Skip to content

Conversation

@borisdevos
Copy link
Member

@borisdevos borisdevos commented Nov 14, 2025

This PR adds the representations of A_N for 0 < N < 5. In particular, RepA4 has a generic fusion style, which is currently untested in TensorKit.

Credits to @lkdvos for several parts of this PR.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 14, 2025

Your PR no longer requires formatting changes. Thank you for your contribution!

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 14, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 98.79518% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/irreps/anirrep.jl 98.78% 2 Missing ⚠️
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/TensorKitSectors.jl 16.66% <ø> (ø)
src/groups.jl 45.71% <100.00%> (+1.59%) ⬆️
src/irreps/irreps.jl 96.55% <ø> (ø)
src/irreps/anirrep.jl 98.78% <98.78%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Member

@lkdvos lkdvos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like a great start!

In general it looks like most of the implementations really assume N = 4 and are not at all expected to work for anything else, this is completely fine, but the signatures should then be made more specific as well.

end

# TODO: for some reason the analytic expression doesn't match these results, which is from CategoryData
function _fusiontensor_3x3_to_3()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This function name is a bit to generic, since it really only works for A4Irrep

@borisdevos borisdevos marked this pull request as ready for review November 18, 2025 15:46
@borisdevos
Copy link
Member Author

So I got the fusion tensors to give correct results, but it's not based on any analytic results. Any strong opinions on keeping it the way it is now, i.e. filling in the entries manually, or should we look more into getting it working analytically? If we agree on the former, I'll have to remove some commented lines which I thought were correct analytic results but didn't end up satisfying the pentagon equation.

@borisdevos borisdevos requested review from Jutho and lkdvos November 21, 2025 14:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants