Pith.

Superconductivity · arXiv:cond-mat/0404327 v1 · submitted 14 Apr 2004 · 51 references

Superconductors are topologically ordered

T. H. Hansson, Vadim Oganesyan, S. L. Sondhi

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“We revisit a venerable question: what is the nature of the ordering in a superconductor?”

more of the abstract

We find that the answer is properly that the superconducting state exhibits topological order in the sense of Wen, i.e. that while it lacks a local order parameter, it is sensitive to the global topology of the underlying manifold and exhibits an associated fractionalization of quantum numbers. We show that this perspective unifies a number of previous observations on superconductors and their low lying excitations and that this complex can be elegantly summarized in a purely topological action of the “BF” type and its elementary quantization. On manifolds with boundaries, the BF action correctly predicts non-chiral edge states, gapped in general, but crucial for fractionalization and establishing the ground state degeneracy. In all of this the role of the physical electromagnetic fields is central. We also observe that the BF action describes the topological order in several other physically distinct systems thus providing an example of topological universality.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. The bulk claim — superconductors are topologically ordered, with a 4g ground-state degeneracy from BF — is solid and worth citing; the abstract's edge-state sentence is stronger than Section VI delivers. This line is wrong

1 major objection · 9 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 51 references say.

The paper says, at Abstract (abstract:s3) and Section VI

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 1 · major

The abstract states that the BF action 'correctly predicts non-chiral edge states, gapped in general, but crucial for fractionalization and establishing the ground state degeneracy.' This is not supported by the paper's own derivation. Section VI explicitly assumes the boundary conditions (a0 = b0 = 0 on the boundary) rather than deriving them, stating 'We shall not take this route but rather ... assume the kind of boundary conditions used to analyze [incompressible] quantum Hall systems.'

more of objection 1

With these assumed boundary conditions the edge is a non-chiral boson (Eq. 74), and the gapping claimed in Section VI.A depends on which of the two cosine terms cos(Λ_a) and cos(Λ_b) is most relevant, which is not computed. Moreover, the 4^g degeneracy is derived in Section IV.A from bulk BF canonical quantization and in Section IV.B from the Wilson-loop algebra of the abelian Higgs model, and fractionalization is derived in Section III.A from screening and Swieca's theorem; neither derivation uses the edge sector. The abstract should therefore be softened: the BF action is consistent with, or constrains, the edge states, and the degeneracy and fractionalization are established by bulk arguments, not by the edge.

9 minor objections

The paper says, at Section IV.B, Eq. 41

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 9

The operator A_x = e^{ie∮A_x} is described as 'clearly gauge invariant,' but for a charge-2 condensate the gauge transformation A → A + (1/2e)∇α shifts A_x by e^{i(1/2)∮∇α} = -1 for a large gauge transformation. The gauge-invariant object is the Cooper-pair Wilson loop e^{i2e∮A}. The paper should clarify the convention (whether e is the electron charge and the condensate charge is 2e, or whether the factor is absorbed).

The paper says, at Section IV.B

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 9

The statement that 'the flux must be an integer multiple of π, the superconducting flux quantum' is dimensionally ambiguous: the flux quantum is h/2e = π/e in units where ħ = c = 1, so 'π' is only correct if e = 1. Clarify the units.

show 7 more

The paper says, at Section I.B, Fig. 1 caption

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 9

The caption says '3g ground states' and the text says 'as 3g'; the degeneracy on a genus-g surface is 3^g, not 3g. This appears to be a lost superscript.

The paper says, at Section II

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 9

The name 't'Hooft' should be written as 't Hooft.

The paper says, at Section III.C

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 9

The path-integral derivation of the BF action relies on a derivative expansion to lowest order O(m^-2), which is uncontrolled. The authors acknowledge this, and the independent derivation from braiding in Section III.B provides a cross-check. The paper should state explicitly that the BF action is established by the braiding argument and that the path integral is a consistency check, not a derivation.

The paper says, at Section V.E

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 9

The instanton prescription for charge non-conservation is not derived from the path integral; the authors call it 'an interesting technical challenge.' This is acknowledged, but the paper should be clearer about the status of the 'topological universality' claim, which holds only at the level of the topological scaling limit.

The paper says, at Section V.D

Pith says: minor objection 7 of 9

The mapping to the quantum Hall bilayer with K = 2σ_x gives det K = -4; the paper says |det K|^g = 4^1 = 4. The sign of det K and the positivity condition on K should be clarified, since the usual quantum Hall K-matrix is taken to be positive definite.

The paper says, at Section VI.A

Pith says: minor objection 8 of 9

The edge Hamiltonian Eq. 77 is written with velocities v1 and v2, but the paper does not estimate the relevance of cos(Λ_a) and cos(Λ_b); a brief statement of the scaling dimensions would help the reader assess the gapping claim.

The paper says, at Reference [45]

Pith says: minor objection 9 of 9

The paper notes that Ref. [45] appeared 'as we were finishing this paper'; it would be useful to state explicitly whether the results overlap and, if so, in what respect.

What would settle it

Re-derive the boundary conditions from the abelian Higgs model (5) across an interface, following the steps of Section III.C but retaining the boundary terms. If the resulting boundary conditions differ from a0 = b0 = 0, the edge spectrum of Section VI.A changes (e.g., becomes chiral or gapless), and the abstract's 'correctly predicts' is falsified. If they coincide, the edge analysis is supported and the abstract's wording is defensible.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence moderate
  2. Skeptic agrees 5 min 3 s · 31,701 tokens read, 16,477 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 19 s · 32,693 tokens read, 1,028 written
  4. Referee minor revision: 1 major objection, 9 minor 3 min 27 s · 31,937 tokens read, 11,271 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

You should read this one for the bulk argument, not the abstract. Hansson, Oganesyan and Sondhi argue that a gapped superconductor is topologically ordered in Wen's sense, and the case they build is convincing: no gauge-invariant local order parameter (Elitzur, plus the Dirac non-local order parameter and Kennedy-King), neutral quasiparticles from screening (Kivelson-Rokhsar, Swieca), and a pi braiding phase between quasiparticles and vortices. They then write the BF action that encodes that braiding, rederive it from the abelian Higgs path integral, and quantize it. The 4g degeneracy on a genus-g surface is the real new result, and it checks out: K = 2 sigma_x gives |det K| = 4, matching the two commuting Heisenberg algebras of Eq. 38, and the 23 counting on the 3-torus follows the same route. Section IV.B's identification of the degenerate states with magnetic flux and modular electric field eigenstates is the part I found most useful, and it is internally consistent with the Wilson loop algebra of Eq. 43. The paper is also scrupulous about precursors — Wen, Balachandran-Teotonio-Sobrinho, Goldhaber-Kivelson, Reznik-Aharonov, Krauss-Wilczek are all credited by name. That is not nothing in a literature this crowded. Where it is soft: the abstract's [abstract:s3] says the BF action 'correctly predicts' gapped non-chiral edge states, but Section VI assumes the boundary conditions rather than deriving them, and the authors say so in the body. The gapping is a relevance estimate between two cosines, not a computation. The further clause that edge states are 'crucial for fractionalization and establishing the ground state degeneracy' is also too strong — the degeneracy comes from bulk canonical quantization and the Wilson-loop algebra, and the fractionalization from screening; neither uses the edge. So the stress-test note lands, but it is a presentational overclaim in the abstract, not a load-bearing flaw. The uncontrolled derivative expansion in III.C and the non-derivable instanton prescription in V.E are honestly flagged and minor. Section V is a pleasant survey but mostly re-derivation of Fradkin-Shenker and Senthil-Fisher, and the authors say as much. The 3+1 edge discussion in VI.B is thin, and they admit edge/bulk separation fails there. Who gets value: anyone working on topological order, dual descriptions of superconductors, or BF theory in condensed matter. It deserves referees. My guess is a revise-and-accept with the abstract toned down.

The strongest objection

The paper's abstract (abstract:s3) states that the BF action 'correctly predicts non-chiral edge states, gapped in general.' But Section VI explicitly assumes the boundary conditions (a0 = b0 = 0 on the boundary), stating: 'We shall not take this route but rather, in the spirit of Section V-D, assume the kind of boundary conditions used to analyze [incompressible] quantum Hall systems.' With these assumed boundary conditions the edge is a non-chiral boson (Eq. 74), and the gapping claimed in Section VI.A depends on which of the two cosine terms cos(Lambda_a) and cos(Lambda_b) is most relevant — a relevance estimate, not a computation. So the word 'correctly' is not supported. The abstract's further claim that edge states are 'crucial for fractionalization and establishing the ground state degeneracy' is also an overstatement: the 4^g degeneracy (Section IV) is derived from bulk BF canonical quantization and from the Wilson-loop algebra of the abelian Higgs model, and the fractionalization (Section III.A) is derived from screening and Swieca's theorem; neither derivation uses the edge sector. The concern is therefore a presentational overclaim in the abstract, not a flaw in the central topological-order claim. The paper's other acknowledged limitations — the uncontrolled derivative expansion of Section III.C, the non-derivable instanton prescription of Section V.E, and the lack of a rigorous operator definition of fractionalization in Section III.A — are all honestly flagged and likewise do not touch the central claim.

The paper's central claim — that superconductors exhibit topological order in Wen's sense — rests on three pillars: no local order parameter (well-established via Elitzur, Dirac, and Kennedy-King), fractionalization (neutral quasiparticles, Kivelson-Rokhsar and Swieca, with acknowledged operator subtleties), and 4^g ground state degeneracy (derived from BF canonical quantization in Section IV.A and identified in the abelian Higgs model in Section IV.B). The degeneracy derivation is internally consistent: K = 2 sigma_x gives |det K| = 4, matching the two commuting Heisenberg algebras of Eq. 38 and the Wilson-loop algebra of Eq. 43; the 3+1 dimensional 2^3 = 8 counting follows the same route. The paper is honest about its gaps: the derivative expansion of Section III.C is not error-controlled, the instanton prescription of Section V.E is explicitly flagged as not yet derivable from the path integral, and the edge boundary conditions of Section VI are assumed rather than derived. The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is appropriate because the abstract's edge-state claim (abstract:s3) is stronger than what Section VI delivers. But the central claim does not depend on the edge sector, so the verdict should not be REJECT. I agree with the reader's identification of the edge boundary condition as the weakest assumption, and I agree that the verdict should remain CONDITIONAL rather than ACCEPT, since the abstract overclaims on the edge states. The paper would be strengthened by either deriving the boundary conditions microscopically or softening the abstract's 'correctly predicts' to 'predicts, given the assumed boundary conditions.'

The referee's report

If correct, the paper reclassifies a textbook state as a member of the same topological universality class as the Z2 lattice gauge theory and the short-range RVB liquid, and it unifies several earlier observations (the absence of a local order parameter, the neutrality of quasiparticles, the π braiding phase) under a single BF action. The cross-check between the braiding derivation of Section III.B and the path-integral derivation of Section III.C is a genuine strength, as is the explicit canonical quantization of Section IV.A, which reproduces the expected 4^g degeneracy and the 2^3 states on the 3-torus. The identification of topological universality classes in Section V is interesting and potentially useful.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

Superconductivity is normally taught as a broken symmetry: a condensate of electron pairs acquires a phase, and that phase is the order parameter. The trouble is that the phase is not gauge invariant, so no local observable can measure it. The authors take this seriously and ask what does characterize the state instead. Their answer is topological order, the same notion Wen introduced for fractional quantum Hall liquids. Three things follow. First, on a closed surface with g holes the ground state is 4^g-fold degenerate, because the magnetic flux through each hole can take two gauge-inequivalent values. Second, the quasiparticles are electrically neutral at long distances: the condensate screens their charge, so a broken Cooper pair leaves behind a neutral, spin-carrying object. Third, a quasiparticle dragged around a vortex picks up a phase of minus one, an interaction that depends only on topology and not on distance. The authors package all of this into a BF field theory, a cousin of the Chern-Simons action used for quantum Hall states, and derive it from the standard Ginzburg-Landau model by integrating out the gapped fields. They then show the same action describes the Z2 lattice gauge theory, the short-range resonating valence bond state, and a bilayer quantum Hall system, which makes the construction a small universality class rather than a one-off.

Core claim. The superconducting state exhibits topological order in Wen's sense: it lacks a local order parameter, is sensitive to the global topology of the manifold, and exhibits fractionalization of quantum numbers (abstract:s1). Concretely, the paper claims a 4^g ground state degeneracy on a genus-g closed surface, derived by canonically quantizing the BF action in Section IV.A and independently identified in the abelian Higgs model in Section IV.B as the two-valued magnetic flux through each non-contractible loop, with the conjugate modular electric field operators moving between the states. If correct, a textbook state is reclassified as a member of the same topological universality class as the Z2 lattice gauge theory and the short-range RVB liquid.

The premise it rests on. The edge-state analysis in Section VI assumes, rather than derives, the boundary conditions on the BF fields. The authors state this directly: a microscopic approach would follow the abelian Higgs model across an interface and deduce the relevant boundary conditions, but 'We shall not take this route but rather, in the spirit of Section V-D, assume the kind of boundary conditions used to analyze [incompressible] quantum Hall systems.' With a0 = b0 = 0 on the boundary the edge is a non-chiral boson; the gapping claimed in Section VI.A depends on which of the two cosine terms cos(Lambda_a) and cos(Lambda_b) is most relevant, which is not computed. The abstract's claim that the BF action 'correctly predicts non-chiral edge states' (abstract:s3) rests on this assumed boundary condition.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4.1-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

We revisit a venerable question: what is the nature of the ordering in a superconductor? We find that the answer is properly that the superconducting state exhibits topological order in the sense of Wen, i.e. that while it lacks a local order parameter, it is sensitive to the global topology of the underlying manifold and exhibits an associated fractionalization of quantum numbers. We show that this perspective unifies a number of previous observations on superconductors and their low lying excitations and that this complex can be elegantly summarized in a purely topological action of the “BF” type and its elementary quantization. On manifolds with boundaries, the BF action correctly predicts non-chiral edge states, gapped in general, but crucial for fractionalization and establishing the ground state degeneracy. In all of this the role of the physical electromagnetic fields is central. We also observe that the BF action describes the topological order in several other physically distinct systems thus providing an example of topological universality.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 1.00

“We find that the answer is properly that the superconducting state exhibits topological order in the sense of Wen, i.e. that while it lacks a local order parameter, it is sensitive to the global topology of the underlying manifold and exhibits an associated fractionalization of quantum numbers.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.18 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.72 · mentions code or data availability 0.01

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
We revisit a venerable question: what is the nature of the ordering in a superconductor? background 0.95 0.16 0.03 unclear 1.00
We find that the answer is properly that the superconducting state exhibits topological order in the sense of Wen, i.e. that while it lacks a local order parameter, it is sensitive to the global topology of the underlying manifold and exhibits an associated fractionalization of quantum numbers. result 0.95 0.92 0.94 asserted 1.00
We show that this perspective unifies a number of previous observations on superconductors and their low lying excitations and that this complex can be elegantly summarized in a purely topological action of the ``$BF$'' type and its elementary quantization. contribution 0.66 0.91 0.19 asserted 1.00
On manifolds with boundaries, the $BF$ action correctly predicts non-chiral edge states, gapped in general, but crucial for fractionalization and establishing the ground state degeneracy. result 0.96 0.78 0.05 asserted 0.99
In all of this the role of the physical electromagnetic fields is central. interpretation 0.76 0.27 0.03 asserted 1.00
We also observe that the $BF$ action describes the topological order in several other physically distinct systems thus providing an example of topological universality. result 0.64 0.81 0.06 asserted 0.94

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.97 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.78

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v1

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,054 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (11)
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Topological interactions in a superconductor: quas
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. FIG. 3: A vortex tunnelling process inserting a unit of magne
Figure 4 of the paper
Figure 4. FIG. 4: A quasiparticle-pair tunnelling process changing t
Figure 5 of the paper
Figure 5. FIG. 5: Two of the four ground states of the
Figure 6 of the paper
Figure 6. FIG. 6: Geometry for establishing the
Figure 7 of the paper
Figure 7. FIG. 7: The phase diagram of the
Figure 8 of the paper
Figure 8. FIG. 8: Topology of dimer coverings: The number of dimers cro
Figure 9 of the paper
Figure 9. FIG. 9: The vison involves a string going out to infinity. A dim
Figure 10 of the paper
Figure 10. FIG. 10: Virtual vortex-antivortex fluctuations represent
Figure 11 of the paper
Figure 11. FIG. 11: Weakening the indicated row of plaquettes produces

Showing 10 of the paper's 11 figures. Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (51)
  1. [1] P. M. Chaikin and T. L. Lubensky, Principles of Condensed Matter Physics , Cambridge, 1995 on Pith
  2. [2] See, e.g. P. W. Anderson, Basic Notions of Condensed Matter Physics , Benjamin/Cummings, 1984 on Pith
  3. [3] See K. McElroy et. al. , cond-mat/0404005 and references therein on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [4] X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B40, 7387 (1989); Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 4, 239 (1990) on Pith
  5. [5] X.-G. Wen and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B41, 9377 (1990) on Pith
  6. [6] X.-G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 5, 1641 (1991) on Pith
  7. [7] X.-G. Wen, Advances in Physics 44, 405 (1995) on Pith
  8. [8] One non-local operator with algebraic correlations was identified by S. M. Girvin and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett . 58, 1252 (1987) and used to exactly reformulate the dynamics by S.-C. Zhang, T. H. Hansson and S. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 82 (1989). A second such ope... on Pith
  9. [10] S. Elitzur, Phys. Rev. D12, 3978 (1975) on Pith
  10. [11] S. A. Kivelson and D. S. Rokhsar, Phys. Rev. B41, 11693 (1990) on Pith
  11. [12] E. Fradkin and S. H. Shenker, Phys. Rev. D19, 3682 (1979) on Pith
  12. [13] P. A. M. Dirac, Can. J. Phys. 33, 650 (1955) on Pith
  13. [14] T. Kennedy and C. King, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 776 (1985) on Pith
  14. [15] E. Fradkin and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D17, 2637 (1978) on Pith
  15. [16] G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B138, 1, (1978); ibid B153, 141, (1979) on Pith
  16. [17] J. Fr¨ ohlich and P. A. Marchetti, Phys. Rev. D64, 014505 (2001) on Pith
  17. [18] See e.g. S. Weinberg, The Quantum Thory of Fields , vol II, Cambridge University Press (1996) on Pith
  18. [19] B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman and T. Sj¨ ostra nd, Phys. Rep. 97, 31 (1983) on Pith
  19. [20] See e.g. chapt. 3 in D. Pines and P. Nozieres, The Theory of Quantum Liquids , Addison-Wesely, 1989 on Pith
  20. [21] L. Balents, M. P. A. Fisher and C. Nayak, Int. J Mod. Phys. B 12, 1033 (1998) on Pith
show 31 more
  1. [22] A. S. Goldhaber and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Lett. B 255, 445 (1991) on Pith
  2. [23] J. A. Swieca, Phys. Rev. D13, 312 (1976). 30 on Pith
  3. [24] D. Buchholz and K. Fredenhagen, Nucl. Phys. B154, 226, (1979) on Pith
  4. [25] J. Frohlich and T. Kerler, Nucl. Phys. B 354, 369 (1991) on Pith
  5. [26] P. G. de Gennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys , Addison-Wesley, 1989 on Pith
  6. [27] L. M. Krauss and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1221 (1989) on Pith
  7. [28] B. Reznik and Y. Aharonov, Phys. Rev. D40, 4178 (1989) on Pith
  8. [29] M. Blau and G. Thompson, Ann. Phys. 205, 130 (1991) on Pith
  9. [30] M. Bergeron, G. W. Semenoff and R. J. Szabo, Nucl. Phys. B437, 695, (1995) on Pith
  10. [31] A. P. Balachandran and P. Teotonio-Sobrinho, Int. J. Mo d. Phys., A8, 723 (1993), hep-th 9205116 on Pith
  11. [32] K. Bardakci and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D18, 2849 (1978) on Pith
  12. [33] S. C. Zhang, Int. Journ. Mod. Phys. B, 6, 25 (1992) on Pith
  13. [34] F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. B64, 2529 (1985) on Pith
  14. [35] A. Vestergren, J. Lidmar and T. H. Hansson, cond-mat/04 02566 on Pith
  15. [36] R. Moessner, S. L. Sondhi and E. Fradkin Phys. Rev. B65, 024504 (2001) on Pith
  16. [37] T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher,, Phys. Rev. B62, 7850 (1999) on Pith
  17. [38] P. W. Anderson, Mat. Res. Bull. 8, 153 (1973) on Pith
  18. [39] D. S. Rokhsar and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2376 (1988) on Pith
  19. [40] R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1881 (2001) on Pith
  20. [41] N. Read and B. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. B40, 7133 (1989); X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B44, 2664 (1991) on Pith
  21. [42] R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B68, 184512 (2003) on Pith
  22. [43] X. G. Wen and A. Zee, Nucl. Phys. B15, 135 (1990) on Pith
  23. [44] A. P. Balachandran, L. Chandar and E. Ercolessi, hep/th 9411164 on Pith
  24. [45] S. Gukov, E. Martinec, G. Moore and A. Strominger, arXiv :hep-th/0403225 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  25. [46] X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 016803 (2003) on Pith
  26. [47] T. Senthil and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B63, 134521 (2001) on Pith
  27. [48] M. de Wild Propitius and F. A. Bais, arXiv:hep-th/95112 01 on Pith
  28. [49] T. H. Hansson, V. Oganesyan and S. L. Sondhi, work in prog ress on Pith
  29. [50] X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B65, 165113 (2002) on Pith
  30. [51] M. Freedman et. al. , cond-mat/0307511 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  31. [52] B. Doucot, L.B. Ioffe and J. Vidal, cond-mat/0302104 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
Cited by 14 Pith papers

Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. The full citation record

  1. A Partially Massless Superconductor hep-th · Jul 2025
  2. Topological axion electrodynamics and 4-group symmetry hep-th · Jul 2021
  3. Higher-form symmetries and 3-group in axion electrodynamics hep-th · Jun 2020
  4. Topology of Future Infinity in dS/CFT hep-th · Jun 2013
  5. Topological BF field theory description of topological insulators cond-mat.str-el · Nov 2010
  6. Global 4-group symmetry and 't Hooft anomalies in topological axion electrodynamics hep-th · Aug 2021
  7. Global 3-group symmetry and 't Hooft anomalies in axion electrodynamics hep-th · Sep 2020
  8. Topological order in a color-flavor locked phase of $(3+1)$-dimensional $U(N)$ gauge-Higgs system hep-th · Mar 2019
  9. A theory of 2+1D bosonic topological orders cond-mat.str-el · Jun 2015
  10. All-fermion electrodynamics and fermion number anomaly inflow hep-th · Sep 2014
  11. QCD as a topologically ordered system hep-ph · Jan 2013
  12. Topological order, emergent gauge fields, and Fermi surface reconstruction cond-mat.str-el · Jan 2018
  13. Topological order: from long-range entangled quantum matter to an unification of light and electrons cond-mat.str-el · Oct 2012
  14. Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter cond-mat.str-el · Oct 2016
How later papers used it

97 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 93 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 17 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 24 of the 172 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

Builds on it 1 paper

  • Adapted this paper's analysis to three spatial dimensions, formulated entirely on a lattice.

    Localization of Extended Quantum Objects (2017) · 0.98 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Uses its method or tool 6 of 9 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

By the same authors

How the literature uses it

37 arXiv papers cite this in 79 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 46 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper
Uses its method or tool 4 papers
Compares with it 5 papers
  • The same surface theory for 3D $BF$ theory has been obtained previously [ref] ; we are not aware that the following connection between $BF$ theory and surface Dirac fermions or topological insulators has been made before.

    Topological BF field theory description of topological insulators · Gapless edge theory of 3D $BF$ theory · 0.95

  • At the same time, if the Euclidean space $ℝ^3$ in eq.([ref]) is additionally compactified on a large torus, i.e. $ℝ^3→𝕋^2×ℝ^1$, than one should expect an additional topological $ℤ_2$ symmetry for $SU(2)$, in close analogy with the behaviour of a CM system [ref] .

    QCD as a topologically ordered system · Differences and Similarities between CM systems and deformed QCD · 0.81

  • We remark that this fractional AB phase is different from a $Z_q$ AB phase of an Abelian Higgs model without an axion [ref] , due to the presence of the axion-photon coupling deforming the 1-form symmetry.

    Topological axion electrodynamics and 4-group symmetry · Topological order in bulk · 0.96

Cites it as support 2 papers
  • Superconducting order (in real life) is an topological order (or more precisely a $Z_2$ topological order or $Z_2$ gauge theory) [ref] .

    Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter · Superconducting states (with dynamical electromagnetism) · 0.98

  • The real-life superconductors, having a $Z_2$ topological order, [ref] were first experimentally discovered topologically ordered states.[Note that real-life superconductivity can be described by the Ginzburg-Landau theory with a dynamical $U(1)$ gauge field, which become a $Z_2$ gauge theory at low energies; and a $Z_2$ gauge theory is an effective theory of $Z_2$ topological order. ]

    Topological order: from long-range entangled quantum matter to an unification of light and electrons · The discovery of topological order · 0.96

Cites it as background 11 papers

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment