Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Confined Monopoles in Chiral Bag

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that color confinement in the chiral bag is caused by monopole condensation, with the bag surface as an eta-prime domain wall carrying two Chern-Simons theories.

desk verdict A coherent and honest synthesis of known ingredients into a speculative but plausible mechanism for confinement and baryon number in the chiral bag; the load-bearing premise is assumed, not derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16653 v2 pith:47CWUAHR submitted 2025-01-28 hep-ph hep-thnucl-th

Fan Lin , Yong-Liang Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-thnucl-th
keywords chiralbagmodelmonopolecondensationChern-Simonstheoryeta-primedomainwallbaryonnumberskyrmionBFCheshireCatprinciple
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

The paper tries to establish a single topological picture of the chiral bag: confinement inside the bag comes from condensation of $N_c$ magnetic monopoles, and the bag surface is an $\eta'$ domain wall that carries two Chern-Simons theories. One of these, the level-rank dual of an $SU(N_c)_{N_f}$ theory, cancels the color anomaly and stops color charge from leaking; the other, a $U(N_f)_{N_c}$ theory for vector mesons, gives the bag the correct baryon number. If this picture is right, the surface action (28) is the complete effective description of the bag boundary, and baryons are skyrmions understood as confined monopoles wrapped in a meson cloud.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a chain of topological identifications. Inside the bag, a magnetic Abelian-Higgs model with a complex scalar $\Phi$ carrying $N_c$ magnetic charges develops a nonzero vacuum expectation value $v>0$ for $\Phi$, reducing to the $Z_{N_c}$ discrete gauge theory whose BF action (12) measures confined monopole flux. On the bag surface, the action (28) stacks an $SU(N_c)_{N_f}$ Chern-Simons term, level-rank dual to $U(N_f)_{-N_c}$ (Chern-Simons theories identified under exchange of rank and level), that cancels color leakage, with a $U(N_f)_{N_c}$ Chern-Simons term for the vector meson $V$ that fixes baryon number. The connecting mechanisms are the Witten effect (an $\eta'$/$\theta$ shift induces electric charge on magnetic flux) and the Gauss-law flux relations (22) and (30), which tie the surface flux of $A$ to the interior monopole flux and the flux of $V$ to the flux of $A$. Restricting $\Phi$ to the surface reproduces the Chern-Simons-Higgs theory (34), whose vortices carry baryon number.

What would settle it

A lattice computation in SU(3) Yang-Mills that measures the monopole condensate and the 't Hooft loop in the confined phase could settle the interior claim: if the condensate is absent or not tied to the $Z_3$ center symmetry, the $Z_{N_c}$ discrete-gauge-theory starting point for the BF action (12) collapses. A direct higher-loop cavity-QCD check that the surface action (28) cancels the color-charge leak in Eq. (6) would test the boundary claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the chiral bag is a system of confined monopoles: the interior is a $Z_{N_c}$ discrete gauge theory describing the condensation of $N_c$ magnetic monopoles, with the BF action (12). The bag surface is an $\eta'$ domain wall; the jump in $\eta'$ across it induces the Witten effect and, to keep 1-form gauge invariance, a dynamical $SU(N_c)_{N_f}$ Chern-Simons theory must live on the wall. Under level-rank duality this is a $U(N_f)_{-N_c}$ theory on the field $A$, and the paper identifies this same theory with the counterterm that cancels the color anomaly and blocks color-charge leakage. Because the two flux contributions from $A$ and the interior monopoles cancel, a second Chern-Simons theory, a $U(N_f)_{N_c}$ theory of the vector-meson field $V$, is needed on the surface and outside it; the Witten effect then assigns a baryon number to $V$'s flux, giving a nonzero total baryon number. Together these terms form the surface action (28), and restricting the monopole scalar to the surface turns it into the Chern-Simons-Higgs theory whose vortices are identified with baryons.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that quarks inside the bag can be treated as $N_c$ magnetic monopoles whose condensation creates a $Z_{N_c}$ discrete gauge theory; if confined-phase monopole condensation is not the actual mechanism of color confinement, the BF action (12), the induced surface Chern-Simons theories, and the baryon-number accounting built on them all lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Eq. (28) is the complete bag-surface action, color confinement is restored dynamically: the $U(N_f)_{-N_c}$ term exactly cancels the color-anomaly leakage of Eq. (6), so no separate gauge-fixing counterterm is needed.
  • The baryon number of the bag is the sum $Q = Q_{in} + Q_{out}$: the Witten effect on the vector-meson flux gives $Q_{in}$ via Eq. (31), and the exterior integral (33) over $\eta'$ and $V$ gives $Q_{out}$.
  • In the one-flavor configuration with interior $\eta'$ set to $0$, surface $\eta'$ set to $2\pi$, and unit monopole flux, the construction yields a single baryon, matching the quantum-Hall-droplet picture of baryons on the $\eta'$ domain wall.
  • The Chern-Simons-Higgs theory (34)--(35) on the bag surface has vortex solutions with unit topological charge and spin $N_c/2$, so baryons in 2+1 dimensions on the $\eta'$ domain wall and in the chiral bag are the same objects.
  • The skyrmion picture follows: a baryon is a confined monopole wrapped in a meson cloud, and once the monopole singularity is smoothed, that cloud is the skyrmion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not demonstrate bag-radius independence; an implicit corollary is that the two Chern-Simons theories in (28) must survive the Cheshire Cat shrinking of the bag to arbitrary radius, which could be checked by integrating out the interior BF theory at each radius.
  • A lattice test suggested by the paper's logic: in SU(3) Yang-Mills, the confined phase should exhibit a nonzero monopole condensate tied to the $Z_3$ center symmetry, so measuring the 't Hooft loop expectation value would confirm or contradict the discrete-gauge-theory starting point.
  • If the vector-meson Chern-Simons term is a microscopic statement, it predicts a specific hidden-local-symmetry role for the lightest vector mesons at the bag boundary; the paper does not identify which multiplet carries $V$, leaving a concrete model-building gap.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that inside the chiral bag, color confinement is effected by condensation of Nc magnetic monopoles, giving a Z_Nc discrete gauge theory described by a BF action. The bag surface is interpreted as an η' domain wall, where a dynamical U(Nf)_-Nc (equivalently SU(Nc)_Nf) Chern-Simons theory emerges as the counterterm that cancels the color anomaly and blocks color charge leakage. To obtain a nonzero baryon number, a vector-meson U(Nf)_Nc Chern-Simons theory is added on the surface and extended into the exterior, and its flux combines with the monopole flux to give a Chern-Simons-Higgs theory whose vortices are identified with baryons. The paper concludes by proposing that skyrmions can be understood as monopoles enveloped by a meson cloud.

Significance. If the underlying premise were established, the paper would provide a unifying topological account of the chiral bag: the old color-leakage counterterm of Nielsen-Rho-Wirzba-Zahed, the SU(Nc)_-Nf theory on η' domain walls, and the vector-meson CS action for baryons would all be facets of one surface theory. The internal algebra is largely consistent, and the use of level-rank duality and anomaly inflow is standard. The main value is the connection drawn between higher-form symmetry arguments and the historically separate chiral-bag boundary counterterm. However, the paper makes no falsifiable prediction and the central mechanism is assumed rather than derived, so the significance is conditional on the monopole-condensation hypothesis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (12)] The entire construction rests on the unsupported assumption that quarks 'behave like monopoles' and that condensation of Nc monopoles causes confinement. The text introduces this in one sentence and offers no derivation from SU(Nc) gauge theory, no lattice or numerical evidence, and no testable consequence. Because the BF action in Eq. (12), the 1-form anomaly in Eqs. (17)-(18), and the surface Chern-Simons counterterm in Eq. (19) all depend on this premise, the central claim is only as solid as the premise. Please cite quantitative evidence for the dual-superconductor mechanism in QCD or, if this is intended as a working hypothesis, state explicitly that all subsequent conclusions are conditional on it and adjust the abstract accordingly.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is derived only for the quasi-Abelian case, and the text asserts that it also holds for non-Abelian color magnetic fields without proof. Since Eq. (9) and the counterterm Eq. (19) rely on the non-Abelian expression GdG - (2i/3)G^3, this extension is load-bearing. A derivation or a rigorous citation is needed; as written, the color anomaly is a conjecture.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (9) and Sec. III] The choice η'_Σ - η'_in = 2π is made by hand. This choice determines the level K = Nf of the SU(Nc) Chern-Simons term and therefore controls the level-rank dual U(Nf)_-Nc identification. For Nf > 1 this is not the minimal vacuum period read off from Eq. (8), so the paper should justify why this particular shift is the physical one for the bag boundary. Without such justification, the central identification of the surface Chern-Simons level is circular.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (34)] Equation (34) is said to describe an effective theory on the bag surface, but the integral is over the interior region Ω and the kinetic term |dφ - iVφ|^2 has different spacetime dimensionality from the Chern-Simons term Nc/(4π)VdV. Please specify the actual integration domain (the 2+1-dimensional surface Σ) and the measure, and state whether φ is the restriction of the bulk monopole field. As written, the equation is not well-defined, which weakens the identification with the Chern-Simons-Higgs theory of Ref. [53].
minor comments (5)
  1. [Secs. III-IV] The notation conflates the bulk field A and the surface field A in Eqs. (19)-(31); use a distinct symbol, for example calligraphic A, for one of them.
  2. [Sec. IV] The text considers both η'_Σ - η'_in = 2π and later 2πNf for the same surface theory; clarify which value is used for the one-flavor baryon and why the theory is independent of the interior choice.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption refers to an 'interaction SU(Nc)_-Nf Chern-Simons theory' involving the vector meson field, while Eq. (28) has a U(Nf)_Nc structure for V; align the terminology.
  4. [Sec. IV and Conclusion] The relation to Ref. [53] should be stated explicitly: is Eq. (34) a re-derivation, a consistency check, or a new prediction? As it stands, the paper risks appearing circular because the final theory is the previously conjectured one.
  5. [Conclusion] Please add a brief discussion of possible lattice or phenomenological tests, such as monopole density or θ-dependence of the baryon spectrum, that could discriminate the proposed mechanism.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The central 'finding' that monopole condensation causes confinement is the paper's own Sec. III assumption restated as a result, and the final Chern-Simons-Higgs identification is confirmed only by the authors' prior conjecture [53].

  1. other [Abstract and Sec. III (before Eq. (10))]
    "Since gluons belong to the SU (Nc) Yang-Mills theory, we can assume quarks behave like monopoles inside the bag, and the condensation of Nc monopoles leads to confinement."

    The abstract's headline result, 'we find that, within the chiral bag, confinement is likely caused by monopole condensation,' is the exact same statement as this Sec. III assumption. The Z_Nc BF action (Eq. (12)), the 1-form anomaly (Eqs. (17)-(18)), and the entire surface Chern-Simons construction (Eqs. (19), (23), (28)) are all conditional on this assumed monopole condensate; no derivation from SU(Nc) gauge theory or from the bag boundary conditions is given. The Data Availability statement ('No data were created or analyzed in this study') confirms there is no external input. Thus the central claim is an assumed input renamed as a derived finding, not a result obtained from independent premises.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. IV, after Eq. (34)]
    "This is precisely the Chern-Simons-Higgs theory, which has been conjectured to exist on the η′ domain wall [53], with vortex solutions proposed to describe baryons or multibaryon configurations in 2+1 dimensions."

    Reference [53] is Lin and Ma's own prior paper, and the abstract advertises 'This leads to a Chern-Simons-Higgs theory localized on the η′ domain wall, as previously conjectured.' The physical payload of the paper—vortices of this theory as baryons with the correct Nc scaling—is imported from [53], while the derivation leading to Eq. (34) does not independently establish that vortex-baryon interpretation. The target of the derivation is therefore the same authors' own conjecture, so the identification of the bag-surface action with that theory is a self-citation made load-bearing for the paper's central conclusion rather than an independent confirmation.

full rationale

The formal chain from the assumed Z_Nc BF theory to the surface Chern-Simons actions is internally coherent and uses standard level-rank duality and anomaly-inflow results; that part is not circular. However, two headline moves are. First, the abstract's 'we find ... confinement is likely caused by monopole condensation' restates Sec. III's 'we can assume ... the condensation of Nc monopoles leads to confinement'; every downstream equation is conditional on that premise, so the central claim is an assumption presented as a result. Second, the concluding identification of Eq. (34) with 'the Chern-Simons-Higgs theory ... conjectured to exist on the η′ domain wall' invokes the authors' own prior conjecture [53] for the baryon interpretation; the present derivation does not independently validate that conjecture, and the Data Availability statement confirms no independent data were used. These two features make the central claim partially circular even though the intermediate gauge-invariance manipulations have independent logical content. Score 7 reflects that the central 'finding' and the final identification reduce to the paper's own inputs and self-citations, while the algebraic steps between them are not themselves circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The paper postulates a monopole condensate to generate confinement and then builds the surface topological theory by requiring gauge invariance. No free parameters are fitted to data, but the vacuum shift delta_eta' = 2pi, the monopole vev v, and the flux integral of dA = Nc are chosen to produce the desired output. The axioms are mostly accepted results (level-rank duality, BF theory, anomaly matching) plus the paper-specific assumption that quarks behave like monopoles. The invented entities are the condensed monopoles, antimonopoles, and the two surface Chern-Simons fields; none has independent evidence proposed.

free parameters (3)
  • eta'_Sigma - eta'_in = 2pi (or 2pi*Nf)
    The vacuum jump across the bag surface is chosen by hand to produce the desired Chern-Simons levels and is used in Eqs. (9), (23), (28), and (31).
  • monopole condensate vev v = unspecified positive value
    The BF description requires <|Phi|> = v > 0 in Sec. III; no value or dynamics is specified, but it is a postulated scale.
  • magnetic flux (1/2pi) integral of dA over Sigma = Nc (in the Nf=1 example)
    Set to Nc in Sec. IV to make the one-flavor baryon example carry unit baryon number; a topological integer, but chosen to match the desired output.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Level-rank duality SU(Nc)_Nf <-> U(Nf)_-Nc
    Invoked around Eq. (19) and Eq. (36) to identify the surface counterterm with the eta-prime domain wall theory; accepted in the literature via Ref. [49].
  • domain assumption Chiral bag boundary conditions (1), (2) and the color anomaly formula (5) describe the quantum leakage of color charge
    The entire counterterm and Chern-Simons identification starts from Eq. (5), which is derived for a quasi-Abelian case and then asserted for non-Abelian fields in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption The eta-prime effective Lagrangian (8) has multiple vacuum branches and supports domain walls
    Used to treat the bag surface as an eta-prime domain wall with vacuum jump delta_eta' = 2pi in Secs. II and III.
  • ad hoc to paper Quarks behave like monopoles and Nc monopole condensation causes confinement
    Introduced as an explicit assumption in Sec. III: 'we can assume quarks behave like monopoles inside the bag, and the condensation of Nc monopoles leads to confinement.' This is the load-bearing premise.
  • domain assumption Vector meson fields can be represented by a U(Nf)_Nc Chern-Simons theory on the bag surface coupled to eta-prime via hidden Wess-Zumino terms
    Needed to obtain Eq. (28) and the Chern-Simons-Higgs theory in Eqs. (34)-(35); it imports the framework of Refs. [68,70-72].
invented entities (4)
  • Condensed magnetic monopoles in the bag interior
    purpose: Source of color-magnetic flux that triggers the anomaly and gives confinement via Z_Nc gauge theory
    No direct detection or lattice evidence is cited; the paper explicitly says 'we can conjecture the existence of monopoles inside the bag.'
  • Dynamical surface Chern-Simons field A (U(Nf)_-Nc)
    purpose: Restores 1-form gauge invariance and cancels color charge leakage, acting as the counterterm
    A gauge field introduced on the surface; it has no independent observable beyond the flux relation (22) inside the proposed theory.
  • Antimonopoles on the bag surface
    purpose: Carry flux opposite to the interior monopoles so as to seal the color leak
    Inferred from the opposite-sign flux in Eq. (22); not directly observed.
  • Vector meson Chern-Simons field V (U(Nf)_Nc) extending outside the bag
    purpose: Carry baryon number from the bag into the exterior and produce the Chern-Simons-Higgs theory with vortex baryons
    V is identified with standard vector mesons, but the Chern-Simons action and its flux are new postulates; no direct experimental signature is proposed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Confined Monopoles in Chiral Bag." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/47CWUAHR

@misc{pith2026250116653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Confined Monopoles in Chiral Bag},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/47CWUAHR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16653}
}
abstract

The chiral bag model offers a dual description of hadron physics in terms of quarks and hadrons in the sense of Cheshire Cat principle. In this work, we find that, within the chiral bag, confinement is likely caused by monopole condensation. The chiral bag surface can be interpreted as an $\eta'$ domain wall, where a dynamical Chern-Simons theory emerges. Under level-rank duality, the Chern-Simons theory serves as the counterterm introduced to block the so-called color charge leakage. To ensure the correct net baryon number of the full chiral bag, an additional Chern-Simons theory involving the vector meson field arises on the bag surface and extends outside the bag. This leads to a Chern-Simons-Higgs theory localized on the $\eta'$ domain wall, as previously conjectured. We also propose that the skyrmion description of baryons could be understood as a system of monopoles enveloped by a meson cloud.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic structure of the chiral bag: The chiral bag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.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

  1. Baryon Construction with $\eta^\prime$ Meson Field

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    This review argues that one-flavor baryons may be understood as vortices or quantum Hall droplets on an eta-prime domain wall, with unit winding giving baryon number one and spin N_c/2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [53]

    Lin and Y

    F. Lin and Y. L. Ma, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2024) 270

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. 177, 2247 (1969)

    work page 1969

  3. [2]

    S. R. Coleman, J. Wess, and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. 177, 2239 (1969)

    1969

  4. [3]

    Weinberg, Physica (Amsterdam) 96A, 327 (1979)

    S. Weinberg, Physica (Amsterdam) 96A, 327 (1979)

    work page 1979

  5. [4]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 158, 142 (1984)

    work page 1984

  6. [5]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B 251, 288 (1990)

    1990

  7. [6]

    Gasser, M

    J. Gasser, M. E. Sainio, and A. Svarc, Nucl. Phys. B307, 779 (1988)

    work page 1988

  8. [7]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, Proc. R. Soc. A 260, 127 (1961)

    work page 1961

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, Nucl. Phys. 31, 556 (1962)

    1962

  2. [9]

    Zahed and G

    I. Zahed and G. E. Brown, Phys. Rep. 142, 1 (1986)

    1986

  3. [10]

    M. F. Atiyah and N. S. Manton, Phys. Lett. B 222, 438 (1989)

    1989

  4. [11]

    N. S. Manton and P. Sutcliffe, Topological solitons (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2004)

    2004

  5. [12]

    H. J. Lee, B. Y. Park, D. P. Min, M. Rho, and V. Vento, Nucl. Phys. A723, 427 (2003)

    2003

  6. [13]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B72, 461 (1974)

    1974

  7. [14]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B160, 57 (1979)

    1979

  8. [15]

    G. S. Adkins, C. R. Nappi, and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B228, 552 (1983)

    1983

  9. [16]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B223, 422 (1983)

    1983

  10. [17]

    Chodos, R

    A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn, and V. F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3471 (1974)

    1974

  11. [18]

    Chodos, R

    A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, and C. B. Thorn, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2599 (1974)

    1974

  12. [19]

    T. A. DeGrand, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, and J. E. Kiskis, Phys. Rev. D 12, 2060 (1975)

    1975

  13. [20]

    P. A. M. Guichon, Phys. Lett. B 200, 235 (1988)

    1988

  14. [21]

    Buballa, Phys

    M. Buballa, Phys. Rep. 407, 205 (2005)

    2005

  15. [22]

    J. C. Collins and M. J. Perry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 1353 (1975)

    1975

  16. [23]

    G. E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Lett. 82B, 177 (1979)

    1979

  17. [24]

    G. E. Brown, M. Rho, and V. Vento, Phys. Lett. B 84, 383 (1979)

    1979

  18. [25]

    Vento, M

    V. Vento, M. Rho, E. M. Nyman, J. H. Jun, and G. E. Brown, Nucl. Phys. A345, 413 (1980)

    1980

  19. [26]

    A. W. Thomas, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 13, 1 (1984)

    1984

  20. [27]

    M. Rho, A. S. Goldhaber, and G. E. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 747 (1983)

    1983

  21. [28]

    Chodos and C

    A. Chodos and C. B. Thorn, Phys. Rev. D 12, 2733 (1975)

    1975

  22. [29]

    P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D 30, 1073 (1984)

    1984

  23. [30]

    J. T. Goldman and R. W. Haymaker, Phys. Rev. D 24, 724 (1981)

    1981

  24. [31]

    Nadkarni and H

    S. Nadkarni and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B263, 1 (1986)

    1986

  25. [32]

    Nadkarni, H

    S. Nadkarni, H. B. Nielsen, and I. Zahed, Nucl. Phys. B253, 308 (1985)

    1985

  26. [33]

    R. J. Perry and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D 34, 1169 (1986)

    1986

  27. [34]

    P. H. Damgaard, H. B. Nielsen, and R. Sollacher, Nucl. Phys. B385, 227 (1992)

    1992

  28. [35]

    Nadkarni and I

    S. Nadkarni and I. Zahed, Nucl. Phys. B263, 23 (1986)

    1986

  29. [36]

    H. J. Lee, D. P. Min, B. Y. Park, M. Rho, and V. Vento, Nucl. Phys. A657, 75 (1999)

    1999

  30. [37]

    Y. L. Ma and M. Rho, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 113, 103791 (2020)

    2020

  31. [38]

    H. B. Nielsen, M. Rho, A. Wirzba, and I. Zahed, Phys. Lett. B 269, 389 (1991)

    1991

  32. [39]

    H. B. Nielsen, M. Rho, A. Wirzba, and I. Zahed, Phys. Lett. B 281, 345 (1992)

    1992

  33. [40]

    Y. L. Ma and M. Rho, Symmetry 13, 1888 (2021)

    2021

  34. [41]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B156, 269 (1979)

    1979

  35. [42]

    Veneziano, Nucl

    G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B159, 213 (1979)

    1979

  36. [43]

    Di Vecchia and G

    P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B171, 253 (1980)

    1980

  37. [44]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2015) 172

    2015

  38. [45]

    Kapustin and R

    A. Kapustin and R. Thorngren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 231602 (2014)

    2014

  39. [46]

    Kapustin and N

    A. Kapustin and N. Seiberg, J High Energy Phys. 04 (2014) 001

    2014

  40. [47]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, Z. Komargodski, and N. Seiberg, J. High. Energy Phys. 05 (2017) 091

    2017

  41. [48]

    Gaiotto, Z

    D. Gaiotto, Z. Komargodski, and N. Seiberg, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2018) 110

    2018

  42. [49]

    P. S. Hsin and N. Seiberg, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2016) 095

    2016

  43. [50]

    Komargodski, arXiv:1812.09253

    Z. Komargodski, arXiv:1812.09253

    arXiv

  44. [51]

    Y. L. Ma, M. A. Nowak, M. Rho, and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 172301 (2019)

    2019

  45. [52]

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and J. A. Harvey, Nucl. Phys. B250, 427 (1985)

    1985

  46. [54]

    Bigazzi, A

    F. Bigazzi, A. L. Cotrone, and A. Olzi, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2023) 194

    2023

  47. [55]

    M. Eto, K. Nishimura, and M. Nitta, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2024) 019

    2024

  48. [56]

    X. G. Huang, K. Nishimura, and N. Yamamoto, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2018) 069

    2018

  49. [57]

    S. B. Gudnason and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. D 89, 085022 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    M. Eto, K. Nishimura, and M. Nitta, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2023) 032

    2023

  51. [59]

    Fukushima and S

    K. Fukushima and S. Imaki, Phys. Rev. D 97, 114003 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Goldstone and F

    J. Goldstone and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 986 (1981)

    1981

  53. [61]

    T. H. Hansson and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 28, 882 (1983)

    1983

  54. [62]

    A. J. Niemi and G. W. Semenoff, Phys. Rep. 135, 99 (1986)

    1986

  55. [63]

    Goldstone and R

    J. Goldstone and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1518 (1983)

    1983

  56. [64]

    Dierigl and A

    M. Dierigl and A. Pritzel, Phys. Rev. D 90, 105008 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    Banks and N

    T. Banks and N. Seiberg, Phys. Rev. D 83, 084019 (2011). 9

    2011

  58. [66]

    Gukov and A

    S. Gukov and A. Kapustin, arXiv:1307.4793

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    G. T. Horowitz, Commun. Math. Phys. 125, 417 (1989)

    1989

  60. [68]

    Kitano and R

    R. Kitano and R. Matsudo, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2021) 023

    2021

  61. [69]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Lett. 86B, 283 (1979)

    1979

  62. [70]

    Karasik, SciPost Phys

    A. Karasik, SciPost Phys. 10, 138 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    Karasik, SciPost Phys

    A. Karasik, SciPost Phys. 9, 008 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    Karasik, Symmetry 14, 2347 (2022)

    A. Karasik, Symmetry 14, 2347 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    H. K. Dreiner, J. R. Ellis, and R. A. Flores, Phys. Lett. B 221, 167 (1989)

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.