Dipoles and Anyonic Directional Confinement via Twisted Toric Codes

Jose Garre Rubio

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Dipoles and Anyonic Directional Confinement via Twisted Toric Codes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 2-cocycle twist of the toric code makes anyon energy depend on direction, turning confined excitations into mobile dipoles and making the code's logical qubits depend on lattice parity.

desk verdict A promising twisted toric code construction with directional confinement and dipoles; the main risk is the unverified fractal-symmetry claim in Sec. IV.B. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22025 v1 pith:MHHYMKD2 submitted 2025-06-27 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Jose Garre Rubio This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el

keywords toriccodeanyonconfinement2-cocycletwistprojectiverepresentationlogicaloperatorsstabilizercodesfractalsymmetriesfracton

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that replacing the ordinary $X_g$ operators on the horizontal edges of a $\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$ toric code by a projective pair $X^{\bar\alpha}_g\otimes X^{\alpha}_g$ concentrates the energy cost of certain anyon strings along one direction: a vertical string of $X^{\alpha}_g$ operators creates an excitation on every plaquette it passes, so the energy grows with string length. Binding a left-oriented and a right-oriented version of that string cancels the bulk cost and leaves a deconfined dipole that can move only vertically; decorating a vertical string with $Z$ operators makes a deconfined dyon-like excitation, but only when the number of vertical plaquettes is even. Because of that even/odd condition, the logical operators depend on the lattice width: odd sizes keep the usual two qubits, while even sizes leave only paired logical operators and effectively remove a qubit. Twisting both plaquette and vertex terms produces Sierpinski-triangle fractal operators that become exact symmetries for certain system sizes and give unpaired logical operators storing classical bits, not qubits. The same twist applied to 3D surface and X-cube models yields dipole-loop and dipole-planon excitations.

What carries the argument

The engine is the regular projective representation $X^{\alpha}_g$ of $G=\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$, defined by $X^{\alpha}_g|h\rangle=\alpha(g,h)|gh\rangle$ with the 2-cocycle $\alpha$ of Eq. (1), so that products pick up phases and distinct nontrivial elements anticommute. Its conjugate $X^{\bar\alpha}_g$ satisfies $X^{\bar\alpha}_g X^{\alpha}_g=Z^{\hat g}$ and $[X^{\alpha}_g,X^{\bar\alpha}_h]=0$, the identities that make decorated Wilson loops and dipole bound states possible. Inserting these operators into the plaquette term makes a vertical string of $X^{\alpha}_g$ violate a plaquette on every step, which is the directional confinement; the tensor product $X^{\bar\alpha}_g\otimes X^{\alpha}_g$ cancels those violations and leaves dipoles with vertical-only mobility. Parity-dependent products of plaquette terms over the torus convert this confinement into size-dependent logical operators.

What would settle it

Exact diagonalization of $H^{\alpha}$ on small tori with odd and even numbers of vertical plaquettes (for example $3\times 4$ and $4\times 4$) would check whether the ground-state degeneracy and the logical algebra follow the paper's parity predictions: four states with only $\bar Z_1,\bar X_1$ for odd sizes, and the relations $\bar X_1^{\mathrm{odd}}\bar X_1^{\mathrm{even}}=\bar Z_2$, $\bar Y_2^{\mathrm{odd}}\bar Y_2^{\mathrm{even}}=\bar Z_1$ for even sizes. The claim is falsified if the degeneracy does not depend on parity or if those operators do not obey the stated relations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Hamiltonian $H^{\alpha}$ of Eq. (8), built from the projective representation $X^{\alpha}_g$ and its conjugate $X^{\bar\alpha}_g$ of $G=\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$, is a commuting, frustration-free stabilizer code whose X-type fluxes are confined along the vertical direction while Z-type charges remain deconfined. The paper identifies two ways to partially lift the confinement: binding $X^{\alpha}_g$ with $X^{\bar\alpha}_g$ creates a dipole that is free only in the vertical direction, and decorating a vertical $X^{\alpha}_g$ string with $Z^{\hat g}$ creates a deconfined dyon-like string when the vertical plaquette number is even. As a result the logical operators are parity-dependent: for an odd number of vertical plaquettes the code retains the usual two logical qubits, whereas for an even number the surviving operators satisfy $\bar X_1^{\mathrm{odd}}\bar X_1^{\mathrm{even}}=\bar Z_2$ and $\bar Y_2^{\mathrm{odd}}\bar Y_2^{\mathrm{even}}=\bar Z_1$, and some logical operators disappear. For the fully twisted Hamiltonian $H^{\alpha,\beta}$, Sierpinski-pattern combinations of $X^{\alpha}_g$ and $Z^{\beta}_{\hat g}$ commute with the Hamiltonian for sizes with $p_x\ge 2(n-1)$ and $p_y=2n$ under vertical periodic boundary conditions; since these fractal operators commute among themselves, they encode classical bits rather than qubits. The same twisting is extended to 3D, where it confines string-like excitations of the surface code and planons of the X-cube code, producing dipole-loop and dipole-planon excitations.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's analysis assumes that every twisted Hamiltonian is exactly solvable in the sense that all its local terms commute and share a ground state that violates none of them, and that the proposed boundary Hamiltonians have the claimed gap and condensation behavior; the bulk commutation is asserted and delegated to reference [12] rather than proved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For odd vertical plaquette number, $H^{\alpha}$ reproduces the two-qubit logical space of the ordinary toric code; for even number, the code loses a logical qubit and the surviving pairs obey $\bar X_1^{\mathrm{odd}}\bar X_1^{\mathrm{even}}=\bar Z_2$ and $\bar Y_2^{\mathrm{odd}}\bar Y_2^{\mathrm{even}}=\bar Z_1$.
The dipole formed by $X^{\bar\alpha}_g\otimes X^{\alpha}_g$ is deconfined only in the vertical direction and braids trivially with $Z$-strings; splitting it horizontally by $Z^{\hat g}$ destroys its vertical mobility.
In $H^{\alpha,\beta}$, the Sierpinski fractal operators are exact symmetries for $p_x\ge 2(n-1)$, $p_y=2n$ with vertical periodic boundary conditions, and because they commute with each other they encode classical bits rather than a quantum code.
For general finite abelian groups, the logical operator content is governed by the slant-product subgroup $K_\alpha$ and the irrep subset $I=\mathrm{Im}(\iota^\alpha)$, so the code stores a $|G|$-dimensional and a $|K_\alpha|$-dimensional qudit.
In 3D, the same twisting confines string-like excitations of the surface code and planons of the X-cube code, producing dipole-loop and dipole-planon excitations with hybrid mobility.

Reading between the lines

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

The parity dependence of the logical operators suggests a direct finite-size test that the paper does not propose: compute the ground-state degeneracy on tori with odd versus even vertical widths and check that the logical algebra changes accordingly.
The unpaired fractal symmetries of $H^{\alpha,\beta}$ hint at a classically decodable, topologically protected memory; one could test whether the code has growing distance on larger lattices by exhaustive decoding simulations, something the paper leaves open.
The same twisting mechanism could be applied to other finite abelian groups beyond $\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$ and to lattices with defects; the paper notes that lattice defects permute confined and unconfined anyons but does not analyze how defects alter the parity-dependent logical structure.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First: this is a real construction with a genuinely new effect. The twisted toric code Hamiltonian (8) gives directional confinement of fluxes, deconfined dipoles from bound confined pairs, and logical operators whose existence depends on lattice parity. I traced the operator algebra in Section III; it is consistent. The decorated Wilson loops and the absence of any undecorated vertical X-loop logical operator follow from the projective representation.

The paper's clean conceptual contribution is in Section III.B: two mechanisms to unconfine the confined anyons—binding left- and right-handed projectively represented operators into dipoles, and decorating with Zs to make dyons. That is a nice idea, and it is carried through to the 3D extensions.

Soft spots, in order. The commuting/frustration-free property of Eq. (8) is delegated to the author's own Ref. [12]. That is acceptable if Ref. [12] indeed proves it, but the paper should state explicitly what is proven there. The boundary Hamiltonians in Section III.C are proposed without gappedness proofs; the condensation tables are plausible but asserted. Moderate gap, not fatal.

The biggest concern is the fractal-symmetry claim in Section IV.B. The bow-tie/Sierpinski operators are stated to become exact symmetries for px >= 2(n-1), py = 2n with vertical PBC, and all such operators are asserted to commute. No derivation of the size condition or cancellation count is given. This claim is load-bearing for the unpaired-logical-operator and classical-encoding result. A single overlap with an uncancelled cocycle phase would break it. The stress-test note is right: a small-system commutator check, say py = 4 or 6, would settle it. My prior is that it works, because the cocycle phases are abelian and the boundary violations should cancel by a parity argument consistent with the rest of the paper, but 'should work' is not a proof.

The 3D section is more speculative, as the author acknowledges. That is acceptable for an exploratory paper.

Overall, the central 2D construction is sound in outline and the logical operator analysis is careful. The fractal claim needs verification. The paper deserves a serious referee, with instructions to check the fractal commutator and to clarify the dependence on Ref. [12]. I would not desk-reject it, and I would cite it if I worked on topological codes or fracton models.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a family of twisted toric-code Hamiltonians for the group Z2xZ2, built from projective regular representations. The central claim is that the Hamiltonian in Eq. (8) is a commuting, frustration-free stabilizer code in which vertical strings of X^alpha_g create anyonic excitations with energy proportional to string length, while the bound pair X^alpha_g tensor X^bar-alpha_g forms a deconfined dipole mobile only vertically. The paper further claims system-size-dependent logical operators, with parity of the number of vertical plaquettes sometimes eliminating one or both qubits; proposes boundary Hamiltonians with specific anyon-condensation patterns; gives a PEPS representation of the ground state; and extends the construction to doubly twisted models with Sierpinski-type fractal symmetries and unpaired logical operators, as well as to 3D surface-code and X-cube models with dipole-loop and dipole-planon excitations.

Significance. If the claimed properties hold, the paper offers a useful and conceptually interesting mechanism for engineering directional anyon confinement in stabilizer codes, with concrete proposals for dipole bound states, size-dependent logical spaces, and 3D generalizations. The use of projective representations and 2-cocycles is elegant, and the extension to fractal operators with classical-like logical encoding is potentially valuable for hybrid classical-quantum code ideas. The paper is also commendably explicit about the algebraic ingredients and includes a PEPS construction. However, several load-bearing statements are asserted rather than proved, most notably the commuting-projector property of the central Hamiltonians and the exact fractal-symmetry claim; these need to be substantiated before the main results can be considered established.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eq. (8)] The Hamiltonian in Eq. (8) is asserted to be a commuting, frustration-free stabilizer code, but no proof or explicit check is given in the text; the only justification is a pointer to Ref. [12]. Since every later statement about logical operators, anyon excitations, and ground-state degeneracy assumes this property, the manuscript should either provide a self-contained proof of commutation and frustration-freeness, or state precisely which theorem or construction in Ref. [12] applies and why it covers this twisted Hamiltonian.
[Section III.C, Eqs. (9)-(12)] The boundary Hamiltonians are proposed without demonstrating that they commute with the bulk Hamiltonian terms or that they are gapped and realize exactly the listed anyon-condensation patterns. The condensation statements are presented as assertions, and no explicit commutation relations or gap argument is supplied. Since the boundary phase structure is one of the paper's advertised results, each proposed boundary term needs a verifiable check that it commutes with the bulk and that the claimed condensate follows from the local boundary algebra.
[Section IV.B] The central claim that the fractal operators F_p^g and F_v^chi become exact Hamiltonian symmetries for system sizes with p_x >= 2(n-1), p_y = 2n and vertical periodic boundary conditions is not derived. No cancellation count for boundary violations is given, and the heuristic statement that overlaps involve 'an even number of times' or 'operators with opposite cocycle that commute' is insufficient. Because these operators are the entire basis for the unpaired-logical-operator result, the paper needs a rigorous derivation of the size condition, a proof that all F_p^g and F_v^chi commute with every Hamiltonian term, and an explicit check that [F_p^g, F_{p'}^h]=[F_v^chi,F_{v'}^sigma]=[F_p^g,F_v^chi]=0 on the stated lattices.
[Section III, logical-operator analysis] The logical-operator counting is not proved. The text concludes that for an odd number of vertical plaquettes the only logical operators are \bar Z1 and \bar X1, and that for an even number there are exactly two pairs satisfying \bar X1^odd \bar X1^even = \bar Z2 and \bar Y2^odd \bar Y2^even = \bar Z1, but no complete argument rules out additional logical operators. Since the claimed system-size-dependent degeneracy is a main result, the paper should provide a stabilizer-dimension calculation or an equivalent exhaustive analysis of the operator algebra showing that no further independent logical operators exist.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical slips, for example 'followoing', 'aparent', 'seemly', and 'They loose some quantumness'. The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
[Section II, Eq. (5)] The identity X^{\bar\alpha}_g X^\alpha_g = Z_{\hat g} is used heavily but is introduced without derivation; it should be proved explicitly from the definitions of the projective representations and the chosen cocycle.
[Section III, Figs. 1-3] The figures referenced in the text are not present in the submitted manuscript text; without the actual figures, several deformation arguments and excitation diagrams are very hard to follow. Please ensure that all figures are included and legible.
[Section IV.B] The fractal operators F_p^g and F_v^chi are described pictorially but never defined by an explicit algebraic expression. A precise definition in terms of products of X^alpha_g and Z^beta_\hat g operators on the lattice would remove ambiguity.
[References] Reference [12] is cited only as 'Nat. Commun. 15 (2024)' without a title or article number; please provide the full citation so that the delegated stabilizer-code construction can be located by readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation is explicit algebra from the twisted Hamiltonian, with only a minor self-cited stabilizer-code premise.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is not circular. The twisted Hamiltonian in Eq. (8) is explicitly constructed from the projective representations defined in Section II, and the logical-operator, anyon-confinement, and boundary results are obtained by direct commutator algebra using Eqs. (2)-(7). For example, the Wilson-loop decorations follow from applying vertex Hamiltonian terms, the parity-dependent disappearance of logical operators follows from products of plaquette terms, and the dipole mobility follows from the explicit form of the bound operators X^alpha_g tensor X^bar-alpha_g. No parameter is fitted to data and no predicted quantity is renamed from an input. The only self-citation burden is the sentence after Eq. (8), which delegates the commuting, frustration-free stabilizer-code property to the author's own Ref. [12]. This is a premise rather than a fitted prediction, and for Z2 x Z2 it is directly checkable from the commutation relations in Section II, so it does not reduce the paper's central confinement or logical-operator claims to their inputs. Section IV.B's fractal-symmetry claim and Section III.C's boundary Hamiltonians are asserted rather than fully derived, but an omitted proof or underived assertion is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against the stated algebraic identities, and the only circularity-adjacent feature is the minor self-cited stabilizer-code premise.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction uses standard projective representation theory and the toric code as baseline. No numerical parameters are fitted. The main modeling input is the specific 2-cocycle alpha and the choice to twist plaquette or vertex terms; this choice is the engine of confinement but is not derived from deeper principles. The boundary Hamiltonians and fractal symmetry conditions are introduced ad hoc to produce the claimed condensation and logical operator patterns. No new fundamental physical entities are postulated; the dipoles, dipole-loops, dipole-planons, and fractal operators are composite operators built from the stabilizer generators.

assumptions (6)

standard math 2-cocycle identity and projective representation theory of finite abelian groups
Used in Section II to construct X^alpha_g and Z^beta_chi and to derive anticommutation and commutation relations (Eqs. 1-7).
standard math The toric code / Kitaev quantum double has commuting stabilizers with known ground state degeneracy
Used as the baseline in Section III before twisting; the paper assumes the reader knows the toric code logical operator structure.
domain assumption The lattice is a torus (or finite surface) with periodic boundary conditions, and Hamiltonian terms are local commuting projectors
Assumed throughout; system-size parity effects in Sections III and IV rely on the topology and boundary conditions.
ad hoc to paper The chosen 2-cocycle alpha and its conjugate representation satisfy X^alpha_g X^alpha-bar_g = Z_hat-g (Eq. 5), which drives the confinement and dipole formation
This specific representation is selected in Section II to produce the desired decoration of Wilson loops; it is not derived from a deeper principle.
ad hoc to paper The boundary Hamiltonians in Section III.C are terms that commute with the bulk and realize the claimed anyon condensation
Proposed in Section III.C for rough and smooth boundaries; no proof of gappedness or exact condensation is supplied.
standard math The dual group isomorphism phi from H(G) to G, with beta = alpha composed with (phi tensor phi), is used to twist vertex terms in Section IV.B
Standard for abelian groups; introduced in Section II and used in Sections IV.B and V.B.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dipoles and Anyonic Directional Confinement via Twisted Toric Codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MHHYMKD2

@misc{pith2026250622025,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dipoles and Anyonic Directional Confinement via Twisted Toric Codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MHHYMKD2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22025}
}

read the original abstract

We introduce a modified 2D toric code Hamiltonian that exhibits explicit anyon confinement along a single spatial direction. By bounding the motion of these confined anyons, we obtain dipolar excitations with restricted mobility. We analyze the resulting logical operators, whose existence depends on the system size, as well as the structure of gapped boundaries and a tensor network representation of the ground state. Furthermore, when confinement is enforced in both directions, fractal-like excitations emerge, resulting in unpaired logical operators. We extend our construction to 3D models, such as the surface code and the X-cube model, leading to novel dipole-loop and dipole-planon excitations that arise from bounding confined excitations. These modifications are implemented through group cohomological twistings--projective representations of finite groups--with most examples based on Z2xZ2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22025 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The different excitations with their Hamiltonian term violation are shown. The red dots show the bulk violations and the orange dots shows the possible boundary excitations. B. Braiding An important property of topologically ordered models are the braiding statistics of its anyonic excitations. Braiding is properly defined for deconfined anyons which are free to move, meaning that they can move unitarily and the en… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Lattice dislocation defects permutes between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Iterative Gauging is Deconstruction
hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Iterative higher-form gauging and dimensional deconstruction are the same construction, linked by dualizing the Goldstone fields of the quiver Higgs branch.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[12]

K. Chen, Y. Liu, Y. Zhang, Z. Liang, Y.-A. Chen, K. Liu, and H. Song, Anyon theory and topological frus- tration of high-efficiency quantum ldpc codes (2025), arXiv:2503.04699 [quant-ph]. 13

arXiv 2025
[1]

Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

2003
[2]

This implies that if g and h are non- trivial and different, their projective representations an- ticommute: X α g X α h = −X α h X α g , e ̸= g ̸= h ̸= e

The phase factor α defined by: α(↓, →) e a b ab e 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 i −i b 1 −i 1 i ab 1 i −i 1 is a 2-cocycle [11] satisfying α(gh, k)α(g, h) = α(g, hk)α(h, k). This implies that if g and h are non- trivial and different, their projective representations an- ticommute: X α g X α h = −X α h X α g , e ̸= g ̸= h ̸= e . (2) We will use also its conjugate project...

work page
[3]

A useful way to labeling the non-trivial irreps is by assigning χ ≡ ˆg ̸= 1 if χ(g) = 1

Importantly, the operators defined on this space satisfy the followoing relation: Zχ · X γ g = χ(g) · X γ g · Zχ , (4) where γ can be α or the trivial one. A useful way to labeling the non-trivial irreps is by assigning χ ≡ ˆg ̸= 1 if χ(g) = 1. Then, one can write X ¯α g X α g = Zˆg . (5) With such notation the irrep table reads Finally, we can χ\g e a b ...

work page
[4]

Preskill, Chapter 9

J. Preskill, Chapter 9. Topological Quantum Computation (California Institute of Technology, 2004)

work page 2004
[5]

F. A. Bais, B. J. Schroers, and J. K. Slingerland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 181601 (2002)

work page 2002
[6]

Vidal, S

J. Vidal, S. Dusuel, and K. P. Schmidt, Physical Review B 79, 10.1103/physrevb.79.033109 (2009)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.79.033109 2009
[7]

Iqbal and N

M. Iqbal and N. Schuch, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041014 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 23 references

[8]

Vijay, J

S. Vijay, J. Haah, and L. Fu, Physical Review B 94, 10.1103/physrevb.94.235157 (2016)

2016 doi
[9]

B. J. Brown and D. J. Williamson, Physical Review Re- search 2, 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013303 (2020)

2020 doi
[10]

H. Song, J. Sch¨ onmeier-Kromer, K. Liu, O. Viyuela, L. Pollet, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 230502 (2022)

2022
[11]

Kitaev and L

A. Kitaev and L. Kong, Commun. Math. Phys doi.org/10.1007/s00220-012-1500-5 (2012)

2012 doi
[13]

The set of 2-cocycles are classified by the second coho- mology group, H2[G, U(1)], which is abelian
[14]

Garre-Rubio, Nat

J. Garre-Rubio, Nat. Commun. 15 (2024)

2024
[15]

Bombin, Physical Review Letters 105, 10.1103/phys- revlett.105.030403 (2010)

H. Bombin, Physical Review Letters 105, 10.1103/phys- revlett.105.030403 (2010)

2010 doi
[16]

Verstraete and J

F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, ArXiv: cond-mat/0407066

arXiv
[17]

M. B. S ¸ahino˘ glu, D. Williamson, N. Bultinck, M. Mari¨ en, J. Haegeman, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Annales Henri Poincar´ e22, 563 (2021)

2021
[18]

Schuch, I

N. Schuch, I. Cirac, and D. Perez-Garcia, Annals of Physics 325, 2153 (2010)

2010
[19]

M. E. J. Newman and C. Moore, Physical Review E 60, 5068–5072 (1999)

1999
[20]

G. Zhu, T. Jochym-O’Connor, and A. Dua, PRX Quan- tum 3, 030338 (2022)

2022
[21]

Blanik, J

D. Blanik, J. Garre-Rubio, and N. Schuch, Gauging quan- tum phases: A matrix product state approach (2025), arXiv:2504.14380 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[22]

H. Ma, M. Hermele, and X. Chen, Physical Review B 98, 10.1103/physrevb.98.035111 (2018)

2018 doi
[23]

Gregor, D

K. Gregor, D. A. Huse, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, New Journal of Physics 13, 025009 (2011)

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [12]

K. Chen, Y. Liu, Y. Zhang, Z. Liang, Y.-A. Chen, K. Liu, and H. Song, Anyon theory and topological frus- tration of high-efficiency quantum ldpc codes (2025), arXiv:2503.04699 [quant-ph]. 13

arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

2003

[3] [2]

This implies that if g and h are non- trivial and different, their projective representations an- ticommute: X α g X α h = −X α h X α g , e ̸= g ̸= h ̸= e

The phase factor α defined by: α(↓, →) e a b ab e 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 i −i b 1 −i 1 i ab 1 i −i 1 is a 2-cocycle [11] satisfying α(gh, k)α(g, h) = α(g, hk)α(h, k). This implies that if g and h are non- trivial and different, their projective representations an- ticommute: X α g X α h = −X α h X α g , e ̸= g ̸= h ̸= e . (2) We will use also its conjugate project...

work page

[4] [3]

A useful way to labeling the non-trivial irreps is by assigning χ ≡ ˆg ̸= 1 if χ(g) = 1

Importantly, the operators defined on this space satisfy the followoing relation: Zχ · X γ g = χ(g) · X γ g · Zχ , (4) where γ can be α or the trivial one. A useful way to labeling the non-trivial irreps is by assigning χ ≡ ˆg ̸= 1 if χ(g) = 1. Then, one can write X ¯α g X α g = Zˆg . (5) With such notation the irrep table reads Finally, we can χ\g e a b ...

work page

[5] [4]

Preskill, Chapter 9

J. Preskill, Chapter 9. Topological Quantum Computation (California Institute of Technology, 2004)

work page 2004

[6] [5]

F. A. Bais, B. J. Schroers, and J. K. Slingerland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 181601 (2002)

work page 2002

[7] [6]

Vidal, S

J. Vidal, S. Dusuel, and K. P. Schmidt, Physical Review B 79, 10.1103/physrevb.79.033109 (2009)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.79.033109 2009

[8] [7]

Iqbal and N

M. Iqbal and N. Schuch, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041014 (2021)

work page 2021