Topological Mixed States: Phases of Matter from Axiomatic Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For closed quantum systems, topological orders are understood through the equivalence classes of ground states of gapped local Hamiltonians. The generalization of this conceptual paradigm to open quantum systems, however, remains elusive, often relying on operational definitions without fundamental principles. Here, we fill this gap by proposing an approach based on three axioms: ($i$) local recoverability, ($ii$) absence of long-range correlations, and ($iii$) spatial uniformity. States that satisfy these axioms are fixed points; requiring the axioms only after coarse-graining promotes each fixed point to an equivalence class, i.e., a phase, presenting the first step towards the axiomatic classification of mixed-state phases of matter: mixed-state bootstrap program. From these axioms, a rich set of topological data naturally emerges; importantly, these data are robust under relaxation of axioms. For example, each topological mixed state supports locally indistinguishable classical and/or quantum logical memories with distinct responses to topological operations. These data label distinct mixed-state phases, allowing one to distinguish them. We further uncover a hierarchy of secret-sharing constraints: in non-Abelian phases, reliable recovery-even of information that looks purely classical-demands a specific coordination among spatial subregions, a requirement different across non-Abelian classes. This originates from non-Abelian fusion rules that can stay robust under decoherence. Finally, we performed large-scale numerical simulations to corroborate stability: weakly decohered fixed points respect the axioms once coarse-grained. These results lay the foundation for a systematic classification of topological states in open quantum systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".