Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Fractionalization of flux tubes in 3d and screening by emergent electric charges in 2d

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A twisted compactification turns even-n confinement into screening

desk verdict A credible generalization of flux-tube fractionalization and the twisted-compactification screening mechanism to arbitrary n, with a clean even/odd dichotomy; the central Wilson-loop sum is asserted rather than derived, so the quantitative claims need sharper support. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14532 v1 pith:D74RG3X5 submitted 2024-12-19 hep-th

Mendel Nguyen , Mithat Ünsal This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th PACS 11.15.-q
keywords charge-nmonopoleclustersfluxtubefractionalizationdomainlinesWilsonlooparealawperimetertwistedcompactificationemergentfractionalelectricchargeR^2xS^1
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 studies a class of three-dimensional gauge-like theories whose confining vacuum is produced by clusters of $n$ magnetic monopoles, giving the vacuum a $\mathbb{Z}_n$ magnetic symmetry. Its central claim is that the electric flux tube between two probe charges splits into $n$ separate fractional flux lines, each carrying $1/n$ of the electric flux. When one spatial direction is compactified on a circle with a charge-conjugation twist, the theory—which still has no electric charges in its microscopic Lagrangian—produces perimeter-law Wilson loops for even $n$ (complete screening) and area-law Wilson loops with $n$-times-reduced tension for odd $n$ (partial screening), once the loop size exceeds the compactification scale. The paper identifies the mechanism as emergent fractional charges $\pm 2/n$ that appear at the junctions of domain lines and topological defects. If correct, this refines the usual confinement-versus-screening distinction: whether a Wilson loop shows an area law can depend on the parity of the probe charge and on the compactification geometry, not only on the presence of dynamical electric matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the charge-$n$ dual-photon model $\mathcal{L} = \frac{g_3^2}{8\pi^2}(\partial_\mu \sigma)^2 - \zeta_n \cos(n\sigma)$, with compact scalar $\sigma \sim \sigma + 2\pi$; its $n$ degenerate vacua are labelled by the positions of $\langle e^{i\sigma}\rangle$ on the $n$-th roots of unity. A unit electric probe is a vortex of $\sigma$, and the solution that winds once around the target space passes through all $n$ vacua, so the flux tube factorizes into $n$ domain lines $L_j$, each carrying $1/n$ electric flux. The twisted compactification is the boundary condition $\sigma(x^2+\ell_2) = -\sigma(x^2)$, equivalent to inserting a topological defect line that acts by $\mathbb{Z}_2$ conjugation on the domain lines. The energy formula $E_k = \Sigma_0[(n-2k)R + 2k\ell_2]$ is the sum of straight-line tensions for the $k$-th configuration, and the Wilson loop is the sum over the $\lfloor n/2 \rfloor + 1$ topologically distinct ways the $n$ fractional lines can end on the circle; this machinery delivers the area-to-perimeter crossover and the emergent charges $-2/n$ at line junctions.

What would settle it

Compute the full path integral—or run a lattice simulation—for the even-$n$ model with twisted boundary conditions at $R \gg \ell_2$ and check whether the Wilson loop contains an area-law factor $e^{-cRT}$ with $c > 0$. Finding $c = 0$ at the level of the fluctuation determinant around the $k = n/2$ straight-line configuration would confirm the perimeter law, while any nonzero $c$, however small, would falsify the screening claim as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On $\mathbb{R}^2 \times S^1$ with the twisted boundary condition $\sigma(x^1, x^2 + \ell_2, x^3) = -\sigma(x^1, x^2, x^3)$, the Wilson-loop expectation value is a sum over $k = 0, \ldots, \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$ straight configurations in which $n-2k$ of the fractional domain lines run between the probe charges and the remaining $2k$ run off along the compact circle. Their energies are $E_k = \Sigma_0[(n-2k)R + 2k \ell_2]$, so the string tension extracted from the minimal term is $n\Sigma_0$ for $R < \ell_2$, is $\Sigma_0$ for odd $n$ when $R > \ell_2$, and is zero for even $n$ when $R > \ell_2$. The zero-tension configuration for even $n$ is the $k = n/2$ one, whose energy is independent of the separation $R$; the paper interprets this as complete screening by emergent charges of size $-2/n$ that sit at the junctions where domain lines meet the topological defect line implementing the twist. For odd $n$, one domain line always connects the probes, leaving linear confinement with tension $\Sigma_0$, which the paper calls partial screening of a unit probe down to charge $1/n$. The same physics appears from the monopole perspective: under the twist, a charge-$n$ monopole becomes an infinite alternating array whose field collimates into vortices, and an even-$n$ vortex carries flux an even multiple of $\pi$, invisible to the Wilson loop, while an odd-$n$ vortex carries an odd multiple of $\pi$ and drives an area law.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation sums straight, non-interacting domain-line configurations and keeps only the minimum-energy term; if interactions, fluctuations, or configurational entropy add a positive $R$-dependent cost to the $k = n/2$ configuration, the even-$n$ perimeter law would not survive at asymptotically large loop sizes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For even $n$, the theory on $\mathbb{R}^2 \times S^1$ with twist gives perimeter-law Wilson loops at large $R$, so a gapped confining vacuum on $\mathbb{R}^3$ can look screened to asymptotic observers after a purely spatial compactification.
  • For odd $n$, large Wilson loops keep an area law but with tension $\Sigma_0$ instead of $n\Sigma_0$, meaning a unit probe is only partially screened down to effective charge $1/n$.
  • In the $n=1$ Polyakov model, the same computation predicts that charge-$q$ probes on a large twisted circle obey a perimeter law for even $q$ and an area law with tension $\Sigma_0$ for odd $q$, connecting flux-tube fractionalization to the center-vortex picture.
  • The crossover from $n\Sigma_0$ to $\Sigma_0$ or $0$ occurs at $R \approx \ell_2$, and since $\ell_2$ can be chosen arbitrarily large, local observers probing loops smaller than $\ell_2$ see confinement while asymptotic observers see screening.
  • The junction charges $\pm 2/n$ appear as endpoint contributions to Wilson lines ending on the topological defect, giving a concrete observable signature of the emergent fractional electric charges.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension suggested by this picture: in a lattice realization of the charge-$n$ model with twisted boundary conditions, measuring Wilson loops at $R \gg \ell_2$ should show a clean perimeter law for even $n$ and an area law with tension $\Sigma_0$ for odd $n$; a nonzero area-law piece at large $R$ would signal that line interactions or entropy invalidate the straight-line energy estimat
  • The argument treats the fractional lines as noninteracting and straight; if kink-kink repulsion adds a term of order $\log R$ to the energy, the sharp crossover at $\ell_2$ may become smooth, but the even-$n$ $k = n/2$ configuration is topologically protected to have zero $R$-dependence, so a residual area-law term would have to come from fluctuations rather than topology.
  • The same fractionalization mechanism may apply to other compactifications: any twist that pairs domain lines pairwise and leaves an odd line unpaired will produce partial screening, suggesting a general criterion that the parity of the number of lines crossing the compactification direction decides whether the perimeter or area law wins.
  • Because the emergent charges are $\pm 2/n$, the even-$n$ theory realizes charge fractionalization in a purely bosonic setting; one could look for their Aharonov-Bohm signature in correlators of the dual photon around Wilson loops of suitable shape.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the 3d charge-n model L=(g^2/8π^2)(∂σ)^2 − ζ_n cos(nσ), which has an exact U(1) electric 1-form symmetry and a Z_n magnetic symmetry, and argues that on R^2 × S^1 with a Z_2 twisted boundary condition the confining flux tube between external charges fractionates into n domain lines. The central claim is that large Wilson loops obey a perimeter law for even n (complete screening) and an area law with reduced tension for odd n (partial screening), despite the absence of electric matter, with the crossover at R ≈ ℓ_2 described by Eq. (13). The paper also interprets the perimeter term as due to emergent fractional electric charges Q = ±2/n at junctions of domain lines with a topological defect, and gives an image-charge argument in which charge-n monopoles transmute into nπ vortices, yielding the even/odd dichotomy.

Significance. If established, the result would be a striking counterexample to the usual expectation that an exact electric 1-form symmetry forbids screening, with potential implications for quantum antiferromagnets, QCD(adj)-like theories on R^3 × S^1, and modified Villain lattice models. Section III contains a clean and internally consistent derivation of flux-tube fractionalization into n domain lines, generalizing the n=2 magnetic-bion picture. Section VI's image-charge argument is physically appealing and gives a robust qualitative explanation of the even/odd difference. However, the central quantitative claim, Eq. (11), is not derived from the path integral, so the significance is conditional on closing that gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (10)–(13)] The Wilson-loop expectation value in Eq. (11) is written as a sum over k=0,...,⌊n/2⌋ straight, mutually noninteracting domain-line configurations with energies E_k = Σ_0[(n−2k)R + 2kℓ_2]. This is the load-bearing step of the paper: the even-n perimeter law for R>ℓ_2 and the crossover at R≈ℓ_2 follow from this ansatz. No derivation from the path integral of Eq. (2) with the twisted boundary condition (9) is provided. In particular, the ansatz omits (i) fluctuation determinants around each straight-line configuration, which in the effectively two-dimensional description give an R-dependent entropic contribution; (ii) interactions among the k lines that wrap the S^1 and between them and the n−2k direct lines; and (iii) any junction or fusion energy at the points where lines meet the external charges or the defect line. Since E_{n/2}=nΣ_0ℓ_2 has zero R-dependence by construction, an R-dependent correction to the effective action of the wrapping sector would restore an area law. Section VI's vortex picture supports the qualitative even/odd dichotomy but does not fix the coefficient of the area term or the crossover scale, so it cannot replace a controlled computation of Eq. (11). A lattice computation of the twisted charge-n Villain model, or a dilute-gas calculation with fluctuation determinants, is needed before the screening claim can be accepted.
  2. [Section V, Eqs. (14)–(16)] The claim that the perimeter term represents screening by emergent fractional electric charges Q=±2/n is an interpretive assignment based on flux conservation at the junction of L_j and L_{n+1−j} with the defect line; no local operator or dynamical degree of freedom carrying this charge is constructed. For screening to actually occur, the junction charges must be able to move to the probe and neutralize it. The manuscript should specify how the defect line and its junctions are realized in the path integral and why their presence explicitly breaks the exact U(1) electric 1-form symmetry assumed in Section II, rather than merely re-labeling a confining configuration. This matters because the conclusion invites the reader to reinterpret a confining theory as a screening theory based on the same configuration bookkeeping.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (19)] The transition from 'for ℓ_2 ≪ R a charge-n monopole is a vortex of flux nπ' to 'proliferation of vortices generates area law for odd n and perimeter law for even n' is quoted from the literature for the ordinary sine-Gordon/Polyakov case, but in the present twisted compactification the vortex fugacity and interactions are not computed. This argument establishes at most the parity of n for the leading large-loop behavior, not the detailed sum (11) or the R≈ℓ_2 crossover. I do not object to the qualitative picture, but the paper should state more clearly that Section VI is heuristic and that the central quantitative claim rests entirely on Eqs. (10)–(11).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (12)] Equation (12) as printed, V(R) = R min_k[E_k], is dimensionally inconsistent with Eq. (10); it should read V(R) = min_k E_k.
  2. [Section IV, paragraph after Eq. (9)] The phrase 'There are ⌊n/2⌋+1 topologically distinct configurations' should be 'there are'; also 'go from p1 and to p2' should be 'go from p1 to p2'.
  3. [Figures 2 and 3] The labels in Figures 2 and 3 are very small and hard to read, especially the vacuum labels and the L_j markings; enlarging the figures or adding a schematic caption would help.
  4. [Section VI] The statement that the alternating array of monopoles collimates into flux tubes of thickness ℓ_2/π would benefit from a figure showing the image-charge construction and the resulting vortex picture, similar to the figures in Refs. [22,28].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the screening and fractionalization claims are explicit consequences of the stated charge-n model and twisted boundary condition, not fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained: the Lagrangian (2), the charge-conjugation twisted boundary condition (9), and the domain-line solutions (4)-(6) are the inputs; the fractionalization (8), configuration energies (10), Wilson-loop sum (11), and resulting string tensions (13) follow by direct evaluation and minimization within that model. No parameter is fitted to any output, and no externally measured quantity is renamed as a prediction. The fractional charges ±2/n are consequences of flux conservation for the 1/n domain lines—bookkeeping of the construction, but bookkeeping derived from the model, not an independent fitted input. The many self-citations ([4]-[6], [22], [23], [29]) are used as background for twisted compactification, adiabatic continuity, and standard 2d vortex-plasma results; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the central screening claim, which is also supported by the independent monopole-to-vortex perspective in Section VI. The sum over noninteracting straight domain lines in (11) is an asserted approximation and a genuine correctness/rigor risk—interactions or fluctuation determinants could alter the R-dependence and restore an area law—but an unproven approximation is not circularity unless the conclusion is inserted as the input. Here the conclusion is a mathematical consequence of the assumed energy formula, not an equivalent restatement of a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model (2) is the input; no constant is fitted to data. The main load-bearing approximations are the dilute monopole-gas description, the straight-line energy formula (10), and the vortex-accounting rule (19). These are standard in the field but are not proven from the microscopic path integral, and the even-n perimeter law depends directly on the noninteracting-configuration assumption.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The long-distance physics is governed by L = (g_3^2/8π^2)(∂σ)^2 - ζ_n cos(nσ) with an exact U(1) electric 1-form symmetry.
    Eq. (2), Section II. This is the model class under study; all results are statements about this effective field theory and its compactifications.
  • domain assumption The charge-n monopole gas is dilute, so kink/domain-line solutions of Eq. (5) with tension Σ0 describe flux tubes and domain lines, and higher-order terms in the potential are negligible.
    Sections II-III. The energy functional (4) and domain-line tension (6) assume small fugacity and a single cosine potential as the leading term.
  • domain assumption The twisted boundary condition σ(x1, x2 + ℓ2, x3) = -σ preserves adiabatic continuity and the vacuum structure, with only Ψ1 filling space for odd n and Ψ1 or Ψ_{n/2+1} for even n.
    Eq. (9), Section IV. This follows the ideas of [6,22]; if this premise fails, the classification of possible flux-line configurations changes.
  • ad hoc to paper The Wilson loop is dominated by k = 0,...,floor(n/2) straight domain-line configurations with energies E_k = Σ0[(n-2k)R + 2kℓ2], with no interaction, fluctuation, or entropy corrections.
    Eqs. (10)-(11), Section IV. This is the load-bearing approximation that gives the perimeter law for even n; it is asserted rather than derived from the path integral.
  • domain assumption For ℓ2 much smaller than R, a charge-n monopole acts as a 2d vortex with flux πnΘ_D(x), and vortex proliferation yields area law for odd multiples of π and no area law for even multiples.
    Eq. (19), Section VI, relying on [23]. The even/odd conclusion is mod-2π bookkeeping of the vortex flux.
invented entities (2)
  • Emergent fractional electric charges Q = ±2/n localized at junctions of domain lines Lj and L_{n+1-j} with the topological defect line
    purpose: Absorb the electric flux of the fractional strings so the external probe charge is completely screened for even n or screened down to 1/n for odd n.
    The value ±2/n follows from flux conservation of the 1/n domain lines and is not an independently measured object. It is a derived bookkeeping charge within the effective theory; a lattice test of the even/odd Wilson-loop law would be indirect evidence.
  • Topological defect line inserted at x* on S^1 to convert twisted boundary conditions to periodic ones
    purpose: Bookkeeping device in the field redefinition; its intersections with domain lines carry the fractional charges and implement the Z2 conjugation Ψj → Ψ_{n+2-j}.
    Standard construction used in [22,28]; not introduced for the first time here, but essential to the charge interpretation in Section V.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractionalization of flux tubes in 3d and screening by emergent electric charges in 2d." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D74RG3X5

@misc{pith2026241214532,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractionalization of flux tubes in 3d and screening by emergent electric charges in 2d},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D74RG3X5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14532}
}
abstract

We consider a class of 3d theories with a $\mathbb Z_n$ magnetic symmetry in which confinement is generated by charge $n$ clusters of monopoles. Such theories naturally arise in quantum antiferromagnets in 2+1, QCD-like theories on $\mathbb R^3 \times S^1$, and $U(1)$ lattice theory with restricted monopole sums. A confining string fractionates into $n$ strings which each carry $1/n$ electric flux. We construct a twisted compactification (equivalently periodic compactification with a topological defect insertion) on $\mathbb R^2 \times S^1$ that preserves the vacuum structure. Despite the absence of electric degrees of freedom in the microscopic Lagrangian, we show that large Wilson loops are completely/partially screened for even/odd $n$, even when the compactification scale is much larger than the Debye length. We show the emergence of fractional electric charges $(\pm 2/n)$ at the junctions of the domain lines and topological defects. We end with some remarks on screening vs. confinement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14532 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Electric flux tube in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The structure of electric flux tube in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Potential between two test charges for twisted com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Converting twisted boundary conditions to periodic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. 2d slice of 3d lattice. Imposing the charge- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett.B59, 82 (1975)

    work page 1975

  2. [2]

    Polyakov, Gauge Fields and Strings (Mathematical Reports,), 1st ed

    A. Polyakov, Gauge Fields and Strings (Mathematical Reports,), 1st ed. (CRC Press, 1987)

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-body Sys- tems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons (Oxford Graduate Texts) , reissue ed

    X.-G. Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-body Sys- tems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons (Oxford Graduate Texts) , reissue ed. (Ox- ford Univ Pr (Txt), 2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Unsal, Phys

    M. Unsal, Phys. Rev. D80, 065001 (2009), arXiv:0709.3269 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Unsal, Phys

    M. Unsal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 032005 (2008), arXiv:0708.1772 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Unsal and L

    M. Unsal and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. D78, 065035 (2008), arXiv:0803.0344 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    M. M. Anber, E. Poppitz, and T. Sulejmanpasic, Phys. Rev. D92, 021701 (2015), arXiv:1501.06773 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    D. J. Gross, I. R. Klebanov, A. V. Matytsin, and A. V. Smilga, Nucl. Phys.B461, 109 (1996), arXiv:hep- th/9511104 [hep-th]

    arXiv 1996

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Cherman, T

    A. Cherman, T. Jacobson, Y. Tanizaki, and M. Ünsal, SciPost Phys.8, 072 (2020), arXiv:1908.09858 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Komargodski, K

    Z. Komargodski, K. Ohmori, K. Roumpedakis, and S. Seifnashri, JHEP03, 103, arXiv:2008.07567 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [11]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 1029 (1988)

    1988

  4. [12]

    Read and S

    N. Read and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1694 (1989)

    1989

  5. [13]

    Read and S

    N. Read and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B42, 4568 (1990)

    1990

  6. [14]

    E.PoppitzandM.Unsal,JHEP 12,011,arXiv:0910.1245 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    M. M. Anber and E. Poppitz, JHEP 06, 136, arXiv:1105.0940 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Sulejmanpasic, H

    T. Sulejmanpasic, H. Shao, A. Sandvik, and M. Unsal, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 091601 (2017), arXiv:1608.09011 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Banerjee, D

    A. Banerjee, D. Banerjee, G. Kanwar, A. Mariani, T. Rindlisbacher, and U. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. D109, 014506 (2024), arXiv:2309.17109 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Banerjee, F

    D. Banerjee, F. J. Jiang, P. Widmer, and U. J. Wiese, J. Stat.Mech. 1312,P12010(2013),arXiv:1303.6858[cond- mat.str-el]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Banerjee, M

    D. Banerjee, M. Bögli, C. P. Hofmann, F. J. Jiang, P. Widmer, and U. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. B94, 115120 (2016), arXiv:1511.00881 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Banerjee, M

    D. Banerjee, M. Bögli, C. P. Hofmann, F. J. Jiang, P. Widmer, and U. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. B90, 245143 (2014), arXiv:1406.2077 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Sulejmanpasic and C

    T. Sulejmanpasic and C. Gattringer, Nucl. Phys.B943, 114616 (2019), arXiv:1901.02637 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hayashi and Y

    Y. Hayashi and Y. Tanizaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 171902 (2024), arXiv:2405.12402 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Tanizaki and M

    Y. Tanizaki and M. Ünsal, PTEP2022, 04A108 (2022), arXiv:2201.06166 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    G.V.Dunne, I.I.Kogan, A.Kovner,andB.Tekin,JHEP 01, 032, arXiv:hep-th/0010201

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and D. T. Son, JHEP 01, 050, arXiv:hep-th/0212230

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Simic and M

    D. Simic and M. Unsal, Phys. Rev. D85, 105027 (2012), arXiv:1010.5515 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Greensite, Prog

    J. Greensite, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 1 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0301023

    2003 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hayashi, T

    Y. Hayashi, T. Misumi, and Y. Tanizaki, (2024), arXiv:2410.21392 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Güvendik, T

    C. Güvendik, T. Schaefer, and M. Ünsal, (2024), arXiv:2405.13696 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Schwinger, L

    J. Schwinger, L. Deraad Jr., K. Milton, and W.-Y. Tsai, Classical Electrodynamics (CRC Press, 1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    Gorantla, H

    P. Gorantla, H. T. Lam, N. Seiberg, and S.-H. Shao, J. Math. Phys.62, 102301 (2021), arXiv:2103.01257 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Unsal, Phys

    M. Unsal, Phys. Rev. D 86, 105012 (2012), arXiv:1201.6426 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.