Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 57 references

A G-preserving anyon condensation in an SET phase is exactly a compatible grading of its multifusion input, which builds the child SET.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 06:21 UTC pith:VPYOP6GY

load-bearing objection Solid input-level grading machinery for G-preserving condensation in multifusion HGW SETs; the Z4 fractionalization rebuttal and the “precisely when” claim are overstated relative to what is proved. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24740 v1 pith:VPYOP6GY submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechhep-thmath-phmath.MP

Anyon Condensation In Symmetry-Enriched Topological Phases: G-Grading of Multifusion Categories

Nianrui Fu , Siyuan Wang , Yu Zhao , Yidun Wan This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechhep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords anyon condensationsymmetry-enriched topological phasesmultifusion categoriesG-gradingstring-net modelsquantum doublessymmetry fractionalization
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.

Anyon condensation is the standard way one topological order turns into another, but when the parent already carries a global symmetry the condensate has to respect that symmetry or the symmetry breaks. This paper works inside lattice models of symmetry-enriched topological (SET) phases whose input data are multifusion categories. It shows that a condensation that keeps the parent symmetry G exists precisely when that multifusion input admits a compatible extra grading by another group N; the same grading supplies the multifusion input of the child phase. When the data come from a finite-group extension E of G by N, the construction is two-step and automatic: grade first by the quotient G, then by the kernel N, and the final input is the same as grading directly by E. Three quantum-double examples (Z2 imes Z2, S3, and Z4) make the algebra concrete. The Z4 case is especially sharp: even when intermediate anyons carry fractionalized symmetry charge, the condensation still preserves G once the condensate is treated as a physical pair coherent state rather than an abstract algebra. A sympathetic reader cares because the result turns an abstract obstruction into a checkable lattice criterion and shows how larger symmetries can be built by successive, symmetry-preserving condensations.

Core claim

A G-SET realized by an enlarged HGW string-net with multifusion input M admits a G-preserving anyon condensation if and only if M carries a compatible nontrivial N-grading; that grading constructs the child multifusion input, and for an E-graded parent fusion category with 1 o N o E o G o1 one obtains MN of MG_F isomorphic to ME_F, including when intermediate anyons are symmetry-fractionalized once the condensate is read as a physical coherent state of pairs.

What carries the argument

Compatible N-grading of a multifusion category MG_F: each block is partitioned so that fusion respects the product in N; the graded pieces are reassembled into the child multifusion category MN_{MG_F} whose blocks are the homogeneous components, exactly as G-grading of a fusion category produces an SET input.

Load-bearing premise

That every physically allowed G-invariant condensate on the lattice arises from a compatible grading of the multifusion input, and that treating the condensate as a pair coherent state fully removes the fractionalization obstruction.

What would settle it

Exhibit a G-SET lattice model whose Hilbert space admits a G-invariant condensable anyon (or coherent pair) that cannot be packaged as a compatible N-grading of the input multifusion category, or show that the Z4 coherent-state condensate still breaks the global symmetry on the lattice.

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

If this is right

  • Existence of a compatible grading becomes the practical test for whether a given SET admits further symmetry-preserving condensation.
  • Child SET phases after G-preserving condensation are again enlarged HGW models whose inputs are constructed directly from the grading.
  • Two-step condensation along a group extension 1 o N o E o G o1 yields the same final input as direct E-grading, keeping the intermediate G-SET explicit.
  • Symmetry fractionalization of the would-be condensate anyons does not by itself forbid G-preserving condensation once pairs are used.
  • The same input-level language organizes trivial, semidirect, and centrally extended quantum-double examples uniformly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The grading criterion should extend, with extra data, to dyonic condensates that mix flux and charge, which the paper flags as open.
  • Successive compatible gradings give a concrete lattice route for building larger finite-group SETs from smaller ones by condensation alone.
  • The coherent-state reading of fractionalized condensates may reconcile other abstract no-go statements with explicit lattice realizations.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies anyon condensation in (2+1)d symmetry-enriched topological phases realized by enlarged Hu–Geer–Wu string-net models with multifusion-category input. Its central claim is that a G-SET phase described by input multifusion category M^G_F admits a G-preserving condensation precisely when M^G_F carries a compatible nontrivial N-grading (Eqs. (3.2)–(3.3)), and that the grading constructs the child input M^N_{M^G_F} via the block construction of Eqs. (3.4)–(3.6). For data coming from a group extension 1→N→E→G→1, the authors show in the split case (Eqs. (3.15)–(3.21)) and the cocycle-twisted case (Eqs. (3.25)–(3.31)) that M^N_{M^G_F} ≃ M^E_F, i.e., two-step condensation reproduces direct E-grading. Three quantum-double examples (Z2×Z2, S3, Z4) are worked out with explicit intermediate multifusion matrices, and the Z4 case is used to argue that a symmetry-fractionalized anyon e can condense without breaking G because physical e-pair states are G-invariant, against the obstruction claimed in Ref. [17]. The algebraic core — the grading conditions, the cocycle-shifted grading, and the identity M^N_{M^G_F} ≃ M^E_F — is internally consistent and explicitly verified on homogeneous fusion; the examples are computed correctly as far as I can check.

Significance. If the physical interpretation holds, this work supplies a concrete, checkable input-level criterion (existence of a compatible group grading) for symmetry-preserving anyon condensation in HGW-type SET lattice models, together with an explicit construction of the child SET input and a clean two-step/one-step consistency identity. The three quantum-double examples are worked out at the level of explicit multifusion matrices, making the construction effectively reproducible by hand. The Z4 example, if substantiated, would be a notable claim: that symmetry-fractionalized anyons can condense without breaking the symmetry in a lattice realization, contra the abstract condensable-algebra obstruction of Ref. [17]. The framework is restricted to finite group symmetries and chargeon-type (grading) condensations, which limits but does not negate its usefulness.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3.3, Eq. (3.49)–(3.50)] This is the paper's most visible physical claim (it is in the abstract and is framed as a refutation of Ref. [17]), but the argument given is not sufficient for the conclusion. The text shows only that the e-pair creation operator is invariant under the global Z2. Pairwise invariance of the state is necessary, not sufficient: the condensable-algebra obstruction of Ref. [17] is a statement about the algebra object 1+e and its transformation under the G-crossed action, not about single-anyon wavefunctions. What is missing is a lattice-level demonstration that (i) the pair coherent state actually drives the same transition as condensation of the boson 1+e in the intermediate SET Hamiltonian (a coherent state built from pair operators is not itself the connected etale algebra 1+e in Z(Vec(Z2))); (ii) after the transition, m and f are confined and the child GSD matches the Z4-SPT predicted by
  2. [§1 and §3.1, Eqs. (3.2)–(3.6)] The central criterion is stated as an if-and-only-if ('admits a G-preserving condensation precisely when M admits a compatible group grading'), but the manuscript only proves sufficiency: given an N-grading, Eqs. (3.4)–(3.6) construct the child input, and Eq. (3.10) identifies it with M^E_F. Necessity — that every physically realized G-preserving condensation in the lattice model arises from such a grading — is asserted, not shown. This matters because the Discussion (§4) concedes that dyonic condensation 'is not expected to be described simply by grading the input category'; a G-preserving dyonic condensate would then be a counterexample to the necessity direction as stated. At minimum the claim should be explicitly scoped (e.g., to chargeon/grading-type condensations, which is all the examples treat), or a necessity argument should be supplied at the level of the lattice Hilbert space
  3. [§3.3.3, fractionalization of e and f] The intermediate Z2-SET is said to have e and f acquiring a -1 phase under the global symmetry, 'determined by the nontrivial 2-cocycle in the group extension.' This is a load-bearing input to the fractionalization discussion, but it is only asserted. Please show the computation: e.g., how the H^2[Z2, Z2] class of (3.46) acts on the anyons (0,1)~(0,3) and (2,1)~(2,3) in the multifusion HGW model (via the defect/fusion data of the off-diagonal blocks of (3.48)), and why the symmetry does not permute anyon species despite being nontrivial. A short explicit derivation would also make the contrast with Example 1 (§3.3.1), where the layers decouple and no fractionalization occurs, concrete rather than verbal.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3, §3.2, §3.3.1] Typos and grammar: 'In an SET phase with global symmetry G (called it a G-SET)'; §3.2 'the second case includes is the twisted case'; informal 'let's' and 'Now let's consider' in §3 and §3.3.1–3.3.3; §3.3.1 'and hence the global symmetry.' is an incomplete sentence.
  2. [References] Reference [6] ('S. Eli, B. Instituut, and T. F. Prof, (2010)') is clearly a malformed BibTeX entry and must be replaced with the correct citation.
  3. [§3.2.2, Eqs. (3.25)–(3.31)] Notation switches between multiplicative and additive group law: Eq. (3.29) uses h1^{-1} h2 - omega(q,g) while Eq. (3.30) writes h2 - h1 - omega(q,g). Please use one convention consistently in §3.2.2, and note that omega is defined into N, so expressions like phi_{q^{-1}}(hi - omega(q,g)) in (3.25)–(3.27) should make the mixing of arguments explicit.
  4. [§1] The schematic notation M' = M^N_M is used in the Introduction's key-conclusions list before it is defined in Eq. (3.4); please forward-reference the definition.
  5. [Table 1] The labels 0, 4, 2 for the irreps of S3 in the 'Irrep of centralizer' column are nonstandard and unexplained (presumably Young-diagram or indexing conventions); a one-line definition or standard labels (trivial, sign, standard) would help.
  6. [§3.1, footnote 2] Footnote 2 defines the 'trivial G-grading' of M^G_F, but the distinction between this and the nontrivial N-grading needed for condensation would benefit from one sentence in the main text of §3.1, since it is the crux of the EM-exchange example (3.1).
  7. [§2, before Eq. (2.2)] The claim in §2 that 'any SET phase is associated with a unique parent pure topological order' and that 'each multifusion category that is a legal input corresponds to such a grading' is stated without citation or qualification; please cite the relevant result or soften, as uniqueness of the parent is not obvious in general (e.g., for SETs not obtained by gauging/condensation from a canonical parent).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Main identity MN_{M^G_F} ≃ M^E_F is definitional bookkeeping from a shared E-grading; physical criterion is framework extension, not a fitted or self-citing tautology.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§3.2, Eqs. (3.10), (3.19)–(3.21), (3.30)–(3.31); also Intro key conclusions]
    "MN_{M^G_F} ≃ M^E_F. ... Combining the two kinds of indices as (h,q)∈N⋊_φ G, this may be rewritten as ... We have MN_{M^G_F} ≃ M^E_F = ⨁ ... This proves (3.10) for any E-graded fusion category F in the split semidirect product case. ... we can see that MN_{M^G_F} is again exactly M^E_F."

    Both MN_{M^G_F} and M^E_F are constructed from the same E-graded parent F by the same block-index recipe (homogeneous component F_a placed in multifusion block labeled by group elements whose ratio is a). The two-step path (quotient G-grading → multifusion M^G_F → N-grading → MN) is shown to reproduce the direct E-multifusion by reindexing; the equality holds by construction of the grading functors, not by an independent dynamical or categorical fixed-point argument.

full rationale

The paper’s central algebraic result—that an N-grading of the intermediate G-SET input recovers the multifusion category obtained by grading the parent directly by the extension E—is verified by explicit block rewriting (split case Eqs. 3.15–3.21; twisted case Eqs. 3.25–3.31) and three quantum-double examples. Both sides are built from the same E-graded fusion category and the same quotient map ϕ:E→G, so the isomorphism is expected categorical consistency rather than an independent prediction. That is mild self-definitional structure, not circular science: no parameters are fitted, no external benchmark is “predicted” from a fit, and no uniqueness theorem is imported solely to forbid alternatives. The load-bearing physical claim (compatible N-grading is the input-level criterion for G-preserving condensation, including under fractionalization) extends the authors’ prior HGW/multifusion condensation-as-grading paradigm; those self-citations supply the lattice model and the pure-TO grading dictionary, but the present derivations are written out in full and do not reduce to an unchecked citation chain. Soft spots (pair-coherent-state reading of the Z4 condensate; “precisely when” scoped away from dyons in the Discussion) are correctness/scope issues, not circularity. Score 2 reflects one mild definitional identity plus normal program self-citation, with independent calculational content in the examples.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

Load-bearing content is mostly standard tensor-category and string-net background plus domain assumptions that multifusion HGW models correctly encode SET phases and that input-level grading corresponds to physical condensation. No fitted parameters. The main paper-specific moves are elevating ‘compatible multifusion grading’ to the criterion for G-preserving condensation and reading fractionalized condensates as pair coherent states.

axioms (6)
  • standard math Unitary fusion/multifusion categories, Drinfeld centers, and G-gradings satisfy the standard monoidal and rigidity axioms used throughout §§2–3 and Apps. A–C.
    Background categorical algebra; not re-proved.
  • standard math Finite group extensions E of G by N (split semidirect or Abelian N with 2-cocycle ω) classify the symmetry data under consideration.
    Used as the concrete setting for the two-step construction in §3.2.
  • domain assumption Enlarged HGW string-net models with multifusion-category input realize G-SET phases, with diagonal blocks as domain bulk data and off-diagonal blocks as domain walls.
    Taken from the authors’ and related lattice SET constructions (§2, App. B); central claim is stated inside this model class.
  • domain assumption Anyon condensation that yields group global symmetry is captured at input level by group grading of the fusion/multifusion category (Eqs. 2.2–2.4, 3.2–3.5).
    Bridges algebra to the physical condensation transition; assumed rather than derived from a full dynamical RG.
  • ad hoc to paper Physical condensate states are coherent states of anyon pairs and are therefore G-invariant even when single anyons are symmetry-fractionalized (Z4 example).
    Key physical reading in §3.3.3 opposing Ref. [17]; not a fully formalized operator proof in the text.
  • domain assumption Only finite-group symmetries and (in examples) charge-type condensates are treated; dyonic condensates are deferred.
    Explicit scope limitation in Introduction and Discussion.
invented entities (2)
  • Compatible N-grading of a G-SET multifusion input M^G_F as the criterion for G-preserving condensation no independent evidence
    purpose: Package the condensate uniformly across domains/walls and construct the child multifusion input M^N_{M^G_F}.
    Central organizational device of §3; standard grading applied in a new SET-input role rather than a new particle.
  • Two-step condensation path E-graded F → G-SET → E-SET via quotient then N-grading no independent evidence
    purpose: Make intermediate G-preserving condensation explicit and prove M^N_{M^G_F} ≃ M^E_F for split and twisted extensions.
    Construction in §3.2; equivalence is largely definitional once gradings are fixed, with physical content in the intermediate SET interpretation.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 26048 in / 3747 out tokens · 73839 ms · 2026-07-31T06:21:51.514745+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Although anyon condensation is a standard mechanism for relating topological orders, anyon condensation in symmetry-enriched topological (SET) phases is more intricate because the condensate must also be compatible with the global symmetry. We study symmetry-preserving anyon condensation in SET phases described by the enlarged Hu-Geer-Wu (HGW) string-net model with multifusion-category input data. We show that a $G$-preserving condensation is characterized by a compatible grading of the input multifusion category, and that this grading constructs the multifusion-category input of the child SET phase. To make this construction concrete, we consider the case where the relevant data come from a finite group extension $E$ of $G$ by $N$: an $E$-graded fusion category induces a $G$-SET input by passing to the quotient symmetry $G$, and the resulting input naturally carries a compatible $N$-grading that implements the further condensation inside the SET phase while preserving $G$. We illustrate the construction using three quantum-double examples: the trivial extension $\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$, the non-Abelian semidirect product $S_3$, and the nontrivial central extension $\mathbb{Z}_4$. The $\mathbb{Z}_4$ example further shows that symmetry fractionalized anyons do not obstruct symmetry-preserving condensation once the condensate is treated as a physical coherent state.

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

57 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    F. A. Bais, B. Schroers, and J. Slingerland, Physical Review Letters89, 181601 (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    F. A. Bais, B. J. Schroers, and J. K. Slingerland, Journal of High Energy Physics05, 068 (2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    F. A. Bais and J. K. Slingerland, Physical Review B79, 045316 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    Kong, Nuclear Physics B886, 436 (2014), arXiv:1307.8244

    L. Kong, Nuclear Physics B886, 436 (2014), arXiv:1307.8244

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Barkeshli and X.-g

    M. Barkeshli and X.-g. Wen, Physical Review Letters105, 216804 (2010). – 26 –

    2010

  6. [6]

    S. Eli, B. Instituut, and T. F. Prof, (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    I. S. Eliëns, J. C. Romers, and F. A. Bais, Physical Review B90, 195130 (2014), arXiv:1310.6001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Burnell, S

    F. Burnell, S. Simon, and J. Slingerland, Physical Review B84, 1 (2011)

    2011

  9. [9]

    F. J. Burnell, S. H. Simon, and J. K. Slingerland, New Journal of Physics14, 015004 (2012)

    2012

  10. [10]

    Burnell, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics9, 307 (2018)

    F. Burnell, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics9, 307 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Neupert, H

    T. Neupert, H. He, C. von Keyserlingk, G. Sierra, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review B 93, 115103 (2016)

    2016

  12. [12]

    Y. Hu, Z. Huang, L.-Y. Hung, and Y. Wan, Journal of High Energy Physics2022, 26 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Lin and F

    C.-H. Lin and F. J. Burnell, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07291 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Zhao and Y

    Y. Zhao and Y. Wan, Journal of High Energy Physics2025, 1 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    Zhao and Y

    Y. Zhao and Y. Wan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05319 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Hung and Y

    L.-Y. Hung and Y. Wan, International Journal of Modern Physics B28, 1450172 (2014)

    2014

  17. [17]

    Bischoff, C

    M. Bischoff, C. Jones, Y.-M. Lu, and D. Penneys, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 62 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    H. Yao, L. Fu, and X.-L. Qi, arXiv preprint arXiv:1012.4470 (2010)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    Mesaros and Y

    A. Mesaros and Y. Ran, Physical Review B87, 155115 (2013), arXiv:1212.0835

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [20]

    Lu and A

    Y.-M. Lu and A. Vishwanath, Physical Review B93, 155121 (2016)

    2016

  21. [21]

    Hung and X.-g

    L.-Y. Hung and X.-g. Wen, Physical Review B87, 165107 (2013), arXiv:arXiv:1212.1827v1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    Essin and M

    A. Essin and M. Hermele, Phys. Rev. B 87, 104406 (2013) (2012), arXiv:arXiv:1212.0593v2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    Song and M

    H. Song and M. Hermele, , 30 (2014), arXiv:1409.1504

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    Huang, X

    C.-Y. Huang, X. Chen, and F. Pollmann, Physical Review B90, 045142 (2014)

    2014

  25. [25]

    Barkeshli, P

    M. Barkeshli, P. Bonderson, M. Cheng, and Z. Wang, Physical Review B100, 115147 (2019), arXiv:1410.4540

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Ning, Z.-X

    S.-Q. Ning, Z.-X. Liu, and P. Ye, (2018), arXiv:1801.01638

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Cheng, Z.-C

    M. Cheng, Z.-C. Gu, S. Jiang, and Y. Qi, Physical Review B96, 115107 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    D. J. Williamson, N. Bultinck, and F. Verstraete, arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.07982 (2017)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    J. Y. Lee, A. M. Turner, and A. Vishwanath, Physical Review B98, 214416 (2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    Heinrich, F

    C. Heinrich, F. Burnell, L. Fidkowski, and M. Levin, Physical Review B94, 235136 (2016)

    2016

  31. [31]

    N. Fu, Y. Zhao, and Y. Wan, Journal of High Energy Physics2026, 16 (2026)

    2026

  32. [32]

    Y. Hu, N. Geer, and Y.-S. Wu, Physical Review B97, 195154 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    Y. Zhao, S. Huang, H. Wang, Y. Hu, and Y. Wan, SciPost Physics Core6, 076 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    N. Fu, S. Wang, Y. Zhao, and Y. Wan, Journal of High Energy Physics2026, 91 (2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    Wen, Int

    X. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B239(1990)

    1990

  36. [36]

    Wen, International Journal of Modern Physics B05, 1641 (1991)

    X.-g. Wen, International Journal of Modern Physics B05, 1641 (1991)

    1991

  37. [37]

    V. G. Turaev,Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-manifolds(Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1994). – 27 –

    1994

  38. [38]

    Drinfeld, S

    V. Drinfeld, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik, Selecta Mathematica, New Series16, 1 (2010), arXiv:0906.0620

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  39. [39]

    Rowell, R

    E. Rowell, R. Stong, and Z. Wang, Communications in Mathematical Physics292, 343 (2009)

    2009

  40. [40]

    Kong and X.-G

    L. Kong and X.-G. Wen, arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.5858 (2014)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 71, 045110 (2005)

    2005

  42. [42]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006)

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  43. [43]

    An invitation to topological orders and category theory,

    L. Kong and Z.-H. Zhang, “An invitation to topological orders and category theory,” (2022), arXiv:2205.05565 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    S. X. Cui, C. Galindo, J. Y. Plavnik, and Z. Wang, Communications in Mathematical Physics348, 1043 (2016)

    2016

  45. [45]

    Chang, M

    L. Chang, M. Cheng, S. X. Cui, Y. Hu, W. Jin, R. Movassagh, P. Naaijkens, Z. Wang, and A. Young, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical48, 12FT01 (2015)

    2015

  46. [46]

    F. A. Bais, J. K. Slingerland, and S. M. Haaker, Physical Review Letters102, 220403 (2009), arXiv:arXiv:0812.4596v1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    Kitaev and L

    A. Kitaev and L. Kong, Communications in Mathematical Physics313, 351 (2012)

    2012

  48. [48]

    Fuchs, C

    J. Fuchs, C. Schweigert, and A. Valentino, Communications in Mathematical Physics321, 543 (2013)

    2013

  49. [49]

    T. Lan, J. C. Wang, and X.-G. Wen, Physical review letters114, 076402 (2015)

    2015

  50. [50]

    J. C. Y. Teo, A. Roy, and X. Chen, Physical Review B90, 115118 (2014), arXiv:1306.1538

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  51. [51]

    Bombin, Physical Review Letters105, 030403 (2010)

    H. Bombin, Physical Review Letters105, 030403 (2010)

    2010

  52. [52]

    Buerschaper, M

    O. Buerschaper, M. Christandl, L. Kong, and M. Aguado, Nuclear Physics B876, 619 (2013), arXiv:1006.5823

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  53. [53]

    Aasen, P

    D. Aasen, P. Fendley, and R. S. Mong, arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.08598 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  54. [54]

    Hu and Y

    Y. Hu and Y. Wan, Journal of High Energy Physics2020, 170 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    H. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Hu, and Y. Wan, Journal of High Energy Physics2020, 30 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    Y. Hu, S. D. Stirling, and Y.-S. Wu, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics85, 075107 (2012)

    2012

  57. [57]

    Zhao and Y

    Y. Zhao and Y. Wan, Journal of High Energy Physics2025, 138 (2025). – 28 –

    2025