Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

On Quantum Aspects of 1-Form Symmetries II: Bordism, Invertible Phases, and Anomalies

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper computes the full bordism classification for U(1) one-form symmetry backgrounds and derives two previously unseen anomalies: a 5d mixed diffeomorphism anomaly and a 7d intrinsic discrete anomaly.

desk verdict The bordism computation is the real content and it looks right; the headline spin-side anomaly claim rests on an imported normalization that needs either re-derivation or explicit flagging. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.07056 v2 pith:ZMCORZYE submitted 2026-06-05 hep-th math-phmath.ATmath.MP

Weizhen Jia , Yi-Nan Wang , Yi Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.ATmath.MP
keywords higher-formsymmetries1-formsymmetryanomalybordismclassificationinvertiblephasesgerbegaugefieldspectralsequenceandextensionproblemsdiscreteinflow
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

The paper aims to show that the anomalies of a continuous U(1) one-form symmetry are fully captured, at the level of invertible phases, by the oriented and spin bordism groups of the classifying space K(Z,3), computed through degree eight. It resolves the two tricky extension problems geometrically, proving that the degree-seven oriented bordism group is Z (not Z ⊕ Z3) and that the reduced degree-eight group is Z2 ⊕ Z2. Physically, this yields a new mixed perturbative anomaly in five dimensions between the one-form symmetry and diffeomorphisms, generated by H3 ∧ p1 (with spin normalization ¼H3 ∧ p1), and a new Z2 discrete anomaly in seven dimensions generated by u Sq²u, plus a mixed u w2 w3 class on non-spin manifolds. A sympathetic reader would care because these bordism-level results organize both perturbative and nonperturbative anomalies in one table, give explicit geometric generators for every anomaly class, and make concrete predictions about the extra topological data carried by magnetic strings and magnetic branes.

What carries the argument

The engine is the spectral sequence of the fibration pt → K(Z,3) → K(Z,3), plus geometric representatives that settle the extension problems. For degree 7, the generator is an S³-bundle over S⁴ with e=0 and p1=4α, pulled back to make f*ι the fiber class; the invariant Φ = ∫ f*ι⌣p1 evaluates to 4, proving infinite order and non-splitting. For degree 8, two mod-2 invariants, u w2 w3 and u Sq²u, detect the two Z2 factors. The spin generator obeys ∫ ¼H3∧p1 = 1, fixed by the filtration of the spin bordism group.

What would settle it

Recompute the bordism invariant Φ([M_{1,1},f̃]) = ∫ f̃*ι ⌣ p1(T M_{1,1}) from the long exact sequence of the S³-bundle, checking that the value is exactly 4 (not ±4 with the opposite sign convention, not 4 mod something); any deviation would make the short exact sequence 0→Z→Ω^SO_7→Z3→0 split, destroying the claimed uniqueness of the 5d anomaly. Alternatively, construct a spin 7-manifold with K(Z,3)-structure on which ∫ ¼H3∧p1 evaluates to 1 but whose class is divisible by 2 in Ω^Spin_7, which would disprove the claimed generator normalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper computes the oriented and spin bordism groups of the classifying space K(Z,3) up to degree 8. Its central results: Ω^SO_7(K(Z,3)) is isomorphic to Z, as a non-split extension 0 → Z → Z → Z3 → 0, with geometric generator an S³-bundle over S⁴ whose pullback of the fundamental degree-3 class is the fiber class; and the reduced group Ω~^SO_8 ≅ Z2 ⊕ Z2, detected by u w2 w3 and u Sq²u. The spin generator is normalized by ∫ ¼H3∧p1 = 1. The paper concludes that 5d theories with this symmetry have a mixed anomaly H3∧p1 with diffeomorphisms, while 7d theories carry a Z2 discrete anomaly uSq²u (plus u w2 w3 on non-spin manifolds).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing geometric check is the evaluation ∫_{M_{1,1}} f̃*ι ⌣ p1 = 4 for the S³-bundle with e=0 and p1=4α; if that number is wrong, the extension could split and the 5d anomaly generator would not be unique, and a second borrowed input — the filtration of the spin bordism group that fixes the ¼ normalization — is not re-derived in this paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Five-dimensional theories with a U(1) one-form symmetry and dynamical gravity generically carry a mixed anomaly proportional to H3∧p1; the anomaly is Z-valued, and in spin theories the minimal generator is normalized to ¼H3∧p1 rather than H3∧p1.
  • A magnetic string in such a 5d phase is not just a charged embedded surface: after excising a tubular neighborhood, anomaly inflow requires a trivialization of p1 (or ½p1 in spin) on the boundary sphere bundle, and the distinct trivializations are classified by H1(Σ,Z), giving the string an extra topological sector.
  • Seven-dimensional theories with a U(1) one-form symmetry have an intrinsic Z2-valued discrete anomaly u Sq²u, invisible to any local anomaly polynomial, and on non-spin manifolds a further mixed anomaly u w2 w3.
  • Restricting the 7d anomaly to the Z2 subgroup of U(1) does not trivialize it; it survives as an order-two element of the Z8-valued anomaly group of the Z2 one-form symmetry.
  • The anomaly polynomials can be engineered from string-theory reductions: compactification on a four-manifold with nonzero signature produces H3∧p1, and a reduction over RP² produces u Sq²u (though the latter is naturally interpreted as a Z2 2-form background).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same geometric strategy — spectral sequence plus explicit sphere-bundle generators — should carry over to K(Z,p+2) for continuous U(1) p-form symmetries, suggesting that each higher p will have its own pair of new anomalies in dimensions 2p+3 and 2p+5.
  • Beyond the paper: the H1(Σ,Z) sector of the magnetic string suggests a physical interpretation of the 5d anomaly as a kind of framing or trivialization data on string worldsheets; one testable consequence is that in a 5d theory in this phase, magnetic strings of zero charge should have a degeneracy labeled by H1 of the worldsheet.
  • Beyond the paper: the anomaly interplay result points to a general principle for continuous higher-form symmetries: a Z2 anomaly of a U(1) p-form symmetry need not come from a Z2 anomaly of the finite subgroup; detecting it may require the full U(1) classifying space even though the anomaly class is mod-2.
  • Beyond the paper: the top-down reduction suggests that the H3∧p1 anomaly is tied to the signature of the compactification manifold; a six-dimensional (2,0) compactification on a circle has zero signature and no anomaly, so searching for 5d theories on compact four-manifolds with nonzero signature would be a concrete avenue.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies anomalies of U(1) 1-form symmetries in the Freed–Hopkins bordism/Anderson-dual framework. It computes the oriented and spin bordism groups of K(Z,3) in degrees up to 8 by the Atiyah–Hirzebruch spectral sequence, resolving extension problems by geometric constructions (Milnor S^3-bundles, SU(3), the Wu manifold) and identifying bordism invariants and geometric generators. It then derives the corresponding groups of invertible phases and interprets them physically: a mixed 5d perturbative anomaly H3∧p1 (normalized as ¼H3∧p1 in the spin case), a 7d Z2 anomaly uSq^2u intrinsic to the U(1) 1-form symmetry, and an additional oriented non-spin anomaly u w2 w3. Magnetic-string/brane interpretations, 5d and 7d Maxwell phases, and top-down string-theory constructions are also discussed.

Significance. The oriented computation is a substantial explicit calculation: E2-pages are displayed, differentials are argued by suspension/naturality or by geometric representatives, and the non-split extension in Theorem 3.1 is pinned down by the invariant Φ=4 together with the relation 3[M]=I(4φ). The consistency checks against known point values and against the spin results of Joyce–Upmeier [23] are valuable. If the stated anomalies are correct, the paper identifies new invertible phases for continuous 1-form symmetries and gives concrete boundary and string-theoretic interpretations. The main concerns are internal inconsistencies in two of the bordism/Anderson-dual statements and a heavy reliance on an external preprint for the spin normalization.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, eqs. (175)–(178) and (182)–(188)] The statements Ω̃^SO_7(Q) ≅ Z2 and Ω̃^Spin_7(Q) ≅ Z2 for Q = K(Z,3)×K(Z,4) are inconsistent with the surrounding AHSS computation and with eq. (146). For total degree 7 the E∞-terms include E∞_{3,4} ≅ Z and E∞_{7,0} ≅ H_7(Q,Z) ≅ Z⊕Z3 (and, in the spin case, additional Z2 terms). The free part therefore has rank at least two. Consistently, the Anderson dual groups in eq. (146) contain Z^2 summands, which require Free Ω̃^SO_7(Q) = Z^2 and Free Ω̃^Spin_7(Q) = Z^2. The text should state the correct groups — for example, Z⊕Z with the non-split extension structure of Theorem 3.1 on the K(Z,3) factor — rather than Z2.
  2. [Section 4.3, eq. (151)] The displayed equalities (IZΩ^SO)_9(K(Z,3)) ≅ Z2⟨uSq^2u⟩ ⊕ Z2⟨u w2 w3⟩ and (IZΩ^Spin)_9(K(Z,3)) ≅ Z2⟨uSq^2u⟩ are incomplete if they are meant as full Anderson-dual groups. Using the canonical decomposition Ω^S_8(K) = Ω^S_8(pt) ⊕ Ω̃^S_8(K), the standard point groups Ω^SO_8(pt) = Z⊕Z2 and Ω^Spin_8(pt) = Z⊕Z2, and the reduced groups from Theorems 3.3 and 3.2.1, the torsion subgroups are Z2^3 (SO) and Z2^2 (Spin). Hence Hom(Tor,R/Z) contributes an additional pure-gravitational Z2 in both cases. If the authors intend to discuss only anomalies involving the 1-form background, this restriction should be stated explicitly and the notation in eq. (151) changed accordingly.
  3. [Section 4.1, “Pure gravitational anomalies for d=6”] The text states (IZΩ^SO/Spin)_8(K(Z,3)) ≅ Z2. From the universal coefficient sequence (20) and the point groups used in eq. (26), one has Tor Ω^SO_7(K)=0 and Free Ω^SO_8(K)=Z, so (IZΩ^SO)_8(K) ≅ Hom(Free Ω^SO_8(K),Z) ≅ Z, not Z2. The same applies in the spin case. This error affects the n=8 row of Table 2 and should be corrected.
  4. [Sections 3.2.1 and 4.2.1] The spin-side determination of Ω̃^Spin_7(K(Z,3)), the filtration (93), the vanishing/isomorphism of the d3 differentials, and the normalization ∫_{X^7} ¼H3∧p1 = 1 are all taken from Theorem 3.5 of [23] and are not re-derived here. The subsequent comparison X^7 → −4Y and the spin anomaly coefficient ¼H3∧p1 rely on that external input. This is an acceptable citation, but because it is load-bearing for the new 5d spin anomaly, the paper should either include a proof/adaptation of the relevant parts of [23] or explicitly state that the spin part of the main claim is conditional on that theorem.
  5. [Section 5.1, eqs. (169)–(170)] The coefficient −5/96 ∫_{L4} p1(TL4) is derived after saying that background gauge fields from the expansion of a are not considered. However, the flux-quantization shift G4 = a − p1(M10)/4 means the component of a on L4 contributes directly to the H3∧p1 term through the −½ H3∧G4∧G4 coupling. Unless ∫_{L4} a is fixed or argued to vanish, the quoted coefficient is not determined. This should be clarified; otherwise the top-down realization is ambiguous.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.1, proof of Theorem 3.1] The sentence “Since Φ=4, we can conclude … and the sequence does not split” skips the argument that in a split group any lift of the generator of Z3 has Φ divisible by 3, so Φ=4 is impossible. The later extension-class paragraph (3[M]=I(4φ), 4≡1 mod 3) supplies the actual proof; the exposition should be reorganized to make this clear.
  2. [Tables 1, 2 and eqs. (26), (95), (96)] Several displayed tables are very hard to read in the current form; the entries for Ω^SO_5, Ω^SO_8, Ω^Spin_8 and the Anderson-dual rows are especially easy to misparse. Please reformat with explicit column separators and unambiguous notation such as Z2^3, Z⊕Z2, etc.
  3. [Section 4.2.1] After computing ∫_Y H3∧p1 = −1, the text calls Y “the desired geometric generator with dual basis H3∧p1.” Since the pairing is −1, the class −H3∧p1 is the actual dual basis if one insists on positive evaluation; the sign convention should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section 5.2, eq. (173)] The Steenrod-square expansion of Sq2(θ∪u) is written schematically. It would be clearer to display all terms and then note that only the θ^2 term survives integration over L2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the oriented bordism computation is internally derived, and the spin-side inputs are external citations rather than self-derived restatements.

full rationale

The paper's central oriented result, Theorem 3.1, is derived self-containedly: the AHSS yields the extension (45), and non-splitness is decided by the geometric invariant Phi([M_{1,1}, f̃]) = ∫ f̃*(ι) ⌣ p1 = 4 (eq. (61)), computed from standard S³-bundle characteristic classes (eq. (58)). This is an independent calculation, not a restatement of Ω^SO_7(K(Z,3)) ≅ Z. Theorem 3.3 is likewise resolved by evaluating two independent Z₂-valued bordism invariants, u w₂ w₃ and u Sq²u, on explicit geometric representatives. The 5d anomaly H₃∧p₁ is then obtained as the dual basis to the constructed oriented generator Y, with ∫_Y H₃∧p₁ = −1 verified by a Gysin-sequence computation (eq. (128)); it is not assumed. The spin-side results are explicitly taken from the independent mathematical work of Joyce and Upmeier [23]: the filtration (93), the vanishing differential (90), and the normalization (120) are quoted from Theorem 3.5 of [23], not re-derived. This is external support, not a self-citation chain, and is a legitimate citation of a recent preprint. The self-citations to the authors' companion [21] are used for the Green-Schwarz interpretation and for the earlier BV-BRST derivation of the Maxwell mixed anomaly; in both places the bordism computation in the present paper independently recovers the same class, so [21] is not load-bearing for the central classification. No parameter is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction, and no result is defined in terms of its own target. The only noted fragility, the spin normalization resting on [23], is a correctness risk of an external input, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data anywhere in the paper: the integer and Z₂ anomaly coefficients are elements of the computed bordism groups, not adjusted constants, and the normalization choices (¼H₃∧p₁ vs H₃∧p₁, and the X⁷→−4Y comparison) are fixed by the known point-bordism normalizations and the filtration from [23]. All assumptions the central claim rests on are listed above; most are standard theorems, two are framework choices (Freed-Hopkins classification; differential-cohomology pairing), and none is ad hoc to this paper. No new particle, force, dimension, or conserved quantity is postulated; the 'additional topological sectors of magnetic strings' are an interpretation of existing boundary data, not a new entity.

assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption Anomalies of a d-dimensional QFT are classified by deformation classes of (d+1)-dimensional invertible phases, computed by the Anderson dual (IZΩ^S)_{d+2}(X) (Freed-Hopkins framework)
    Invoked in Section 2 (eqs. (17)-(20)); it is the bridge that turns the bordism computation into a statement about QFT anomalies. Standard in the field but not proved here.
  • standard math Wu formula: ∫_{M⁷} P¹x = ∫_{M⁷} x⌣p₁(TM⁷) for x ∈ H³(M⁷,Z₃) on oriented 7-manifolds
    Used in eqs. (39)/(53)-(60) to show [M_{1,1}, f̃] maps to the generator of H₇(K(Z,3),Z) ≅ Z₃; this is the detection mechanism behind Theorem 3.1.
  • standard math AHSS differentials for oriented bordism are induced by stable cohomology operations from the Postnikov k-invariants of MSO, and the relevant 2-primary k-invariants are trivial
    Lemma 3.2 (p.14) needs d₂ = d₆ = 0; the k-invariant triviality is cited to [59,60], supplemented by a suspension-trick proof using [65].
  • standard math Ω̃^SO₇(K(Z,2)) ≅ Z₂
    Input to the suspension proof of d₂ = 0 in Lemma 3.2 (diagram (72)); cited to [65] and not re-derived.
  • standard math Theorem 3.5 of [23]: Ω̃^Spin₇(K(Z,3)) ≅ Z with generator X⁷ and ∫_{X⁷} ¼H₃∧p₁ = 1; ∫_{SU(3)} φ*(uSq²u) = 1 mod 2; Ω̃^Spin_n(K(Z,4)) values in (92)
    Load-bearing for the spin filtration (93), the spin normalization of the 5d anomaly (120), the splitting of Ω̃^SO₈ via Φ₂ (79), and the Ω̃^Spin₇ result; external, not re-derived.
  • standard math Mod-2 and mod-3 cohomology rings of K(Z,3): Z₂[u,Sq²u,Sq⁴Sq²u,...] and Z₃[v,P¹v,β₃P¹v,...]
    Eqs. (34), (37); underlies the E₂-pages and the detection of all differentials/invariants; standard Cartan-Serre and Mimura-Toda input.
  • standard math Characteristic classes of S³-bundles over S⁴: e=(n_L−n_R)α, p₁=2(n_L+n_R)α, and the Grove-Ziller classification of rank-4 bundles over CP²
    Used for M_{1,1} (eqs. (58)-(61)) in Theorem 3.1 and for the oriented generator Y (eqs. (125)-(128)) in §4.2.1.
  • standard math For an S²-bundle Θ over a surface Σ: p₁(TΘ)=0 and H³(Θ,Z)≅H¹(Σ,Z) (Gysin)
    Section 4.2.2 (eqs. (144)-(145)); the claim that magnetic strings carry a torsor of trivializations (H¹(Σ,Z)) depends on these facts.
  • standard math Ω̃^Spin₈(K(Z₂,2)) ≅ Z₈ with the described E^∞_{8,0} annihilation conditions
    Section 4.3 anomaly-interplay argument; cited to Davis [88].
  • domain assumption Differential-cohomology pairing (Â₁,Ĉ₃) = ∫_M Â₁·Ĉ₃ is a well-defined 5d coupling when the data extends to a bulk
    Section 4.2.2 (eqs. (140)-(141)); the Green-Schwarz and boundary-trivialization argument for magnetic strings is formulated in this framework (refs. [79-83]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Quantum Aspects of 1-Form Symmetries II: Bordism, Invertible Phases, and Anomalies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZMCORZYE

@misc{pith2026260607056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Quantum Aspects of 1-Form Symmetries II: Bordism, Invertible Phases, and Anomalies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZMCORZYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.07056}
}
abstract

We study quantum anomalies associated with $U(1)$ 1-form symmetries from the perspective of invertible phases and bordism. We compute the oriented and spin bordism groups of the Eilenberg-Mac Lane space $K(\mathbb{Z},3)$ up to degree 8 using the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence, resolving the relevant extension problems by geometric arguments and identifying both bordism invariants and geometric generators. We then relate these invariants to perturbative and global anomalies, and discuss physical examples and top-down constructions of the corresponding anomaly terms. For 5-dimensional theories, we find a new mixed perturbative anomaly between the $U(1)$ 1-form symmetry and spacetime diffeomorphisms, while for 7-dimensional theories we find a new $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued discrete anomaly intrinsic to the $U(1)$ 1-form symmetry. We also discuss their boundary realizations and give new physical interpretations of these anomalies.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

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

    hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    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.

  2. On Quantum Aspects of 1-Form Symmetries I: BV-BRST Cohomology and Anomaly Polynomials

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Develops Čech-de Rham bicomplex from gerbe data for BV-BRST cohomology of U(1) 2-form gauge theories and anomaly polynomials of 1-form symmetries.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 61 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [23]

    Bordism categories and orientations of moduli spaces,

    D. Joyce and M. Upmeier, “Bordism categories and orientations of moduli spaces,” arXiv:2503.20456 [math.AT]. 40

    arXiv

  2. [21]

    On quantum aspects of 1-form symmetries I: BV-BRST cohomology and anomaly polynomials,

    W. Jia, Y.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhang, “On quantum aspects of 1-form symmetries I: BV-BRST cohomology and anomaly polynomials,”arXiv:2606.05656 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  3. [1]

    Generalized global symmetries,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, “Generalized global symmetries,”JHEP 02(2015) 172,arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [2]

    Notes on generalized global symmetries in QFT,

    E. Sharpe, “Notes on generalized global symmetries in QFT,”Fortsch. Phys.63(2015) 659–682,arXiv:1508.04770 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [3]

    An introduction to higher-form symmetries,

    P. R. S. Gomes, “An introduction to higher-form symmetries,”SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes74 (2023) 1,arXiv:2303.01817 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible generalized symmetries,

    S. Schafer-Nameki, “ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible generalized symmetries,”Phys. Rept. 1063(2024) 1–55,arXiv:2305.18296 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [5]

    Introduction to generalized global symmetries in QFT and particle physics,

    T. D. Brennan and S. Hong, “Introduction to generalized global symmetries in QFT and particle physics,”arXiv:2306.00912 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [6]

    Lectures on generalized symmetries,

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, L. Fraser-Taliente, L. Gladden, D. S. W. Gould, A. Platschorre, and H. Tillim, “Lectures on generalized symmetries,”Phys. Rept.1051(2024) 1–87, arXiv:2307.07547 [hep-th]. 39

    arXiv 2024

Show all 95 references
  1. [7]

    Lecture notes on generalized symmetries and applications,

    R. Luo, Q.-R. Wang, and Y.-N. Wang, “Lecture notes on generalized symmetries and applications,”Phys. Rept.1065(2024) 1–43,arXiv:2307.09215 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Jena lectures on generalized global symmetries: principles and applications,

    N. Iqbal, “Jena lectures on generalized global symmetries: principles and applications,” 2024. arXiv:2407.20815 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Simons lectures on categorical symmetries,

    D. Costaet al., “Simons lectures on categorical symmetries,”arXiv:2411.09082 [math-ph]

    arXiv

  4. [10]

    Introduction to generalized symmetries,

    J. Kaidi, “Introduction to generalized symmetries,”arXiv:2603.08798 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  5. [11]

    Anomalies and invertible field theories,

    D. S. Freed, “Anomalies and invertible field theories,”Proc. Symp. Pure Math.88(2014) 25–46,arXiv:1404.7224 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Relative quantum field theory,

    D. S. Freed and C. Teleman, “Relative quantum field theory,”Commun. Math. Phys.326 (2014) 459–476,arXiv:1212.1692 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Anomalies and fermion zero modes on strings and domain walls,

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and J. A. Harvey, “Anomalies and fermion zero modes on strings and domain walls,”Nucl. Phys. B250(1985) 427–436

    1985

  8. [14]

    Tensor-entanglement-filtering renormalization approach and symmetry protected topological order,

    Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen, “Tensor-entanglement-filtering renormalization approach and symmetry protected topological order,”Phys. Rev. B80(2009) 155131,arXiv:0903.1069 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2009 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Symmetry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group,

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, “Symmetry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group,”Phys. Rev. B87(2013) no. 15, 155114, arXiv:1106.4772 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Symmetry-protected topological orders in interacting bosonic systems,

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, “Symmetry-protected topological orders in interacting bosonic systems,”Science338(2012) no. 6114, 1604–1606,arXiv:1301.0861 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Symmetry protected topological phases, anomalies, and cobordisms: beyond group cohomology,

    A. Kapustin, “Symmetry protected topological phases, anomalies, and cobordisms: beyond group cohomology,”arXiv:1403.1467 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv

  12. [18]

    On the classification of short-range entangled states

    A. Kitaev, “On the classification of short-range entangled states.” Talk at simons center for geometry and physics, 2013.http://scgp.stonybrook.edu/archives/7874

    2013

  13. [19]

    Differential models for the Anderson dual to bordism theories and invertible QFT’s. I.,

    M. Yamashita and K. Yonekura, “Differential models for the Anderson dual to bordism theories and invertible QFT’s. I.,”J. Gökova Geom. Topol. GGT16(2023) 1–64, arXiv:2106.09270 [math.AT]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Reflection positivity and invertible topological phases,

    D. S. Freed and M. J. Hopkins, “Reflection positivity and invertible topological phases,” Geom. Topol.25(2021) 1165–1330,arXiv:1604.06527 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    BRST cohomology is Lie algebroid cohomology,

    W. Jia, M. S. Klinger, and R. G. Leigh, “BRST cohomology is Lie algebroid cohomology,” Nucl. Phys. B994(2023) 116317,arXiv:2303.05540 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Modified abelian gauge theories,

    M. Dierigl, R. Minasian, and D. Novičić, “Modified abelian gauge theories,” arXiv:2602.21282 [hep-th]

  17. [25]

    On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization,

    J. S. Schwinger, “On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization,”Phys. Rev.82(1951) 664–679

    1951

  18. [26]

    gamma(5) invariance,

    K. Johnson, “gamma(5) invariance,”Phys. Lett.5(1963) 253–255

    1963

  19. [27]

    Axial vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics,

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

    1969

  20. [28]

    A PCAC puzzle:π0 →γγin theσ-model,

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, “A PCAC puzzle:π0 →γγin theσ-model,”Nuovo Cim. A60 (1969) 47–61

    1969

  21. [29]

    Path integral measure for gauge invariant fermion theories,

    K. Fujikawa, “Path integral measure for gauge invariant fermion theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett.42 (1979) 1195–1198

    1979

  22. [30]

    Path integral for gauge theories with fermions,

    K. Fujikawa, “Path integral for gauge theories with fermions,”Phys. Rev. D21(1980) 2848. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 22, 1499 (1980)]

    1980

  23. [31]

    TASI 2003 lectures on anomalies,

    J. A. Harvey, “TASI 2003 lectures on anomalies,”arXiv:hep-th/0509097

    2003 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Gravitational anomalies,

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

    1984

  25. [33]

    An SU(2) anomaly,

    E. Witten, “An SU(2) anomaly,”Phys. Lett. B117(1982) 324–328

    1982

  26. [34]

    Hamiltonian anomalies from extended field theories,

    S. Monnier, “Hamiltonian anomalies from extended field theories,”Commun. Math. Phys.338 (2015) no. 3, 1327–1361,arXiv:1410.7442 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A modern point of view on anomalies,

    S. Monnier, “A modern point of view on anomalies,”Fortsch. Phys.67(2019) no. 8-9, 1910012,arXiv:1903.02828 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Anomaly Inflow and theη-Invariant,

    E. Witten and K. Yonekura, “Anomaly Inflow and theη-Invariant,” inThe Shoucheng Zhang Memorial Workshop. 2019.arXiv:1909.08775 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Fermion path integrals and topological phases,

    E. Witten, “Fermion path integrals and topological phases,”Rev. Mod. Phys.88(2016) no. 3, 035001,arXiv:1508.04715 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    eta invariants and determinant lines,

    X.-z. Dai and D. S. Freed, “eta invariants and determinant lines,”J. Math. Phys.35(1994) 5155–5194,arXiv:hep-th/9405012. [Erratum: J.Math.Phys. 42, 2343–2344 (2001)]

    1994 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dai-Freed anomalies in particle physics,

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

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    On the cobordism classification of symmetry protected topological phases,

    K. Yonekura, “On the cobordism classification of symmetry protected topological phases,” Commun. Math. Phys.368(2019) no. 3, 1121–1173,arXiv:1803.10796 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Some comments on 6D global gauge anomalies,

    Y. Lee and Y. Tachikawa, “Some comments on 6D global gauge anomalies,”PTEP2021 (2021) no. 8, 08B103,arXiv:2012.11622 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Topological modular forms and the absence of all heterotic global anomalies,

    Y. Tachikawa and M. Yamashita, “Topological modular forms and the absence of all heterotic global anomalies,”Commun. Math. Phys.402(2023) no. 2, 1585–1620,arXiv:2108.13542 [hep-th]. [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 402, 2131 (2023)]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Higher anomalies, higher symmetries, and cobordisms III: QCD matter phases anew,

    Z. Wan and J. Wang, “Higher anomalies, higher symmetries, and cobordisms III: QCD matter phases anew,”Nucl. Phys. B957(2020) 115016,arXiv:1912.13514 [hep-th]. 41

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Higher anomalies, higher symmetries, and cobordisms II: Lorentz symmetry extension and enriched bosonic/fermionic quantum gauge theory,

    Z. Wan, J. Wang, and Y. Zheng, “Higher anomalies, higher symmetries, and cobordisms II: Lorentz symmetry extension and enriched bosonic/fermionic quantum gauge theory,”Ann. Math. Sci. Appl.05(2020) no. 2, 171–257,arXiv:1912.13504 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Toric 2-group anomalies via cobordism,

    J. Davighi, N. Lohitsiri, and A. Debray, “Toric 2-group anomalies via cobordism,”JHEP07 (2023) 019,arXiv:2302.12853 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Bordism for the 2-group symmetries of the heterotic and CHL strings,

    A. Debray, “Bordism for the 2-group symmetries of the heterotic and CHL strings,” arXiv:2304.14764 [math.AT]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Hatcher,Spectral Sequences in Algebraic Topology, Chapter 1

    A. Hatcher,Spectral Sequences in Algebraic Topology, Chapter 1. 2004. https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/SSAT/SSch1.pdf. Lecture notes, Cornell University

    2004

  40. [48]

    J. W. Milnor and J. D. Stasheff,Characteristic Classes, vol. 76 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1974

    1974

  41. [49]

    Derived functors of the divided power functors,

    L. Breen, R. Mikhailov, and A. Touzé, “Derived functors of the divided power functors,” Geom. Topol.20(2016) no. 1, 257–352,arXiv:1312.5676 [math.AT]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hatcher,Algebraic Topology

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

    2002

  43. [51]

    Détermination des algèbresh∗(π, n;zp)eth ∗(π, n;z),ppremier impair,

    H. Cartan, “Détermination des algèbresh∗(π, n;zp)eth ∗(π, n;z),ppremier impair,” Séminaire Henri Cartan7(1954–1955) no. 9, 1–10

    1954

  44. [52]

    Mimura and H

    M. Mimura and H. Toda,Topology of Lie Groups. I and II, vol. 91 ofTranslations of Mathematical Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1991. Translated from the 1978 Japanese edition by the authors

    1991

  45. [53]

    G. E. Bredon,Topology and Geometry, vol. 139 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993

    1993

  46. [54]

    On manifolds homeomorphic to the 7-sphere,

    J. Milnor, “On manifolds homeomorphic to the 7-sphere,”Ann. Math.64(1956) no. 2, 399–405

    1956

  47. [55]

    Milnor’s construction of exotic 7-spheres

    R. McEnroe, “Milnor’s construction of exotic 7-spheres.” Undergraduate research paper, University of Chicago REU 2015, 2015

    2015

  48. [56]

    A classification ofS3-bundles overS 4,

    D. Crowley and C. M. Escher, “A classification ofS3-bundles overS 4,”Differ. Geom. Appl.18 (2003) no. 3, 363–380

    2003

  49. [57]

    The spectral sequence of an extraordinary cohomology theory,

    R. G. F. Maunder, “The spectral sequence of an extraordinary cohomology theory,”Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc60(1964) no. 3, 367–375

    1964

  50. [58]

    Quelques propriétés globales des variétés différentiables,

    R. Thom, “Quelques propriétés globales des variétés différentiables,”Comment. Math. Helv. 28(1954) 17–86

    1954

  51. [59]

    2-local cobordism theories,

    L. R. Taylor, “2-local cobordism theories,”J. Lond. Math. Soc.14(1976) no. 2, 303–308

    1976

  52. [60]

    The orders of the Postnikov invariants of the Thom spectrumM SO,

    J. Troué, “The orders of the Postnikov invariants of the Thom spectrumM SO,”Illinois J. Math.10(1966) no. 4, 592–604

    1966

  53. [61]

    The Pontrjagin Dual of 3-Dimensional Spin Bordism,

    G. Brumfiel and J. Morgan, “The Pontrjagin Dual of 3-Dimensional Spin Bordism,” arXiv:1612.02860 [math.AT]. 42

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    The Pontrjagin Dual of 4-Dimensional Spin Bordism,

    G. Brumfiel and J. Morgan, “The Pontrjagin Dual of 4-Dimensional Spin Bordism,” arXiv:1803.08147 [math.GT]

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Quadratic Functions of Cocycles and Pin Structures,

    G. Brumfiel and J. Morgan, “Quadratic Functions of Cocycles and Pin Structures,” arXiv:1808.10484 [math.AT]

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bosonic SPT and invertible phases and its relation to Steenrod’s problem,

    S. S. Y. Tachikawa and Y. Zhang, “Bosonic SPT and invertible phases and its relation to Steenrod’s problem,”To appear(2026)

    2026

  57. [65]

    Wan and J

    Z. Wan and J. Wang, “Higher anomalies, higher symmetries, and cobordisms I: classification of higher-symmetry-protected topological states and their boundary fermionic/bosonic anomalies via a generalized cobordism theory,”Ann. Math. Sci. Appl.4(2019) no. 2, 107–311, arXiv:1812...

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    On the signature of four-manifolds with universal covering spin,

    P. Teichner, “On the signature of four-manifolds with universal covering spin,”Math. Ann. 295(1993) no. 4, 745–759

    1993

  59. [67]

    The structure of the spin cobordism ring,

    D. W. Anderson, E. H. Brown, and F. P. Peterson, “The structure of the spin cobordism ring,” Annals of Mathematics86(1967) no. 2, 271–298.http://www.jstor.org/stable/1970690

    1967

  60. [68]

    R. E. Stong,Notes on Cobordism Theory. Princeton University Press, 1968

    1968

  61. [69]

    Determination of the cobordism ring,

    C. T. Wall, “Determination of the cobordism ring,”Ann. Math.72(1960) no. 2, 292–311

    1960

  62. [70]

    Fermionic symmetry protected topological phases and cobordisms,

    A. Kapustin, R. Thorngren, A. Turzillo, and Z. Wang, “Fermionic symmetry protected topological phases and cobordisms,”JHEP12(2015) 052,arXiv:1406.7329 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2015 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A new SU(2) anomaly,

    J. Wang, X.-G. Wen, and E. Witten, “A new SU(2) anomaly,”J. Math. Phys.60(2019) no. 5, 052301,arXiv:1810.00844 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Framed Wilson operators, fermionic strings, and gravitational anomaly in 4d,

    R. Thorngren, “Framed Wilson operators, fermionic strings, and gravitational anomaly in 4d,” JHEP02(2015) 152,arXiv:1404.4385 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  65. [73]

    All-fermion electrodynamics and fermion number anomaly inflow,

    S. M. Kravec, J. McGreevy, and B. Swingle, “All-fermion electrodynamics and fermion number anomaly inflow,”Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no. 8, 085024,arXiv:1409.8339 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Physics of symmetry protected topological phases involving higher symmetries and its applications,

    C.-M. Jian, X.-C. Wu, Y. Xu, and C. Xu, “Physics of symmetry protected topological phases involving higher symmetries and its applications,”Phys. Rev. B103(2021) no. 6, 064426, arXiv:2009.00023 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Cancelling mod-2 anomalies by Green-Schwarz mechanism with Bµν,

    S. Saito and Y. Tachikawa, “Cancelling mod-2 anomalies by Green-Schwarz mechanism with Bµν,”SciPost Phys.19(2025) no. 1, 017,arXiv:2411.09223 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Lifting group actions and nonnegative curvature,

    K. Grove and W. Ziller, “Lifting group actions and nonnegative curvature,”Trans. Am. Math. Soc363(2011) no. 6, 2865–2890

    2011

  69. [77]

    Candidate phases for SU(2) adjoint QCD4 with two flavors fromN= 2supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,

    C. Córdova and T. T. Dumitrescu, “Candidate phases for SU(2) adjoint QCD4 with two flavors fromN= 2supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,”SciPost Phys.16(2024) no. 5, 139, arXiv:1806.09592 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Line operators of gauge theories on non-spin manifolds,

    J. P. Ang, K. Roumpedakis, and S. Seifnashri, “Line operators of gauge theories on non-spin manifolds,”JHEP04(2020) 087,arXiv:1911.00589 [hep-th]. 43

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Anomalies in the space of coupling constants and their dynamical applications I,

    C. Córdova, D. S. Freed, H. T. Lam, and N. Seiberg, “Anomalies in the space of coupling constants and their dynamical applications I,”SciPost Phys.8(2020) no. 1, 001, arXiv:1905.09315 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Anomaly inflow and p-form gauge theories,

    C.-T. Hsieh, Y. Tachikawa, and K. Yonekura, “Anomaly inflow and p-form gauge theories,” Commun. Math. Phys.391(2022) no. 2, 495–608,arXiv:2003.11550 [hep-th]

    2022

  73. [81]

    Some aspects of symmetry descent,

    I. García Etxebarria and S. S. Hosseini, “Some aspects of symmetry descent,”JHEP12(2025) 223,arXiv:2404.16028 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Topological gauge theories and group cohomology,

    R. Dijkgraaf and E. Witten, “Topological gauge theories and group cohomology,”Commun. Math. Phys.129(1990) 393

    1990

  75. [83]

    On anomalies and fermionic unitary operators,

    M. Okada, S. Shimamura, Y. Tachikawa, and Y. Zhang, “On anomalies and fermionic unitary operators,”JHEP11(2025) 122,arXiv:2509.02989 [hep-th]

    2025

  76. [84]

    Topological modular forms and the absence of a heterotic global anomaly,

    Y. Tachikawa, “Topological modular forms and the absence of a heterotic global anomaly,” PTEP2022(2022) no. 4, 04A107,arXiv:2103.12211 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Anomalies of discrete symmetries in various dimensions and group cohomology,

    A. Kapustin and R. Thorngren, “Anomalies of discrete symmetries in various dimensions and group cohomology,”arXiv:1404.3230 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    Nonperturbative anomalies in higher dimensions,

    S. Elitzur and V. P. Nair, “Nonperturbative anomalies in higher dimensions,”Nucl. Phys. B 243(1984) 205

    1984

  79. [87]

    Anomaly interplay inU(2)gauge theories,

    J. Davighi and N. Lohitsiri, “Anomaly interplay inU(2)gauge theories,”JHEP05(2020) 098, arXiv:2001.07731 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    The connective KO theory of the Eilenberg-MacLane spaceK(Z/2,2),

    D. M. Davis, “The connective KO theory of the Eilenberg-MacLane spaceK(Z/2,2),” arXiv:2502.14982 [math.AT]

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Anomalies in string theory with D-branes,

    D. S. Freed and E. Witten, “Anomalies in string theory with D-branes,”Asian J. Math.3 (1999) 819,arXiv:hep-th/9907189

    1999 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Symmetry TFTs from string theory,

    F. Apruzzi, F. Bonetti, I. n. G. Etxebarria, S. S. Hosseini, and S. Schafer-Nameki, “Symmetry TFTs from string theory,”arXiv:2112.02092 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  83. [91]

    Symmetry TFTs for 3d QFTs from M-theory,

    M. van Beest, D. S. W. Gould, S. Schafer-Nameki, and Y.-N. Wang, “Symmetry TFTs for 3d QFTs from M-theory,”JHEP02(2023) 226,arXiv:2210.03703 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  84. [92]

    On flux quantization inM-theory and the effective action,

    E. Witten, “On flux quantization inM-theory and the effective action,”J. Geom. Phys.22 (1997) 1–13,arXiv:hep-th/9609122

    1997 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Generalized symmetries of nonsupersymmetric orbifolds,

    N. Braeger, V. Chakrabhavi, J. J. Heckman, and M. Hübner, “Generalized symmetries of nonsupersymmetric orbifolds,”Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no. 6, 066015,arXiv:2404.17639 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Celestial topology, symmetry theories, and evidence for a non-SUSY D3-brane CFT,

    J. J. Heckman and M. Hübner, “Celestial topology, symmetry theories, and evidence for a non-SUSY D3-brane CFT,”Fortsch. Phys.73(2025) no. 4, 2400270,arXiv:2406.08485 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  87. [95]

    E(8) gauge theory, and a derivation of K theory from M theory,

    D.-E. Diaconescu, G. W. Moore, and E. Witten, “E(8) gauge theory, and a derivation of K theory from M theory,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.6(2003) 1031–1134,arXiv:hep-th/0005090. 44

    2003 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.