Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The proton's missing spin may be a topological screening effect of the QCD vacuum, not a loss of intrinsic quark spin.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 11:33 UTC pith:OSL67SIU

load-bearing objection A solid expert review of QCD anomalies whose central quantitative spin–topology claim is under-derived; worth refereeing but needs the derivation fixed. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.13908 v2 pith:OSL67SIU submitted 2026-06-11 hep-ph hep-thnucl-th

Anomalies, Topology, and Hadron Structure in QCD

Ismail Zahed This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-thnucl-th MSC 81V0581T50 PACS 12.38.-t11.30.Rd13.88.+e12.38.Lg
keywords axial anomalytopological susceptibilityproton spin puzzleflavor-singlet axial chargeU(1)_A problemQCD vacuumpolarized deep inelastic scatteringtrace anomaly
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This review argues that the two classic puzzles of QCD — why the η′ meson is heavy and why polarized deep-inelastic scattering finds only about a third of the proton's expected quark spin — are the same phenomenon at different energies. In both cases the flavor-singlet axial charge couples to the topological winding of the gauge field through the axial anomaly. The paper's central thesis is that the suppression of the measured quark-helicity fraction ΔΣ relative to the naive constituent-quark expectation is caused by topological screening in the vacuum, quantified by the slope χ′(0) of the topological susceptibility, rather than by a small intrinsic spin of the quarks. If correct, polarized scattering becomes a probe of vacuum topology, and the proton spin problem and the U(1)_A problem share a single infrared quantity.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the key discovery is that the flavor-singlet axial charge g_A^(0) — the quantity extracted from the first moment of the polarized structure function g1 — is controlled by the derivative of the topological susceptibility at zero momentum, χ′(0), not by the susceptibility itself. In the chiral limit the susceptibility vanishes because quark zero modes screen topological charge, but χ′(0) stays finite and measures the infrared response of the vacuum to topological fluctuations. The anomalous Ward identity, combined with the singlet current relation, yields an expression for the intrinsic quark spin ΔΣ in which the nucleon's coupling to the primordial singlet pseudoscal

What carries the argument

The central object is the momentum-dependent topological susceptibility χ(q²), the correlator of the topological charge density q(x) = g²/(32π²) G·G-tilde, and specifically its slope χ′(0) at q²=0. The relation ΔΣ = sqrt(2N_f)/(2M_N) · sqrt(χ′_QCD(0)) · g_{η0NN} carries the argument: it connects a partonic observable, the quark helicity fraction, to a vacuum-response parameter. The mechanism is topological screening: the anomaly pole in the axial-vector-vector triangle is shifted from massless to the physical η′ mass by a pseudoscalar field whose topological coupling absorbs the density, singling out χ′(0) as the controlling infrared quantity.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical link to ΔΣ assumes the nucleon experiences grand-canonical Poissonian fluctuations of topological charge, with a nucleon mass that falls off linearly as one constituent quark mass times the net winding; if charge conservation freezes those fluctuations, the connected matrix element vanishes and the quantitative estimate collapses.

What would settle it

Measure or compute the forward nucleon matrix element of the topological density G·G-tilde at strictly fixed topological charge Q. In a canonical ensemble the connected contribution vanishes identically; a lattice-QCD simulation with fixed Q that finds a nonzero value would contradict the paper's central mechanism. Conversely, a direct lattice determination of χ′(0) at the physical point that disagrees with the value implied by the measured singlet sum-rule discrepancy would falsify the quantitative link between polarized deep-inelastic scattering and vacuum topology.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central thesis is right, the first moment of g1 must be interpreted as a measurement of vacuum topology, not simply as quark helicity.
  • The suppression ΔΣ≈0.3 emerges from the same vacuum response that gives the η′ its mass, so the proton spin puzzle and the U(1)_A puzzle become two sides of one anomaly relation.
  • The relevant quantity is the slope χ′(0), not the susceptibility χ(0), which vanishes in the chiral limit; future lattice determinations should target χ′(0).
  • Topological fluctuations survive locally even when the global susceptibility is screened, so finite-volume subregions inside hadrons matter for axial charge.
  • A possible x=0 contribution C∞ would be a direct signature of topological zero modes carrying axial charge outside the finite-x parton picture.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the topological-screening relation is universal, it predicts a correlated suppression of the flavor-singlet axial charge in other baryons such as hyperons, testable in weak decays once strangeness subtleties are controlled.
  • The instanton-liquid estimate ΔΣ≈0.6 inherits the fitted instanton size and density; a lattice computation of χ′(0) at physical quark masses would independently test those parameters and the derivation itself.
  • The worldline picture suggests that x→0 may be dominated by topological zero-mode transfer; high-precision low-x data at a future polarized lepton-hadron collider could expose a missing subtraction constant C∞.
  • The mechanism predicts a specific Q² dependence of the singlet axial charge tied to χ′(0), distinguishable from ordinary perturbative evolution alone.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a broad review of anomalous symmetry breaking in QCD, organized around the axial anomaly, vacuum topology, the trace anomaly, and hadron structure. It covers chiral symmetry and the WZW term, instantons and the topological susceptibility, the U(1)_A mechanism and the η′ mass, the trace-anomaly origin of hadron mass, nucleon spin decompositions, and the role of the anomaly in polarized deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) and the OPE. The manuscript's central thesis, developed in Secs. VII.E and VIII.I, is that the suppression of the flavor-singlet axial charge g_A^(0) relative to its OZI value is due to topological screening controlled by the slope of the topological susceptibility χ′(0), so that the proton spin problem and the U(1)_A problem are two manifestations of the same anomalous coupling between the singlet axial current and vacuum topology. A quantitative estimate ΔΣ≈0.6 is presented in Sec. VII.E.4, based on a grand-canonical treatment of topological charge fluctuations in the instanton liquid.

Significance. The review provides a useful and mostly accurate synthesis of standard material: the anomaly derivations, WZW term, Witten–Veneziano relation, OPE, and the Bjorken and Ellis–Jaffe sum rules are presented reliably and with appropriate references. The paper's distinctive contribution is the claim that polarized DIS and η′ physics are unified by the single infrared parameter χ′(0). If this claim is correct, it would meaningfully reframe the interpretation of the quark helicity fraction and of the proton spin puzzle. However, the quantitative support for this unification is not yet at the level required for a review to present it as an established result: the derivation of the central estimate passes through Eq. (171), which is incomplete as written, and the numerical value ΔΣ≈0.6 depends on model assumptions and fitted instanton-liquid parameters rather than on QCD directly. The Shore–Veneziano framework itself is standard and well referenced, but the paper's own added quantitative thread needs repair before the central thesis can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VII.E.3, Eq. (171)] Equation (171) does not follow from Eqs. (169)–(170) as written. Substituting Eq. (170), ∼e^{−2M_N T}, into the logarithmic derivative in Eq. (169) gives a term proportional to −2T ∂ log M_N/∂Q, which grows with the Euclidean time separation T. The left-hand side of Eq. (171) is T-independent after the limit T→∞, so the limit is ill-defined unless an additional factor of T is introduced, a subtraction is performed, or a different definition of the matrix element is adopted. The text says only 'one then finds schematically'; since the numerical estimate ΔΣ≈0.6 and the central claim of Sec. VIII.I rest on this relation, the derivation must be supplied or the claim must be explicitly presented as a model-dependent schematic estimate rather than a QCD-based result.
  2. [Sec. VII.E.3, canonical vs grand-canonical ensemble] The text correctly states that in a canonical ensemble the connected contribution in Eq. (168) vanishes identically and that a nonzero result arises only in the grand-canonical ensemble. But QCD nucleon matrix elements are defined in a fixed physical vacuum, not in an ensemble in which the total topological charge of the universe fluctuates freely. The leap from the Euclidean path-integral representation in a finite volume to a grand-canonical treatment of Q is not justified. This is a load-bearing assumption: without it, Eq. (171) has no established QCD foundation, and the subsequent estimate ΔΣ≈0.6 inherits this model dependence.
  3. [Sec. VII.E.4, Eqs. (173)–(175)] The estimate ΔΣ≈0.6 depends on the specific linear form M_N(Q)≃M_N − M_u(0) s↑ Q/N̄ and on the instanton-liquid parameters ρ̄, n, and M_u(0), which are fitted to hadron phenomenology rather than derived from QCD. Moreover, Eqs. (173)–(175) do not show how the ratio M_u(0)/M_N yields the quoted value 0.6; the Poissonian limit (176) alone gives ΔΣ∼M_u(0)/M_N, which with typical constituent masses is closer to 0.4. The absence of any uncertainty estimate and the dependence on fitted parameters make this a model estimate, not a prediction from the Shore–Veneziano relation. The paper should either display the full numerical steps and the parameter values used, or scale back the claim to a qualitative illustration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VIII.F] The reference to 'Eq. (??)' should be replaced with the equation number for the anomalous divergence, Eq. (6).
  2. [Sec. V.C] The paragraph beginning 'The variation of W is generated by the trace...' is repeated nearly verbatim a few lines later. This appears to be a composition artifact and should be removed.
  3. [Sec. VII.E.4] The definition of the spin factor s↑ in Eq. (173) is not given explicitly. It should be defined to make the direction of the spin dependence unambiguous.
  4. [General] Some equation numbers are cited in the text before they are introduced (e.g., references to Eq. (192) in Sec. VII.C), which may confuse the reader. Please check cross-referencing throughout.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

ΔΣ≈0.6 is a refit of instanton-liquid inputs, and the key topological link is imported from the author's own prior work

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. VII.E.4, Eqs. (173)-(176)]
    "MN (Q)≃M N −M u(0)s ↑ Q ¯N , ... ∆Σ∼ ( χV n ) ( Mu(0) MN ) , ... In the instanton vacuum, the small-volume limit is Poissonian [149] lim V→0 ⟨Q2 V ⟩ V ≃ n, ... with the estimate [12]∆Σ≃0.6, consistent with the observed suppression of the flavor-singlet axial charge relative to the naive constituent-quark expectation [12, 80]."

    Equation (175) is the quantitative 'prediction' for the quark helicity suppression. In the small-volume Poissonian limit Eq. (176), χV/n -> 1, so Eq. (175) reduces to ΔΣ ≈ M_u(0)/M_N. M_u(0) is the constituent quark mass generated by the instanton liquid whose parameters (ρ̄≈0.3 fm, n≈1 fm^-4, Sec. IV.F) are fitted to hadron phenomenology, not derived from QCD. Thus the claimed number ΔΣ≈0.6 is a restatement of the model input ratio M_u(0)/M_N, not an independent prediction of topological screening; the spin suppression is effectively put in through the fitted instanton-liquid parameters.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. VII.E.3, Eq. (169)]
    "One then finds schematically [12, 147, 148] V 32π2 ⟨P,S|Ga µν ˜Gaµν|P,S⟩ ⟨P,S|P,S⟩ ≃ ⟨Q2⟩ ∂ ∂Q log h lim T→∞ D J † P (T)J P (−T) E i (169)"

    This equation is the hinge that converts a nucleon matrix element of the topological density into a derivative of the nucleon mass with respect to topological charge Q. It is not derived in the present review; it is introduced only by citing refs. [12] (the author's own review), [147], and [148] (which includes the author). The grand-canonical Q-fluctuation assumption and the linear M_N(Q) response are exactly the content needed to make ΔΣ depend on vacuum topology. Relying on one's own prior work for this load-bearing step means the central link is supported by a self-citation chain rather than by a self-contained derivation or an independent external check.

full rationale

The standard material—the ABJ anomaly, Fujikawa measure, WZW term, 't Hooft anomaly matching, Witten-Veneziano relation, OPE, and DGLAP evolution—is presented as standard physics and is not circular. The Shore-Veneziano relation Eq. (219) is an external framework whose content would be real if χ'(0) were independently measured. Circularity enters in the quantitative application. First, the numerical claim ΔΣ≈0.6 is obtained from Eq. (175), which, after using the Poissonian limit Eq. (176), is just ΔΣ≈M_u(0)/M_N; M_u(0) is fixed by the instanton-liquid parameters ρ̄ and n that are themselves fitted to hadron phenomenology in Sec. IV.F. The 'prediction' is therefore a refit of the model inputs, not an independent consequence of the anomaly. Second, the bridge from the nucleon matrix element of GG~ to ∂log M_N/∂Q is Eq. (169), introduced only with the citation '[12,147,148]', where [12] is the author's own review; the grand-canonical fluctuation assumption is precisely the mechanism under test, so the derivation is load-bearing self-citation. Separately, Eq. (171) does not follow from Eqs. (169)-(170) as written because the RHS retains a factor of T while the LHS is time-independent; this is a derivation gap rather than circularity, but it compounds the fragility of the quantitative claim. Overall, the central quantitative result is substantially a model refit and self-citation chain, warranting a score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

No genuinely new particles or mediators are introduced. The primordial singlet pseudoscalar field and topological-screening concepts are borrowed from Shore-Veneziano and related literature. The main model dependence is the instanton-liquid parameter set (ρ̄, n, M_u(0)) and the assumed grand-canonical Poissonian behavior of topological charge fluctuations in finite volume.

free parameters (5)
  • Instanton density n = ~1 fm^-4
    Shuryak instanton liquid parameter used in Eqs. (92), (124), and (175); fitted to hadronic phenomenology.
  • Instanton size rho_bar = ~0.3 fm
    Used to compute packing fraction κ≈0.1 and the dilute-liquid approximation; fitted to hadronic observables.
  • Constituent quark / zero-mode mass M_u(0) = not specified in the text (~300 MeV in the ILM)
    Eqs. (173)-(175) set the slope of M_N(Q) through this mass; its value directly controls the ΔΣ estimate.
  • Topological susceptibility slope χ'_QCD(0) = not given
    Defines ΔΣ in Eq. (219); no independent measurement is cited, and the paper relies on model-based or prior-theory estimates.
  • F0 and g_η0NN couplings = not given
    Inputs to the Shore-Veneziano relation in Eqs. (215) and (219); taken from phenomenology or model calculations.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption The QCD vacuum is accurately represented as a dilute instanton liquid with density n and size ρ̄.
    Used throughout Secs. IV.F, V.F, and VII.E to compute condensates, vacuum energy, and spin; a conjectural model rather than a derived QCD result.
  • domain assumption Topological charge fluctuations in the subvolume probed by a nucleon are grand-canonical and Poissonian, with lim_{V→0} ⟨Q_V²⟩/V = n.
    Needed to obtain a nonzero connected topological density in Eqs. (168)-(176); in the canonical ensemble the effect vanishes identically.
  • ad hoc to paper Nucleon mass depends linearly on topological charge Q, with M_N(Q) = M_N − M_u(0) s↑ Q/N̄.
    Eq. (173) is an assumed model relation in the quark-diquark picture; it is not derived and directly determines ΔΣ.
  • domain assumption The Shore-Veneziano relation (Eq. 219) and the singlet Goldberger-Treiman relation (Eq. 215) are valid at the stated large-N_c accuracy.
    Borrowed from [25,26]; central to the topological-screening interpretation of the flavor-singlet axial charge.
  • domain assumption Chiral-limit extrapolation m=0 in Eq. (219) has small finite-mass corrections.
    Cites [28] for this claim; not demonstrated within the paper.
  • standard math Adler-Bardeen nonrenormalization of the axial anomaly coefficient.
    Used to argue that the anomaly coefficient is exact; standard theorem cited as [59,60].
  • standard math Atiyah-Singer index theorem relating topological charge to fermion zero modes.
    Used in Eq. (68) and the spectral-flow interpretation; standard but unproved in the text.
  • standard math Banks-Casher relation ⟨ψ̄ψ⟩ = −πρ(0).
    Connects the chiral condensate to the Dirac spectral density in Eq. (94); standard but stated without derivation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 39503 in / 16332 out tokens · 165248 ms · 2026-08-02T11:33:36.706715+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) provides a remarkable realization of how quantum effects reshape the symmetries of a classical field theory. The axial anomaly links chirality to gauge-field topology and underlies the resolution of the $U(1)_A$ problem, while the trace anomaly generates the intrinsic QCD scale through dimensional transmutation and accounts for most of the mass of hadrons and hence visible matter. Together, these quantum effects reveal the central role of gluonic dynamics and vacuum structure in strong-interaction physics. In this review, we discuss the theoretical foundations and physical consequences of anomalous symmetry breaking in QCD. We examine anomalous Ward identities, the topological structure of gauge fields, instantons, topological susceptibility, and the realization of chiral and scale symmetries in the QCD vacuum. We review their role in the generation of hadron masses, the $\eta'$ mass, and the resolution of the $U(1)_A$ problem, and discuss their manifestations in polarized deep inelastic scattering, nucleon spin structure, and modern studies of hadron structure. Particular emphasis is placed on recent developments connecting vacuum topology, the flavor-singlet axial charge, topological screening, and the proton spin problem. Our aim is to provide a unified perspective on how quantum anomalies connect vacuum structure, hadron properties, and partonic observables, bridging nonperturbative dynamics and perturbative QCD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13908 by Ismail Zahed.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Nucleon mass decomposition based on Ji’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Nucleon spin decomposition in the instanton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The topological susceptibility slope $\chi^\prime$ in the large-$N$ limit

    hep-lat 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    First non-perturbative lattice determination of the Yang-Mills topological susceptibility slope χ' in the large-N limit using a novel algorithm to avoid topological freezing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

186 extracted references · 47 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Because the singlet axial E Vacuum topology and the flavor-singlet axial charge 24 current mixes with the topological gluonic operator appearing in Eq

    Vacuum topology and spin structure The axial anomaly implies that nucleon spin can- not be understood purely in terms of constituent quark degrees of freedom. Because the singlet axial E Vacuum topology and the flavor-singlet axial charge 24 current mixes with the topological gluonic operator appearing in Eq. (6), vacuum topology contributes directly to t...

  2. [2]

    Axial current, anomaly, and intrinsic quark spin The intrinsic quark spin contribution to the nu- cleon is directly tied to the singlet axial current dis- cussed previously in Sec. III. The gauge-invariant singlet current defined earlier satisfies the anoma- lous Ward identity already given in Eq. (6). For a polarized nucleon state|P, S⟩, the singlet axia...

  3. [3]

    Topological fluctuations in the instanton vacuum In the instanton liquid model developed earlier, the axial charge fluctuates through changes in the topological charge,Q=N + −N −,whereN + and N− denote the numbers of instantons and anti- instantons, respectively. The relevant matrix ele- ment of the topological density is obtained from the connected three...

  4. [4]

    In the instanton vac- uum, quark propagation occurs through hopping be- tween instanton zero modes

    Intrinsic quark spin To estimate the effect quantitatively, one may use a quark-diquark picture of the nucleon, p↑ ∼u ↑[ud]0,(172) inwhichthespiniscarriedprimarilybytheunpaired u-quark, as the dominant diquark configuration in the nucleon is a spin-scalar. In the instanton vac- uum, quark propagation occurs through hopping be- tween instanton zero modes. ...

  5. [5]

    Con- sider the axial-vector-vector amplitude T µνρ(p, q) = NfX f=1 Z d4k (2π)4 Tr γµγ5 1 /k−m f γν 1 /k+ /p−m f γρ 1 /k− /q−m f ,(A1) wheretheaxialcurrentcarriesmomentump+q

    AVV triangle anomaly The perturbative derivation follows the original analyses of Adler and of Bell and Jackiw [8, 9]. Con- sider the axial-vector-vector amplitude T µνρ(p, q) = NfX f=1 Z d4k (2π)4 Tr γµγ5 1 /k−m f γν 1 /k+ /p−m f γρ 1 /k− /q−m f ,(A1) wheretheaxialcurrentcarriesmomentump+q. The integral is superficially linearly divergent, so a shift of ...

  6. [6]

    For quarks in a background gauge field, Z[A] = Z NfY f=1 D ¯ψf Dψf exp  i Z d4x NfX f=1 ¯ψf i /Dψf  

    Fujikawa derivation from the fermion measure The anomaly may also be derived from the non- invarianceofthefermionmeasureunderchiraltrans- formations. For quarks in a background gauge field, Z[A] = Z NfY f=1 D ¯ψf Dψf exp  i Z d4x NfX f=1 ¯ψf i /Dψf   . (A9) Under the infinitesimal local chiral transformation ψf →ψ f +iα(x)γ 5ψf , ¯ψf → ¯ψf +iα(x) ¯ψf ...

  7. [7]

    (A19) Lorentz covariance implies the decomposition Πµν(q) = (qµqν −q 2gµν)ΠT (q2) +q µqνΠL(q2)

    Topological susceptibility and axial correlations The momentum-dependent topological suscepti- bility is χ(q2) =i Z d4x eiq·x⟨0|T{q(x)q(0)}|0⟩.(A18) 3 Topological susceptibility and axial correlations 36 The flavor-singlet axial-current correlator is Πµν(q) =i Z d4x eiq·x⟨0|T{J 5µ(x)J5ν(0)}|0⟩. (A19) Lorentz covariance implies the decomposition Πµν(q) = (...

  8. [8]

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 1343 (1973)

    1973

  9. [9]

    H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 1346 (1973)

    1973

  10. [10]

    Weinberg, Physica A96, 327 (1979)

    S. Weinberg, Physica A96, 327 (1979)

    1979

  11. [11]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250, 465 (1985)

    1985

  12. [12]

    Diakonov and V

    D. Diakonov and V. Y. Petrov, Nucl. Phys. B272, 457 (1986)

    1986

  13. [13]

    Schäfer and E

    T. Schäfer and E. V. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 323 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9610451

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  14. [14]

    M. A. Nowak, M. Rho, and I. Zahed,Chiral nu- clear dynamics(1996)

    1996

  15. [15]

    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev.177, 2426 (1969)

    1969

  16. [16]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo Cim. A60, 47 (1969)

    1969

  17. [17]

    Witten, Nucl

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

    1979

  18. [18]

    Veneziano, Nucl

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

    1979

  19. [19]

    Zahed, Symmetry14, 932 (2022)

    I. Zahed, Symmetry14, 932 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Shuryak and I

    E. Shuryak and I. Zahed, (2026), arXiv:2601.15085 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Ji, Phys

    X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 1071 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9410274

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  22. [22]

    Ji, Front

    X. Ji, Front. Phys. (Beijing)16, 64601 (2021), arXiv:2102.07830 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    M. V. Polyakov and B.-D. Sun, Phys. Rev. D100, 036003 (2019), arXiv:1903.02738 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Zahed, Phys

    I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D104, 054031 (2021), arXiv:2102.08191 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, A. S. Schwartz, and Y. S. Tyupkin, Phys. Lett. B59, 85 (1975)

    1975

  26. [26]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D14, 3432 (1976), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 18, 2199 (1978)]

    1976

  27. [27]

    Diakonov, Proc

    D. Diakonov, Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Fermi130, 397 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9602375

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  28. [28]

    R. L. Jaffe and A. Manohar, Nucl. Phys. B337, 509 (1990)

    1990

  29. [29]

    Ji, Phys

    X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 610 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9603249

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  30. [30]

    Leader and C

    E. Leader and C. Lorce, Phys. Rept.541, 163 (2014), arXiv:1309.4235 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    A. Deur, S. J. Brodsky, and G. F. de Ter- amond, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 076201 (2019), arXiv:1807.05250 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  32. [33]

    G. M. Shore and G. Veneziano, Mod. Phys. Lett. A8, 373 (1993)

    1993

  33. [34]

    A.TarasovandR.Venugopalan,Phys.Rev.D105, 014020 (2022), arXiv:2109.10370 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [35]

    A.TarasovandR.Venugopalan,Phys.Rev.D111, 074027 (2025), arXiv:2501.10519 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    Ji, Phys

    X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D55, 7114 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9609381

    arXiv 1997

  36. [37]

    A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept. 418, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  37. [38]

    Lorce and B

    C. Lorce and B. Pasquini, Phys. Rev. D84, 014015 (2011), arXiv:1106.0139 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [39]

    M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1830025 (2018), arXiv:1805.06596 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [40]

    Diakonov, Prog

    D. Diakonov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.51, 173 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  40. [41]

    E. V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. B203, 93 (1982)

    1982

  41. [42]

    A. I. Vainshtein, V. I. Zakharov, V. A. Novikov, andM.A.Shifman,Sov.Phys.Usp.25,195(1982)

    1982

  42. [43]

    Schäfer and E

    T. Schäfer and E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. D53, 6522 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9509337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  43. [44]

    Ji, J.-P

    X.-d. Ji, J.-P. Ma, and F. Yuan, Nucl. Phys. B 652, 383 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210430

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  44. [45]

    Ji, J.-P

    X.-d. Ji, J.-P. Ma, and F. Yuan, Eur. Phys. J. C 33, 75 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0304107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  45. [46]

    J. J. M. Verbaarschot and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 3852 (1993), arXiv:hep-th/9303012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  46. [47]

    Leutwyler and A

    H. Leutwyler and A. V. Smilga, Phys. Rev. D46, 5607 (1992)

    1992

  47. [48]

    Banks and A

    T. Banks and A. Casher, Nucl. Phys. B169, 103 (1980)

    1980

  48. [49]

    Goldstone, Nuovo Cim.19, 154 (1961)

    J. Goldstone, Nuovo Cim.19, 154 (1961)

    1961

  49. [50]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.17, 616 (1966)

    1966

  50. [51]

    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev.137, B1022 (1965)

    1965

  51. [52]

    R. F. Dashen and M. Weinstein, Phys. Rev.183, 1261 (1969)

    1969

  52. [53]

    Gell-Mann, R

    M. Gell-Mann, R. J. Oakes, and B. Renner, Phys. Rev.175, 2195 (1968)

    1968

  53. [54]

    QCD on the Lattice,

    H. Wittig, “QCD on the Lattice,” inParticle Physics Reference Library: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments, edited by H. Schopper (2020) pp. 3 Topological susceptibility and axial correlations 37 137–262

    2020

  54. [55]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys.158, 142 (1984)

    1984

  55. [56]

    Aokiet al., Eur

    S. Aokiet al., Eur. Phys. J. C80, 113 (2020)

    2020

  56. [57]

    Scherer, Adv

    S. Scherer, Adv. Nucl. Phys.27, 277 (2003)

    2003

  57. [58]

    Wess and B

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B37, 95 (1971)

    1971

  58. [59]

    Witten, Nucl

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

    1983

  59. [60]

    ’t Hooft, inRecent Developments in Gauge The- ories, edited by G

    G. ’t Hooft, inRecent Developments in Gauge The- ories, edited by G. e. a. t’Hooft (1980) pp. 135–157

    1980

  60. [61]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Wil- lett, JHEP02, 172 (2015)

    2015

  61. [62]

    Cordova, T

    C. Cordova, T. T. Dumitrescu, and K. Intriligator, JHEP02, 184 (2023)

    2023

  62. [63]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 034509 (2021), arXiv:2011.13342 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  63. [64]

    C. C. Changet al., Nature558, 91 (2018)

    2018

  64. [65]

    Di Vecchia and G

    P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 171, 253 (1980)

    1980

  65. [66]

    S. L. Adler and W. A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev.182, 1517 (1969)

    1969

  66. [67]

    W. A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev.184, 1848 (1969)

    1969

  67. [69]

    M. J. Strassler, Nucl. Phys. B385, 145 (1992), arXiv:hep-ph/9205205

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  68. [70]

    Schubert, Phys

    C. Schubert, Phys. Rept.355, 73 (2001)

    2001

  69. [71]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., R. F. Dashen, and D. J. Gross, Phys. Lett. B63, 334 (1976)

    1976

  70. [72]

    M. F. Atiyah and I. M. Singer, Annals Math.87, 484 (1968)

    1968

  71. [73]

    Qian and I

    Y. Qian and I. Zahed, Annals Phys.374, 314 (2016), arXiv:1512.08172 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  72. [74]

    E.ShuryakandI.Zahed,Phys.Rev.D107,034023 (2023), arXiv:2110.15927 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [75]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. B212, 391 (1988)

    1988

  74. [76]

    S. D. Bass, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 1257 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  75. [77]

    C. D. Roberts, D. G. Richards, T. Horn, and L. Chang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103883 (2021), arXiv:2102.01765 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [78]

    E. V. Shuryak, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys.21, 235 (1994), hep-ph/9310253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  77. [79]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., R. F. Dashen, and D. J. Gross, Phys. Rev. D17, 2717 (1978)

    1978

  78. [80]

    Dyakonov and V

    D. Dyakonov and V. Petrov, Nuclear Physics B 245, 259 (1984)

    1984

  79. [81]

    R. J. Crewther, P. Di Vecchia, G. Veneziano, and E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B88, 123 (1979)

    1979

  80. [82]

    C. A. Bakeret al., Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 131801 (2006)

    2006

Showing first 80 references.