.

What would settle it

Simulate the critical Ising chain with two Kramers-Wannier duality defects bounding an entanglement interval and measure the Rényi entropies for each spin-flip sector: if the subleading correction is not log 2 and independent of the sector for all tested intervals, or if the entanglement spectrum mixes the two Z_2 sectors, the projector claim fails. Similarly, for a compact free boson at rational radius, check whether the entanglement spectrum decomposes only into Z_N momentum sectors (rather than the full Z_MN stabilizer sectors) when the entangling edges are Neumann; observing sectors outsid

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

If this is right

  • Entanglement spectra through duality interfaces are diluted to a single charge sector of the vacuum spectrum, reducing the von Neumann and Rényi entropies by log|S_σ| relative to the vacuum, independent of the chosen sector.
  • Symmetry resolution of entanglement is not merely a bookkeeping device: duality interfaces implement it as a physical filtering effect, so symmetry-resolved quantities become observable predictions rather than user-defined decompositions.
  • Grouplike defects in the free boson, like those previously studied in the Ising model, leave all Rényi entropies equal to the vacuum's, confirming that invertible defects only shuffle quantum correlations without changing their amount.
  • The reduced density matrix construction supplies the full operator, enabling further information-theoretic probes (relative entropy, negativity, entanglement asymmetry) that go beyond entanglement entropy alone.
  • Because the projected sector is selected by the entangling-edge boundary conditions, changing those boundary conditions can change the accessible sector, making the choice of boundary conditions a physically relevant part of the setup.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A general principle likely holds: any topological interface with a nontrivial stabilizer will dilute the entanglement spectrum of a vacuum state, and the stabilizer—rather than the full symmetry group—controls the available sectors; this paper's free boson result, where only Z_N appears from Z_MN, may be the first example of a more general 'stabilizer-compatible spectrum' rule.
  • The framework could be combined with entanglement asymmetry: since the interface enforces a fixed charge sector, measuring the asymmetry restoration after a perturbation could provide a direct experimental or numerical probe of the interface's stabilizing symmetry.
  • The dependence on boundary conditions suggests a variational principle: among all conformal boundary conditions at the entangling cut, those that maximize boundary entropy (as observed in numerics) may also be the ones that realize the simplest, most symmetric projected sectors; this could yield a first-principles rule for choosing α, β.
  • The construction extends naturally to multiple interfaces and junctions, where different interface networks give inequivalent RDMs; a systematic classification of such networks could reveal which information-theoretic quantities are universal and which depend on the network choice.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the defect-based entanglement framework of [5] to topological interfaces between distinct CFTs, with emphasis on duality interfaces. For an entangling interval whose two edges are duality interfaces, the authors derive that the reduced density matrix equals the vacuum RDM projected onto a single symmetry sector of the stabilizer group: eq. (4.26) for rational CFTs (including the Ising example) and eq. (4.40) for the free boson T-duality interface. They compute Rényi entropies, entanglement spectra, and relative entropies, interpreting the result as the duality interface reflecting quantum correlations back into the interval. The paper also analyzes grouplike defect twists in the free boson, finding the vacuum Rényi entropy. The main constructive steps are algebraic manipulations of fusing matrices and boundary fusion; the free-boson calculation is carried out in detail for simple boundary choices, with more general cases left as expectations.

Significance. If correct and complete, the paper provides a new and potentially important link between entanglement through topological interfaces and symmetry-resolved entanglement, giving explicit projector formulas for duality interfaces. The rational-CFT derivation is clean and uses standard categorical data, and the free-boson calculation is explicit and detailed. The paper is also honest about several gaps, including the need for a principled choice of entangling-surface boundary conditions. These strengths make the work a useful contribution to the interface-entanglement literature. However, the central claim that the projection is 'imposed by the physical interface itself' is not fully established because the projector subgroup and even the projected sector depend on the factorization boundary conditions, which are not uniquely fixed. This is a real weakness that needs to be addressed before the main claim can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.3, eqs. (2.52a), (4.40); abstract] The free-boson projector subgroup is not intrinsic to the T-duality interface alone. The derivation in §4.2.3 starts from Neumann boundary conditions N(φ0) in R1, which T maps to a sum of N Dirichlet boundaries (2.52a), producing a Z_N subgroup of the stabilizer Z_MN. Had one chosen Dirichlet boundaries in R1 instead, the same analysis would yield a Z_M subgroup (by exchanging M and N), as the paper's own discussion in §6 acknowledges ('a theoretic discussion on the choice of boundary conditions ... is necessary'). The abstract's claim that 'the projection is imposed by the physical interface itself' is therefore not supported; the projection is, at present, a feature of a particular factorization choice. This is load-bearing for the central thesis and should be either justified from a first-principles rule or removed/qualified.
  2. [§4.2.3, eq. (4.39)] The general free-boson cases with l' ≠ l and φ'_0 ≠ φ_0 are explicitly left as 'we suspect' and 'we expect', not derived. Since eq. (4.40) is presented as the general free-boson result for all l = 0,...,N-1, the derivation only covers the special case l' = l, φ'_0 = φ_0. If the expected Z_N characters or projective representations do not arise as anticipated, the structure of the RDM could differ. Please provide a complete derivation or clearly label these extensions as conjectures with supporting evidence, and adjust the claims accordingly.
  3. [§4.2.1–4.2.2, eqs. (4.5), (4.14), (4.26)] The rational-CFT projector result is derived only for entangling-surface boundary conditions α=β=σ, where σ is a stabilizer-invariant boundary, and for intermediate boundaries in S_σ. The paper does not justify why this choice is physically selected; other boundary conditions satisfying the fusion constraints could project onto different representations or, in the free-boson case, onto a different subgroup. The move in (4.15) reduces the two labels to one, but does not address whether σ is the unique viable boundary condition. This is the same boundary-condition soft spot as in the free-boson case and directly affects the interpretation of (4.26) as a consequence of the interface itself. The authors should either supply a general argument for the boundary-condition choice or state the result as conditional on that choice.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6, p. 40] The sentence beginning 'We not' is incomplete; it appears to be a typographical remnant and should be removed or completed.
  2. [Eq. (4.14)] The notation P_{α+⊗β} is used without an explicit definition. It is clear from context that it denotes the projector onto the one-dimensional representation α^+⊗β, but a brief definition would improve readability.
  3. [§4.2.3, after eq. (4.34)] The statement 'the δ_{m,0 mod M} ... reduces the sum ... to its zero-momentum Z_N subgroup' is central to the free-boson calculation but is only described briefly. A short explanation of why the inner product (4.34) forces m ≡ 0 mod M, and why this is the only surviving momentum sector, would help the reader follow the reduction from Z_MN to Z_N.
  4. [§5.4, eq. (5.23)] In the character decomposition χ^{Z_N}_l(q), the index l is used both as a representation label and (implicitly) as the integer sector mod N. The notation is clear but could be flagged more explicitly to avoid confusion with the strip boundary labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the projector RDMs are derived from standard duality/fusing data and the chosen boundary conditions, not presupposed.

full rationale

The central formulas (4.26) and (4.40) are not assumed. They are obtained by starting from the factorization (1.1), forming the interface RDM (4.2), and then evaluating the resulting operator using the defining duality-interface relation (2.6), the stabilizer character data (4.22) from [18], and the explicit T-duality boundary action (2.52a)/(B.13). The projectors P_beta and P_l^{Z_N} emerge from summing characters and grouplike defects, i.e. from standard fusion data and boundary actions; they are not fitted inputs or renamed vacuum projectors inserted by hand. The main self-citation is [5], which supplies the twisted-state RDM framework; however [5] is independently supported by the external Ising numerics it reproduces, so under the hard rules this citation is real evidence and does not by itself raise the circularity score. The free-boson Z_N subgroup is indeed fixed by choosing Neumann entangling-edge boundaries, whereas the rational cases use alpha=beta=sigma, and section 6 concedes that 'a theoretic discussion on the choice of boundary conditions – even in the absence of interfaces and defects – is necessary.' That is a robustness/scope limitation of the abstraction's claim that the projection is 'imposed by the physical interface itself'; it is not a circular step, since the calculation does not assume the final projector but derives it from the chosen data. No equation reduces to an input by definition, and no fitted parameter is later presented as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data or introduced ad hoc. The paper relies on standard CFT/BCFT factorization assumptions, on published fusion-category results, and on the authors' earlier framework [5]; the entangling-surface boundary-condition choice is the only place where a physically load-bearing choice is made without a first-principles derivation.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption RCFT fusion rules are restricted to N^c_ab ∈ {0,1} (no multiplicities).
    Used throughout (§2.3) to avoid junction multiplicity labels; covers A-type Virasoro minimal models and the free boson, which are exactly the examples analyzed.
  • domain assumption The factorization homomorphism (1.1) with conformal boundary conditions at the entangling surfaces yields the correct subsystem Hilbert space and entanglement spectrum.
    Foundation of all RDMs (§1, Appendix A), from Ohmori–Tachikawa [58] and Cardy–Tonni [59].
  • domain assumption The relevant state for entanglement through interfaces is the identity field 1_σ living on the interface, not a bulk twisted primary.
    Stated in §4.1–4.2: for interfaces, twist fields are 'disqualified' and the lightest interface field is used. This is the conceptual step that makes the projector calculation possible.
  • standard math Stabilizer fusion/fusing data, in particular the ζ_σ bihomomorphism and |S^l_σ| = d_σ²/(d_P d_Q), as established by Fröhlich–Fuchs–Runkel–Schweigert [18].
    Unproved background result imported from the cited duality-and-defects paper; it supplies the group-theoretic structure underpinning the projector identities.
  • domain assumption Unitarity of the CFT is assumed in the Rényi entropy derivation (5.12) to identify the lowest-energy bulk character and use S_{β0} positivity.
    Invoked in §5.2 ('assuming unitarity'); non-unitary models would require separate treatment.
  • ad hoc to paper The entangling-surface boundary conditions may be chosen as σ (stabilizer-invariant) for duality interfaces and Neumann for the free boson, and the resulting RDM is the physically relevant one.
    This choice is not derived from first principles; §6 flags the need for a general discussion and cites numerics suggesting the simple choices maximize boundary entropy. The projector result depends on this choice.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 39919 in / 14320 out tokens · 147194 ms · 2026-08-01T04:41:23.501031+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Entanglement through interfaces has attracted considerable attention in 2d conformal field theory (CFT). However, it is known that field-theoretic predictions based on the existing framework are in general incompatible with numerical results [1-4]. A new framework for entanglement through topological defects was recently proposed in [5]. It provides a general description of entanglement through topological defects and successfully reproduces the numerical results for the Ising model in all tested cases and regimes. The key insight is that the relevant quantum correlations are encoded in twisted states, allowing for the construction of the full reduced density matrix (RDM). In this work we pursue two objectives. First, we provide new examples by studying defects in the free boson CFT. Second, we extend the framework to topological interfaces connecting two, possibly distinct, CFTs. Of particular interest are interfaces relating dual theories. We show that the reduced density matrix for a duality interface is the projection of the vacuum reduced density matrix onto a single symmetry sector, closely paralleling the framework of symmetry resolution. Unlike symmetry resolution, however, the projection is imposed by the physical interface itself, demonstrating that duality interfaces reflect quantum correlations back into the entangling interval. We establish this mechanism for diagonal and non-diagonal rational CFTs as well as the free boson CFT. Relative entropy allows us to quantify the distinguishability of the duality interface RDM from the vacuum RDM.

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

98 extracted references · 56 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Entanglement entropy in the ising model with topological defects,

    A. Roy and H. Saleur, “Entanglement entropy in the ising model with topological defects,” Physical Review Letters128no. 9, (Mar., 2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Entanglement entropy and negativity in the Ising model with defects,

    D. Rogerson, F. Pollmann, and A. Roy, “Entanglement entropy and negativity in the Ising model with defects,”JHEP06(2022) 165,arXiv:2204.03601 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Topological interfaces of Luttinger liquids,

    A. Roy and H. Saleur, “Topological interfaces of Luttinger liquids,”Phys. Rev. B109no. 16, (2024) L161107,arXiv:2312.05566 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Lattice realizations of topological defects in the critical (1+1)-d three-state Potts model,

    M. Sinha, F. Yan, L. Grans-Samuelsson, A. Roy, and H. Saleur, “Lattice realizations of topological defects in the critical (1+1)-d three-state Potts model,”JHEP07(2024) 225, arXiv:2310.19703 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Entanglement Through Topological Defects: Reconciling Theory with Numerics,

    C. Northe and P. Rossi, “Entanglement Through Topological Defects: Reconciling Theory with Numerics,”arXiv:2512.07974 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Generalized global symmetries,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, “Generalized global symmetries,” Journal of High Energy Physics2015no. 2, (2015) 172

    2015

  7. [7]

    Ictp lectures on (non-) invertible generalized symmetries,

    S. Sch¨ afer-Nameki, “Ictp lectures on (non-) invertible generalized symmetries,”Physics Reports1063(2024) 1–55

    2024

  8. [8]

    What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries,

    S.-H. Shao, “What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries,” inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics 2023: Aspects of Symmetry. 8, 2023.arXiv:2308.00747 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Lectures on generalized symmetries,

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, L. Fraser-Taliente, L. Gladden, D. S. Gould, A. Platschorre, and H. Tillim, “Lectures on generalized symmetries,”Physics Reports1051(2024) 1–87

    2024

  10. [10]

    Simons lectures on categorical symmetries,

    D. Costa, C. C´ ordova, M. Del Zotto, D. Freed, J. G¨ odicke, A. Hofer, D. Jordan, D. Morgante, R. Moscrop, K. Ohmori,et al., “Simons lectures on categorical symmetries,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09082(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Generalized twisted partition functions,

    V. B. Petkova and J. B. Zuber, “Generalized twisted partition functions,”Phys. Lett. B504 (2001) 157–164,arXiv:hep-th/0011021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  12. [12]

    Tft construction of rcft correlators i. partition functions,

    J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, “Tft construction of rcft correlators i. partition functions,”Nucl. Phys. B646(2002) 353–497,arXiv:hep-th/0204148

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  13. [13]

    Tft construction of rcft correlators ii: Unoriented world sheets,

    J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, “Tft construction of rcft correlators ii: Unoriented world sheets,”Nuclear Physics B678no. 3, (2004) 511–637

    2004

  14. [14]

    Tft construction of rcft correlators: Iii: simple currents,

    J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, “Tft construction of rcft correlators: Iii: simple currents,”Nuclear Physics B694no. 3, (2004) 277–353

    2004

  15. [15]

    TFT construction of RCFT correlators IV: Structure constants and correlation functions,

    J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, “TFT construction of RCFT correlators IV: Structure constants and correlation functions,”Nucl. Phys. B715(2005) 539–638, arXiv:hep-th/0412290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  16. [16]

    Topological defects for the free boson CFT,

    J. Fuchs, M. R. Gaberdiel, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, “Topological defects for the free boson CFT,”J. Phys. A40(2007) 11403,arXiv:0705.3129 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Kramers-Wannier duality from conformal defects,

    J. Frohlich, J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, “Kramers-Wannier duality from conformal defects,”Phys. Rev. Lett.93(2004) 070601,arXiv:cond-mat/0404051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  18. [18]

    Duality and defects in rational conformal field theory,

    J. Fr¨ ohlich, J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, “Duality and defects in rational conformal field theory,”Nuclear Physics B763no. 3, (Feb., 2007) 354–430. – 49 –

    2007

  19. [19]

    Perturbed Defects and T-Systems in Conformal Field Theory,

    I. Runkel, “Perturbed Defects and T-Systems in Conformal Field Theory,”J. Phys. A41 (2008) 105401,arXiv:0711.0102 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  20. [20]

    The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231–252,arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  21. [21]

    Mirror symmetry in (2+1)-dimensions and (1+1)-dimensions,

    M. Aganagic, K. Hori, A. Karch, and D. Tong, “Mirror symmetry in (2+1)-dimensions and (1+1)-dimensions,”JHEP07(2001) 022,arXiv:hep-th/0105075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  22. [22]

    Particle-Vortex Duality from 3d Bosonization,

    A. Karch and D. Tong, “Particle-Vortex Duality from 3d Bosonization,”Phys. Rev. X6 no. 3, (2016) 031043,arXiv:1606.01893 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    More Abelian Dualities in 2+1 Dimensions,

    A. Karch, B. Robinson, and D. Tong, “More Abelian Dualities in 2+1 Dimensions,”JHEP 01(2017) 017,arXiv:1609.04012 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Mirror Symmetry and Bosonization in 2d and 3d,

    A. Karch, D. Tong, and C. Turner, “Mirror Symmetry and Bosonization in 2d and 3d,” JHEP07(2018) 059,arXiv:1805.00941 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    A Web of 2d Dualities:Z 2 Gauge Fields and Arf Invariants,

    A. Karch, D. Tong, and C. Turner, “A Web of 2d Dualities:Z 2 Gauge Fields and Arf Invariants,”SciPost Phys.7(2019) 007,arXiv:1902.05550 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Conformal field theory approach to the Kondo effect,

    I. Affleck, “Conformal field theory approach to the Kondo effect,”Acta Phys. Polon. B26 (1995) 1869–1932,arXiv:cond-mat/9512099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  27. [27]

    Entanglement in a one-dimensional critical state after measurements,

    Z. Yang, D. Mao, and C.-M. Jian, “Entanglement in a one-dimensional critical state after measurements,”Phys. Rev. B108(Oct, 2023) 165120

    2023

  28. [28]

    Holographic weak measurement,

    X. Sun and S.-K. Jian, “Holographic weak measurement,”JHEP12(2023) 157, arXiv:2309.15896 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Entanglement swapping in critical quantum spin chains,

    M. Hoshino, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Ashida, “Entanglement swapping in critical quantum spin chains,”Phys. Rev. B111no. 15, (2025) 155143,arXiv:2406.12377 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Entanglement entropy in quantum impurity systems and systems with boundaries,

    E. S. Sørensen, N. Laflorencie, and I. Affleck, “Entanglement entropy in quantum impurity systems and systems with boundaries,”J. Phys. A42no. 50, (2009) 504009, arXiv:0906.1809 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  31. [31]

    The boundary entropy function for interface conformal field theories,

    E. Afxonidis, A. Karch, and C. Murdia, “The boundary entropy function for interface conformal field theories,”JHEP07(2025) 132,arXiv:2412.05381 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Boundary entropy of supersymmetric Janus solutions,

    M. Chiodaroli, M. Gutperle, and L.-Y. Hung, “Boundary entropy of supersymmetric Janus solutions,”JHEP09(2010) 082,arXiv:1005.4433 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    Holographic RG Flows for Kondo-like Impurities,

    J. Erdmenger, C. M. Melby-Thompson, and C. Northe, “Holographic RG Flows for Kondo-like Impurities,”JHEP05(2020) 075,arXiv:2001.04991 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Quantum impurity problems in condensed matter physics,

    I. Affleck, “Quantum impurity problems in condensed matter physics,” 2009. https://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3474

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    On AdS 3/ICFT2 with a dynamical scalar field located on the brane,

    Y. Liu, H.-D. Lyu, and C.-Y. Wang, “On AdS 3/ICFT2 with a dynamical scalar field located on the brane,”JHEP10(2024) 001,arXiv:2403.20102 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Fermion parity resolution of entanglement,

    C. Northe, “Fermion parity resolution of entanglement,”JHEP12(2025) 134, arXiv:2509.03605 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Entanglement through conformal interfaces,

    K. Sakai and Y. Satoh, “Entanglement through conformal interfaces,”JHEP12(2008) 001, arXiv:0809.4548 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [38]

    Entanglement entropy through conformal interfaces in the 2D Ising model,

    E. M. Brehm and I. Brunner, “Entanglement entropy through conformal interfaces in the 2D Ising model,”JHEP09(2015) 080,arXiv:1505.02647 [hep-th]. – 50 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  39. [39]

    Entanglement entropy at CFT junctions,

    M. Gutperle and J. D. Miller, “Entanglement entropy at CFT junctions,”Phys. Rev. D95 no. 10, (2017) 106008,arXiv:1701.08856 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Entanglement and topological interfaces: Entanglement and topological interfaces,

    E. Brehm, I. Brunner, D. Jaud, and C. Schmidt-Colinet, “Entanglement and topological interfaces: Entanglement and topological interfaces,”Fortschritte der Physik64no. 6–7, (Apr., 2016) 516–535

    2016

  41. [41]

    A note on entanglement entropy for topological interfaces in rcfts,

    M. Gutperle and J. D. Miller, “A note on entanglement entropy for topological interfaces in rcfts,”Journal of High Energy Physics2016no. 4, (Apr., 2016) 1–16

    2016

  42. [42]

    A note on entanglement entropy and topological defects in symmetric orbifold cfts,

    M. Gutperle, Y.-Y. Li, D. Rathore, and K. Roumpedakis, “A note on entanglement entropy and topological defects in symmetric orbifold cfts,”Journal of High Energy Physics2024 no. 9, (2024) 1–16

    2024

  43. [43]

    Domain wall melting across a defect,

    L. Capizzi, S. Scopa, F. Rottoli, and P. Calabrese, “Domain wall melting across a defect,” Europhysics Letters141no. 3, (2023) 31002

    2023

  44. [44]

    Universality of effective central charge in interface CFTs,

    A. Karch, Y. Kusuki, H. Ooguri, H.-Y. Sun, and M. Wang, “Universality of effective central charge in interface CFTs,”JHEP11(2023) 126,arXiv:2308.05436 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Universal Bound on Effective Central Charge and Its Saturation,

    A. Karch, Y. Kusuki, H. Ooguri, H.-Y. Sun, and M. Wang, “Universal Bound on Effective Central Charge and Its Saturation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.133no. 9, (2024) 091604, arXiv:2404.01515 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Universal entanglement signatures of interface conformal field theories,

    Q. Tang, Z. Wei, Y. Tang, X. Wen, and W. Zhu, “Universal entanglement signatures of interface conformal field theories,”Phys. Rev. B109no. 4, (2024) L041104, arXiv:2308.03646 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Universal behavior of entanglement entropies in interface CFTs from general holographic spacetimes,

    A. Karch and M. Wang, “Universal behavior of entanglement entropies in interface CFTs from general holographic spacetimes,”JHEP06(2023) 145,arXiv:2211.09148 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Thermal entanglement in conformal junctions,

    L. Capizzi and A. Rotaru, “Thermal entanglement in conformal junctions,”JHEP05(2024) 010,arXiv:2312.08275 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Entanglement Entropy of Quantum Wire Junctions,

    P. Calabrese, M. Mintchev, and E. Vicari, “Entanglement Entropy of Quantum Wire Junctions,”J. Phys. A45(2012) 105206,arXiv:1110.5713 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    R´ enyi entropy and negativity for massless complex boson at conformal interfaces and junctions,

    L. Capizzi, S. Murciano, and P. Calabrese, “R´ enyi entropy and negativity for massless complex boson at conformal interfaces and junctions,”JHEP11(2022) 105, arXiv:2208.14118 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    R´ enyi entropy and negativity for massless Dirac fermions at conformal interfaces and junctions,

    L. Capizzi, S. Murciano, and P. Calabrese, “R´ enyi entropy and negativity for massless Dirac fermions at conformal interfaces and junctions,”JHEP08(2022) 171,arXiv:2205.04722 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Exact results for the entanglement across defects in critical chains,

    V. Eisler and I. Peschel, “Exact results for the entanglement across defects in critical chains,”J. Phys. A45no. 15, (2012) 155301

    2012

  53. [53]

    Entanglement entropy with interface defects,

    I. Peschel, “Entanglement entropy with interface defects,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General38no. 20, (May, 2005) 4327–4335

    2005

  54. [54]

    Zero-mode entanglement across a conformal defect,

    L. Capizzi and V. Eisler, “Zero-mode entanglement across a conformal defect,”J. Stat. Mech.2305(2023) 053109,arXiv:2303.10425 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Entanglement evolution after a global quench across a conformal defect,

    L. Capizzi and V. Eisler, “Entanglement evolution after a global quench across a conformal defect,”SciPost Phys.14no. 4, (2023) 070,arXiv:2209.03297 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Entanglement evolution across a conformal interface,

    X. Wen, Y. Wang, and S. Ryu, “Entanglement evolution across a conformal interface,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical51no. 19, (Apr., 2018) 195004. – 51 –

    2018

  57. [57]

    Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory,

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, “Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical42no. 50, (Dec., 2009) 504005

    2009

  58. [58]

    Physics at the entangling surface,

    K. Ohmori and Y. Tachikawa, “Physics at the entangling surface,”Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2015no. 4, (Apr., 2015) P04010

    2015

  59. [59]

    Entanglement hamiltonians in two-dimensional conformal field theory,

    J. Cardy and E. Tonni, “Entanglement hamiltonians in two-dimensional conformal field theory,”Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2016no. 12, (Dec., 2016) 123103

    2016

  60. [60]

    Symmetry-resolved entanglement in many-body systems,

    M. Goldstein and E. Sela, “Symmetry-resolved entanglement in many-body systems,”Phys. Rev. Lett.120no. 20, (2018) 200602,arXiv:1711.09418 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [61]

    Symmetry-resolved entanglement in ads3/cft2 coupled to u(1) chern-simons theory,

    S. Zhao, C. Northe, and R. Meyer, “Symmetry-resolved entanglement in ads3/cft2 coupled to u(1) chern-simons theory,”Journal of High Energy Physics2021no. 7, (July, 2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    Symmetry-resolved entanglement for excited states and two entangling intervals in ads3/cft2,

    K. Weisenberger, S. Zhao, C. Northe, and R. Meyer, “Symmetry-resolved entanglement for excited states and two entangling intervals in ads3/cft2,”Journal of High Energy Physics 2021no. 12, (Dec., 2021)

    2021

  63. [63]

    Symmetry-resolved measures in quantum field theory: A short review,

    O. A. Castro-Alvaredo and L. Santamar ´ ıa-Sanz, “Symmetry-resolved measures in quantum field theory: A short review,”Mod. Phys. Lett. B39no. 07, (2025) 2430002, arXiv:2403.06652 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Entanglement Resolution with Respect to Conformal Symmetry,

    C. Northe, “Entanglement Resolution with Respect to Conformal Symmetry,”Phys. Rev. Lett.131no. 15, (2023) 151601,arXiv:2303.07724 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    Symmetry Resolved Entanglement Entropy: Equipartition under Driven and Non-unitary Evolution in a Compact Boson CFT,

    F. Ares, J. Das, and A. Kundu, “Symmetry Resolved Entanglement Entropy: Equipartition under Driven and Non-unitary Evolution in a Compact Boson CFT,”arXiv:2603.28567 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  66. [66]

    On symmetry-resolved generalized entropies,

    F. Yan, S. Murciano, P. Calabrese, and R. M. Konik, “On symmetry-resolved generalized entropies,”SciPost Physics18no. 6, (June, 2025)

    2025

  67. [67]

    Boundary effects on symmetry resolved entanglement,

    R. Bonsignori and P. Calabrese, “Boundary effects on symmetry resolved entanglement,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical54no. 1, (Dec., 2020) 015005

    2020

  68. [68]

    Symmetry-resolved page curves,

    S. Murciano, P. Calabrese, and L. Piroli, “Symmetry-resolved page curves,”Physical Review D106no. 4, (Aug., 2022)

    2022

  69. [69]

    Entanglement and symmetry resolution in two dimensional free quantum field theories,

    S. Murciano, G. Di Giulio, and P. Calabrese, “Entanglement and symmetry resolution in two dimensional free quantum field theories,”Journal of High Energy Physics2020no. 8, (Aug.,

  70. [70]

    Revisiting the symmetry-resolved entanglement for noninvertible symmetries in 1+1d conformal field theories,

    J. Heymann and T. Quella, “Revisiting the symmetry-resolved entanglement for noninvertible symmetries in 1+1d conformal field theories,”Physical Review D112no. 2, (July, 2025)

    2025

  71. [71]

    Noninvertible Symmetry-Resolved Affleck-Ludwig-Cardy Formula and Entanglement Entropy from the Boundary Tube Algebra,

    Y. Choi, B. C. Rayhaun, and Y. Zheng, “Noninvertible Symmetry-Resolved Affleck-Ludwig-Cardy Formula and Entanglement Entropy from the Boundary Tube Algebra,”Phys. Rev. Lett.133no. 25, (2024) 251602,arXiv:2409.02806 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Generalized Tube Algebras, Symmetry-Resolved Partition Functions, and Twisted Boundary States

    Y. Choi, B. C. Rayhaun, and Y. Zheng, “Generalized Tube Algebras, Symmetry-Resolved Partition Functions, and Twisted Boundary States.” 9, 2024

    2024

  73. [73]

    Symmetry-resolved entanglement entropy, spectra & boundary conformal field theory,

    Y. Kusuki, S. Murciano, H. Ooguri, and S. Pal, “Symmetry-resolved entanglement entropy, spectra & boundary conformal field theory,”JHEP11(2023) 216,arXiv:2309.03287 [hep-th]. – 52 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    On the resolution of categorical symmetries in (non-) unitary rational cfts

    A. Bhattacharyya, S. Ghosh, S. Pal, and J. Santara, “On the resolution of categorical symmetries in (non-) unitary rational cfts.” Nov., 2025

    2025

  75. [75]

    Generalized symmetry resolution of entanglement in conformal field theory for twisted and anyonic sectors,

    A. Das, J. Molina-Vilaplana, and P. Saura-Bastida, “Generalized symmetry resolution of entanglement in conformal field theory for twisted and anyonic sectors,”Phys. Rev. D110 no. 12, (2024) 125005,arXiv:2409.02162 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Categorical-symmetry resolved entanglement in conformal field theory,

    P. Saura-Bastida, A. Das, G. Sierra, and J. Molina-Vilaplana, “Categorical-symmetry resolved entanglement in conformal field theory,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 10, (2024) 105026, arXiv:2402.06322 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Symmetry resolved entanglement of excited states in quantum field theory. Part I. Free theories, twist fields and qubits,

    L. Capizzi, O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, C. De Fazio, M. Mazzoni, and L. Santamar ´ ıa-Sanz, “Symmetry resolved entanglement of excited states in quantum field theory. Part I. Free theories, twist fields and qubits,”JHEP12(2022) 127,arXiv:2203.12556 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    Symmetry resolved entanglement of excited states in quantum field theory. Part II. Numerics, interacting theories and higher dimensions,

    L. Capizzi, C. De Fazio, M. Mazzoni, L. Santamar ´ ıa-Sanz, and O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, “Symmetry resolved entanglement of excited states in quantum field theory. Part II. Numerics, interacting theories and higher dimensions,”JHEP12(2022) 128, arXiv:2206.12223 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    Symmetry resolved entanglement of excited states in quantum field theory. Part III. Bosonic and fermionic negativity,

    L. Capizzi, M. Mazzoni, and O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, “Symmetry resolved entanglement of excited states in quantum field theory. Part III. Bosonic and fermionic negativity,”JHEP06 (2023) 074,arXiv:2302.02666 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    Multipartitioning topological phases by vertex states and quantum entanglement,

    Y. Liu, R. Sohal, J. Kudler-Flam, and S. Ryu, “Multipartitioning topological phases by vertex states and quantum entanglement,”Phys. Rev. B105no. 11, (2022) 115107, arXiv:2110.11980 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.