Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Non-singlet conserved charges and anomalies in 3+1 D staggered fermions

T0 review · 4 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 3+1D staggered fermion Hamiltonian admits conserved axial-flavor charges whose lattice mixed anomaly becomes trivial in the continuum limit, where a symmetric mass term exists.

desk verdict Solid charge construction, but the anomaly-trivialization claim rests on an unsupported WT calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04906 v1 pith:NBKMNK2D submitted 2025-09-05 hep-lat

Tetsuya Onogi , Tatsuya Yamaoka This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lat PACS 11.15.Ha11.30.Rd
keywords staggeredfermionsconservedlatticechargesaxial-flavorSU(2)_Amixed'tHooftanomalyWard–TakahashiidentityOnsageralgebrasymmetricmassgenerationcontinuumlimit
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 shows that a 3+1D staggered fermion lattice has more conserved charges than the obvious fermion-number charge. The extra charges $\hat{Q}_{\hat{x}_i}$ generate axial-flavor $\mathrm{SU}(2)_A$ rotations on the two massless Dirac flavors in the continuum limit, yet on the lattice no mass term commutes with both $Q_0$ and $\hat{Q}_{\hat{x}_i}$, which normally signals a mixed anomaly. The central claim is that this lattice anomaly is not inherited by the continuum QFT: in the large-volume limit a flavor mass term $M_f$ can be written that commutes with both charges, and the Ward–Takahashi identity for $\mathrm{U}(1)_F$ has no anomaly contribution from relevant or marginal operators. If true, this shows that a nontrivial lattice-level anomaly can become trivial in the infrared description, and it constrains how symmetric mass generation can be implemented for staggered fermions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the family of conserved lattice charges $Q_{\boldsymbol{\chi}} = T^{(b)}_{\boldsymbol{\chi}} Q_0 (T^{(b)}_{\boldsymbol{\chi}})^{-1}$, obtained by conjugating the vector charge with translations that move only the $b$-Majorana fermion by a lattice vector $\boldsymbol{\chi}$ with appropriate sign factors; the single-shift charges $\hat{Q}_{\hat{x}_i}$ are the ones analyzed in detail. Their continuum limit is the matrix identity $\lim_{N\to\infty}[\hat{Q}_{\hat{x}_i}, \tilde{\Psi}(k)] = (\gamma_5\otimes\sigma_i)\tilde{\Psi}(k)$, which converts the discrete lattice shift symmetries into continuous axial-flavor rotations. The supporting computation is the lattice triangle diagram in Appendix B, which is used to show that the residual $\mathrm{U}(1)_F$ symmetry breaking on the lattice does not generate relevant or marginal operators that could produce an anomaly after the continuum limit.

What would settle it

Compute the full lattice triangle diagram for the $\mathrm{U}(1)_F$ current without the $A_0=0$ gauge choice, or evaluate it numerically on finite lattices, and look for a nonzero coefficient of $\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} p^\alpha q^\beta$ in the three-point function; a nonvanishing coefficient would mean the symmetry is anomalous and the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that the conserved single-shift charges, constructed by conjugating $Q_0$ with translations that move only the $b$-Majorana component, commute with the staggered fermion Hamiltonian. In momentum space in the $N\to\infty$ limit at finite momentum $k$, these charges act on the matrix fermion as $[\hat{Q}_{\hat{x}_i}, \tilde{\Psi}(k)] = (\gamma_5\otimes\sigma_i)\tilde{\Psi}(k)$, so they generate the non-singlet axial-flavor $\mathrm{U}(1)_{F_i}\subset \mathrm{SU}(2)_L\times\mathrm{SU}(2)_R\times\mathrm{U}(1)_A$. Because $Q_0$ and $\hat{Q}_{\hat{x}_i}$ do not commute and no lattice bilinear commutes with both, the lattice theory carries a mixed 't Hooft anomaly. The paper's central assertion is that this anomaly trivializes: the continuum theory admits the flavor mass term $M_f = \psi_{1+}^\dagger\psi_{4-} + \psi_{2+}^\dagger\psi_{3-} + \mathrm{h.c.}$, which commutes with both $Q_0$ and $\hat{Q}_{\hat{x}_3}$, and the lattice Ward–Takahashi identity under a background $\mathrm{U}(1)_V$ gauge field gives a vanishing triangle-diagram contribution, so $\mathrm{U}(1)_F$ is exactly conserved in the continuum limit.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that the lattice anomaly disappears rests on the Appendix B one-loop Ward–Takahashi calculation, which is done under a temporary $A_0=0$ gauge choice and is sketched rather than shown, plus the assumption that no other relevant or marginal operators contribute; if that calculation or assumption fails, the exact conservation of $\mathrm{U}(1)_F$ in the continuum is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\mathrm{U}(1)_F$ symmetry generated by $\hat{Q}_{\hat{x}_i}$ is exactly conserved in the continuum limit, so it is a genuine symmetry of the infrared QFT rather than an artefact of the lattice cutoff.
  • The mixed anomaly between $\mathrm{U}(1)_V$ and the axial-flavor charges is not an obstruction to a trivially gapped continuum phase: the flavor mass term $M_f$ can gap the system while preserving both symmetries.
  • Symmetric mass generation on staggered fermions, at least when triggered by the four-fermion interaction considered in the paper, must explicitly break the $\mathrm{U}(1)_{F_i}$ symmetry, because $\hat{Q}_{\hat{x}_i}$ does not commute with that interaction.
  • The triple-shift conserved charge does not generate the singlet axial $\mathrm{U}(1)_A$ in the continuum, correcting the earlier identification made in Ref. [24].
  • Anomalies can change when a lattice model is replaced by its infrared QFT description, because the degrees of freedom are different.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Reading beyond the paper: the mechanism suggests a general principle that lattice 't Hooft anomalies defined by commutators of exact lattice charges need not match continuum anomalies when the infrared QFT reorganizes the degrees of freedom; only anomalies attached to operators that survive as local QFT operators must match.
  • If the Appendix B triangle computation is completed and confirmed, the same construction applied to the double-shift charges $\hat{Q}_{\hat{x}_i\hat{x}_j}$ would predict a different infrared fate, since those act through $\tilde{\Psi}^*(-k)$; one could test whether an analogous symmetric mass term exists for them.
  • A finite-volume numerical test could probe the claim directly: couple the model to a background $\mathrm{U}(1)_V$ field and measure the divergence of the $\mathrm{U}(1)_F$ current; the vanishing should hold up to lattice artifacts that scale away, whereas a true anomaly would leave a residual $O(a^0)$ term.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the 3+1D staggered fermion Hamiltonian and constructs additional conserved lattice charges Q_hat_x, Q_hat_y, Q_hat_z by conjugating the vector charge Q0 with Majorana translation operators. The main claims are that these charges act on the low-energy matrix fermion as gamma5⊗sigma_i, generating axial-flavor SU(2)_A transformations in the large-volume, finite-momentum limit (Eq. (37)); that the non-commutativity [Q0,Q_hat] is a lattice mixed anomaly; that no lattice mass term commutes with both Q0 and Q_hat; and that, nevertheless, the continuum QFT admits the flavor mass term M_f of Eq. (39) commuting with both, so the lattice anomaly becomes trivial. Appendix B attempts to support this with a Ward-Takahashi identity computation for the U(1)_F transformation in a background U(1)_V gauge field, claiming that the triangle diagram vanishes.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a concrete example in which a mixed anomaly that is present in a lattice regulator disappears in the continuum QFT, with direct implications for symmetric mass generation and for how anomalies are matched between lattice and continuum descriptions. The construction of conserved lattice charges via Majorana-shift conjugation is elegant, and the explicit limiting action in Eq. (37) plus the commuting continuum mass term in Eq. (39) are concrete and internally consistent statements with no fitted parameters. The paper also usefully corrects the interpretation of the triple-shift charge in Appendix A, showing that it does not generate the singlet axial U(1)_A. However, the load-bearing Appendix B computation is sketched rather than demonstrated, and it is performed for a naive continuum transformation rather than for the exact lattice charge Q_hat_z. Until that gap is closed, the central trivialization claim is not fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B23)-(B28)] The WT identity is derived for the continuum-like transformation Psi -> exp(i theta (gamma5 ⊗ sigma3)) Psi on the effective Wilson-like action (B19), not for the exact conserved charge Q_hat_z constructed in Sec. III. The exact charge is shown in Eq. (37) to act as gamma5⊗sigma3 only on low-energy modes at finite momentum; its action on high-momentum modes is different, and the current associated with Q_hat_z in the presence of the background U(1)_V field is never written down. The vanishing of the triangle diagram for the naive transformation therefore does not by itself establish the abstract's claim that the U(1)_F symmetry generated by Q_hat_z is exactly conserved in the continuum. A concrete way to close this gap is to derive the lattice continuity equation for the charge density whose total sum is Q_hat_z and to compute the same triangle diagram for the resulting exact current.
  2. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B32)-(B45)] The Taylor expansion of the triangle amplitude is incomplete. The first line of Eq. (B32) contains the vertex V_hat5(k+qa,k-pa), depending on both loop and external momenta, but the second line replaces it with V_hat5(pa,qa), dropping the loop-momentum dependence. Eq. (B43) then reinstates the momentum dependence but evaluates only the part of the second-order coefficient in which derivatives act on the propagators. The full second-order coefficient in Eq. (B33) also contains terms in which derivatives act on V_hat5, and these terms are not shown to vanish. The parenthetical justification for Eq. (B44) is too terse: the flavor-trace argument for the Y term in Eq. (B41) is not displayed, and the computation is carried out in the gauge A0=0 with no demonstration of gauge independence. Please provide the complete coefficient and an explicit evaluation, or an ancillary reproducible calculation.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (33), and Sec. IV, Eq. (39)] The assertion that no symmetric lattice mass term exists for the 3+1D staggered Hamiltonian is not demonstrated in this paper; the text refers to Appendix B of Ref. [10], which treats a different dimension. Moreover, the continuum mass term M_f of Eq. (39) commutes with the projected low-energy action of Q_hat_z, but no lattice operator that realizes M_f and commutes exactly with both Q0 and Q_hat_z is constructed. Since Q_hat_z acts nontrivially on high-momentum modes, the existence of a continuum mass term commuting with the projected charge does not, by itself, show that the exact lattice mixed anomaly becomes trivial. Without a construction of the lattice version of M_f, the 'trivialization' claim remains a statement about the low-energy projection rather than about the lattice theory.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (37)] The derivation of Eq. (37) is not shown: the text moves directly from the momentum-space expressions (34)-(36) and the mode expansions (22)-(25) to the claimed commutator limit. This identification is what licenses calling Q_hat_x_i an axial-flavor symmetry, so the intermediate steps should be provided, either in the main text or in an appendix.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B18)] The definition of M(p_i)^2 is difficult to parse as printed; please rewrite it with an unambiguous index convention distinguishing the two-flavor Wilson case from the staggered case.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B36)] The notation sin^2(k_{beta≠0}) is undefined; please state explicitly over which momentum components the sine factors are taken.
  3. [Sec. III, after Eq. (33)] The abstract and the main text state that one of the charges satisfies the Onsager algebra, but no check of the Onsager relations is presented, and footnote 1 defers the algebra to future work. Please either provide the check or soften the claim.
  4. [Sec. IV, paragraph after Eq. (36)] The phrase 'without loss of generality, we focus on Q_hat_z' needs justification: Q_hat_x and Q_hat_y have different position-dependent phases, and it is not obvious that a lattice symmetry of the staggered Hamiltonian relates the three cases.
  5. [General notation] The paper uses both Psi and ePsi for the matrix fermion in Eqs. (20)-(37) and in Appendix B; please choose one notation consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular step found: the lattice charges, their continuum action, and the anomaly check are derived from the Hamiltonian and from independent Ward-Takahashi data, not assumed as inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. In Sec. III, Q_0 and Q_hat_xi are explicit conserved operators built from the staggered-fermion Hamiltonian (Eqs. 26-32), with noncommutativity computed directly in Eq. (33). The continuum action Eq. (37), lim_N Q_hat_xi -> gamma5⊗sigma_i, is obtained by applying the momentum-space expressions (22)-(25) and (34)-(36); it is a calculated limit, not a fitted or postulated input. The symmetric continuum mass term (39) is then checked against both Q_0 and Q_hat_x3 in Eq. (40), so the claimed triviality of the anomaly is a direct commutator test rather than a restatement of the definition. Appendix B is an independent triangle-diagram WT calculation: the action (B19), vertices (B20), and propagator (B16) follow from the Hamiltonian, and the vanishing (B44) is not inserted as an assumption. The paper's self-citations [12] and [21] are contextual (a chiral-fermion construction and a 3450-model study); the load-bearing no-symmetric-lattice-mass statement is attributed to the external Ref. [10], so no self-citation chain carries the result. There are genuine presentation gaps that are not circularity: App. B fixes A0=0 'for simplicity' without showing gauge independence, and the key vanishing is asserted 'After straightforward manipulations' rather than displayed; these omissions could undermine completeness, but they do not reduce any prediction to its input. Score 0.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the analysis is an analytic zero-parameter study of the free staggered fermion Hamiltonian. The axioms are the standard staggered-to-Dirac mapping, the large-volume continuum limit, the anomaly-as-obstruction definition, the external anomaly-flow principle, and standard gamma algebra. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The staggered fermion Hamiltonian (2) with periodic boundary conditions describes the system, and its low-energy sector is exactly two flavors of massless Dirac fermions via the matrix field Ψ defined in Eq. (18)-(20).
    The identification of the four sublattice fields with two Weyl pairs is standard but underlies the interpretation of the conserved charges.
  • domain assumption In the large-volume limit at finite momentum, the commutator limits (37) and (40) are obtained by keeping only the low-energy modes in Eqs. (22)-(25); the contributions of all other lattice modes to the charges are not explicitly shown to vanish.
    This limits the domain of validity of the continuum interpretation to the IR sector.
  • domain assumption An anomaly is defined as an obstruction to a symmetric, trivially-gapped phase, following Refs. [32-38].
    The statement that the noncommutativity of Q0 and Q_hat_x_i signals a mixed anomaly depends on this definition.
  • domain assumption Anomalies of global symmetries need not be preserved under the transition from a lattice model to its IR QFT description, as argued in Ref. [39].
    Invoked in the Introduction and in Sec. IV to interpret the lattice anomaly as trivializable.
  • standard math The gamma matrix and Pauli algebra in Eqs. (13)-(17), including the Weyl representation and the anticommutation relations, is standard and used throughout.
    Required for the continuum action of the charges and for the trace evaluations in Appendix B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-singlet conserved charges and anomalies in 3+1 D staggered fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NBKMNK2D

@misc{pith2026250904906,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-singlet conserved charges and anomalies in 3+1 D staggered fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NBKMNK2D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04906}
}
abstract

In this paper, we show that the 3+1 D staggered fermion Hamiltonian possesses, in addition to the conserved charge $Q_0$ that generates the vector $\mathrm{U}(1)_V$ transformation, conserved charges $Q_F$ that generate the $\mathrm{SU}(2)_A$ transformations in the continuum limit, acting simultaneously on left- and right-handed Weyl fermions in opposite directions. Each conserved charge $Q_F$ can be regarded as the generator of a $\mathrm{U}(1)_F$ subgroup of $\mathrm{SU}(2)_L \times \mathrm{SU}(2)_R \times \mathrm{U}(1)_A$. One of these lattice charges satisfies the Onsager algebra. On the lattice, the charges $Q_F$ do not commute with $Q_0$, and no symmetric mass term exists that commutes with both $Q_0$ and $Q_F$. This signals the presence of a mixed anomaly. Remarkably, however, in the continuum limit, a symmetric mass term commuting with both $Q_0$ and $Q_F$ can be constructed. % This implies that the non-trivial lattice anomaly becomes a trivial anomaly in the continuum QFT. This means that the mixed anomaly that is nontrivial on the lattice becomes trivial in the IR QFT obtained in the continuum limit, which is consistent with the analysis of the Ward--Takahashi (WT) identity on the lattice. Indeed, by evaluating this identity associated with the $\mathrm{U}(1)_F$ transformation on the lattice, we confirm that $\mathrm{U}(1)_F$ symmetry is exactly conserved.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04906 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Triangle diagram contributing to the anomaly. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    D.-C. Lu, M. Zeng, J. Wang, and Y.-Z. You, Fermi surface symmetric mass generation, Phys. Rev. B107, 195133 (2023), arXiv:2210.16304 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [39]

    M. B. Hastings, Lieb-Schultz-Mattis in higher dimensions, Phys. Rev. B69, 104431 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0305505

    arXiv 2004

  3. [10]

    J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D11, 395 (1975)

    1975

  4. [1]

    i sin 𝒌· ˆ𝜌 2 n 𝑒−i 𝒌· ˆ𝜌 2 ˜𝐺† 𝒌 ˜𝑅𝒌−𝑒−i 𝒌· ˆ𝜎 2 ˜𝑌† 𝒌 ˜𝐵𝒌 o +cos 𝒌· ˆ𝜌 2 n 𝑒i 𝒌· ˆ𝜌 2 ˜𝑅† 𝒌 ˜𝐺† −𝒌+𝑒−i 𝒌· ˆ𝜎 2 ˜𝑌† 𝒌 ˜𝐵† −𝒌 o +h.c. # ,(A1) 𝑄 ˆ𝑥ˆ𝑧 = ∑︁ 𝒌∈BZ

    Transformations Generated by𝑄 ˆ𝑥𝑖 ˆ𝑥𝑗 The conserved charges𝑄 ˆ𝑥𝑖 ˆ𝑥𝑗 associated with double-shift transformations are given in momentum space as follows, 𝑄 ˆ𝑥 ˆ𝑦 = ∑︁ 𝒌∈BZ " i sin 𝒌· ˆ𝜌 2 n 𝑒−i 𝒌· ˆ𝜌 2 ˜𝐺† 𝒌 ˜𝑅𝒌−𝑒−i 𝒌· ˆ𝜎 2 ˜𝑌† 𝒌 ˜𝐵𝒌 o +cos 𝒌· ˆ𝜌 2 n 𝑒i 𝒌· ˆ𝜌 2 ˜𝑅† 𝒌 ˜𝐺† −𝒌+𝑒−i 𝒌· ˆ𝜎 2 ˜𝑌† 𝒌 ˜𝐵† −𝒌 o +h.c. # ,(A1) 𝑄 ˆ𝑥ˆ𝑧 = ∑︁ 𝒌∈BZ " 𝑒i 𝒌·fi𝑎𝑥 2 i sin 𝒌·(fi𝑎...

    work page

  5. [2]

    # ,(A7) where ˆ𝑅:= ˆ𝑥+ ˆ𝑦+ ˆ𝑧

    Transformation Generated by𝑄 ˆ𝑥ˆ𝑦ˆ𝑧 The conserved charge𝑄 ˆ𝑥 ˆ𝑦ˆ𝑧 associated with a triple-shift operation is expressed in momentum space as 𝑄 ˆ𝑥 ˆ𝑦ˆ𝑧 = ∑︁ 𝒌∈BZ " i sin 𝒌· ˆ𝑅 2 n 𝑒−i 𝒌· ˆ𝜌 2 ˜𝐺† 𝒌 ˜𝑅𝒌−𝑒−i 𝒌· ˆ𝜎 2 ˜𝑌† 𝒌 ˜𝐵𝒌 o +cos 𝒌· ˆ𝑅 2 n 𝑒i 𝒌· ˆ𝜌 2 ˜𝑅† 𝒌 ˜𝐺† −𝒌+𝑒−i 𝒌· ˆ𝜎 2 ˜𝑌† 𝒌 ˜𝐵† −𝒌 o +h.c. # ,(A7) where ˆ𝑅:= ˆ𝑥+ ˆ𝑦+ ˆ𝑧. This operator was interpreted...

    work page

  6. [3]

    From Hamiltonian to Lagrangian We start with the lattice Hamiltonian of 2-flavor massless fermions , 𝐻= ∑︁ 𝑹𝑒 Ψ†(𝑹𝑒)ˆℎ𝐸Ψ(𝑹𝑒),(B1) where ˆℎ𝐸 = (𝛼𝑖⊗I 2×2)∇𝑖 2 +𝛽Γ 𝑖 𝑀 ∇2 𝑖 2 ,(B2) ∇𝑖 2 Ψ(𝑹𝑒)= 1 2 Ψ(𝑹𝑒+ ˆ𝑖)−Ψ(𝑹 𝑒− ˆ𝑖) .(B3) and ˆ𝑖is an unit lattice vector in each direction. Here, we have used the following gamma matrices𝛾 𝐸 𝜇 𝛾𝑀 0 =𝛾 𝐸 0 ,i𝛾 𝑀 𝑖 =𝛾 𝐸 𝑖 , 𝛾𝑀 ...

    work page

  7. [4]

    Under the local transformation in Eq

    Ward–Takahashi (WT) identity Under the background gauge field of the vector U(1) 𝑉 symmetry, we now derive the WT identity associated with the U(1)Γ5 transformation as Ψ( 𝑹)→𝑒 i𝜃Γ 5Ψ( 𝑹) , Ψ( 𝑹)→Ψ( 𝑹)𝑒i𝜃Γ 5,(B23) whereΓ 5 is𝛾 5⊗I 2×2 or𝛾 5⊗𝜎 𝑗. Under the local transformation in Eq. (B23), the variation of the action is 𝜃 𝑹𝛿𝑹𝑆=i𝜃 𝑹 −𝜕0𝐽0(𝑅)−∇ − 𝑖 𝐽𝑖(𝑅)−𝑋(𝑅...

    work page

  8. [5]

    H. B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, Absence of Neutrinos on a Lattice. 1. Proof by Homotopy Theory, Nucl. Phys. B185, 20 (1981), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 195, 541 (1982)]

    work page 1981

Show all 45 references
  1. [6]

    H. B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, No Go Theorem for Regularizing Chiral Fermions, Phys. Lett. B105, 219 (1981)

    1981

  2. [7]

    S. L. Adler and W. A. Bardeen, Absence of higher order corrections in the anomalous axial vector divergence equation, Phys. Rev.182, 1517 (1969)

    1969

  3. [8]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, A PCAC puzzle:𝜋 0→𝛾𝛾in the𝜎model, Nuovo Cim. A60, 47 (1969)

    1969

  4. [9]

    L. H. Karsten and J. Smit, Lattice Fermions: Species Doubling, Chiral Invariance, and the Triangle Anomaly, Nucl. Phys. B183, 103 (1981)

    1981

  5. [11]

    Banks, L

    T. Banks, L. Susskind, and J. B. Kogut, Strong Coupling Calculations of Lattice Gauge Theories: (1+1)-Dimensional Exercises, Phys. Rev. D13, 1043 (1976)

    1976

  6. [12]

    Susskind, Lattice Fermions, Phys

    L. Susskind, Lattice Fermions, Phys. Rev. D16, 3031 (1977)

    1977

  7. [13]

    M. F. L. Golterman and J. Smit, Selfenergy and Flavor Interpretation of Staggered Fermions, Nucl. Phys. B245, 61 (1984). 12

    1984

  8. [14]

    Chatterjee, S

    A. Chatterjee, S. D. Pace, and S.-H. Shao, Quantized Axial Charge of Staggered Fermions and the Chiral Anomaly, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 021601 (2025), arXiv:2409.12220 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Xu, Staggered Fermions with Chiral Anomaly Cancellation, (2025), arXiv:2501.10837 [hep-lat]

    L.-X. Xu, Staggered Fermions with Chiral Anomaly Cancellation, (2025), arXiv:2501.10837 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Yamaoka, Quantized Axial Charge in the Hamiltonian Approach to Wilson Fermions, (2025), arXiv:2504.10263 [hep-lat]

    T. Yamaoka, Quantized Axial Charge in the Hamiltonian Approach to Wilson Fermions, (2025), arXiv:2504.10263 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Wang and X.-G

    J. Wang and X.-G. Wen, Nonperturbative regularization of (1+1)-dimensional anomaly-free chiral fermions and bosons: On the equivalence of anomaly matching conditions and boundary gapping rules, Phys. Rev. B107, 014311 (2023), arXiv:1307.7480 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Wang and X.-G

    J. Wang and X.-G. Wen, A Solution to the 1+1D Gauged Chiral Fermion Problem, Phys. Rev. D99, 111501 (2018), arXiv:1807.05998 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [19]

    S. S. Razamat and D. Tong, Gapped Chiral Fermions, Phys. Rev. X11, 011063 (2021), arXiv:2009.05037 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Tong, Comments on symmetric mass generation in 2d and 4d, JHEP07, 001, arXiv:2104.03997 [hep-th]

    D. Tong, Comments on symmetric mass generation in 2d and 4d, JHEP07, 001, arXiv:2104.03997 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  15. [21]

    M. Zeng, Z. Zhu, J. Wang, and Y.-Z. You, Symmetric Mass Generation in the 1+1 Dimensional Chiral Fermion 3-4-5-0 Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 185301 (2022), arXiv:2202.12355 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Wang and Y.-Z

    J. Wang and Y.-Z. You, Symmetric Mass Generation, Symmetry14, 1475 (2022), arXiv:2204.14271 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Wang, CT or P problem and symmetric gapped fermion solution, Phys

    J. Wang, CT or P problem and symmetric gapped fermion solution, Phys. Rev. D106, 125007 (2022), arXiv:2207.14813 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Onogi, H

    T. Onogi, H. Wada, and T. Yamaoka, Discrete symmetry and ’t Hooft anomalies for 3450 model, PoSLATTICE2024, 378 (2025), arXiv:2501.18156 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Gioia and R

    L. Gioia and R. Thorngren, Exact Chiral Symmetries of 3+1D Hamiltonian Lattice Fermions, (2025), arXiv:2503.07708 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    S. D. Pace, M. L. Kim, A. Chatterjee, and S.-H. Shao, Parity anomaly from LSM: exact valley symmetries on the lattice, (2025), arXiv:2505.04684 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  21. [28]

    Catterall, A

    S. Catterall, A. Pradhan, and A. Samlodia, Symmetries and Anomalies of Hamiltonian Staggered Fermions, (2025), arXiv:2501.10862 [hep-lat]

    2025

  22. [29]

    Y.-Y. Li, J. Wang, and Y.-Z. You, Quantum Many-Body Lattice C-R-T Symmetry: Fractionalization, Anomaly, and Symmetric Mass Generation, (2024), arXiv:2412.19691 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Banks, Y

    T. Banks, Y. Dothan, and D. Horn, GEOMETRIC FERMIONS, Phys. Lett. B117, 413 (1982)

    1982

  24. [31]

    G. W. Kilcup and S. R. Sharpe, A Tool Kit for Staggered Fermions, Nucl. Phys. B283, 493 (1987)

    1987

  25. [32]

    Catterall, Chiral lattice fermions from staggered fields, Phys

    S. Catterall, Chiral lattice fermions from staggered fields, Phys. Rev. D104, 014503 (2021), arXiv:2010.02290 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [33]

    N. Butt, S. Catterall, A. Pradhan, and G. C. Toga, Anomalies and symmetric mass generation for K¨ ahler-Dirac fermions, Phys. Rev. D104, 094504 (2021), arXiv:2101.01026 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Catterall and A

    S. Catterall and A. Pradhan, Induced topological gravity and anomaly inflow from K¨ ahler-Dirac fermions in odd dimensions, Phys. Rev. D106, 014509 (2022), arXiv:2201.00750 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Catterall, ’t Hooft anomalies for staggered fermions, Phys

    S. Catterall, ’t Hooft anomalies for staggered fermions, Phys. Rev. D107, 014501 (2023), arXiv:2209.03828 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [36]

    E. H. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain, Annals Phys.16, 407 (1961)

    1961

  30. [37]

    Affleck and E

    I. Affleck and E. H. Lieb, A Proof of Part of Haldane’s Conjecture on Spin Chains, Lett. Math. Phys.12, 57 (1986)

    1986

  31. [38]

    Oshikawa, Topological approach to luttinger’s theorem and the fermi surface of a kondo lattice, Physical review letters 84 15, 3370 (2000)

    M. Oshikawa, Topological approach to luttinger’s theorem and the fermi surface of a kondo lattice, Physical review letters 84 15, 3370 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Chang, Y.-H

    C.-M. Chang, Y.-H. Lin, S.-H. Shao, Y. Wang, and X. Yin, Topological Defect Lines and Renormalization Group Flows in Two Dimensions, JHEP01, 026, arXiv:1802.04445 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wen, Emergent anomalous higher symmetries from topological order and from dynamical electromagnetic field in condensed matter systems, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Emergent anomalous higher symmetries from topological order and from dynamical electromagnetic field in condensed matter systems, Phys. Rev. B99, 205139 (2019), arXiv:1812.02517 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Thorngren and Y

    R. Thorngren and Y. Wang, Fusion category symmetry. Part I. Anomaly in-flow and gapped phases, JHEP04, 132, arXiv:1912.02817 [hep-th]

    1912 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Y.-T. Tu, D. M. Long, and D. V. Else, Anomalies of global symmetries on the lattice, (2025), arXiv:2507.21209 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2025

  36. [44]

    Onsager, Crystal statistics

    L. Onsager, Crystal statistics. 1. A Two-dimensional model with an order disorder transition, Phys. Rev.65, 117 (1944)

    1944

  37. [45]

    Y. Choi, C. Cordova, P.-S. Hsin, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Noninvertible duality defects in 3+1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. D105, 125016 (2022), arXiv:2111.01139 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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