Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper proves that gauging a CP symmetry, for connected simply connected gauge groups with no prior anomalies, produces no new global anomaly.

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

2026-08-03 00:08 UTC pith:QB4ZHU5P

load-bearing objection A clean, significant claim — gauged Pin+ CP adds no new global anomalies for connected simply connected G — but the central bordism equality is argued, not proven, so treat it as a strong research announcement. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.11475 v2 pith:QB4ZHU5P submitted 2026-02-12 hep-ph hep-th

The absence of global anomalies of CP symmetry

Kazuya Yonekura This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords CP symmetryglobal anomaliesstrong CP problemPin groupsbordismanomaly inflowgauged CPstandard model
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 paper clears a potential obstruction to a class of strong-CP solutions. The idea is that CP is an exact gauge symmetry of a UV theory, spontaneously broken at low energies, but it can only work if the gauged CP is anomaly-free. The paper proves that in four dimensions, if the gauge group is connected and simply connected and the theory has no anomaly before gauging CP, then gauging CP introduces no new global (nonperturbative) anomaly. The essential subtlety is that the symmetry to gauge is not CP times G but the semidirect product Pin+(4)⋉G. As a corollary, the standard-model matter content, embedded in SU(5) or Spin(10), is safe.

Core claim

For a four-dimensional theory with gauge group G and an automorphism σ that implements charge conjugation, gauging CP means summing over Pin+(4)⋉G fiber bundles, not ordinary CP×G bundles. The paper's main result is that when π0(G)=π1(G)=0, the five-dimensional bordism group that classifies global anomalies satisfies Ω_5^{Pin+⋉G}(pt) ≃ Ω_5^{Spin}(BG). This group is Z2 for G=Sp(N) and trivial otherwise. The Z2 for Sp(N) is the familiar Witten anomaly, so if the theory was anomaly-free before gauging CP, it remains anomaly-free after. Since the SU(5) and Spin(10) embeddings of the standard model are anomaly-free before gauging, their gauged-CP versions are anomaly-free as well.

What carries the argument

The central object is the semidirect product Pin+(4)⋉G, where Pin+(d) is the double cover of O(d) in which a reflection squares to +1 and the gauge group acts through an automorphism σ satisfying ρ(σ(g)) = ρ*(g). The proof's load-bearing identity is Ω_5^{Pin+⋉G}(pt) ≃ Ω_5^{Spin}(BG), derived by reducing any Pin+⋉G bundle to an SU(2) subbundle: a generic section of the associated vector bundle reduces SU(N) to SU(N−1) down to SU(2); for SU(2) the zeros form circles whose tubular neighborhoods D4×S1 carry an instanton, and bordism invariance lets these be cut away; for general G, obstruction theory using the homotopy long exact sequence and Bott periodicity shows every bundle reduces to SU(2).

Load-bearing premise

The theorem rests on the Pin+ modelling of CP: each Weyl fermion must be mapped to its own conjugate so the reflection squares to +1, and the paper explicitly sets aside the Pin− case R²=(−1)^F that appears when an even number of fermions are paired.

What would settle it

Compute Ω_5^{Pin+⋉G}(pt) for G=SU(3), or evaluate the fermion partition function on a closed five-manifold carrying a nontrivial Pin+⋉SU(3) bundle: the paper predicts the group is zero and every such ratio of partition functions is 1, so a nonzero result would falsify the claim.

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

If this is right

  • Gauged CP is not excluded by global anomalies for standard-model-like matter, keeping spontaneous CP breaking a live solution to the strong CP problem.
  • Any matter content that is anomaly-free in an SU(5) or Spin(10) unified theory remains anomaly-free after gauging CP.
  • For G=Sp(N), the only possible anomaly after gauging CP is the same Witten anomaly that was already present before; pre-gauging cancellation suffices.
  • The four-dimensional result does not extend to three dimensions, where CP global anomalies are known to be nontrivial.
  • The statement is conditional on the gauge group being connected and simply connected; groups such as the actual standard-model gauge group need the GUT embedding to invoke the theorem.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The proof leaves open the Pin− case, where the CP reflection squares to (−1)^F and arises naturally when an even number of Weyl fermions are paired; models of that kind would need their own anomaly analysis before gauged CP can be declared safe.
  • The reduction-to-SU(2) argument is built on d=4 specifics, but the same bordism strategy may adapt to other dimensions d ∈ 4Z where the anomaly polynomial is orientation-consistent; a testable extension would be to compute the analogous Pin+(d+2)⋉G bordism group.
  • For gauge groups with π1(G) ≠ 0, for example groups containing U(1) factors, the theorem gives no conclusion; whether gauged CP is safe there is a separate question and would require new bordism computations.
  • The string-theory construction suggests UV-complete embeddings of Pin+⋉Spin(10) exist; if so, the anomaly-free property is not just a low-energy accident but can be inherited from a higher-dimensional theory.

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. The paper studies global (nonperturbative) anomalies of a gauged CP symmetry in four dimensions. It formulates the symmetry group as Pin^+(4)⋉G, assuming that CP maps each irreducible Weyl fermion representation to its hermitian conjugate (so that R^2=1). The main claim is that if G is connected and simply connected and the theory is anomaly-free before gauging CP, then no new anomaly appears after gauging CP; equivalently, Ω_5^{Pin^+⋉G}(pt) ≃ Ω_5^{Spin}(BG), which is Z_2 for G=Sp(N) and zero otherwise. The paper argues this by reducing G to SU(2) via a scalar-field/Higgsing argument, then using bordism invariance and the known absence of pure Pin^+ anomalies in five dimensions. As a corollary it claims the standard model matter content is anomaly-free under gauged CP, via SU(5) or Spin(10) embeddings. A string-theory realization of Pin^+(4)⋉Spin(10) is also sketched.

Significance. If established, the result is significant: it removes an important potential obstruction to spontaneous CP breaking as a solution to the strong CP problem. The paper correctly identifies the subtlety that gauged CP requires Pin^+(d)⋉G rather than an ordinary product, and it connects this to modern bordism-based anomaly methods. The treatment in Section 2 is careful and elementary, and the SU(2) reduction argument contains several nice concrete steps: the 5⊕10 decomposition and the dimension-counting for the zero locus are explicit and checkable. The explicit warning that Pin^− cases are excluded is honest and appropriate. However, the decisive bordism equality (3.32) is not actually proved in the manuscript; the proof is explicitly declared non-rigorous in Section 3.4. The paper also provides a clear computational target (the bordism group) that a rigorous follow-up could verify.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4–3.5, Eq. (3.32)] The paper's central claim is the bordism isomorphism Ω_5^{Pin^+⋉G}(pt) ≃ Ω_5^{Spin}(BG), but this equality is asserted rather than demonstrated. Section 3.4 explicitly says "We do not try to make the argument mathematically rigorous," and the subsequent argument reduces the problem to SU(2) by a sequence of plausible but non-rigorous steps: the use of a generic section to reduce SU(N) to SU(2), the claim that the CP/orientability twist plays "almost no role" in the obstruction-theoretic reduction, and the final identification of the bordism group. Since the abstract and the boxed result claim a proof of absence of new anomalies, this gap is load-bearing. The authors should either supply a rigorous proof of (3.32), cite a published theorem that implies it, or weaken the main claim to a conjecture/conditional result.
  2. [§3.5, reduction to SU(2)] The obstruction-theoretic argument for reducing a general Pin^+⋉G-bundle to Pin^+⋉SU(2) is presented too tersely. The long exact sequence (3.31) is stated for ordinary homotopy groups of G, G/H and H, but the bundles under consideration have structure group Pin^+⋉G on possibly non-orientable manifolds. The assertion that the Pin^+ twist can be ignored because each simplex is orientable is plausible, but it skips the global gluing and the role of the automorphism σ. This is an essential step in the proof of (3.32), so it needs a rigorous treatment or a reference to a general theorem covering semidirect products with Pin^+.
  3. [§3.4, SU(2) mass-term argument] The statement that four SU(2) doublets and seven singlets (from 5⊕10) can be given CP-invariant mass terms is asserted without proof. For the doublets, the existence of an SU(2)-invariant mass term between two Weyl doublets is standard, but the CP invariance of that mass term under the specific R_n transformation defined in (2.17) needs a short explicit check. The singlet mass terms are also stated to be CP-invariant without demonstration. The argument would be more convincing with the explicit mass terms written down and the action of R_n displayed. This does not appear to be a fatal flaw, but it is a gap in the current exposition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (4.9)] The derivation of R_n^2 = 1 appears to skip an important sign. From S_s T_n = -T_n S_s and C^2=1, one obtains R_n^2 = (-S_s^2)(-S_g^2) = S_s^2 S_g^2. The text says S_s^2 = S_g^2 = ±1 and then immediately concludes R_n^2 = T_n^2 = 1. This is only valid if S_s^2 = S_g^2 (the same sign), which is plausible because the same geometric reflection is used in both the spacetime and gauge sectors, but the text does not state this. Please clarify.
  2. [§3.5, line after Eq. (3.31)] The statement that π_3(G)=π_3(SU(2)) for all connected simply connected simple G by the Bott theorem, and the analogous statement for π_4, should be accompanied by a precise reference. The current text is too terse for the non-specialist reader.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: "Wely" should be "Weyl" (end of Section 2.1), "inial" should be "initial" (Section 4.1), "ligitimate" should be "legitimate" and "exlicit" should be "explicit" (Section 4.2), "relfection" should be "reflection" (Section 4.2), and "grand unifield" should be "grand unified" (beginning of Section 4).
  4. [§3.4] The paper's own caveat that the argument is not mathematically rigorous should be moved closer to the statement of the main theorem, perhaps in the introduction, so that readers of the abstract know the result is conditional on a bordism computation that is only sketched.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the conditional theorem runs from an independent pre-gauging anomaly-freedom hypothesis to a distinct Pin+⋉G statement via a nontrivial bordism reduction; the explicit non-rigor is a proof-completeness caveat, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's boxed result is a conditional statement: given that a theory with G (π0=π1=0) is anomaly-free before gauging CP, it remains anomaly-free after gauging. The pre-gauging anomaly freedom is explicitly an input, not the conclusion: Section 3.5 uses 'Our initial assumption that there is no anomaly before gauging the CP implies Z_anomaly(A_S^4_instanton×S^1)=1' (eq. 3.29), a legitimate use of the hypothesis. The derivation then reduces the Pin+⋉G anomaly to the old Spin×G anomaly via a nontrivial obstruction-theory/bordism argument summarized by eq. (3.32), so the output is not identical to the input by construction; the paper even notes that 3d CP anomalies exist, showing the question is substantive. Self-citations ([43] Witten-Yonekura for anomaly inflow, [73] Yonekura for cobordism cut-and-glue, [69] Yamashita-Yonekura for differential models) supply previously published methodology, but the specific SU(N)→SU(2) reduction and mass-term argument are given in the text, and the cited results are parameter-free external mathematical facts, not the target statement. The admitted non-rigor in Section 3.4 ('We do not try to make the argument mathematically rigorous, but we believe that it is possible to do so in a straightforward way, in the sense of computing the relevant bordism groups Ω_5^{Pin+⋉G}(pt)') is a completeness/rigor limitation, not circularity. The restriction to Pin+ (Section 2.2: 'We do not consider such a case in the present paper') is a scope condition, openly stated, not a concealed assumption. Therefore no step reduces to its input by definition or by self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters: the paper is a parameter-free mathematical derivation with stated assumptions (π0(G) = π1(G) = 0; no anomaly before gauging). No new physical entities are introduced; the semidirect product group Pin+(d)⋉G is a mathematical clarification, not a new particle, force, or dimension. The axioms are the standard anomaly-inflow/bordism framework, cited bordism-group values, and standard homotopy/transversality facts.

axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The fermion path-integral anomaly in the absence of perturbative anomalies is a bordism invariant (Dai-Freed / eta-invariant framework).
    Invoked in Sections 3.3-3.5 as the foundation for computing global anomalies; the paper cites [43,45,64] and uses the 'freely cut and glue manifolds' consequence (3.26)-(3.27).
  • domain assumption Ω Pin+_5(pt) = 0, so a neutral Weyl fermion with a CP-invariant mass has no pure-Pin global anomaly.
    Used in Section 3.5 to conclude Z_anomaly(A_Ỹ) = 1; the value is taken from bordism tables in [42,71], not computed in this paper.
  • domain assumption The standard model matter content (SU(5) 5⊕10 / Spin(10) 16) has no global anomalies before gauging CP.
    Input assumption of the main theorem, cited from [41-43]; the standard-model corollary inherits the theorem's dependence on it.
  • standard math Standard homotopy facts: π2(G) = 0 for connected simply-connected simple G; π3(G) ≃ Z with all instantons deformable into SU(2) (Bott); π4(G) = 0 except π4(Sp(N)) ≃ Z2.
    Used in the obstruction-theoretic reduction G → SU(2) in Section 3.5 via the long exact sequence (3.31).
  • standard math Transversality / Sard's theorem: a generic section of the defining SU(N) bundle vanishes on a smooth submanifold of codimension 2N.
    Used in Sections 3.4-3.5 to locate the zero locus M and to reduce SU(N) → SU(N−1).
  • domain assumption Massive fermions with CP-invariant masses do not contribute to global anomalies; a single neutral Weyl fermion can be given such a mass preserving Pin+.
    Argued in Section 2.1 and used in Sections 3.4-3.5 to give mass to the SU(2) doublets and singlets.
  • domain assumption For the string theory section: an anomaly-free ten-dimensional heterotic theory yields an anomaly-free four-dimensional theory after a topologically allowed compactification, and the Bianchi identity (4.1) and its refinements hold.
    Section 4 assumes the heterotic framework and cites [64,74-76]; this part is illustrative for the existence of CP, not load-bearing for the main theorem.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22861 in / 20790 out tokens · 208677 ms · 2026-08-03T00:08:12.885894+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Some solutions to the strong CP problem assume that CP symmetry is a gauge symmetry, which is then spontaneously broken. For this scenario to be possible, the CP symmetry should not have any nonperturbative (global) anomalies. In this paper, we study anomalies of CP symmetry of fermions which are coupled to gravity and gauge fields with a gauge group $G$. When $G$ is connected and simply connected, we show that gauging a CP symmetry does not produce any new anomaly beyond the one before gauging it. In particular, the standard model matter content does not have anomalies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11475 by Kazuya Yonekura.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of a (d + 1)-dimensional manifold Y and its d-dimensional boundary X. In this example, d = 1, X = S 1 , and Y is a torus with a disk removed. where ∂ on the left-hand side means taking the boundary. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gluing of Y and (the orientation reversal Y ′ of) Y ′ along the common boundary ∂Y = ∂Y ′ = X to obtain the closed manifold Y ′′ = Y ∪ Y ′ . The quantity Zanomaly(AY ′′) on the right-hand side of (3.7) is the proper definition of anomaly, by the following argument. Suppose that Zanomaly(AY ′′) is always unity, Zanomaly(AY ′′) = 1, for arbitrary AY ′′. Then, (3.7) implies that for any Y and Y ′ we have Z˜ ψ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A (d + 2)-dimensional manifold Z = Z whose boundary is Y and Y ′ . Therefore, for odd n, the sign coming from σ and the orientation reversal cancel with each other. This is precisely what happens in d = 4 (or more generally d ∈ 4Z), as can be seen from the expression (3.12) (or more generally (3.11)) for I ρ d+2. By this mechanism, the integral (3.13) is well-defined even if the manifold Z is not orientabl… 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. Anomalies in family unification models from bordism classification

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Family unification models from E7 cosets have no global sigma model anomalies because the torsion parts of their bordism groups vanish, as computed via the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence, including when isotropy ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 63 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. E. Nelson,Naturally Weak CP Violation,Phys. Lett. B136(1984) 387–391

    1984

  2. [2]

    S. M. Barr,Solving the Strong CP Problem Without the Peccei-Quinn Symmetry,Phys. Rev. Lett.53(1984) 329

    1984

  3. [3]

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra,CP Violation in Seesaw Models of Quark Masses,Phys. Rev. Lett.62(1989) 1079

    1989

  4. [4]

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra,A Solution to the Strong CP Problem Without an Axion, Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 1286

    1990

  5. [5]

    S. M. Barr, D. Chang, and G. Senjanovic,Strong CP problem and parity,Phys. Rev. Lett.67 (1991) 2765–2768

    1991

  6. [6]

    Lavoura,A New type of spontaneous CP breaking,Phys

    L. Lavoura,A New type of spontaneous CP breaking,Phys. Lett. B400(1997) 152–156, arXiv:hep-ph/9701221

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    Vecchi,Spontaneous CP violation and the strong CP problem,JHEP04(2017) 149, arXiv:1412.3805 [hep-ph]

    L. Vecchi,Spontaneous CP violation and the strong CP problem,JHEP04(2017) 149, arXiv:1412.3805 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Dine and P

    M. Dine and P. Draper,Challenges for the Nelson-Barr Mechanism,JHEP08(2015) 132, arXiv:1506.05433 [hep-ph]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    L. J. Hall and K. Harigaya,Implications of Higgs Discovery for the Strong CP Problem and Unification,JHEP10(2018) 130, arXiv:1803.08119 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Dunsky, L

    D. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya,Higgs Parity, Strong CP, and Dark Matter,JHEP07 (2019) 016, arXiv:1902.07726 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Craig, I

    N. Craig, I. Garcia Garcia, G. Koszegi, and A. McCune,P not PQ,JHEP09(2021) 130, arXiv:2012.13416 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Valenti and L

    A. Valenti and L. Vecchi,The CKM phase and θin Nelson-Barr models,JHEP07(2021) 203, arXiv:2105.09122 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Fujikura, Y

    K. Fujikura, Y . Nakai, R. Sato, and M. Yamada,Baryon asymmetric Universe from spontaneous CP violation,JHEP04(2022) 105, arXiv:2202.08278 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Girmohanta, S

    S. Girmohanta, S. J. Lee, Y . Nakai, and M. Suzuki,A natural model of spontaneous CP violation,JHEP12(2022) 024, arXiv:2203.09002 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Bonnefoy, L

    Q. Bonnefoy, L. Hall, C. A. Manzari, and C. Scherb,Colorful Mirror Solution to the Strong CP Problem,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 221802, arXiv:2303.06156 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Nakagawa, Y

    S. Nakagawa, Y . Nakai, and Y . Wang,Spontaneous CP violation in supersymmetric QCD, JHEP09(2024) 105, arXiv:2406.01260 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Murai and K

    K. Murai and K. Nakayama,Revisiting the minimal Nelson-Barr model,JHEP11(2024) 098, arXiv:2407.16202 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    L. Hall, C. A. Manzari, and B. Noether,Strong CP and flavor in multi-Higgs theories,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 115012, arXiv:2407.14585 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Feruglio, M

    F. Feruglio, M. Parriciatu, A. Strumia, and A. Titov,Solving the strong CP problem without axions,JHEP08(2024) 214, arXiv:2406.01689 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Murai and K

    K. Murai and K. Nakayama,Domain walls in Nelson-Barr axion model,JHEP09(2025) 099, arXiv:2412.19456 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Hisano and M

    J. Hisano and M. Kuroda,Extension of SUSY SU(5) GUTs with Nelson-Barr models, JHEP05(2025) 041, arXiv:2502.19686 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Liang and T

    Q. Liang and T. T. Yanagida,Non-invertible symmetry as an axion-less solution to the strong CP problem,Phys. Lett. B868(2025) 139706, arXiv:2505.05142 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Bonnefoy, L

    Q. Bonnefoy, L. J. Hall, C. A. Manzari, and B. Noether,Two Higgs Doublet Solutions to the Strong CP Problem,arXiv:2506.13853 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Csáki, S

    C. Csáki, S. Homiller, and T. Youn,Strong CP from a Hidden Chiral Condensate, arXiv:2507.15935 [hep-ph]. 25

    arXiv

  25. [25]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, and T. T. Yanagida,Non-invertible Symmetry as a Solution to the Strong CP Problem in a GUT-inspired Standard Model,arXiv:2508.12287 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, M. Tanimoto, and T. T. Yanagida,GUT-motivated non-invertible symmetry as a solution to the strong CP problem and the neutrino CP-violating phase, arXiv:2510.01680 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  27. [27]

    J. N. Benabou, A. Hook, C. A. Manzari, H. Murayama, and B. R. Safdi,Clearing up the StrongCPproblem,arXiv:2510.18951 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  28. [28]

    J. R. Ellis and M. K. Gaillard,Strong and Weak CP Violation,Nucl. Phys. B150(1979) 141–162

    1979

  29. [29]

    Hisano, T

    J. Hisano, T. Kitahara, N. Osamura, and A. Yamada,Novel loop-diagrammatic approach to QCDθparameter and application to the left-right model,JHEP03(2023) 150, arXiv:2301.13405 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Banno, J

    T. Banno, J. Hisano, T. Kitahara, and N. Osamura,Closer look at the matching condition for radiative QCDθparameter,JHEP02(2024) 195, arXiv:2311.07817 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Banno, J

    T. Banno, J. Hisano, T. Kitahara, K. Ogawa, and N. Osamura,Two-loop corrections to QCDθangle from evanescent operator in the BMHV scheme,JHEP09(2025) 135, arXiv:2502.14500 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    S. W. Hawking,Particle Creation by Black Holes,Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199–220. [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  33. [33]

    Banks and L

    T. Banks and L. J. Dixon,Constraints on String Vacua with Space-Time Supersymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B307(1988) 93–108

    1988

  34. [34]

    S. R. Coleman,Black holes as red herrings: Topological fluctuations and the loss of quantum coherence,Nucl. Phys. B307(1988) 867–882

    1988

  35. [35]

    S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger,Loss of incoherence and determination of coupling constants in quantum gravity,Nucl. Phys. B307(1988) 854–866

    1988

  36. [36]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde, and L. Susskind,Gravity and global symmetries, Phys. Rev. D52(1995) 912–935, arXiv:hep-th/9502069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  37. [37]

    Arkani-Hamed, L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa,The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,JHEP06(2007) 060, arXiv:hep-th/0601001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [38]

    Banks and N

    T. Banks and N. Seiberg,Symmetries and Strings in Field Theory and Gravity,Phys. Rev. D 83(2011) 084019, arXiv:1011.5120 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  39. [39]

    Harlow and H

    D. Harlow and H. Ooguri,Symmetries in quantum field theory and quantum gravity, Commun. Math. Phys.383(2021) 1669–1804, arXiv:1810.05338 [hep-th]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Witten,An SU(2) Anomaly,Phys

    E. Witten,An SU(2) Anomaly,Phys. Lett. B117(1982) 324–328

    1982

  41. [41]

    D. S. Freed,Pions and Generalized Cohomology,J. Diff. Geom.80(2008) 45–77, arXiv:hep-th/0607134

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    García-Etxebarria and M

    I. García-Etxebarria and M. Montero,Dai-Freed anomalies in particle physics,JHEP08 (2019) 003, arXiv:1808.00009 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Witten and K

    E. Witten and K. Yonekura,Anomaly Inflow and theη-Invariant,inThe Shoucheng Zhang Memorial Workshop. 9, 2019. arXiv:1909.08775 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    Hsieh, G

    C.-T. Hsieh, G. Y . Cho, and S. Ryu,Global anomalies on the surface of fermionic symmetry-protected topological phases in (3+1) dimensions,Phys. Rev. B93(2016) 075135, arXiv:1503.01411 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Witten,Fermion Path Integrals And Topological Phases,Rev

    E. Witten,Fermion Path Integrals And Topological Phases,Rev. Mod. Phys.88(2016) 035001, arXiv:1508.04715 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    Hsieh,Discrete gauge anomalies revisited,arXiv:1808.02881 [hep-th]

    C.-T. Hsieh,Discrete gauge anomalies revisited,arXiv:1808.02881 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Davighi, B

    J. Davighi, B. Gripaios, and N. Lohitsiri,Global anomalies in the Standard Model(s) and Beyond,JHEP07(2020) 232, arXiv:1910.11277 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Wang and X.-G

    J. Wang and X.-G. Wen,Nonperturbative definition of the standard models,Phys. Rev. Res. 2(2020) 023356, arXiv:1809.11171 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Wan and J

    Z. Wan and J. Wang,Beyond Standard Models and Grand Unifications: Anomalies, Topological Terms, and Dynamical Constraints via Cobordisms,JHEP07(2020) 062, arXiv:1910.14668 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Wang,Anomaly and Cobordism Constraints Beyond the Standard Model: Topological Force,arXiv:2006.16996 [hep-th]

    J. Wang,Anomaly and Cobordism Constraints Beyond the Standard Model: Topological Force,arXiv:2006.16996 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  51. [51]

    D. B. Costa,Anomaly-freeU(1) m extensions of the Standard Model,Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 115006, arXiv:2007.08733 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Wang,Anomaly and Cobordism Constraints Beyond Grand Unification: Energy Hierarchy,arXiv:2008.06499 [hep-th]

    J. Wang,Anomaly and Cobordism Constraints Beyond Grand Unification: Energy Hierarchy,arXiv:2008.06499 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  53. [53]

    P. B. Smith, A. Karasik, N. Lohitsiri, and D. Tong,On discrete anomalies in chiral gauge theories,JHEP01(2022) 112, arXiv:2106.06402 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    J. Wang, Z. Wan, and Y .-Z. You,Cobordism and deformation class of the standard model, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) L041701, arXiv:2112.14765 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Davighi and J

    J. Davighi and J. Tooby-Smith,Electroweak flavour unification,JHEP09(2022) 193, arXiv:2201.07245 [hep-ph]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Davighi, B

    J. Davighi, B. Gripaios, and N. Lohitsiri,Anomalies of non-Abelian finite groups via cobordism,JHEP09(2022) 147, arXiv:2207.10700 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Wang,Strong CP Problem and Symmetric Mass Solution,arXiv:2212.14036 [hep-ph]

    J. Wang,Strong CP Problem and Symmetric Mass Solution,arXiv:2212.14036 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    Putrov and J

    P. Putrov and J. Wang,Categorical symmetry of the standard model from gravitational anomaly,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 125028, arXiv:2302.14862 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Kawasaki and T

    M. Kawasaki and T. T. Yanagida,Dai-Freed anomaly in the standard model and topological inflation,JHEP11(2023) 106, arXiv:2304.10100 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Kawasaki and T

    M. Kawasaki and T. T. Yanagida,Hill-top inflation from Dai-Freed anomaly in the standard model — a solution to the iso-curvature problem of the axion dark matter,JCAP01(2024) 014, arXiv:2306.14579 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Wang,Topological Quantum Dark Matter via Global Anomaly Cancellation, arXiv:2502.21319 [hep-th]

    J. Wang,Topological Quantum Dark Matter via Global Anomaly Cancellation, arXiv:2502.21319 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [62]

    Wan,Anomaly of 4d Weyl fermion with discrete symmetries, arXiv:2506.19710 [hep-th]

    Z. Wan,Anomaly of 4d Weyl fermion with discrete symmetries, arXiv:2506.19710 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    Z. Wan, J. Wang, and Y .-Z. You,Topological Responses of the Standard Model Gauge Group,arXiv:2412.21196 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [64]

    Witten,World sheet corrections via D instantons,JHEP02(2000) 030, arXiv:hep-th/9907041

    E. Witten,World sheet corrections via D instantons,JHEP02(2000) 030, arXiv:hep-th/9907041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  65. [65]

    Polchinski,Monopoles, duality, and string theory,Int

    J. Polchinski,Monopoles, duality, and string theory,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19S1(2004) 145–156, arXiv:hep-th/0304042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  66. [66]

    Nakahara,Geometry, topology and physics

    M. Nakahara,Geometry, topology and physics. CRC Press, 2003

    2003

  67. [67]

    Weinberg,The quantum theory of fields

    S. Weinberg,The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 2: Modern applications. Cambridge University Press, 8, 2013

    2013

  68. [68]

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and J. A. Harvey,Anomalies and Fermion Zero Modes on Strings and Domain Walls,Nucl. Phys. B250(1985) 427–436

    1985

  69. [69]

    Yamashita and K

    M. Yamashita and K. Yonekura,Differential models for the Anderson dual to bordism theories and invertible QFT’s. I.,J. Gökova Geom. Topol. GGT16(2023) 1–64, arXiv:2106.09270 [math.AT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Kapustin,Symmetry Protected Topological Phases, Anomalies, and Cobordisms: Beyond Group Cohomology,arXiv:1403.1467 [cond-mat.str-el]

    A. Kapustin,Symmetry Protected Topological Phases, Anomalies, and Cobordisms: Beyond Group Cohomology,arXiv:1403.1467 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  71. [71]

    Kapustin, R

    A. Kapustin, R. Thorngren, A. Turzillo, and Z. Wang,Fermionic Symmetry Protected Topological Phases and Cobordisms,JHEP12(2015) 052, arXiv:1406.7329 [cond-mat.str-el]. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  72. [72]

    D. S. Freed and M. J. Hopkins,Reflection positivity and invertible topological phases, Geom. Topol.25(2021) 1165–1330, arXiv:1604.06527 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    Yonekura,On the cobordism classification of symmetry protected topological phases, Commun

    K. Yonekura,On the cobordism classification of symmetry protected topological phases, Commun. Math. Phys.368(2019) 1121–1173, arXiv:1803.10796 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    Witten,Topological Tools in Ten-dimensional Physics,Int

    E. Witten,Topological Tools in Ten-dimensional Physics,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A1(1986) 39

    1986

  75. [75]

    Tachikawa and M

    Y . Tachikawa and M. Yamashita,Topological Modular Forms and the Absence of All Heterotic Global Anomalies,Commun. Math. Phys.402(2023) 1585–1620, arXiv:2108.13542 [hep-th]. [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 402, 2131 (2023)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    Yonekura,Heterotic global anomalies and torsion Witten index,JHEP10(2022) 114, arXiv:2207.13858 [hep-th]

    K. Yonekura,Heterotic global anomalies and torsion Witten index,JHEP10(2022) 114, arXiv:2207.13858 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten,SUPERSTRING THEORY. VOL. 2: LOOP AMPLITUDES, ANOMALIES AND PHENOMENOLOGY. 7, 1988

    1988

  78. [78]

    Strominger and E

    A. Strominger and E. Witten,New Manifolds for Superstring Compactification,Commun. Math. Phys.101(1985) 341

    1985

  79. [79]

    M. Dine, R. G. Leigh, and D. A. MacIntire,Of CP and other gauge symmetries in string theory,Phys. Rev. Lett.69(1992) 2030–2032, arXiv:hep-th/9205011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  80. [80]

    K.-w. Choi, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson,Is CP a gauge symmetry?,Nucl. Phys. B391 (1993) 515–530, arXiv:hep-ph/9205202

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

Showing first 80 references.