Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Trading Mathematical for Physical Simplicity: Bialgebraic Structures in Matrix Product Operator Symmetries

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read General matrix product operator symmetries are governed by pre-bialgebras, and the anomalous Z2 symmetry of the XX chain is a representation of a non-semisimple, non-counital pre-bialgebra whose associator computes the anomaly.

desk verdict A credible, checkable extension of MPO symmetry theory to pre-bialgebras, with an unproved load-bearing assertion that needs fixing before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03600 v1 pith:UVIDSD23 submitted 2025-09-03 quant-ph cond-mat.str-elhep-lat

Yuhan Liu , Andras Molnar , Xiao-Qi Sun , Frank Verstraete , Kohtaro Kato , Laurens Lootens This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-elhep-lat MSC 16T0518M20
keywords matrixproductoperatorspre-bialgebraanomaloussymmetryweakHopfalgebrarenormalizationfixedpointsmixed-statequantumphasesLevin-Gumodelnon-semisimplerepresentationcategory
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 shows that a well-known anomalous Z2 symmetry of the Levin-Gu/XX spin chain—one that cannot be realized on-site—has a precise algebraic description that weak-Hopf-algebra theory could not provide. The authors extract from the matrix product operator (MPO) implementing the symmetry an eight-dimensional algebra, and show that together with a size-growing coproduct it forms a pre-bialgebra: associative and multiplicative, but lacking a counit. The anomaly is not hidden in this structure; it appears as the associator of the symmetry's fusion tensors, taking value -1 for the triple (1,1,1) and trivial otherwise. The representation category of the dual algebra is non-semisimple and monoidal, while the category governing renormalization is semisimple but lacks a monoidal unit. If correct, this supplies a general method for reading an algebraic structure off any MPO symmetry, and points to a new family of mixed-state renormalization fixed points.

What carries the argument

Pre-bialgebra: an associative algebra with an associative, multiplicative coproduct, without requiring counit or antipode. The central move extracts the algebra from MPO boundary-condition closures and fusion tensors Ya,b, and the coproduct from growing the system size. The fusion tensors carry the anomaly: their associator ω(a,b,c)=-1 only for a=b=c=1, the nontrivial class in H3(Z2,U(1)). The dual pair (A,A*) organizes the two relevant representation categories: Rep(A) is semisimple and semi-monoidal (no unit) and describes renormalization, while Rep(A*) is a non-semisimple monoidal category carrying the anomaly and semisimplifying to the semion category.

What would settle it

Check, for system sizes N=2,3,4,..., whether the eight operators O(N)(e12_0), O(N)(e13_0), O(N)(e22_0), O(N)(e23_0), O(N)(e11_1), O(N)(e12_1), O(N)(e21_1), O(N)(e22_1) remain linearly independent and whether the structure constants in eq. (13) are exactly N-independent. A ninth independent MPO, or any dependence on N, would change the algebra A and could alter ω(1,1,1); alternatively, finding a local on-site realization of UCZY with associative fusion would contradict the anomaly claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

UCZY, the Z2 MPO of the Levin-Gu/XX chain, squares to a non-injective indecomposable tensor. The fusion tensors implementing local multiplication fail associativity with ω(1,1,1)=-1, the nontrivial class in H3(Z2,U(1)): the anomaly is an associator. Eight boundary conditions close into a size-independent algebra A≅M2⊕M2, and growing the MPO gives a coproduct making A a non-counital pre-bialgebra. Its dual is non-unital and non-semisimple; Rep(A) is semi-monoidal, Rep(A*) is a non-semisimple monoidal category semisimplifying to the semion category. The same structure yields MPDO renormalization fixed points, including ρCZY, which is locally channel-equivalent to the double-semion boundary sta

Load-bearing premise

The extraction stands on the unproved claim that the eight chosen boundary conditions give a maximal linearly independent set of MPOs for every N≥2 and that the multiplication constants in eq. (13) do not depend on N.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • General MPO symmetries can be assigned a pre-bialgebra by the same extraction recipe, not just those governed by weak Hopf algebras.
  • The anomalous Z2 symmetry of the XX/Levin-Gu chain has a concrete lattice realization, with the anomaly encoded as ω(1,1,1)=-1 rather than as an obstruction to any local description.
  • A semisimple C*-pre-bialgebra satisfying the theorem's two conditions produces an MPDO renormalization fixed point; the CZY state is an example, giving a previously unknown family of mixed-state fixed points.
  • ρCZY and the double-semion boundary state are equivalent up to local quantum channels in both directions, so the anomalous symmetry and a conventional weak-Hopf-algebra MPO symmetry are expected to coincide in a coarse-grained continuum sense.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference beyond the paper: because the extraction recipe of Sec. III is written generically (fusion tensors, closed algebra, coproduct) even though it is applied to one example, it should apply to any consistent MPO symmetry; testing it on larger-bond-dimension non-invertible symmetries would show whether all such symmetries define pre-bialgebras.
  • Inference beyond the paper: the quantum-channel equivalence with the double-semion boundary suggests a broader equivalence notion for anomalous symmetries—two MPO symmetries whose pre-bialgebras differ only by a local channel may be physically indistinguishable in the continuum limit, tying pre-bialgebra classification to coarse-graining.
  • Inference beyond the paper: theorem IV.1 is sufficient, not necessary; if every MPDO renormalization fixed point satisfies its two conditions, then pre-bialgebras—not only weak Hopf algebras—are the natural indexing set for 1D mixed-state renormalization fixed points.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that general matrix product operator (MPO) symmetries are governed by a pre-bialgebra structure, relaxing the weak Hopf algebra framework. The guiding example is the anomalous Z2 symmetry U_CZY of the Levin–Gu/XX model. The authors extract an 8-dimensional algebra A from the MPO boundary conditions, compute its comultiplication, identify A* as a non-unital non-semisimple algebra, and obtain the anomaly as the associator ω(1,1,1) = −1. They then use the representation theory of A to construct MPO tensors that generate renormalization fixed points of matrix product density operators, and relate the resulting state to the double semion boundary via local quantum channels. The paper includes explicit fusion tensors, multiplication tables, representation categories, and a proof of Theorem IV.1 in Appendix F.

Significance. If the algebraic extraction and fixed-point construction are correct, the paper provides a genuinely new class of MPO symmetries beyond weak Hopf algebras, with a concrete physical example: the anomalous Z2 symmetry of the XX chain. The explicit computation of the anomaly as an associator and the construction of MPDO fixed points from a non-counital, non-cosemisimple pre-bialgebra are notable advances. The paper is also valuable for its explicit checkable data: the fusion tensors in App. B, the multiplication table in App. C, and the module decompositions in App. D allow the reader to verify the main algebraic steps directly. However, two load-bearing points need to be fixed before the central claims are fully established: the maximality of the eight boundary MPOs for all system sizes, and the missing positivity hypothesis in Theorem IV.1.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (12)–(15)] The 8-dimensional algebra A is introduced through the assertion that the boundary conditions B0∈{e12_0,e13_0,e22_0,e23_0} and B1∈{e11_1,e12_1,e21_1,e22_1} give a maximal linearly independent set of MPOs for every N≥2. This is not proved. Appendix C only establishes faithfulness at N=2; because A0 is non-injective, the boundary-to-operator map could develop a kernel for larger N. Closure under multiplication, claimed "by virtue of Eqs. (7) and (8)," shows that products stay in the same MPO form but does not imply linear independence. Since the multiplication table (C3), the comultiplication (16), the fusion rules (19)–(20), and the anomaly (11) all depend on A being exactly eight-dimensional, a kernel at some N would replace A by a quotient or a size-dependent algebra and change all subsequent results. Please provide a proof (for example, an inductive argument on N or an explicit rank com
  2. [Theorem IV.1 and App. F, Eq. (F12)] The theorem as stated omits a condition that guarantees ρ(N)(M) is a valid quantum state. The proof in App. F establishes the algebraic fixed-point equation (23), but after Eq. (F12) positivity is obtained only if x = Σ_I Tr[ψ(e_I)]e_I equals yy*; this is not implied by conditions (1)–(2) alone. The role of the faithful representation ψ is also not declared in the theorem statement. Unless a positivity hypothesis is added (or derived from a *-representation property), the theorem proves only that M satisfies the RFP tensor equation, not that it generates an MPDO. Please state the missing hypothesis and verify it for the example, as is done in the paragraph after Eq. (F13).
minor comments (4)
  1. [App. D, Prop. D.2] Typo: "associatve" should be "associative."
  2. [App. F, paragraph after Eq. (F6)] Typo: "exsits" should be "exists."
  3. [App. F, Eq. (F10)] The subscript "a*b" in the sum is confusing; please recheck the notation and clarify the summation index.
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (16)] The claim that size independence of the structure constants follows from Eq. (13) is clear only after checking App. C. A short explicit sentence in the main text would help the reader see why the N=2 multiplication table is sufficient.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the algebraic extraction and the RFP construction are self-contained; only framework-level self-citations appear, and the one reverse-consistency loop is explicitly labeled as a converse.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) write UCZY as an MPO (Eqs. 3-4); (ii) compute fusion tensors from the local products (Eqs. 7-8) and read off the associator (Eqs. 10-11), which is an honest calculation, not a fit; (iii) define an 8-dimensional algebra A from boundary conditions (Eqs. 13-15), with comultiplication read off from the MPO blocking identity (Eq. 16); (iv) compute the representation theory of A and A* from the explicit multiplication table in App. C; (v) prove a general RFP theorem (Thm IV.1, App. F) whose hypotheses are transitivity of fusion multiplicities and symmetry of the fusion matrices, both checked from (iii); (vi) apply it to A, obtaining M that generates rho_CZY = (1+U_CZY)/2^{2N} (Eq. 25). The only place where the output equals an input is step (vi): A was extracted from U_CZY, and M reconstructs the same state. But the paper labels this 'Conversely' and 'Reversely', presenting it as a consistency check/reverse construction, not as an independent prediction of rho_CZY. The RFP property itself is proved from the algebraic hypotheses, not imported from the CZY state, so the general claim does not reduce to its input. The unproved assertion that the eight boundary conditions form a maximal linearly independent set for all N>=2 with N-independent structure constants (Sec III) is a genuine correctness gap (if false, A would be a quotient or size-dependent), but it is not circularity: it is an unverified assumption, not a reduction of the conclusion to the premise. Self-citations appear for the general framework ([14] for pre-bialgebras and the MPO-tensor formula, [38] for the RFP construction), and the paper explicitly says the proof is 'essentially the same as in [38]'; however, the needed definitions are restated in App. E and the proof of Thm IV.1 is given in the paper, so the citations are not load-bearing for the paper's own claims. No step exhibits a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction or a uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives. Score 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations and the transparent reverse loop; there is no substantive circularity.

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

The central derivation rests on background results in MPDO theory and representation theory (standard in the field) plus two paper-specific claims: the maximality of the chosen boundary-condition basis and the closure/coassociativity of the finite-group construction. The latter two are asserted rather than proved and are the main objects to verify.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Vertical canonical form characterization of MPDO renormalization fixed points (Prop F.1 and Thm F.2)
    Invoked in App F as the foundation for proving Theorem IV.1; established in the MPDO literature (refs [25,38]).
  • standard math Perron-Frobenius theorem for non-negative matrices
    Used in App F to show the weights d_a in eq. (F11) satisfy the fixed-point equation.
  • standard math Finite-dimensional algebra representation theory (Props D.1-D.3): decomposing the regular module gives all projective indecomposables
    Used in App D to obtain the modules of the non-semisimple algebra A*.
  • domain assumption In the finite-group generalization (App G), the set A = ⊕_g A_g is closed under multiplication and ∆ is coassociative and multiplicative
    Stated as 'readily verify' without full proof; the generalized pre-bialgebra extraction rests on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The eight boundary conditions in Sec III form a maximal linearly independent set of MPOs for all N ≥ 2
    Unproved assertion in Sec III; defines the algebra A and hence the pre-bialgebra structure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trading Mathematical for Physical Simplicity: Bialgebraic Structures in Matrix Product Operator Symmetries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVIDSD23

@misc{pith2026250903600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trading Mathematical for Physical Simplicity: Bialgebraic Structures in Matrix Product Operator Symmetries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVIDSD23}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03600}
}
abstract

Despite recent advances in the lattice representation theory of (generalized) symmetries, many simple quantum spin chains of physical interest are not included in the rigid framework of fusion categories and weak Hopf algebras. We demonstrate that this problem can be overcome by relaxing the requirements on the underlying algebraic structure, and show that general matrix product operator symmetries are described by a pre-bialgebra. As a guiding example, we focus on the anomalous $\mathbb Z_2$ symmetry of the XX model, which manifests the mixed anomaly between its $U(1)$ momentum and winding symmetry. We show how this anomaly is embedded into the non-semisimple corepresentation category, providing a novel mechanism for realizing such anomalous symmetries on the lattice. Additionally, the representation category which describes the renormalization properties is semisimple and semi-monoidal, which provides a new class of mixed state renormalization fixed points. Finally, we show that up to a quantum channel, this anomalous $\mathbb Z_2$ symmetry is equivalent to a more conventional MPO symmetry obtained on the boundary of a double semion model. In this way, our work provides a bridge between well-understood topological defect symmetries and those that arise in more realistic models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Renormalization flows for 1D mixed states and a quantum Goursat lemma

    math-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.5 of 10

    Convergent renormalization trajectories of Hopf-algebra boundary MPDOs under on-site noise are classified by finite *-quantum hypergroups via a new quantum Goursat lemma.

  2. Structure of matrix product locally purifiable density operators

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Two sequentially generated locally purifiable density operators describe the same state for all system sizes exactly when their purification tensors are linked by a matrix product isometry, under step-injective or cyc...

  3. Les Houches Lecture Notes on Tensor Networks

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A well-organized five-lecture review of tensor networks (MPS/PEPS/MPO) covering algorithms, phase classification, string-nets, strange correlators, and dualities; it contains no new research results.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [28]

    Zwolak and G

    M. Zwolak and G. Vidal, Mixed-state dynamics in one-dimensional quantum lattice systems: A time-dependent superoperator renormalization al- gorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207205 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [1]

    Representations of A As discussed in the main text, the basis elements of A are chosen such that O(1)(emn a ) = ( Aa)mn. It turns out that O(1) is an irreducible representation which we identify as ϕ1, and the explicit form is, ϕ1(e1) = ϕ1(e4) = −Z ϕ1(e2) = ϕ1(e3) = 1 ϕ1(e5) = ϕ1(e6) = 0 1 0 0 ϕ1(e8) = −ϕ1(e7) = 0 0 1 0 . (D1) Since A ∼= M2 ⊕ M2, there ar...

    work page

  3. [2]

    product” and “multi- plication

    Representations of A∗ In this section, we provide details of the represen- tations of A∗ as a non-unital and non-semisimple al- gebra. We say that a module is indecomposable if it is non-zero and cannot be written as a direct sum of two non-zero submodules. Being a non-semisimple algebra, A∗ has reducible but indecomposable mod- ules. To study the represe...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Proposition F.1 (Vertical canonical form)

    Structure of MPDO renormalization fixed points The proof will utilize the structure of the MPDO tensor, in particular, its vertical canonical form. Proposition F.1 (Vertical canonical form) . For any tensor A generating an MPDO, it is always pos- sible to obtain another tensor M that generates the same MPDO for any N , and M after a basis trans- formation...

    work page

  5. [4]

    (E1) imposes that the fusion multiplicities N c ab are associative, i.e., X e∈Irr(A) N e abN d ec = X f ∈Irr(A) N d af N f bc

    Proof To begin, we note that associativity of the coprod- uct eq. (E1) imposes that the fusion multiplicities N c ab are associative, i.e., X e∈Irr(A) N e abN d ec = X f ∈Irr(A) N d af N f bc. (F4) Equivalently, define the left multiplication matrices Na with components ( Na)cb = N c ab. Then, the as- sociative condition reads NaNb = X c∈Irr(A) N c abNc. ...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Seifnashri and W

    S. Seifnashri and W. Shirley, Disentangling anomaly-free symmetries of quantum spin chains (2025), arXiv:2503.09717 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    Y.-T. Tu, D. M. Long, and D. V. Else, Anoma- lies of global symmetries on the lattice (2025), arXiv:2507.21209 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [7]

    Shirley, C

    W. Shirley, C. Zhang, W. Ji, and M. Levin, Anomaly-free symmetries with obstructions to gauging and onsiteability (2025), arXiv:2507.21267 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    H. B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, A no-go theorem for regularizing chiral fermions, Physics Letters B 105, 219 (1981)

    1981

  2. [9]

    Friedan, A proof of the nielsen-ninomiya theo- rem, Communications in Mathematical Physics 85, 481 (1982)

    D. Friedan, A proof of the nielsen-ninomiya theo- rem, Communications in Mathematical Physics 85, 481 (1982)

    1982

  3. [10]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207204 (2004)

    2004

  4. [11]

    Pirvu, V

    B. Pirvu, V. Murg, J. I. Cirac, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product operator representations, New Jour- nal of Physics 12, 025012 (2010)

    2010

  5. [12]

    Haegeman and F

    J. Haegeman and F. Verstraete, Diagonalizing trans- fer matrices and matrix product operators: A med- ley of exact and computational methods, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 8, 355 (2017)

    2017

  6. [13]

    Buerschaper, Twisted injectivity in projected en- tangled pair states and the classification of quantum phases, Annals of Physics 351, 447 (2014)

    O. Buerschaper, Twisted injectivity in projected en- tangled pair states and the classification of quantum phases, Annals of Physics 351, 447 (2014)

    2014

  7. [14]

    M. B. S ¸ahino˘ glu, D. Williamson, N. Bultinck, M. Mari¨ en, J. Haegeman, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Characterizing topological order with ma- trix product operators, in Annales Henri Poincar´ e, Vol. 22 (Springer, 2021) pp. 563–592

    2021

  8. [15]

    Bultinck, M

    N. Bultinck, M. Mari¨ en, D. J. Williamson, M. B. S ¸ahino˘ glu, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Anyons and matrix product operator algebras, Annals of physics 378, 183 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    D. J. Williamson, N. Bultinck, M. Mari¨ en, M. B. S ¸ahino˘ glu, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product operators for symmetry-protected topolog- ical phases: Gauging and edge theories, Physical Review B 94, 205150 (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    Lootens, J

    L. Lootens, J. Fuchs, J. Haegeman, C. Schweigert, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product operator sym- metries and intertwiners in string-nets with domain walls, SciPost Phys. 10, 053 (2021)

    2021

  11. [18]

    Moln´ ar, A

    A. Moln´ ar, A. Ruiz-de-Alarc´ on, J. Garre-Rubio, N. Schuch, J. I. Cirac, and D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, Matrix product operator algebras I: representations of weak Hopf algebras and projected entangled pair states, arXiv:2204.05940 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    J. C. Bridgeman, L. Lootens, and F. Verstraete, In- vertible bimodule categories and generalized schur orthogonality, Communications in Mathematical Physics 402, 2691 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Lootens, C

    L. Lootens, C. Delcamp, G. Ortiz, and F. Ver- straete, Dualities in one-dimensional quantum lat- tice models: Symmetric hamiltonians and matrix product operator intertwiners, PRX Quantum 4, 020357 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    Lootens, C

    L. Lootens, C. Delcamp, and F. Verstraete, En- tanglement and the density matrix renormalization group in the generalized landau paradigm, Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  15. [22]

    Levin and Z.-C

    M. Levin and Z.-C. Gu, Braiding statistics approach to symmetry-protected topological phases, Physical Review B 86, 115109 (2012)

    2012

  16. [23]

    Chen, Z.-X

    X. Chen, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Two- dimensional symmetry-protected topological orders and their protected gapless edge excitations, Phys. Rev. B 84, 235141 (2011)

    2011

  17. [24]

    Chatterjee, S

    A. Chatterjee, S. D. Pace, and S.-H. Shao, Quan- tized axial charge of staggered fermions and the chi- ral anomaly, Physical Review Letters 134, 021601 (2025)

    2025

  18. [25]

    S. D. Pace, A. Chatterjee, and S.-H. Shao, Lattice t- duality from non-invertible symmetries in quantum spin chains, SciPost Physics 18, 121 (2025)

    2025

  19. [26]

    Kock, Elementary remarks on units in monoidal categories, in Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society , Vol

    J. Kock, Elementary remarks on units in monoidal categories, in Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society , Vol. 144 (Cambridge University Press, 2008) pp. 53–76

    2008

  20. [27]

    Etingof, S

    P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik, Tensor categories, Vol. 205 (American Mathemati- cal Soc., 2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Matrix product density operators: Renor- malization fixed points and boundary theories, An- nals of Physics 378, 100 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Kato, Exact renormalization group flow for ma- trix product density operators, arXiv:2410.22696 (2024)

    K. Kato, Exact renormalization group flow for ma- trix product density operators, arXiv:2410.22696 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Y. Liu, A. Ruiz-de Alarc´ on, G. Styliaris, X.- Q. sun, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, and J. I. Cirac, Parent lindbladians for matrix product density operators, arXiv:2501.10552 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    L. A. Lessa, M. Cheng, and C. Wang, Mixed-state quantum anomaly and multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011069 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Xu and G.-M

    W.-T. Xu and G.-M. Zhang, Tensor network state approach to quantum topological phase transitions and their criticalities of Z2 topologically ordered states, Phys. Rev. B 98, 165115 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Strictly speaking, the map- 15 ping from ρCZX to ρCZY is exact only for N = 0 mod 4

    Here, ρ(2N ) bdy = E ⊗N (ρ(N ) CZX ) where ρ(N ) CZX =QN i=1 CZ i,i+1 QN i=1 Xi and u⊗N is the unitary that relates ρCZX and ρCZY . Strictly speaking, the map- 15 ping from ρCZX to ρCZY is exact only for N = 0 mod 4. For N = 0 mod 2, we can use ( u ⊗ u†)⊗N/2

  27. [35]

    Coser and D

    A. Coser and D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, Classification of phases for mixed states via fast dissipative evolu- tion, Quantum 3, 174 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    de Groot, A

    C. de Groot, A. Turzillo, and N. Schuch, Symmetry protected topological order in open quantum sys- tems, Quantum 6, 856 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Ma and C

    R. Ma and C. Wang, Average Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases, Physical Review X 13, 031016 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    S. Sang, Y. Zou, and T. H. Hsieh, Mixed-state quan- tum phases: Renormalization and quantum error correction, Physical Review X 14, 031044 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    T. D. Ellison and M. Cheng, Towards a classification of mixed-state topological orders in two dimensions, PRX Quantum 6, 010315 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Sohal and A

    R. Sohal and A. Prem, Noisy approach to intrinsi- cally mixed-state topological order, PRX Quantum 6, 010313 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Sun, Anomalous matrix product oper- ator symmetries and 1d mixed-state phases, arXiv:2504.16985 (2025)

    X.-Q. Sun, Anomalous matrix product oper- ator symmetries and 1d mixed-state phases, arXiv:2504.16985 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Ruiz-de-Alarc´ on, J

    A. Ruiz-de-Alarc´ on, J. Garre-Rubio, A. Moln´ ar, and D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, Matrix product operator algebras II: phases of matter for 1D mixed states, Letters in Mathematical Physics 114, 43 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Assem, D

    I. Assem, D. Simson, and A. Skowro´ nski, Ele- ments of the representation theory of associative al- gebras: Techniques of representation theory (Cam- bridge University Press, 2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    B¨ ohm and K

    G. B¨ ohm and K. Szlach´ anyi, A Coassociative C*- Quantum Group with Non-Integral Dimensions, Letters in Mathematical Physics 38, 437 (1996)

    1996

  37. [45]

    B¨ ohm, F

    G. B¨ ohm, F. Nill, and K. Szlach´ anyi, Weak Hopf Al- gebras I: Integral Theory and C*-structure, Journal of Algebra 221, 385 (1999)

    1999

  38. [46]

    B¨ ohm and K

    G. B¨ ohm and K. Szlach´ anyi, Weak Hopf Algebras II: Representation theory, dimensions and the Markov trace, Journal of Algebra 233, 156 (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    Garre-Rubio, L

    J. Garre-Rubio, L. Lootens, and A. Moln´ ar, Classi- fying phases protected by matrix product operator symmetries using matrix product states, Quantum 7, 927 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.