Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

On cusps in the $\eta'$ potential

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The eta' meson potential in QCD-like theories is forced to have cusps, with branch count gcd(N,N_f), whenever N and N_f are not coprime.

desk verdict The gcd(N,Nf) branch-count argument for the eta-prime potential is solid and new; the domain-wall Chern-Simons claims in Sections 4-5 rest on an unproven finite-N leap, but they are not load-bearing for the main result. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20372 v1 pith:4JKPPNOF submitted 2025-08-28 hep-th hep-ph

Ryuichiro Kitano , Ryutaro Matsudo , Lukas Treuer This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph PACS 11.15.-q11.30.Rd12.38.-t
keywords eta'potentialthetaperiodicitygeneralizedanomalyChern-SimonsdomainwallsupersymmetricQCDs-confinementlargeNbranchstructure
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 argues that in QCD-like theories with $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ gauge group and $N_f$ flavors, the mixed anomaly between the vector-like $U(N_f)/Z_N$ symmetry and the $2\pi$ periodicity of the $\theta$ angle forces the $\eta'$ potential to develop cusps whenever $N$ and $N_f$ are not coprime. If correct, this rules out smooth, instanton-like cosine potentials for such theories, and in particular marks the previously proposed smooth $\eta'$ potential in softly broken supersymmetric QCD with $N_f = N$ as inconsistent. The anomaly fixes the minimum number of branches of the potential to be $\gcd(N,N_f)$ and implies that s-confinement (confinement without chiral symmetry breaking) can be realized with massless fermions only when $\gcd(N,N_f)=1$. This matters because it decides between two competing pictures of the $\eta'$ meson: the large-$N$ cuspy picture and a smooth cosine picture from semiclassical instanton calculus.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the anomaly in the $\theta$ periodicity: in the presence of a topologically nontrivial background for $U(N_f)/Z_N$, the shift $\theta \to \theta+2\pi$ produces a phase that cannot be removed by local counterterms, so an interface theory must appear where $\theta$ changes by $2\pi$. Promoting $\theta$ to $N_f\eta' + \theta$ turns that interface into an $\eta'$ domain wall, and the wall hosts a $U(1)_{-N}$ (or, more generally, $U(k)_{-N+N_f}$) Chern-Simons theory. The branch count is then a number-theoretic consequence: two sectors labeled by $l$ and $l + \Delta l$ are identified exactly when $\Delta l$ is a multiple of $\gcd(N,N_f)$, by the elementary fact that integer combinations of $N$ and $N_f$ are exactly the multiples of their greatest common divisor.

What would settle it

A lattice simulation of $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ gauge theory with two massless flavors that computes the histogram of the space-time averaged chiral condensate and finds no cusp at $\eta' = \pi/2$, meaning the Fourier transform $\tilde{Z}(\kappa)$ decays in the large-$\kappa$ limit, would refute the claim that $\gcd(N,N_f)>1$ forces non-analyticity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $\eta'$ field cannot have a smooth potential when $\gcd(N,N_f) > 1$, because the anomaly in the $\theta$ periodicity requires the low-energy theory to contain multiple sectors separated by the nearest integer of $(N_f\eta' + \theta)/(2\pi)$. Each sector boundary is a domain wall that carries a nontrivial theory, specifically a $U(k)_{-N+N_f}$ Chern-Simons theory, so different sectors are not smoothly connected. A cosine potential would connect these sectors continuously and is therefore excluded exactly when $N$ and $N_f$ share a divisor. Applying this to softly broken supersymmetric QCD, the paper concludes that the $N_f = N$ smooth-potential analysis is inconsistent, while $N_f = N \pm 1$ are consistent because $\gcd(N,N\pm 1)=1$. For $N_f < N$, the number of branches is $\gcd(N,N_f)$, the minimum allowed by the anomaly, and s-confinement by massless fermions is possible only for $\gcd(N,N_f)=1$.

Load-bearing premise

The detailed description of the domain-wall theory assumes that a large-N result for domain walls in $N=1$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory continues to hold at finite $N$; if that extrapolation fails, the Chern-Simons wall picture loses its support, although the anomaly-based branch-count argument does not rely on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $N_f = N$, the smooth cosine potential from the softly broken supersymmetric analysis is not a valid low-energy result; a cusp appears once the extra flavor is heavy, and the field $X$ cannot be treated as dynamical.
  • For $N_f < N$, the eta' potential has exactly the greatest common divisor of $N$ and $N_f$ branches, realized as the connected components of the restricted moduli space of vacua.
  • Each branch-changing domain wall carries a $U(k)$ Chern-Simons theory at level $-N+N_f$, so interfaces between theta sectors are not smooth field configurations.
  • Massless-fermion anomaly matching forbids s-confinement unless $N$ and $N_f$ are coprime, extending that criterion to QCD-like theories with adjoint fermions.
  • Deforming the $N_f = N+1$ theory to $N_f = N$ changes the domain-wall theory from a $CP^N$ sigma model to a Chern-Simons theory at a critical flavor mass, even though the bulk theory remains smooth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical lattice test need not resolve the cusp directly: the large-kappa decay of the Fourier-transformed chiral-condensate histogram, or measurements of topological susceptibility across many color-flavor pairs, could distinguish cuspy from smooth potentials.
  • The coprime condition sharpens earlier chiral-symmetry-breaking theorems and suggests scanning color and flavor numbers in lattice studies of adjoint-fermion theories to look for the predicted branch structure.
  • For physical QCD with three colors and two or three flavors, both coprime with three, this anomaly does not force a cusp; whether the real eta' follows the large-$N$ or the smooth picture then depends on other dynamics, as the paper itself cautions.
  • The same anomaly argument would apply to axion-like particles whose potential comes from a confining sector with a shared divisor between color and flavor counts, implying axion domain-wall networks with properties different from a smooth cosine potential.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that in SU(N) QCD-like theories with N_f fundamental flavors, the effective potential for the η' field cannot be smooth whenever gcd(N,N_f)>1, because a mixed anomaly between the U(N_f)/Z_N global symmetry and the θ-periodicity [Ref. 15] requires nontrivial degrees of freedom on interfaces connecting θ and θ+2π. The authors derive that the minimal number of branches of the η' potential is gcd(N,N_f), using only group-theoretic charge assignments and Bézout's identity. They apply this to softly broken supersymmetric QCD, concluding that the smooth cosine potential found for N_f=N in Ref. [3] is inconsistent with the anomaly, while the N_f=N±1 cases are consistent because the flavor and color numbers are coprime. For N_f<N-1 they count exactly gcd(N,N_f) branches in the supersymmetric moduli space. They further propose a U(k)_{-N+N_f} Chern–Simons theory on the η' domain wall, discuss the transition from N_f=N+1 to N_f=N as a Chern–Simons–Higgs transition on the wall, and argue that s-confinement is possible only when gcd(N,N_f)=1. A lattice-test proposal via the Fourier transform of the histogram of the quark condensate is sketched.

Significance. If the central anomaly argument is correct, the paper resolves an apparent contradiction between the large-N cuspy η' potential and the smooth instanton-like potentials found in softly broken supersymmetric QCD: the N_f=N case is claimed to belong to the cuspy, large-N class even for small N. The branch-count result gcd(N,N_f) is parameter-free and follows from the anomaly structure plus Bézout's identity, and the consistency checks in Appendices B-D are explicit and nontrivial. The s-confinement criterion is a potentially useful generalization of the known chiral-symmetry-breaking theorem. These are substantive contributions. The main caveat is that the detailed wall theory (U(k)_{-N+N_f} Chern–Simons theory, the counterterm in Eq. (22), and the Section 5 transition) rests on an explicitly assumed finite-N extrapolation of the Acharya–Vafa large-N proposal, whereas the Section 2 branch-count argument does not. The s-confinement no-go statement is also stated more strongly than the supporting argument.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph containing 'Let us assume that this proposal is applicable for finite N'] The finite-N extrapolation of the Acharya–Vafa large-N domain-wall proposal is explicitly assumed, not derived. This assumption is load-bearing for the U(k)_{-N+N_f} wall theory, for the counterterm construction in Eq. (22), and for the Section 5 claim that a Chern–Simons theory appears discontinuously on the η' wall at m>m_*. The Section 2 branch-count argument does not need this assumption, since it uses only anomaly matching. Please either supply evidence for the finite-N validity (for example, exact low-rank checks or an independent derivation of the wall TFT for SU(N-N_f) SYM) or state the wall-level claims as conditional on this assumption in the abstract and conclusions. As written, the wall-level claims are not supported to the same standard as the gcd(N,N_f) branch count.
  2. [Section 3, after Eq. (10), and Section 5] The paper states both that the N_f=N theory should have a cuspy η' potential and that in the N_f=N IR effective theory the η' is eliminated by the constraint and is not a low-energy degree of freedom. The claim that 'the η' potential is smooth for N_f=N is inconsistent' therefore needs a definition of the η' potential in the N_f=N theory that makes the cusp observable. Please specify the operator whose effective potential is being discussed (for example, the phase of det M or the massive η' obtained by deforming the N_f=N+1 theory) and how the cusp manifests at finite m. Without this, the central comparison with Ref. [3] is ambiguous and the claim is not testable.
  3. [Section 6, paragraph beginning 'In the discussion of the effective theory in Section 2'] The no-go statement for s-confinement is stronger than the argument. The text admits 'There may be a possibility that something else would reproduce the anomaly' and restricts attention to 'the standard solutions of anomaly matching' with massless gauge-singlet fermions. Since the mixed θ-periodicity anomaly is matched by a TQFT on interfaces in the paper's own Section 2, the possibility of a TQFT sector in an s-confining phase should be excluded explicitly, or the theorem should be stated as conditional on the absence of such sectors. A precise statement of the class of low-energy theories considered is needed before the conclusion 's-confinement can only be possible when gcd(N,N_f)=1' can be regarded as proven.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract states the number of branches is gcd(N,N_f) for N_f<N, while Section 3 derives this exact count only for N_f<N-1 and treats N_f=N separately as a case with no η' in the IR spectrum. Please harmonize the ranges and clarify whether the abstract's statement includes N_f=N.
  2. [Figure 1] Figure 1 appears garbled in the text (the axis labels are rendered as '5', 'V(′)', and '′'). Please redraw the figure with clearly labeled axes and expand the caption to explain what is plotted and how the cusp in the ϕ-ϕ5 plane is obtained.
  3. [Section 7, discussion of the Fourier transform] The statement that a delta-function contribution to the second derivative of Z[ϕ] implies that Z̃(κ) 'does not decay to zero in the large κ limit' is not literally correct: the Fourier transform of a kink decays algebraically, e.g., O(κ^{-2}). Please rephrase the statement, for example as 'does not decay faster than a power law'.
  4. [Section 4, text before Eq. (13)] There is a duplicated word in 'only the su(N_c) part of of the 1-form A_i'; please correct this typo.
  5. [Section 2, after Eq. (6)] When the partial periodicity θ∼θ+2π gcd(N,N_f) is introduced, the text says it follows from counterterms but does not cite the specific statement in Ref. [15]. A precise citation there would help the reader verify the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gcd(N,Nf) branch count and cusp claim derive from the external mixed-anomaly theorem of Ref. [15] plus a self-contained moduli-space count; the only self-citation (Ref. [19] for θ→Nfη′+θ) is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

Section 2's central step is not circular: the requirement of sectors separated by the nearest integer of (Nfη′+θ)/(2π) when gcd(N,Nf)≠1 follows from the external mixed-anomaly result of Ref. [15] through Eq. (3) and the requirement that the interface theory cancels the non-invariance of C4, not from a parameter fitted to the target cusp. The lower bound gcd(N,Nf) on the number of branches is likewise taken from Ref. [15]'s statement that θ periodicity is restored only up to 2π gcd(N,Nf). Section 3's actual branch count is an independent group-theoretic computation: the connected components of the restricted moduli space under the charges in Eq. (11), with Bezout's identity giving gcd(N,Nf) inequivalent l labels. That computation is not defined to reproduce the anomaly bound; it uses the U(1)R and Z_{2Nf} charge assignments and counts components. Sections 4-5 contain an explicit dynamical assumption: 'Let us assume that this proposal is applicable for finite N' for the Acharya-Vafa U(k)_{-N} wall theory. This is a genuine assumption and a correctness risk—if the finite-N wall theory differs, Eq. (22) and the Section 5 Chern-Simons transition would be unsupported—but it is not circular, and the anomaly-based branch count does not depend on it. The only self-citation used in the derivation chain is Ref. [19] (by two of the present authors) for the promotion θ→Nfη′+θ; that promotion is a standard chiral-field redefinition and the paper supplies the field-redefinition rationale, so the citation is non-load-bearing. There is no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness result imported from the authors' own prior work, and no equation that reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters; the central result follows from externally established anomaly matching plus the stated modeling assumptions for the eta-prime effective theory. The main non-standard assumptions are (i) the finite-N extension of the large-N Acharya-Vafa domain-wall Chern-Simons description and (ii) the exclusion of exotic anomaly-matching mechanisms in the s-confinement argument. These are the items a reader should scrutinize.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption 't Hooft anomaly matching: the low-energy effective theory must reproduce the anomalies of the UV theory.
    Used throughout Section 2 to require that the eta-prime effective theory reproduces the theta-periodicity anomaly via multiple branches.
  • domain assumption Vafa-Witten theorem: the eta-prime potential has a minimum at N_f eta' + theta = 0 (and by periodicity at 2 pi n).
    Invoked in Section 2 to fix the minima of the eta-prime potential (Ref. [20]).
  • domain assumption The low-energy eta-prime field transforms non-linearly under axial U(1) and enters the effective action only through the combination N_f eta' + theta.
    Used to derive the multi-branch structure; motivated by Ref. [19] (self-citation).
  • ad hoc to paper The Acharya-Vafa large-N domain-wall Chern-Simons description (U(k)_{-N}) applies at finite N.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 4: 'Let us assume that this proposal is applicable for finite N'; needed for the U(k)_{-N+N_f} wall theory and the boundary counter-term construction.
  • ad hoc to paper The theta-periodicity anomaly cannot be reproduced by exotic mechanisms beyond massless gauge-singlet fermions in the standard anomaly-matching framework.
    Used in Section 6 to conclude s-confinement requires gcd(N,N_f)=1; the paper itself notes 'there may be a possibility that something else would reproduce the anomaly'.
  • standard math Standard results for Pontryagin squares and cup-1 products on 4d spin manifolds (e.g., a^2=0 for a in H^2(M;Z_2)).
    Used in the anomaly computations in Section 4 and Appendices B-D.
  • ad hoc to paper The Chern-Simons-Higgs transition described by the dualities of Refs. [26,27] governs the eta-prime domain-wall theory as the flavor mass is increased.
    Underlies the smooth-to-cuspy transition narrative in Section 5; presented as conjectural.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On cusps in the $\eta'$ potential." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4JKPPNOF

@misc{pith2026250820372,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On cusps in the $\eta'$ potential},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4JKPPNOF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20372}
}
abstract

The large $N$ analysis of QCD states that the potential for the $\eta'$ meson develops cusps at $\eta' = \pi / N_f$, $3 \pi /N_f$, $\cdots$, with $N_f$ the number of flavors. Furthermore, the recent discussion of generalized anomalies tells us that even for finite $N$ there should be cusps if $N$ and $N_f$ are not coprime, as one can show that the domain wall configuration of $\eta'$ should support a Chern-Simons theory on it, i.e., domains are not smoothly connected. On the other hand, there is a supporting argument for instanton-like, smooth potentials of $\eta'$ from the analyses of softly-broken supersymmetric QCD for $N_f= N-1$, $N$, and $N+1$. We argue that the analysis of the $N_f = N$ case should be subject to the above anomaly argument, and thus there should be a cusp; while the $N_f = N \pm 1$ cases are consistent, as $N_f$ and $N$ are coprime. We discuss how this cuspy/smooth transition can be understood. For $N_f< N$, we find that the number of branches of the $\eta'$ potential is $\operatorname{gcd}(N,N_f)$, which is the minimum number allowed by the anomaly. We also discuss the condition for s-confinement in QCD-like theories, and find that in general the anomaly matching of the $\theta$ periodicity indicates that s-confinement can only be possible when $N_f$ and $N$ are coprime. The s-confinement in supersymmetric QCD at $N_f = N+1$ is a famous example, and the argument generalizes for any number of fermions in the adjoint representation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20372 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example for cuspy potential in the ϕ − ϕ5 plane with Nf = 2. for varying Nf with fixed N = 3, while Ref. [45] calculates it for varying N with fixed Nf = 2, which are promising steps in the direction of varying N and Nf simultaneously. See furthermore, e.g., Ref. [46] for a recent review on large N QCD on the lattice, including further references. 8 Conclusions Supersymmetric QCD contains an η ′ -like particle in th… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    On the dynamical origin of the η′ potential and the axion mass,

    C. Cs´ aki, R. Tito D’Agnolo, R. S. Gupta, E. Kuflik, T. S. Roy, and M. Ruhdorfer, “On the dynamical origin of the η′ potential and the axion mass,” JHEP 10 (2023) 139, arXiv:2307.04809 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions,

    G. ’t Hooft, “A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions,” Nucl. Phys. B 72 (1974) 461

    work page 1974

  3. [2]

    Baryons in the 1/n Expansion,

    E. Witten, “Baryons in the 1/n Expansion,” Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979) 57–115

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    Exotic nonsupersymmetric gauge dynamics from supersymmetric QCD,

    O. Aharony, J. Sonnenschein, M. E. Peskin, and S. Yankielowicz, “Exotic nonsupersymmetric gauge dynamics from supersymmetric QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 6157–6174, arXiv:hep-th/9507013. 23

    arXiv 1995

  5. [5]

    Exact results for nonholomorphic masses in softly broken supersymmetric gauge theories,

    N. Arkani-Hamed and R. Rattazzi, “Exact results for nonholomorphic masses in softly broken supersymmetric gauge theories,” Phys. Lett. B 454 (1999) 290–296, arXiv:hep-th/9804068

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Infrared Behaviour of Softly Broken SQCD and Its Dual

    A. Karch, T. Kobayashi, J. Kubo, and G. Zoupanos, “Infrared behavior of softly broken SQCD and its dual,” Phys. Lett. B 441 (1998) 235–242, arXiv:hep-th/9808178

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Soft supersymmetry breaking in deformed moduli spaces, conformal theories, and N=2 Yang-Mills theory,

    M. A. Luty and R. Rattazzi, “Soft supersymmetry breaking in deformed moduli spaces, conformal theories, and N=2 Yang-Mills theory,” JHEP 11 (1999) 001, arXiv:hep-th/9908085

    arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    Mapping Anomalous Currents in Supersymmetric Dualities,

    S. Abel, M. Buican, and Z. Komargodski, “Mapping Anomalous Currents in Supersymmetric Dualities,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 045005, arXiv:1105.2885 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Hidden local symmetry and color confinement,

    R. Kitano, “Hidden local symmetry and color confinement,” JHEP 11 (2011) 124, arXiv:1109.6158 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Seiberg duality versus hidden local symmetry,

    S. Abel and J. Barnard, “Seiberg duality versus hidden local symmetry,” JHEP 05 (2012) 044, arXiv:1202.2863 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Out of this world supersymmetry breaking,

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “Out of this world supersymmetry breaking,” Nucl. Phys. B 557 (1999) 79–118, arXiv:hep-th/9810155

    1999 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gaugino mass without singlets,

    G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, H. Murayama, and R. Rattazzi, “Gaugino mass without singlets,” JHEP 12 (1998) 027, arXiv:hep-ph/9810442

    1998 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Some Exact Results in QCD-like Theories,

    H. Murayama, “Some Exact Results in QCD-like Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 no. 25, (2021) 251601, arXiv:2104.01179 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Guide to anomaly-mediated supersymmetry-breaking QCD,

    C. Cs´ aki, A. Gomes, H. Murayama, B. Noether, D. R. Varier, and O. Telem, “Guide to anomaly-mediated supersymmetry-breaking QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 5, (2023) 054015, arXiv:2212.03260 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Anomalies in the Space of Coupling Constants and Their Dynamical Applications II,

    C. C´ ordova, D. S. Freed, H. T. Lam, and N. Seiberg, “Anomalies in the Space of Coupling Constants and Their Dynamical Applications II,” SciPost Phys. 8 no. 1, (2020) 002, arXiv:1905.13361 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A novel strategy to prove chiral symmetry breaking in QCD-like theories,

    L. Ciambriello, R. Contino, A. Luzio, M. Romano, and L.-X. Xu, “A novel strategy to prove chiral symmetry breaking in QCD-like theories,” arXiv:2404.02967 [hep-th] . 24

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,” NATO Sci. Ser. B 59 (1980) 135–157

    1980

  10. [18]

    Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, Z. Komargodski, and N. Seiberg, “Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature,” JHEP 05 (2017) 091, arXiv:1703.00501 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Vector mesons on the wall,

    R. Kitano and R. Matsudo, “Vector mesons on the wall,” JHEP 03 (2021) 023, arXiv:2011.14637 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Restrictions on Symmetry Breaking in Vector-Like Gauge Theories,

    C. Vafa and E. Witten, “Restrictions on Symmetry Breaking in Vector-Like Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 234 (1984) 173–188

    1984

  13. [21]

    Topological Field Theory on a Lattice, Discrete Theta-Angles and Confinement,

    A. Kapustin and R. Thorngren, “Topological Field Theory on a Lattice, Discrete Theta-Angles and Confinement,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 18 no. 5, (2014) 1233–1247, arXiv:1308.2926 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    On domain walls of N=1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills in four-dimensions,

    B. S. Acharya and C. Vafa, “On domain walls of N=1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills in four-dimensions,” arXiv:hep-th/0103011

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Nonperturbative Aspects in Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,

    D. Amati, K. Konishi, Y. Meurice, G. C. Rossi, and G. Veneziano, “Nonperturbative Aspects in Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rept. 162 (1988) 169–248

    1988

  16. [24]

    Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories,

    N. Seiberg, “Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6857–6863, arXiv:hep-th/9402044

    1994 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Anomaly constraint on massless QCD and the role of Skyrmions in chiral symmetry breaking,

    Y. Tanizaki, “Anomaly constraint on massless QCD and the role of Skyrmions in chiral symmetry breaking,” JHEP 08 (2018) 171, arXiv:1807.07666 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Time-reversal breaking in QCD 4, walls, and dualities in 2 + 1 dimensions,

    D. Gaiotto, Z. Komargodski, and N. Seiberg, “Time-reversal breaking in QCD 4, walls, and dualities in 2 + 1 dimensions,” JHEP 01 (2018) 110, arXiv:1708.06806 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A symmetry breaking scenario for QCD 3,

    Z. Komargodski and N. Seiberg, “A symmetry breaking scenario for QCD 3,” JHEP 01 (2018) 109, arXiv:1706.08755 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    On the baryon-color-flavor (BCF) anomaly in vector-like theories,

    M. M. Anber and E. Poppitz, “On the baryon-color-flavor (BCF) anomaly in vector-like theories,” JHEP 11 (2019) 063, arXiv:1909.09027 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    U(1) Without Instantons,

    G. Veneziano, “U(1) Without Instantons,” Nucl. Phys. B 159 (1979) 213–224

    1979

  22. [30]

    Current Algebra Theorems for the U(1) Goldstone Boson,

    E. Witten, “Current Algebra Theorems for the U(1) Goldstone Boson,” Nucl. Phys. B 156 (1979) 269–283. 25

    1979

  23. [31]

    The U(A)(1) problem on the lattice with Ginsparg-Wilson fermions,

    L. Giusti, G. C. Rossi, M. Testa, and G. Veneziano, “The U(A)(1) problem on the lattice with Ginsparg-Wilson fermions,” Nucl. Phys. B 628 (2002) 234–252, arXiv:hep-lat/0108009

    2002 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Some more remarks on the Witten-Veneziano formula for the eta-prime mass,

    E. Seiler, “Some more remarks on the Witten-Veneziano formula for the eta-prime mass,” Phys. Lett. B 525 (2002) 355–359, arXiv:hep-th/0111125

    2002 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Witten-Veneziano relation, quenched QCD, and overlap fermions,

    MILC, T. A. DeGrand and U. M. Heller, “Witten-Veneziano relation, quenched QCD, and overlap fermions,” Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 114501, arXiv:hep-lat/0202001

    2002 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Topology of SU(N) gauge theories at T =˜ 0 and T =˜ T(c),

    B. Lucini, M. Teper, and U. Wenger, “Topology of SU(N) gauge theories at T =˜ 0 and T =˜ T(c),” Nucl. Phys. B 715 (2005) 461–482, arXiv:hep-lat/0401028

    2005 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Topological susceptibility in full QCD with Ginsparg-Wilson fermions,

    L. Giusti, G. C. Rossi, and M. Testa, “Topological susceptibility in full QCD with Ginsparg-Wilson fermions,” Phys. Lett. B 587 (2004) 157–166, arXiv:hep-lat/0402027

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Topological effects in QCD and the problem of short distance singularities,

    M. Luscher, “Topological effects in QCD and the problem of short distance singularities,” Phys. Lett. B 593 (2004) 296–301, arXiv:hep-th/0404034

    2004 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Topological susceptibility in the SU(3) gauge theory,

    L. Del Debbio, L. Giusti, and C. Pica, “Topological susceptibility in the SU(3) gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 032003, arXiv:hep-th/0407052

    2005 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Topological susceptibility and the sampling of field space in N f = 2 lattice QCD simulations,

    ALPHA, M. Bruno, S. Schaefer, and R. Sommer, “Topological susceptibility and the sampling of field space in N f = 2 lattice QCD simulations,” JHEP 08 (2014) 150, arXiv:1406.5363 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Testing the Witten-Veneziano mechanism with the Yang-Mills gradient flow on the lattice,

    M. C` e, C. Consonni, G. P. Engel, and L. Giusti, “Testing the Witten-Veneziano mechanism with the Yang-Mills gradient flow on the lattice,” PoS LATTICE2014 (2014) 353, arXiv:1410.8358 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Non-perturbative Test of the Witten-Veneziano Formula from Lattice QCD,

    ETM, K. Cichy, E. Garcia-Ramos, K. Jansen, K. Ottnad, and C. Urbach, “Non-perturbative Test of the Witten-Veneziano Formula from Lattice QCD,” JHEP 09 (2015) 020, arXiv:1504.07954 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lattice QCD calculation of the η and η′ meson masses at the physical point using rooted staggered fermions,

    W. E. A. Verplanke, Z. Fodor, A. Gerardin, J. N. Guenther, L. Lellouch, K. K. Szabo, B. C. Toth, and L. Varnhorst, “Lattice QCD calculation of the η and η′ meson masses at the physical point using rooted staggered fermions,” Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 9, (2025) 094506, arXiv:2409.18...

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    η, η′ mesons from lattice qcd in fully physical conditions,

    K. Ottnad, S. Bacchio, J. Finkenrath, B. Kostrzewa, M. Petschlies, F. Pittler, C. Urbach, and U. Wenger, “η, η′ mesons from lattice qcd in fully physical conditions,” The European Physical Journal A 61 no. 7, (2025) 169, arXiv:2503.09895 [hep-lat]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epja...

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    η and η′ mesons from Nf = 2 + 1 lattice QCD at the physical point using topological charge operators,

    Y. Su, N. Wang, L.-c. Gui, J. Hua, J. Liang, and J. Shi, “ η and η′ mesons from Nf = 2 + 1 lattice QCD at the physical point using topological charge operators,” arXiv:2505.19775 [hep-lat]

  36. [44]

    The flavor dependence of mϱ/fπ,

    D. Nogradi, D. Nogradi, L. Szikszai, and L. Szikszai, “The flavor dependence of mϱ/fπ,” JHEP 05 (2019) 197, arXiv:1905.01909 [hep-lat] . [Erratum: JHEP 06, 031 (2022)]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Topological susceptibility in QCD with two flavors and 3-5 colors: a pilot study,

    T. DeGrand, “Topological susceptibility in QCD with two flavors and 3-5 colors: a pilot study,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 11, (2020) 114509, arXiv:2004.09649 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The largeNc limit of QCD on the lattice,

    P. Hern´ andez and F. Romero-L´ opez, “The largeNc limit of QCD on the lattice,” Eur. Phys. J. A 57 no. 2, (2021) 52, arXiv:2012.03331 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. E. Mosher and M. C. Tangora, Cohomology Operations and Applications in Homotopy Theory. Dover Publications, 2008. 27

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.