Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

A theorem about which 4d fermion anomalies can be canceled by symmetric TQFTs, applied to the Standard Model, forces the family number and color number to be equal to 3.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 13:10 UTC pith:SBXXEZ4L

load-bearing objection The math is better than the physics: the extension trivialization theorems are new and checkable, but "3=3" is selected by a minimality stipulation, not derived from consistency. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.26202 v2 pith:SBXXEZ4L submitted 2026-05-25 hep-th cond-mat.str-elhep-phmath-phmath.MP

Fermion Families and Pontryagin Class: Topological Field Theory via Colour Symmetry Extension

Zheyan Wan , Juven Wang , Shing-Tung Yau This is my paper
classification hep-th cond-mat.str-elhep-phmath-phmath.MP MSC 81T5057R9055S1057R56
keywords family puzzlethree generationsglobal anomalysymmetry extensionPontryagin classTQFTcobordismStandard Model
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 seeks to show that the three-family structure of the Standard Model can be derived, not from dynamics, but from a consistency condition: the mixed (B+L)-gauge-gravitational anomaly that appears when the three right-handed neutrinos are removed must be canceled by a symmetric boundary TQFT coupled through a Z_n symmetry extension. The central provable claims are two: every group-cohomology anomaly class in H^d(Z_n,U(1)) for odd d>=3 is killed by the extension 1->Z_n->Z_{n^2}->Z_n->1, and the beyond-cohomology class A_{Z_n}p_1 is not killed by any finite group extension except n=2,3. Applied to a generalized Standard Model with N_c colors and N_f families, the paper argues that the minimal extension that does the job, with the baryon a fermion, forces N_f=N_c=3. If correct, the result would explain the observed three generations as a topological necessity rather than an accident.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a proof pattern. For every odd spacetime dimension d>=3 and every n>=2, the paper constructs an explicit (d-1)-cochain showing that any cocycle alpha_d in H^d(Z_n,U(1)) becomes a coboundary when pulled back through the cyclic extension Z_{n^2}->Z_n, making the associated anomaly cancelable by a symmetric anomalous boundary TQFT with Z_n gauge group. By contrast, the mixed class A_{Z_n}p_1, built from a Z_n-valued 1-cocycle and the first Pontryagin class, survives every finite-group pullback except n=2 and n=3; for n=3 the vanishing of A_{Z_3}p_1 mod 3 makes it harmless. Feeding these two facts into the anomaly index of N_f charge-1 Weyl fermions of

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the symmetry extension 1->Z_n->Z_{n^2}->Z_n->1, a cyclic group extension used to trivialize an anomaly by pullback, together with the explicit splitting cochain that writes the pulled-back d-cocycle as a coboundary. The second ingredient is the first Pontryagin class p_1 combined with the generator A_{Z_n} of H^1(Z_n,U(1)): the class A_{Z_n}p_1 is shown to be nontrivial under every finite-group extension unless n=2,3, and for n=3 it vanishes mod 3 by a Steenrod-power argument. The two ingredients together determine which anomalies can be matched by a symmetric gapped TQFT and which cannot.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that the physically correct choice is the one with the smallest nonzero positive N_c and N_f (minimality); nothing in anomaly matching or bordism theory itself rules out the consistent pairs (N_c,N_f)=(4,2),(4,4),(12,6), so the derivation of three families stands only if minimality is accepted as the selection principle.

What would settle it

Look for a finite group extension 1->K->H->Z_n->1 with odd n>3, say n=5, for which the pullback of the class A_{Z_n}p_1 becomes trivial in the Spin x H bordism group. Appendix B claims none exists; exhibiting one, or equivalently constructing a symmetric 4d TQFT with finite gauge group whose anomaly is exactly A_{Z_5}p_1, would falsify the core dichotomy and reopen the classification.

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

If this is right

  • If the theorem is right, the observed three families are not an accident: they are forced by anomaly cancellation plus minimality of the topological response, with color number N_c=3 matching.
  • The missing right-handed neutrinos can be replaced by a 4d Z_3-gauge TQFT preserving Spin x Z_3 symmetry, i.e., a gapped topological dark-matter sector.
  • Any cocycle anomaly in odd dimension d>=3 of Z_n symmetry can be canceled by a symmetric anomalous boundary TQFT via the Z_{n^2} extension, with explicit cocycles making the construction algorithmic.
  • The Pontryagin-class anomaly A_{Z_n}p_1 acts as a selection rule: it confines the allowed minimal color extensions to N_c=3,4,12 depending on divisibility of N_f, and with baryons fermionic only N_c=3 survives.
  • The proof shows that no finite group extension can trivialize p_1-related anomalies for n>3, limiting the class of finite-group TQFTs that can cancel such anomalies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension: run the same trivialization search for non-abelian finite groups K, not just Z_N; the paper's no-go argument in Appendix B is stated for finite group extensions generally, but the explicit constructive part in Appendix C only covers the cyclic case.
  • If minimality is replaced by another selection principle, such as requiring the smallest number of anyons or the largest preserved symmetry, the allowed pairs (3,3), (4,2), (4,4), (12,6) might reshuffle; this is where the physical input would have to come from.
  • The construction suggests a phenomenology: the Z_3-gauge TQFT replacing the right-handed neutrinos would be a strictly gapped, symmetric dark sector with no local operators, which could in principle be probed through its gravitational anomaly index in future lattice or quantum-simulation models of chiral fermions.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies 4d fermionic anomalies with discrete Z_n symmetry, viewed through 5d spin bordism. Its main mathematical results are: (i) any group-cohomology cocycle α_d ∈ H^d(Z_n,U(1)) in odd d ≥ 3 is trivialized by the central extension 1→Z_n→Z_{n^2}→Z_n→1, with an explicit splitting cochain (Apps. A, C) and a bulk-boundary coupled TQFT construction (App. D); (ii) the beyond-group-cohomology class A_{Z_n}p_1 is claimed not to be trivializable by any finite group extension except n=2,3 (App. B); and (iii) A_{Z_3}p_1=0 mod 3 (App. H). These tools are applied to the Standard Model: a Spin×Z_3-symmetric 4d Z_3-gauge TQFT is constructed to cancel the mixed (B+L)-gauge-gravitational anomaly of the SM without the three right-handed neutrinos, and a generalized N_c-color/N_f-family analysis (Theorem 4.1) concludes that N_c=N_f=3 is the unique minimal solution under explicit additional assumptions: minimality of N_f and N_c, and odd N_c (so the baryon is a fermion).

Significance. If the mathematics is correct, the paper makes a useful and partly explicit contribution to the symmetry-extension approach to global anomalies: the cocycle-splitting computations in App. C are concrete, the gauge-invariance check of the coupled boundary TQFT in Sec. 3 and App. D is written out, and the proof of A_{Z_3}p_1=0 mod 3 is a clean Steenrod-power argument. The distinction between group-cohomology classes and A_{Z_n}p_1 classes is a potentially valuable classification input. However, the physical conclusion that N_f=3 is selected is conditional on a stipulated minimality principle; the anomaly constraints alone admit infinitely many consistent pairs such as (3,9), (3,15), (4,2), and (12,6) (Eq. (64)). The paper's value is therefore primarily as a mathematical classification with an explicit selection principle, not as a derivation of N_f=3 from anomaly cancellation alone.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 1.1(a), Theorem 4.1, Eq. (64)] The uniqueness of (N_c,N_f)=(3,3) is produced by the stipulated minimality of N_f and N_c and by the oddness of N_c, not by anomaly matching or bordism constraints. Equation (64) explicitly lists infinite families, e.g. N_c=3 with N_f=3^r s, r≥1, 2∤s, 3∤s, including (3,9) and (3,15). The theorem is internally consistent, but the abstract's phrase 'unique minimal solution' can be misread as deriving N_f=3 from consistency. The paper should state prominently that minimality is a separate simplicity postulate and discuss possible justifications, or soften the physical claim accordingly.
  2. [App. B, B.1, B.2] The sweeping claim that A_{Z_n}p_1 'cannot be trivialized by any finite group extension except n=2,3' is not established by the computations shown. The proof examines only specific central extensions: (76), (77), and the Spin→SO cover (79). For G=Spin×Z_n with odd n, extensions 1→Z_m→Spin×Z_{mn}→Spin×Z_n→1 exist for every m; the remark that 'there are no finite covers of Spin' does not rule these out because the finite cover can come from the Z_n factor. Similarly, for even n, kernels larger than Z_2^F are not analyzed. To support the 'any finite group extension' statement, a general argument over all K is needed.
  3. [Sec. 1.2, Eqs. (13)-(17); App. B] Even for the extensions that are considered, the obstruction is computed in ordinary group cohomology H^*(BH,Z_n), whereas the symmetry-extension trivialization criterion used in the paper is pullback in the spin bordism group, TP_5(G)=(Ω_5^G)_tors (Eqs. (15)-(17)). Nonvanishing of a cohomology class does not automatically imply a nonvanishing bordism invariant; one must show that the class is detected by Ω_5^{Spin}(BH) or give a bordism-level duality argument. If the theorem is only about cohomological trivialization, that should be stated, but then it does not directly imply the physical anomaly-cancellation claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3 vs Table (62)] The text near Eq. (38) says beyond-group-cohomology classes 'allow no such symmetric TQFTs', but Table (62) reports that the N_f=2 anomaly, labeled 'BGC Z_8 subclass', is matched by a Z_4-gauge TQFT. This apparent tension needs a clarifying remark: which BGC classes are being excluded, and why the BGC class appearing in Table (62) is not of the A_{Z_n}p_1 type.
  2. [Theorem 4.1 proof] The proof relies on an external result from Ref. [36] for the 2-power factor (2^p · Z_{2^{p+3}} is trivialized by a Z_4-extension). Since this is load-bearing for the classification, please state the precise lemma and either prove it or reproduce the necessary statement in an appendix.
  3. [References and typos] Reference [28] is an unresolved placeholder 'arXiv:2xxx.xxxxx'. There are typos such as 'Fellowshop' in the acknowledgments, 'first quality' for 'first equality' in Sec. 2.1, and 'fundamentally different from' in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 3-family result is a conditional minimality theorem with independent anomaly computations; the salient assumptions are explicit stipulations, not outputs disguised as inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is Theorem 4.1, a conditional statement: if N_f and N_c are minimal, if the N_f-family anomaly is trivialized by a minimal Z_Nc extension, and if N_c is odd, then N_c=N_f=3. The proof is not a circular reduction: it computes the anomaly index decomposition (65) from independent bordism classifications and perturbative anomaly data, proves in Appendix F that the 3-power factor is trivialized by a Z_3 extension, and then selects the minimum of the surviving branch N_f=3^r s with r>=1 and gcd(s,6)=1. The number 3 emerges as the minimum element of that explicitly derived set, not as a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The minimality and oddness conditions in Theorem 1.1 are stated assumptions; they limit the physical interpretation of the 'family puzzle' claim, but a theorem conditional on explicitly stated selection principles is not circular. The only same-author citation that plays a nontrivial role is [36] for the even-2-power branch (N_c=4 or 12), but that branch is not needed for the final odd-branch conclusion N_f=N_c=3, which is proved in the present paper. Thus no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input or to an unverified self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted to data anywhere in this paper; the 'free parameters' slot is empty. The explanatory load is carried by stipulated axioms: the minimality of N_f and N_c, oddness of N_c, the literature bordism classifications, the anomaly index of the SM, the Z_4-extension input from the authors' companion paper [36], and the Wang-Wen-Witten symmetry-extension paradigm. The A_{Z_3}p_1≡0 mod 3 identity is proven in-appendix (App. H) but rests on a Wu-type theorem whose proof is sketched. The only invented physical entity is the TQFT dark sector replacing the sterile neutrinos, which has no independent evidence.

axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Bordism classifications: Ω^{Spin×_{Z_2^F}Z_{2N_f}}_5 ≅ Z_{2^{p+3}}⊕Z_{2^{p-1}}⊕Z_{3^{r+1}}⊕Z_{3^{r-1}}⊕Z_s⊕Z_s for N_f=2^p3^r s; Ω^{Spin×Z_3}_5 ≅ Z_9 (eqs. (36),(37),(60)).
    The classification of 4d fermionic anomalies is load-bearing for the whole construction; imported from cited literature [10,29-31,59,60], not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The SM missing all ν_R has B+L-gauge-gravitational anomaly index −N_f + n_νR, with n_νR=0 (Sec. 2).
    The quantity to be canceled; standard result cited to [23,24,45,48-52]. Sets the input 'N_f copies of a charge-1 Weyl fermion' in Theorem 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimality of N_f and N_c (Theorem 1.1 condition (a); Sec. 4).
    A stipulated simplicity selection principle with no dynamical or topological justification. It is exactly the condition that makes N_f=3 the unique survivor among the branches {3,4,12}.
  • domain assumption N_c odd so that baryons are fermions (Theorem 1.1 condition (c)).
    A physical requirement matching the real SM; excludes the N_c=4 and N_c=12 branches, and with minimality forces N_c=3.
  • domain assumption 2^p·Z_{2^{p+3}} is trivialized by a Z_4-extension (Theorem 4.1 proof, eq. (65)).
    Imported from ref. [36] (Wan-Wang, same two authors, arXiv:2512.25038) without proof in this paper. Needed for the N_c=4 and N_c=12 branches; not needed for the N_c=3 branch.
  • domain assumption Symmetry-extension anomaly-cancellation paradigm (Sec. 1.2): if the pulled-back anomaly class vanishes in G_Tot for 1→K→G_Tot→G→1, a (d−1)d anomalous K-gauge TQFT canceling the G-anomaly exists.
    The construction framework from ref. [1] (Wang-Wen-Witten). The paper's 'can be canceled' and 'cannot be canceled' claims live inside this paradigm.
  • standard math H^4(BSpin,Z)=Z⟨λ⟩ with p_1=2λ (Appendix B).
    Standard characteristic-class fact; used to compute f*(A_{Z_n}p_1) = 4A_{Z_{2n}}λ and conclude vanishing only for n=2 (mod 2n).
  • standard math Wu-type identity P^1_3(x) = p_1⌣x and Theorem H.1 (P_q(s_q)=Σb_{q,j}) for odd primes q.
    The engine of the proof that A_{Z_3}p_1≡0 mod 3. The paper gives a proof of Theorem H.1 by analogy with Milnor-Stasheff's Sq(v)=w proof; the result is known (Tomonaga [46,47], Hirzebruch [73]).
invented entities (1)
  • 4d Z_{N_c}-gauge fermionic TQFT ('topologically ordered dark matter') replacing N_f families of ν_R no independent evidence
    purpose: Cancels the SM's mixed (B+L)-gauge-gravitational anomaly in the absence of sterile right-handed neutrinos, restoring consistency at low energy.
    No falsifiable handle outside the paper: no predicted mass, coupling, or signal. Its only support is anomaly matching. Neutrino masses, seesaw, and oscillation phenomenology are not reproduced, so the entity is observationally indistinguishable from other anomaly-cancellation schemes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 38867 in / 36169 out tokens · 337747 ms · 2026-08-02T13:10:44.145690+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Family puzzle asks why the Standard Model (SM) features exactly 3 families of quarks and leptons. Motivated by topological constraints, we study 4d fermionic anomalies with discrete $Z_n$ symmetry, classified by the 5d spin bordism group. We show that only the group-cohomology subclass H$^5(Z_n,U(1))\cong Z_n$ can be canceled by an anomalous $Z_n$-symmetric 4d $Z_n$-gauge topological quantum field theory (TQFT), while beyond-group-cohomology $A_{Z_n}p_1$ involving the Pontryagin class $p_1$ cannot (except $n=2,3$). More generally, we prove that any cocycle $\alpha_d\in$H$^d(Z_n,U(1))$ in odd spacetime dimension $d\ge3$ is trivialised by the symmetry extension $1\to Z_n\to Z_{n^2}\to Z_n\to 1,$ and we construct the corresponding symmetric anomalous boundary TQFT. For $d=5$ and $n=3$, this yields a Spin$\times Z_3$-symmetric 4d $Z_3$-gauge TQFT that cancels the mixed discrete $(\bf B+L)$-gauge-gravitational anomaly of the SM in the absence of 3 "sterile" right-handed neutrinos $\nu_R$. We analyze a generalized SM with $N_c$ colors and $N_f$ families and argue that missing $N_f$ copies of the $\nu_R$ can be naturally replaced by a 4d anomalous $Spin\times_{Z_2^F}Z_{2 N_f,{\bf B + L}}$ symmetric $Z_N$-gauge TQFT under the anomaly cancellation, via a $Z_N$ symmetry extension construction $1\to Z_N\to Spin\times Z_{NN_f}\to Spin\times_{Z_2^F}Z_{2N_f}\to1$ of anomalous topological order. For minimal nonzero $(N,N_f)$, the allowed minimal extensions are $N=1,3,4,12$, depending on divisibility of $N_f$ by 2 and 3. Combining Witten anomaly and other constraints, we prove that $N=N_c=N_f=3$, with 3 families and 3 colors, is the unique minimal solution to match with the color-center baryon-to-quark symmetry extension $1\to Z_{N_c}\to Spin\times_{Z_2^F}Z_{2N_cN_f,{\bf Q}+N_c{\bf L}}\to Spin\times_{Z_2^F}Z_{2 N_f,{\bf B+L}}^F\to1$. We also prove that $A_{Z_3}p_1=0\mod3$ for the mod 3 cohomology class.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26202 by Juven Wang, Shing-Tung Yau, Zheyan Wan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The E2 page of the LHS spectral sequence (66). The differentials will be explained later. The differentials in the LHS spectral sequence (66) are d p,q r : E p,q r → E p+r,q−r+1 r for r ⩾ 2, (69) and the pages Er are defined inductively from E2 by E p,q r+1 = Ker d p,q r Im d p−r,q+r−1 r . (70) The differentials dr vanish and the pages Er stabilize for sufficiently large r ⩾ N. The page EN is denoted E∞. T… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

    hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    Bosonic beyond-cohomology SPT phases are governed by a mod-3 Steenrod-power differential, and a new 6+1-dimensional Z3×Z3 Dijkgraaf-Witten phase is nontrivial on simplicial complexes but trivial on manifolds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Wang, X.-G

    J. Wang, X.-G. Wen and E. Witten,Symmetric Gapped Interfaces of SPT and SET States: Systematic Constructions,Phys. Rev.X8(2018) 031048, [arXiv:1705.06728]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Harari,Three generations of quarks and leptons, inPresented at 5th Intern

    H. Harari,Three generations of quarks and leptons, inPresented at 5th Intern. Conf. on Exptl. Meson Spectry, pp. 29–30, July, 1977. [3]Particle Data Groupcollaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001. [4]OPALcollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al.,Precise determination of the Z resonance parameters at LEP: ’Zedometry’,E...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1977

  3. [7]

    Steigman,Neutrinos And Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,Adv

    G. Steigman,Neutrinos And Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,Adv. High Energy Phys.2012(2012) 268321, [arXiv:1208.0032]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [8]

    B. D. Fields, P. Molaro and S. Sarkar,Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis,Chin. Phys. C38(2014) 339–344, [arXiv:1412.1408]. 36 [9]Planckcollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [arXiv:1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [10]

    Garcia-Etxebarria and M

    I. Garcia-Etxebarria and M. Montero,Dai-Freed anomalies in particle physics,JHEP08(2019) 003, [arXiv:1808.00009]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [11]

    Wang,Family Puzzle, Framing Topology,c − = 24and 3(E8) 1 Conformal Field Theories: 48/16 = 45/15 = 24/8 =3,arXiv:2312.14928

    J. Wang,Family Puzzle, Framing Topology,c − = 24and 3(E8) 1 Conformal Field Theories: 48/16 = 45/15 = 24/8 =3,arXiv:2312.14928

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [12]

    Wang,Topological Quantum Dark Matter via Global Anomaly Cancellation,arXiv:2502.21319

    J. Wang,Topological Quantum Dark Matter via Global Anomaly Cancellation,arXiv:2502.21319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [13]

    Wen,Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter,Rev

    X.-G. Wen,Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter,Rev. Mod. Phys.89(2017) 041004, [arXiv:1610.03911]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [14]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu and D. Senechal,Conformal Field Theory. Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997, 10.1007/978-1-4612-2256-9

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2256-9 1997

  10. [15]

    J. W. Milnor and J. D. Stasheff,Characteristic classes. No. 76. Princeton university press, 1974

    1974

  11. [16]

    Hirzebruch,Topological Methods in Algebraic Geometry

    F. Hirzebruch,Topological Methods in Algebraic Geometry. Springer, 1966

    1966

  12. [17]

    Pontrjagin,Characteristic cycles of smooth manifolds,Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR52(1946) 297–300

    L. Pontrjagin,Characteristic cycles of smooth manifolds,Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR52(1946) 297–300

    1946

  13. [18]

    Pontrjagin,Vector fields on manifolds,Matematicheskii Sbornik66(1947) 3–14

    L. Pontrjagin,Vector fields on manifolds,Matematicheskii Sbornik66(1947) 3–14

    1947

  14. [19]

    Rokhlin,New results in the theory of four-dimensional manifolds,Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR84 (1952) 221–224

    V. Rokhlin,New results in the theory of four-dimensional manifolds,Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR84 (1952) 221–224

    1952

  15. [20]

    Witten,Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial,Commun

    E. Witten,Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial,Commun. Math. Phys.121(1989) 351–399

    1989

  16. [21]

    Atiyah,On framings of 3-manifolds,Topology29(1990) 1–7

    M. Atiyah,On framings of 3-manifolds,Topology29(1990) 1–7

    1990

  17. [22]

    McNamara and C

    J. McNamara and C. Vafa,Cobordism Classes and the Swampland,arXiv:1909.10355

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  18. [23]

    Koren,A Note on Proton Stability in the Standard Model,Universe8(2022) 308, [arXiv:2204.01741]

    S. Koren,A Note on Proton Stability in the Standard Model,Universe8(2022) 308, [arXiv:2204.01741]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [24]

    J. Wang, Z. Wan and Y.-Z. You,Proton stability: From the standard model to beyond grand unification, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 025016, [arXiv:2204.08393]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [25]

    Tong,Line Operators in the Standard Model,JHEP07(2017) 104, [arXiv:1705.01853]

    D. Tong,Line Operators in the Standard Model,JHEP07(2017) 104, [arXiv:1705.01853]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [26]

    B. A. Dobrescu and E. Poppitz,Number of fermion generations derived from anomaly cancellation,Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 031801, [arXiv:hep-ph/0102010]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  22. [27]

    Davighi and N

    J. Davighi and N. Lohitsiri,Omega vs. pi, and 6d anomaly cancellation,JHEP05(2021) 267, [arXiv:2012.11693]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [28]

    Z. Wan, J. Wang and et al.,Higher anomalies, higher symmetries, and cobordisms IV: Beyond Standard Models, Grand Unification, and Ultra Unification (202n),arXiv:2xxx.xxxxx

  24. [29]

    Hsieh,Discrete gauge anomalies revisited,arXiv:1808.02881

    C.-T. Hsieh,Discrete gauge anomalies revisited,arXiv:1808.02881

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [30]

    Wan,Anomaly of 4d Weyl fermion with discrete symmetries,arXiv:2506.19710

    Z. Wan,Anomaly of 4d Weyl fermion with discrete symmetries,arXiv:2506.19710. 37

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [31]

    M. Guo, K. Ohmori, P. Putrov, Z. Wan and J. Wang,Fermionic Finite-Group Gauge Theories and Interacting Symmetric/Crystalline Orders via Cobordisms,Commun. Math. Phys.376(2020) 1073, [arXiv:1812.11959]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [32]

    Cordova and K

    C. Cordova and K. Ohmori,Anomaly Constraints on Gapped Phases with Discrete Chiral Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 025011, [arXiv:1912.13069]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [33]

    Cheng, J

    M. Cheng, J. Wang and X. Yang,(3+1)d boundary topological order of (4+1)d fermionic SPT state, Phys. Rev. B113(2026) 125105, [arXiv:2411.05786]

    arXiv 2026

  29. [34]

    T. D. D´ ecoppet and M. Yu,The Classification of 3+1d Symmetry Enriched Topological Order, arXiv:2509.10603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [35]

    Debray, W

    A. Debray, W. Ye and M. Yu,How to Build Anomalous (3+1)d Topological Quantum Field Theories, arXiv:2510.24834

    arXiv

  31. [36]

    Wan and J

    Z. Wan and J. Wang,Anomalous (3+1)d Fermionic Topological Quantum Field Theories via Symmetry Extension,arXiv:2512.25038

    arXiv

  32. [37]

    Debray, M

    A. Debray, M. Yu and W. Ye,Symmetric Gapped States and Symmetry-Enforced Gaplessness in 3-dimension,arXiv:2602.12335

    arXiv

  33. [38]

    D. S. Freed, C. I. Scheimbauer and C. Teleman,Fully local Reshetikhin-Turaev theories,arXiv e-prints (Jan., 2026) arXiv:2601.05518, [arXiv:2601.05518]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [39]

    D. S. Freed and C. Teleman,The role of p 1-structures in 3-dimensional Chern-Simons theories, arXiv:2603.11291

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [40]

    C. L. Douglas, C. Schommer-Pries and N. Snyder,Dualizable tensor categories,arXiv:1312.7188

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [42]

    Eguchi and P

    T. Eguchi and P. G. O. Freund,Quantum Gravity and World Topology,Phys. Rev. Lett.37(1976) 1251

    1976

  37. [43]

    Alvarez-Gaume and E

    L. Alvarez-Gaume and E. Witten,Gravitational Anomalies,Nucl. Phys.B234(1984) 269

    1984

  38. [44]

    Alvarez-Gaume and P

    L. Alvarez-Gaume and P. H. Ginsparg,The Structure of Gauge and Gravitational Anomalies,Annals Phys.161(1985) 423

    1985

  39. [45]

    Putrov and J

    P. Putrov and J. Wang,Categorical Symmetry of the Standard Model from Gravitational Anomaly,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 125028, [arXiv:2302.14862]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [46]

    Tomonaga,Mod 3 pontryagin class and indecomposability of differentiable manifolds,Tohoku Mathematical Journal, Second Series16(1964) 252–256

    Y. Tomonaga,Mod 3 pontryagin class and indecomposability of differentiable manifolds,Tohoku Mathematical Journal, Second Series16(1964) 252–256

    1964

  41. [47]

    Tomonaga,Some properties of pontryagin classes mod 3,Transactions of the American Mathematical Society117(1965) 37–48

    Y. Tomonaga,Some properties of pontryagin classes mod 3,Transactions of the American Mathematical Society117(1965) 37–48

    1965

  42. [48]

    Wang,Anomaly and Cobordism Constraints Beyond the Standard Model: Topological Force, arXiv:2006.16996

    J. Wang,Anomaly and Cobordism Constraints Beyond the Standard Model: Topological Force, arXiv:2006.16996

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  43. [49]

    Wang,Anomaly and Cobordism Constraints Beyond Grand Unification: Energy Hierarchy, arXiv:2008.06499

    J. Wang,Anomaly and Cobordism Constraints Beyond Grand Unification: Energy Hierarchy, arXiv:2008.06499. 38

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  44. [50]

    Wang,Ultra Unification,Phys

    J. Wang,Ultra Unification,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 105024, [arXiv:2012.15860]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [51]

    J. Wang, Z. Wan and Y.-Z. You,Cobordism and deformation class of the standard model,Phys. Rev. D 106(2022) L041701, [arXiv:2112.14765]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [52]

    Wang,Topological leptogenesis,Phys

    J. Wang,Topological leptogenesis,Phys. Rev. Res.8(2026) L022024, [arXiv:2501.00607]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [53]

    S. L. Adler,Axial vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics,Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2426–2438

    1969

  48. [54]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw,A PCAC puzzle:π 0 →γγin theσmodel,Nuovo Cim.A60(1969) 47–61

    1969

  49. [55]

    Belavin, A

    A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, A. Schwartz and Y. Tyupkin,Pseudoparticle Solutions of the Yang-Mills Equations,Phys. Lett. B59(1975) 85–87

    1975

  50. [56]

    ’t Hooft,Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,Phys

    G. ’t Hooft,Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,Phys. Rev. Lett.37(1976) 8–11

    1976

  51. [57]

    Jackiw and C

    R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi,Vacuum Periodicity in a Yang-Mills Quantum Theory,Phys. Rev. Lett.37 (1976) 172–175

    1976

  52. [58]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., R. F. Dashen and D. J. Gross,The Structure of the Gauge Theory Vacuum,Phys. Lett. B63(1976) 334–340

    1976

  53. [59]

    Kapustin, R

    A. Kapustin, R. Thorngren, A. Turzillo and Z. Wang,Fermionic Symmetry Protected Topological Phases and Cobordisms,JHEP12(2015) 052, [arXiv:1406.7329]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [60]

    D. S. Freed and M. J. Hopkins,Reflection positivity and invertible topological phases,arXiv e-prints (Apr, 2016) arXiv:1604.06527, [arXiv:1604.06527]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [61]

    J. C. Wang, Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen,Field theory representation of gauge-gravity symmetry-protected topological invariants, group cohomology and beyond,Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 031601, [arXiv:1405.7689]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [62]

    J. Wang, K. Ohmori, P. Putrov, Y. Zheng, Z. Wan, M. Guo et al.,Tunneling Topological Vacua via Extended Operators: (Spin-)TQFT Spectra and Boundary Deconfinement in Various Dimensions,PTEP 2018(2018) 053A01, [arXiv:1801.05416]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [63]

    Yang and M

    X. Yang and M. Cheng,Gapped boundary of (4+1)d beyond-cohomology bosonic SPT phase,Phys. Rev. B110(2024) 045137, [arXiv:2303.00719]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [64]

    T. D. Brennan and K. Intriligator,Anomalies of 4d Spin G theories,JHEP07(2024) 157, [arXiv:2312.04756]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [65]

    Davighi, B

    J. Davighi, B. Gripaios and N. Lohitsiri,Global anomalies in the Standard Model(s) and Beyond,JHEP 07(2020) 232, [arXiv:1910.11277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [66]

    Wan and J

    Z. Wan and J. Wang,Beyond Standard Models and Grand Unifications: Anomalies, Topological Terms, and Dynamical Constraints via Cobordisms,JHEP07(2020) 062, [arXiv:1910.14668]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [67]

    Bar and U

    O. Bar and U. J. Wiese,Can one see the number of colors?,Nucl. Phys. B609(2001) 225–246, [arXiv:hep-ph/0105258]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  62. [68]

    Shrock,Implications of anomaly constraints in the N(c) extended standard model,Phys

    R. Shrock,Implications of anomaly constraints in the N(c) extended standard model,Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 6465–6476, [arXiv:hep-ph/9512430]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  63. [69]

    Witten,An SU(2) Anomaly,Phys

    E. Witten,An SU(2) Anomaly,Phys. Lett.117B(1982) 324–328. 39

    1982

  64. [70]

    Montero, C

    M. Montero, C. Vafa and I. Valenzuela,Neutrinos, B-L Symmetry and the Dark Dimension, arXiv:2512.09052

    arXiv

  65. [71]

    Hatcher,Algebraic topology

    A. Hatcher,Algebraic topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002

    2002

  66. [72]

    Huang, Z

    H.-L. Huang, Z. Wan and Y. Ye,Explicit cocycle formulas on finite abelian groups with applications to braided linear Gr-categories and Dijkgraaf–Witten invariants,Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh A150(2020) 1937–1964, [arXiv:1703.03266]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [73]

    On steenrod reduced powers in oriented manifolds

    F. Hirzebruch, “On steenrod reduced powers in oriented manifolds.” Princeton University, 1953. 40

    1953