Dynamical Quarks in the Ensemble of Center Vortices with Monopole Defects: Color Confinement Beyond External Probes

Luis E. Oxman

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Dynamical Quarks in the Ensemble of Center Vortices with Monopole Defects: Color Confinement Beyond External Probes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read The infrared vortex–monopole condensate forces dynamical quarks into color-neutral, finite-size states by trapping frustration between colored constituents.

desk verdict Neutrality from the condensate is clean and new; the finite-size/localization claim is not secured by the written energy functional. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24266 v1 pith:XBLJRI6X submitted 2026-07-27 hep-th hep-lathep-ph

Luis E. Oxman This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thhep-lathep-ph PACS 12.38.Aw11.15.Kc12.38.Lg

keywords centervorticescolorconfinementdynamicalquarksmonopoledefectsbosonizationhadronspectrumYang-Millsvacuumfluxtubes

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

This paper asks how confinement works when quarks are dynamical, not just external probes. It embeds bosonized color currents in the same oriented and nonoriented center-vortex ensemble previously used for pure Yang–Mills flux tubes. Finite-energy conditions in that condensate force total color charge to vanish, so only colorless configurations survive asymptotically. When neutral sets of colored constituents sit apart inside the condensate, they create a mismatch that cannot spread to infinity; the mismatch is expelled into a finite frustrated region—flux tubes or a bag—whose energy grows with separation and thereby localizes the quarks. The picture supplies a single infrared origin for confining tubes, the Yang–Mills mass gap, and finite-size hadrons, and it matches lattice indications that center vortices shape the low-lying spectrum.

What carries the argument

Bosonized color currents (topologically conserved Cartan currents dual to the fermionic currents) coupled to the Goldstone and monopole fields of the percolating center-vortex condensate; the G^{2} and monopole-vacuum terms in the static energy enforce the asymptotic neutrality and frustration localization.

What would settle it

An explicit variational minimization (or lattice realization) of the coupled energy functional that finds no finite-size local minima for color-neutral meson and baryon charge densities, or lattice hadron spectroscopy in which center-vortex removal leaves the low-lying spectrum intact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the infrared center-vortex/monopole condensate, finite-energy asymptotic conditions dynamically restrict configurations to be color-neutral. Neutral distributions of separated constituent color densities then generate a finite frustrated region connecting them, providing a concrete localization mechanism for meson-like and baryon-like states.

Load-bearing premise

That the still-unknown bosonized quark energy, when it competes with the condensate energy under scaling, actually produces stable finite-size minima once constituent positions and profiles are free to relax.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Asymptotic color singlets are required by finite energy, not imposed by hand.
Meson and baryon constituents remain linked by finite frustrated regions whose energy rises with separation (tubes or bags).
The same condensate accounts for external-probe flux tubes, the Yang–Mills mass gap, and dynamical hadron localization.
Parallel mechanisms operate in 2+1 and 3+1 dimensions with the corresponding bosonizing and monopole fields.
The framework is consistent with lattice evidence that center vortices shape the low-lying hadron spectrum.

Reading between the lines

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

If the energy competition fails to stabilize finite size, the path integral over constituent positions would still define a confining few-body Hamiltonian whose spectrum could be checked against known meson and baryon masses.
The same frustration logic should extend to multi-quark exotics, predicting Y- or more complex junctions whose topology is fixed by the root lattice.
Tuning the relative stiffness of modulus versus monopole/phase sectors would interpolate between thin flux-tube and bag-like hadrons, offering a parameter that lattice vortex studies could constrain.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The real advance here is the finite-energy neutrality argument. Once you grant the vortex–monopole condensate and compactness, asymptotic conditions force total color charge onto the root lattice and then, with the nonoriented sector on, to Q=0. Isolated fundamental weights are excluded. That step is topological, clearly written, and genuinely new relative to the pure-YM papers in the same program. The bosonized-current coupling is the right language for embedding dynamical quarks without immediately drowning in the full Dirac determinant.

What the paper does well: it keeps the pure-glue flux-tube machinery and the dynamical-quark sector in one continuum Lagrangian, and it is honest that SB[Ω] is not known in closed form. The 2+1D parallel and the End Matter topology are useful. Citations to the lattice vortex–hadron work and to the author’s prior ensemble are appropriate program self-citation, not circular definition.

Soft spot, in proportion: the leap from “frustration somewhere” to “finite frustrated region with σR or BR³ growth” does not follow from Eq. (9). A neutral curl-free b with Λ=0 and ζ on the vacuum manifold gives G∝−Ω spread through space. That configuration is admissible for Q=0, stationary for the written condensate energy, and has interaction energy that approaches a constant (Coulomb-like) at large separation rather than rising. Both branches share the same J(Ω), so E(Ω) does not select the tube. The claim that “the condensate localizes the unavoidable frustration” therefore needs an extra ingredient—constraint, modulus physics, or nonlinear pieces of SB—not present in the displayed functional. Derrick scaling is only a competition sketch; there is no explicit minimum or spectrum.

Who it is for: people already inside continuum vortex/monopole IR models. They will get a clean neutrality mechanism and a sharp open problem on localization. It deserves a serious referee, with the request to either kill the spread branch or downgrade the hadron-size claim to a conjecture. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The Letter couples dynamical quarks to the author's previously constructed ensemble of oriented and nonoriented center vortices with monopole defects. Using exact higher-dimensional bosonization, quark color currents are represented by Kalb–Ramond (3+1D) or vector (2+1D) fields Ω in the Cartan subalgebra, interacting with the vortex condensate's Goldstone gauge field Λ and monopole fields ζ_α through the effective theory of Eq. (8). Two results are claimed. First, finite-energy asymptotics (G_ij→0, ζ in its vacuum manifold) combined with the compactness of Λ quantize the admissible total color charge on the root lattice, exclude isolated fundamental-weight charges, and—with proliferating monopoles—force total color neutrality Q=0 (Eqs. (11)–(14)). Second, for neutral assemblies of localized constituents with fundamental-weight color densities, closed frustration-free patches around each constituent are topologically obstructed; the paper argues the frustration is therefore expelled into a finite tube- or bag-like region with energy σR or BR³, competing against a fermionic excess free energy E(Ω)~1/R. Whether this competition yields finite-size minima is explicitly identified as the open central question.

Significance. Extending the center-vortex confinement picture from external probes (Wilson loops) to dynamical quarks addresses a genuine gap in the vortex literature, and connecting it to lattice evidence on vortex–hadron-spectrum ties (Ref. [31]) is well motivated. Particular strengths: the color-charge quantization and neutrality results are clean, model-internal consequences of compactness and vacuum-manifold topology, not fits; the (2+1)D and (3+1)D parallel treatments mutually check each other; the Derrick-scaling bookkeeping of the competing contributions is explicit; and the paper is unusually candid in naming the open 'central question.' The framework is in principle testable within the lattice Weingarten ensemble of Ref. [26]. However, the advertised localization mechanism currently rests on an obstruction argument that does not exclude a Coulombic stationary branch of Eq. (9) (Major Comment 1), so the significance is conditional on that issue being resolved or the claims being recalibrated.

major comments (3)

[Bound colorless states / Eq. (9)] §'Bound colorless states,' Eq. (9): the claimed localization is contradicted by an explicit stationary configuration of the paper's own energy functional. Fix Ω as in Eq. (16) with curl-free b, and take Λ=0 (regular pure gauge), ζ_α=ζ_0 constant in the vacuum manifold, G_ij=−(4π/N)Ω_ij. For a neutral constituent set this is admissible (G→0 at infinity, Q=0) and it is stationary: ∂_iG_ij∝(∇×b)_j=0, and the Λ mass term ϑ²Σ_α|ζ_0|²(α·Λ)² makes the second variation positive. Its energy is (γϑ²/4)(4π/N)²∫b² = self-energies − c/R, i.e. it *decreases* with separation, whereas the proposed tube branch costs σR. Thus at large R the spread branch lies lower, and the model as written behaves Coulombically, not confiningly. E(Ω) cannot decide between branches since Ω is common to both. The statement in the Conclusions that 'the associated frustration is confined to a finite region ... whose energy g
[Bound colorless states (obstruction argument)] The obstruction argument shows only that frustration-free closed patches around individual constituents cannot exist (G≠0 somewhere, ζ driven off the vacuum manifold on some locus). It does not show *where* the frustration resides. In particular it does not exclude the mismatch being carried by G spread smoothly through space, which is exactly the stationary branch above. The scaling σR or BR³ is asserted ('Depending on the parameters, the frustrated region may be realized as...') without any variational comparison of the tube/bag branch against spread configurations. The Supplemental's (2+1)D remedy (nonoriented interaction selecting discrete vacua, forcing domain walls) has no 4D analog that acts on the spread branch, since ζ=ζ_0 constant sits in the vacuum manifold everywhere and the dual-Meissner mass term for Λ is inactive when ∇×b=0. A quantitative comparison, or an explicit symmet
[Bosonized energy functional (Supplemental) / Eq. (81)] The competition E(Ω) vs. σR/BR³ rests on properties of the unknown 3+1D bosonized action. The estimate E(Ω)~C/R is dimensional analysis for the massless constrained theory, and positivity of the 4D quadratic kernel (Suppl. Eq. (86)) is imposed by the subtraction prescription rather than derived. Since E(Ω) is load-bearing for the existence of finite-size minima ('the central question'), the text should clearly separate what is exact (the current map, Eq. (3); identical conservation) from what is assumed, and should state explicitly that at fixed Ω the fermionic term is blind to the tube-versus-spread question. It should also address whether relaxing Ω (adding a curl to b, cf. the redundancy in Eqs. (43)/(52)) changes the energetics.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (8), Eq. (9)] The notation '2π2N Ω' for 2π·(2/N)Ω appears throughout (L_{ΛΩ}, Eq. (9), Eq. (21)) and is easy to misread as 4πN; suggest writing \tfrac{4\pi}{N} explicitly.
[After Eq. (6)] Setting the constraint determinant ∆[B]≡1 in the Cartan sector is asserted; a brief justification of why this Faddeev–Popov-like factor is field-independent there would help.
[Eq. (16)] Eq. (16): taking b curl-free is a choice within the redundancy Ω_{μν}→Ω_{μν}+∂_μχ_ν−∂_νχ_μ; please note explicitly that physical statements (J_0, E(Ω)) are independent of this choice.
[Various] Typos/typesetting: 'andk-string' (Introduction); 'he integrand' should be 'the integrand' (Supplemental, after Eq. (42)); inconsistent spacing 'N= 3' in Fig. 1 caption; Ref. [42] lacks a year in the reference list.
[Supplemental, Colorless configurations] The (2+1)D discussion in the Supplemental is admirably explicit that in the purely oriented phase 'the mismatch may spread through the continuous Cartan vacuum manifold' with no localization mechanism; the main text would benefit from flagging the analogous 4D worry rather than presenting localization unconditionally.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Prior self-cited ensemble supplies the setting; color-neutrality and frustration arguments are new topological/energy reasoning inside that model and do not reduce by construction to the inputs.

self citation load bearing [Introduction; continuum percolating phase, Eqs. (7)–(8); End Matter “General center-vortex phase in 4D”]
"In a series of works [21–26], we proposed an infrared framework for pure YM theory based on center vortices and monopoles forming collimated chains. … Z_QCD ≈ ∫ DΩ e^{-S_B[Ω]} ∑_{{W}} ψ_{{W}} e^{i ∑_W 2π Ω·β}. … This is represented in the continuum by the total Lagrangian L = L_Ω + L_ΛΩ + L_ζΛ …"

The medium in which the new neutrality/frustration claims are made is not re-derived from first principles here; it is the author’s prior effective ensemble (ψ_{{W}}, N-matching, monopole fields ζ_α, Goldstone Λ). The citation is load-bearing for the setting. It is not circular for the central new results: those follow from finite-energy asymptotics and vacuum-manifold topology applied inside this paper, and do not reduce by construction to anything assumed or fitted in [21–26].

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing infrared medium (oriented/nonoriented center vortices with monopole defects, continuum L_ΛΩ+L_ζΛ, lattice Weingarten representation) is taken from the author’s prior pure-YM series [21–26]. That is ordinary program continuity, not a definitional identity: those works target flux tubes and field-strength correlators between external probes, not dynamical-quark neutrality or hadron localization. Within the adopted energy (9), asymptotic G→0 plus compactness of Λ (oriented sector) and the discrete/trivial π₂ vacuum of the monopole fields ζ_α (nonoriented sector) are used in this manuscript to derive Q=0 and the exclusion of isolated defining-weight charges—topological steps written out in Eqs. (11)–(14) and End Matter, not imported as a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives. The subsequent claim that neutral multi-constituent densities force a finite connecting frustrated region (tubes or bag) is argued from the inability to complete G≈0, Dζ≈0 patches around each ω_i, then left explicitly as an open variational question (“the central question is whether minimizing… produces nontrivial finite-size local minima”). No parameter is fitted to hadron data and re-sold as a prediction; no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. Correctness concerns about competing Coulomb-like spread saddles of (9) are outside the circularity criterion. Score 2 reflects one non-forcing self-citation of the ensemble framework only.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim lives inside a phenomenological IR effective theory built from an ensemble of collimated Cartan fluxes, not from a controlled continuum limit of full QCD. Load-bearing inputs are the author’s prior vortex–monopole measure, the dominance of Cartan bosonized currents, the continuum Goldstone/monopole Lagrangian, and the assumption that SB[Ω] competes to stabilize finite size. No collider-scale new particle is invented; the new entities are effective continuum fields and the frustration picture.

free parameters (4)

ϑ (vortex condensate modulus)
Sets the overall scale of the center-vortex condensate and the stiffness of L_ΛΩ and monopole kinetic terms; phenomenological, not fixed from first principles in this Letter.
γ (plaquette/stiffness coupling in L_ΛΩ)
Controls the energy cost of G_ij = F(Λ)−2π 2N Ω; inherited from the lattice Weingarten modeling of surface tension/stiffness.
monopole mass-squared m² and quartic λ̃ in U(ζ)
Determine whether monopoles proliferate (m²<0) and the vacuum manifold used to kill asymptotic color charge; signs and magnitudes are model choices.
ensemble weights in ψ_{W} (tension, stiffness, N-matching ξ, nonoriented ν)
Relative importance of oriented vortices, N-matching, and nonoriented monopole vertices is parametrized, not derived from the QCD Lagrangian here.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Infrared YM/QCD is adequately captured by an ensemble of collimated oriented and nonoriented center vortices with monopole defects whose continuum phase is L_ΛΩ + L_ζΛ.
Stated throughout Introduction and Quark/center-vortex/monopole system; justified by lattice phenomenology and prior author papers, not derived here.
ad hoc to paper For collimated fluxes thinner than 1/m, the quark–vortex coupling reduces to integrated center flux: ∫(Ω,G)≈∑_W 2π Ω·β.
Explicit approximation leading to Eq. (7); controls the entire fluid-like coupling.
ad hoc to paper In locally Abelian vortex–monopole sectors, the Cartan piece of SB[Ω] dominates and monopole corrections can be absorbed into the ensemble measure.
Cartan fluxes section and Supplemental; needed to keep Ω∈h and use topological currents (5).
domain assumption Higher-dimensional non-Abelian bosonization supplies an exact current map J(ψ)↔J(Ω) even though SB is not known in closed form.
Bosonized quark sector; cites the functional bosonization literature [37–41].
standard math Finite-energy static configurations require G_ij→0 and (when monopoles condense) Diζ_α→0 with |ζ_α| in the vacuum manifold at infinity.
Standard finite-energy/Derrick boundary analysis applied to Eq. (9); End Matter.
domain assumption Dimensional analysis gives E(Ω)∼1/R (up to logs) for light localized current distributions, opposing condensate-driven shrinking.
Bound colorless states and Supplemental bosonized energy functional; used to argue possible finite-size balance.

invented entities (2)

Continuum frustrated vortex–monopole medium coupled to bosonized Cartan currents (Ω, Λ, ζ_α system)
purpose: Provide a single IR fluid in which external flux tubes and dynamical color-neutral localization both arise.
Assembled here from prior ensemble plus new quark coupling; not a new fundamental particle but a new effective-field packaging of the claim.
Frustrated finite regions (flux-tube or bag-like) joining neutral constituent color densities
purpose: Localize meson- and baryon-like color distributions by expelling vacuum mismatch from asymptotic infinity.
Core new mechanistic object in Bound colorless states; existence of energy-minimizing profiles not shown outside this reasoning.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical Quarks in the Ensemble of Center Vortices with Monopole Defects: Color Confinement Beyond External Probes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XBLJRI6X

@misc{pith2026260724266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical Quarks in the Ensemble of Center Vortices with Monopole Defects: Color Confinement Beyond External Probes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XBLJRI6X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24266}
}

read the original abstract

We consider the interaction of dynamical quarks with the ensemble of oriented and nonoriented center vortices proposed to describe flux-tube formation between quark probes in pure Yang-Mills theory. The quark sector is described in terms of bosonized color currents. Within this fluid-like framework, the infrared vortex--monopole condensate restricts finite-energy configurations to be color neutral. Furthermore, neutral distributions of constituent color densities embedded in the condensate generate frustrated regions, providing a mechanism for their localization into finite-size configurations. The resulting picture is consistent with lattice evidence indicating that center vortices play a central role in shaping the hadron spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24266 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** For N = 3, elementary center vortices carry one of the three defining magnetic weights βi (β1 + β2 + β3 = 0). In 4D, we depict a time slice of the modeled network. gap encoded in gauge-invariant field-strength correlators [30]. In this Letter, we investigate whether this picture could also explain confinement in QCD. This possibility is further motivated by lattice evidence connecting center vortices with the low-… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[31]

Trewartha, W

A. Trewartha, W. Kamleh, and D. B. Leinweber, J. Phys. G44, 125002 (2017). 6

2017
[1]

K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D10, 2445 (1974)

1974
[2]

A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B120, 429 (1977)

1977
[3]

’t Hooft, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B138, 1 (1978)

1978
[4]

G. S. Bali, Phys. Rep.343, 1 (2001)

2001
[5]

Kratochvila and P

S. Kratochvila and P. de Forcrand, Nucl. Phys.B671, 103 (2003)

2003
[6]

Lucini and M

B. Lucini and M. Teper, Phys. Rev. D64, 105019 (2001)

2001
[7]

Lucini, M

B. Lucini, M. Teper, and U. Wenger, J. High Energy Phys. (06), 012

Show all 57 references

[8]

L. D. Debbio, M. Faber, J. Greensite, and S. Olejnik, Phys. Rev. D53, 5891 (1996)

1996
[9]

D’Elia, A

M. D’Elia, A. D. Giacomo, and E. Meggiolaro, Phys. Rev. D67, 114504 (2003)

2003
[10]

Cucchieri and T

A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 241601 (2008)

2008
[11]

Debbio, M

L. Debbio, M. Faber, J. Giedt, J. Greensite, and S. Ole- jnik, Phys. Rev.D55, 2298 (1997)

1997
[12]

de Forcrand and M

P. de Forcrand and M. D’Elia, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4582 (1999)

1999
[13]

Langfeld, H

K. Langfeld, H. Reinhardt, and O. Tennert, Phys. Lett. B419, 317 (1998)

1998
[14]

Engelhardt and H

M. Engelhardt and H. Reinhardt, Nucl. Phys.B567, 249 (2000)

2000
[15]

Reinhardt, Nucl

H. Reinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B628, 133 (2002)

2002
[16]

Greensite,An Introduction to the Confinement Prob- lem, 2nd ed., Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol

J. Greensite,An Introduction to the Confinement Prob- lem, 2nd ed., Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 972 (Springer, Cham, 2020)

2020
[17]

A. D. Giacomo, B. Lucini, L. Montesi, and G. Paffuti, Phys. Rev. D61, 034503 (2000)

2000
[18]

P. Y. Boyko, M. I. Polikarpov, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.119, 724 (2003)

2003
[19]

Sakumichi and H

N. Sakumichi and H. Suganuma, Phys. Rev. D90, 111501(R) (2014)

2014
[20]

J. A. Mickley, W. Kamleh, and D. B. Leinweber, Phys. Rev. D110, 034516 (2024)

2024
[22]

D. R. Junior, L. E. Oxman, and G. M. Sim˜ oes, JHEP 2020(01), 180

2020
[23]

D. R. Junior, L. E. Oxman, and G. M. Sim˜ oes, Universe 7, 253 (2021)

2021
[25]

D. R. Junior, L. E. Oxman, and G. M. Sim˜ oes, Phys. Rev. D108, 094021 (2023)

2023
[27]

Rey, Phys

S.-J. Rey, Phys. Rev. D40, 3396 (1989)

1989
[28]

G. H. Derrick, J. Math. Phys.5, 1252 (1964)

1964
[29]

Manton and P

N. Manton and P. Sutcliffe,Topological Solitons, Cam- bridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2004)

2004
[30]

D. R. Junior, G. Krein, L. E. Oxman, and B. R. Soares, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 111902 (2026)

2026
[33]

General center-vortex phase in 4D

was proposed as the origin of the Yang–Mills (YM) ensemble. According to this theorem, the space of gauge- arXiv:2607.24266v1 [hep-th] 27 Jul 2026 2 field configurations{A}in YM theory does not admit a globally defined section. Thus, a global gauge-fixing condition, and hence ...

2026 arXiv
[34]

I. M. Singer, Commun. Math. Phys.60, 7 (1978)

1978
[35]

V. N. Gribov, Nucl. Phys. B139, 1 (1978)

1978
[36]

Fiorentini, D

D. Fiorentini, D. R. Junior, L. E. Oxman, and R. F. Sobreiro, Phys. Rev. D101, 085007 (2020)

2020
[37]

Fiorentini, D

D. Fiorentini, D. R. Junior, L. E. Oxman, and R. F. Sobreiro, Phys. Rev. D105, 125015 (2022)

2022
[41]

J. C. Le Guillou, E. Moreno, C. N´ u˜ nez, and F. A. Scha- posnik, Nucl. Phys. B484, 682 (1997)

1997
[43]

Ambjørn, J

J. Ambjørn, J. Giedt, and J. Greensite, JHEP02, 033
[44]

Hayashi and Y

Y. Hayashi and Y. Tanizaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 171902 (2024)

2024
[45]

Nguyen, T

M. Nguyen, T. Sulejmanpaˇ si´ c, and M.¨Unsal, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 141902 (2025)

2025
[46]

E. H. Fradkin and S. H. Shenker, Phys. Rev. D19, 3682 (1979)

1979
[47]

Greensite and K

J. Greensite and K. Matsuyama, Phys. Rev. D96, 094510 (2017)

2017
[48]

de Lemos, L

A. de Lemos, L. Oxman, and B. Teixeira, Phys. Rev. D85, 125014 (2012)

2012
[49]

D. G. Barci, C. D. Fosco, and L. E. Oxman, Phys. Lett. B375, 267 (1996)

1996
[50]

C. D. Fosco and A. Kovner, Phys. Rev. D63, 045009 (2001). END MA TTER Bosonization—This procedure is rooted in the gauge invariance of the fermionic partition functionZ F[A] in the presence of an external gauge fieldA. This makes it possible to write it as a path integral over...

2001
[51]

L. E. Oxman and G. C. Santos-Rosa, Phys. Rev. D92, 125025 (2015)

2015
[52]

Fiorentini, D

D. Fiorentini, D. R. Junior, L. E. Oxman, G. M. Sim˜ oes, and R. F. Sobreiro, Phys. Rev. D103, 114010 (2021)

2021
[53]

Fradkin and F

E. Fradkin and F. A. Schaposnik, Phys. Lett. B338, 253 (1994)

1994
[54]

C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo, Nucl. Phys. B421, 373 (1994)

1994
[55]

C. D. Fosco and F. A. Schaposnik, Phys. Lett. B391, 136 (1997)

1997
[56]

J. C. Le Guillou, E. Moreno, C. N´ u˜ nez, and F. A. Schaposnik, Nucl. Phys. B484, 682 (1997)

1997
[57]

Quevedo and C

F. Quevedo and C. A. Trugenberger, Nucl. Phys. B501, 143 (1997)

1997
[58]

L. E. Oxman, JHEP3, 038
[59]

L. E. Oxman, Phys. Rev.D98, 036018 (2018)

2018
[60]

de Lemos, L

A. de Lemos, L. Oxman, and B. Teixeira, Phys. Rev.D85, 125014 (2012)

2012
[61]

D. R. Junior, L. E. Oxman, and G. M. Sim˜ oes, JHEP2020(01), 180
[62]

D. R. Junior, L. E. Oxman, and H. Reinhardt, Phys. Rev. D106, 114021 (2022)

2022
[63]

Weingarten, Phys

D. Weingarten, Phys. Lett. B90, 280 (1980)

1980
[64]

D. R. Junior and L. E. Oxman, Phys. Rev. D111, 054036 (2025)

2025
[65]

C. D. Fosco and A. Kovner, Phys. Rev. D63, 045009 (2001)

2001

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [31]

Trewartha, W

A. Trewartha, W. Kamleh, and D. B. Leinweber, J. Phys. G44, 125002 (2017). 6

2017

[2] [1]

K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D10, 2445 (1974)

1974

[3] [2]

A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B120, 429 (1977)

1977

[4] [3]

’t Hooft, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B138, 1 (1978)

1978

[5] [4]

G. S. Bali, Phys. Rep.343, 1 (2001)

2001

[6] [5]

Kratochvila and P

S. Kratochvila and P. de Forcrand, Nucl. Phys.B671, 103 (2003)

2003

[7] [6]

Lucini and M

B. Lucini and M. Teper, Phys. Rev. D64, 105019 (2001)

2001

[8] [7]

Lucini, M

B. Lucini, M. Teper, and U. Wenger, J. High Energy Phys. (06), 012