Towards Stabilization on Noncommutative Torus

Canberk Guvendik

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Towards Stabilization on Noncommutative Torus

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding one adjoint fermion cancels the one-loop tachyon that destabilizes noncommutative torus gauge theory, restoring the broken Z_N x Z_N center symmetry at large N.

desk verdict One-loop adjoint-fermion polarization gives an (n_f−1) threshold that likely fixes the noncommutative torus tachyon, but the manuscript has a sign typo in the key exponent that must be fixed before the claim is trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12838 v1 pith:Y6YDMUZI submitted 2024-11-19 hep-th

Canberk Guvendik This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords noncommutativetorus'tHooftfluxcentersymmetrytachyonicinstabilityadjointfermionsMoritadualitytwistedEguchi-Kawailarge-Nreduction

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 whether the classical $Z_N \times Z_N$ symmetric vacuum of Yang-Mills theory on $\mathbb{R}^2 \times T^2$ with 't Hooft flux survives quantum corrections as $N$ grows. Working through Morita equivalence on the noncommutative torus, it rederives the known one-loop gluon polarization and confirms the tachyonic instability that breaks translation symmetry at large $N$. It then computes the one-loop photon polarization from $n_f$ adjoint fermions and finds a contribution of exactly the same form with the opposite sign. For total dimensions $D=4$ and two compact dimensions $d=2$, the combined one-loop polarization is $\Pi_1 = (n_f-1) g^2/(2\pi^4 R^2 |\vec b|^2)$, so a single adjoint fermion cancels the tachyon and more than one makes the mode positively massive. A sympathetic reading: the paper establishes that adjoint matter stabilizes the broken symmetry and thereby protects the semiclassical center-vortex confinement regime at large $N$.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is Morita equivalence, which maps U(N) on a torus with 't Hooft flux to U(1) on a noncommutative torus with rational noncommutativity $\theta = p/N$. The calculation's engine is the one-loop polarization tensor in the nonplanar sector, where the Moyal phase $\cos(2\pi\theta \, l_i n_j \epsilon_{ij})$ survives after summing over the compact directions. Poisson resummation over the winding modes produces a dependence on the minimal fractional momentum $\vec b = \vec l_0 - \theta \, \epsilon \vec n$, and Bessel-function identities convert the momentum integrals into terms of the form $1/|\vec b|^{d+2}$. The gluon loop contributes $\Pi_1 = -d\,\Gamma(d/2+1)\,g^2/(2^d\pi^{3d/2+1}|\vec b|^d)$, while $n_f$ adjoint fermions contribute $\Pi_1 = +n_f\,8\Gamma(d/2+1)\,g^2/(2^D\pi^{3d/2+1}|\vec b|^d)$; their sum is proportional to $(n_f-1)$.

What would settle it

Perform a lattice simulation of the twisted Eguchi-Kawai model with one adjoint Dirac fermion and measure the expectation values of $\mathrm{Tr}(P_1^a P_2^b)$. If any such 'Polyakov-loop' expectation is nonzero at large $N$, or equivalently if the noncommutative counterpart spontaneously breaks translation invariance, the one-loop stabilization claim and the Morita identification fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the one-loop tachyonic instability of U(1) Yang-Mills on a noncommutative torus, the instability that drives spontaneous breaking of translation symmetry, is cured by $n_f \geq 1$ adjoint fermions. The author computes the gluon polarization and the adjoint-fermion polarization on the noncommutative torus and shows that, for $D=4$ and $d=2$, the total one-loop contribution is $\Pi_1 = (n_f-1) g^2/(2\pi^4 R^2 |\vec b|^2)$. For $n_f=1$ the two loops cancel exactly, leaving no tachyon; for $n_f>1$ the would-be tachyonic mode gets a positive one-loop mass. The paper asserts 'we reached to the stabilization' and, through Morita duality, interprets this as restoration of the $Z_N \times Z_N$ center symmetry of the original U(N) theory with 't Hooft flux, so the semiclassical center-vortex regime at large $N$ survives.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument hinges on Morita equivalence: that the breaking of translation symmetry on the noncommutative torus is the same physical event as $Z_N \times Z_N$ center-symmetry breaking in the original U(N) theory with 't Hooft flux; the paper states this identification but does not prove it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim holds, the one-loop tachyon of the noncommutative U(1) theory disappears for $n_f \geq 1$, so the translation-symmetric vacuum is stable at large $N$ on the noncommutative side.
On the original side, via the Morita bridge, this means the $Z_N \times Z_N$ center symmetry of U(N) with 't Hooft flux is preserved at one loop, so the center-vortex semiclassical regime on $\mathbb{R}^2 \times T^2$ is not destroyed by large-$N$ quantum fluctuations.
For exactly $n_f = 1$, the gauge and fermion loop contributions cancel to leading order, indicating a special protected locus consistent with the pattern that adjoint matter restores large-$N$ volume independence.
For $n_f > 1$, the would-be tachyonic mode acquires a positive one-loop mass proportional to $(n_f-1) g^2/(R^2 |\vec b|^2)$, which removes the instability and gives a gap to that mode.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's stabilization argument is one-loop and perturbative; whether the $|\vec b| \to 0$ region is fully controlled nonperturbatively, or whether higher loops and center-vortex effects shift the threshold away from $n_f = 1$, is not settled by this calculation.
A clean test is a lattice simulation of the twisted Eguchi-Kawai model with one adjoint Dirac fermion: if $\mathrm{Tr}(P_1^a P_2^b)$ develops a nonzero expectation value at large $N$, the Morita bridge or the stabilization claim fails.
Because $n_f = 1$ is the matter content of $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills, the exact cancellation hints that supersymmetric compactifications with 't Hooft flux may enjoy a nonrenormalization-type protection of the symmetric vacuum, though the paper does not invoke supersymmetry explicitly.
The same Bessel-function machinery could be rerun with adjoint scalars or with other values of $d$ to map where adjoint matter stabilizes torus compactifications; the paper presents only the $D=4,d=2$ case and the trivial $d=0$ case.

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

Let me get straight to it. This paper has one genuinely useful new thing: an explicit one-loop computation of the adjoint-fermion polarization on the noncommutative torus, giving the coefficient that turns the pure-gauge tachyon into (n_f−1) g^2/(2π^4 R^2 |b|^2). If that number is right, n_f=1 adjoint fermion restores stability, which is a concrete and checkable claim about the center-vortex confinement scenario. The gauge-field part is a rederivation of Guralnik-Helling-Landsteiner-Lopez, and the paper says so. The fermion contribution is the new step, and it is not in the references. Credit where due: the fermion calculation is short but honest; the same Bessel machinery is used, and the result has the expected sign to cancel the tachyon.

Now the soft spots. The worst is Eq. (4.7). As printed, the exponent contains e^{-α(P^2 x(1−x) − π^2G^2/α)}, which literally means e^{-αP^2x(1−x) + π^2G^2/α} and blows up at α→0 for G≠0. That cannot be right; the convergent expression should have −π^2G^2/α. If this is a typesetting parenthesis slip, fine, but as written the central fermion result is not reproducible from the equation. The derivation also says "applying the same procedure" and skips the fermion analogue of the gauge steps, so the prefactor in (4.9) is hard to verify without doing the algebra. That's the kind of thing a referee should make the authors spell out.

The other weaknesses are real but smaller. The minimum-b and small-P.G approximation is not quantified; it is taken from [14] and used for the fermion as well, so it inherits whatever validity that reference justifies. The stabilization claim is one-loop; higher loops could in principle shift the threshold, though the leading large-N scaling is telling. And the identification of translation-breaking on the noncommutative side with Z_N×Z_N center-symmetry breaking is asserted, not proved. That's a known expectation in the twisted-Eguchi-Kawai literature and in [14], so I'd call it a caveat rather than a fatal gap, but the paper would be stronger with a citation or a paragraph of justification.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. The calculation is relevant to the center-vortex program, the result is concrete, and the flaws are fixable. I would ask the referee to verify Eq. (4.7)/(4.9) carefully and to comment on whether the approximations control the fermion integral. I would not cite it in its current arXiv form without first checking the sign; but the corrected version would be a useful reference.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper investigates the stability of the Z_N × Z_N symmetric classical vacuum of Yang-Mills theory on R^2 × T^2 with 't Hooft flux, in the large-N limit. Using Morita equivalence, the author converts the problem to a noncommutative U(1) gauge theory on a two-torus, where a one-loop tachyonic instability, Eq. (3.39), breaks translation invariance. The paper then computes the one-loop photon polarization in the presence of n_f adjoint fermions, obtaining Eq. (4.9), which for D=4, d=2 gives a contribution +g^2/(2π^4 R^2 |b|^2) that cancels the gauge contribution, leading to the total (n_f - 1) g^2/(2π^4 R^2 |b|^2) in Eq. (4.11). The conclusion is that adjoint fermions stabilize the symmetry-breaking instability and restore the Z_N × Z_N symmetric vacuum.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, the result is a concrete, non-trivial one-loop statement: it provides a mechanism to avoid the large-N instability of the center-vortex vacuum, analogous to the role of adjoint fermions in R^3 × S^1 theories. The final (n_f - 1) dependence is a simple, falsifiable prediction that could be checked by independent calculations or on the lattice. The paper does not fit any free parameters, and the gauge-field part is a rederivation of known results from reference [14]. However, the central new result rests on a compact derivation that, as written, contains a sign error in the key formula Eq. (4.7), so the numerical coefficient in Eq. (4.9) cannot currently be verified.

major comments (4)

[Eq. (4.7)] Equation (4.7) as printed contains the Gaussian exponent exp[-α(P^2 x(1-x) - π^2 G^2/α)], which equals exp[-αP^2x(1-x) + π^2G^2/α]; for any G≠0 this diverges at α→0, so the Bessel representation (3.34) used to extract Eq. (4.9) cannot be applied. The convergent form should be exp[-(αP^2x(1-x) + π^2G^2/α)], as in Eq. (3.24). Because Eq. (4.9) is the only quantitative basis for the advertised (n_f - 1) cancellation, this error is load-bearing and must be corrected and the derivation supplied in detail.
[Section 4, Eqs. (4.6)-(4.9)] The transition from the fermion-loop expression (4.6) to the polarization tensor (4.7) and then to the claimed result (4.9) is presented as 'applying the same procedure given in the gauge field part' without showing the analogue of the Poisson resummation, the Bessel-function manipulation, and the reduction of f'_μν to the scalar coefficient. As a consequence, the overall prefactor 8Γ(d/2+1)g^2/(2^D π^{3d/2+1} |b|^d) and the sign cannot be independently checked. Given the error in (4.7), the manuscript needs to provide the intermediate steps or a clear cross-reference to the gauge-field calculation with all factors tracked.
[Introduction and Conclusion] The paper asserts that spontaneous breaking of translation symmetry on the noncommutative side is identical to Z_N × Z_N center-symmetry breaking in the original U(N) theory with 't Hooft flux, but no proof or detailed derivation of this Morita-duality mapping is given. In particular, the identification of the vector b = l_0 - θϵ n with a center-symmetry order parameter and the regime of validity in N and in the torus size are not established. Since the physical conclusion of the paper is about center symmetry in Yang-Mills on R^2 × T^2, this mapping is load-bearing; it should either be proved or explicitly marked as an assumption with a precise statement of its expected range of validity.
[Section 3, after Eq. (3.34)] The extraction of Eq. (3.37) (and later Eq. (4.9)) relies on an expansion around the minimum of G = l - θϵ n and on treating P·G and P^2 terms as small, following [14]. The paper does not quantify the conditions under which this approximation is valid, e.g., in terms of N, L, θ, and the mode numbers. Since the instability is driven precisely by small |b|, a power-counting estimate (such as |P||b| << 1/R) is needed to justify dropping these terms; otherwise the sign and magnitude of the coefficient in (3.39) and (4.9) are not controlled.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (4.7)] The notation in Eq. (4.7) is garbled: the exponent lacks a closing parenthesis and should be written as exp[-(αP^2x(1-x)+π^2G^2/α)] to match Eq. (3.24).
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'Eguichi' for 'Eguchi' in the abstract and Introduction.
[Section 3] The vector b is introduced in the text after Eq. (3.32) but is not given a clear definition; please state explicitly that b = l^(0) - θϵn with l^(0) the minimizer of |l - θϵn| over l ∈ Z^2.
[Section 5] The conclusion states that adjoint fermions 'stabilize' the center symmetry, but the computation is one-loop; the paper should explicitly state that the result is a one-loop statement and that higher-order corrections are not analyzed.
[Table 1] The conversion table for Morita dual theories is incomplete: entries for the radii R and the flux parameter ϕ are missing, making it hard to follow the parameter mapping used in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the adjoint-fermion stabilization result is an independent one-loop computation benchmarked against external results, with no fitted parameter and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to the quantity it predicts. The gauge-field instability is rederived in Section 3 and matches the external benchmark [14] (Eqs. (3.37)-(3.39)); the fermion polarization in Section 4 is then computed by the same Feynman-parameter/Schwinger/Poisson-resummation method, yielding Eq. (4.9). The cancellation in Eq. (4.11) follows algebraically from the two one-loop coefficients, so the '(n_f - 1)' factor is a result of the calculation, not an input. Morita equivalence and the identification of translation-symmetry breaking with center-symmetry breaking are imported as assumptions from [8,9,14], but they are standard external tools and are not used to define the computed polarization. The only same-author citation, [31], appears in a future-directions remark and is not load-bearing. A printed sign typo in the exponent of Eq. (4.7) is a correctness and reproducibility concern, not a circularity: it does not make the conclusion equivalent to its premises.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. All inputs are standard field-theory parameters, dualities, and approximation assumptions.

free parameters (1)

theta = p/N
Dimensionless noncommutativity parameter fixed to a rational p/N by Morita duality. It sets the scale of the instability but is not fitted to data.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Morita equivalence maps U(N) with 't Hooft flux to U(1) on a noncommutative torus with rational theta = p/N.
Used in Section 2 to replace the twisted commutative theory by the noncommutative U(1) theory.
domain assumption Translation-symmetry breaking on the noncommutative side is identical to Z_N x Z_N center-symmetry breaking on the original torus.
Asserted in Sections 1 and 5 via the twisted Eguchi-Kawai analogy and reference [14]; no derivation is given in this paper.
domain assumption The dominant one-loop contribution comes from the minimum lattice momentum b and P.G terms can be treated as small.
Invoked after Eq. (3.33) and again in Section 4 to evaluate the self-energy. This controls the sign and size of the instability.
standard math Noncommutative Feynman rules replace f^{abc} by f^{abc} cos + d^{abc} sin and use the Moyal star product.
Taken from references [9, 10, 22] in Section 3 as the starting point for the diagram computation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Stabilization on Noncommutative Torus." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y6YDMUZI

@misc{pith2026241112838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Stabilization on Noncommutative Torus},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y6YDMUZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12838}
}

abstract

Recent introduction of center vortices with 't Hooft flux on two torus compactification leads to a new semiclassical regime where confinement is analytically calculable. In this work, we investigate the stability of the classical minima for gauge fields under quantum corrections. Although the classical $Z_N \times Z_N$ symmetric minima is stable at small-$N$, because of the nature of the quantum corrections, it can be destabilized at sufficiently large-$N$. Using Morita equivalence, we switch to field theory on noncommutative torus instead of working with theory on torus with 't Hooft flux in a certain limit. Noncommutative Yang-Mills theory compactified on two torus leads to a tachyonic instability and it leads to the spontaneous breaking of translation symmetry. We discuss that spontaneous breaking of translation symmetry is identical to the $Z_N \times Z_N$ center symmetry breaking similar to an older version of large N twisted Eguichi-Kawai model. We compute the photon polarization diagram for noncommutative U(1) theory in the presence of adjoint fermions and show that they stabilize the tachyonic instability on the noncommutative torus and restore the broken symmetry.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[14]

Perturbative Instabilities on the Non-Commutative Torus, Morita Duality and Twisted Boundary Conditions ,

Z. Guralnik, C. Helling, K. Landsteiner, and E. Lopez, “Perturbative Instabilities on the Non-Commutative Torus, Morita Duality and Twisted Boundary Conditions ,” Journal of High Energy Physics(2002) , arXiv:0204037 [hep-th]

work page 2002
[1]

Center vortex and confinement in Yang–Mills theory and QCD with anomaly-preserving compactifications,

Y. Tanizaki and M. ¨Unsal, “Center vortex and confinement in Yang–Mills theory and QCD with anomaly-preserving compactifications,” PTEP 2022 no. 4, (2022) 04A108, arXiv:2201.06166 [hep-th]

arXiv 2022
[2]

Magnetic bion condensation: A New mechanism of confinement and mass gap in four dimensions,

M. Unsal, “Magnetic bion condensation: A New mechanism of confinement and mass gap in four dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 065001, arXiv:0709.3269 [hep-th]

arXiv 2009
[3]

Notes on Confinement on R3 × S1: From Yang-Mills, Super-Yang-Mills, and QCD (adj) to QCD(F),

E. Poppitz, “Notes on Confinement on R3 × S1: From Yang-Mills, Super-Yang-Mills, and QCD (adj) to QCD(F),” Symmetry 14 no. 1, (2022) 180, arXiv:2111.10423 [hep-th]

arXiv 2022
[4]

Center-stabilized Yang-Mills theory: Confinement and large N volume independence,

M. Unsal and L. G. Yaffe, “Center-stabilized Yang-Mills theory: Confinement and large N volume independence,” Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 065035, arXiv:0803.0344 [hep-th]

arXiv 2008
[5]

The Twisted Eguchi-Kawai Model: A Reduced Model for Large N Lattice Gauge Theory,

A. Gonzalez-Arroyo and M. Okawa, “The Twisted Eguchi-Kawai Model: A Reduced Model for Large N Lattice Gauge Theory,” Phys. Rev. D27 (1983) 2397

work page 1983
[7]

Symmetry breaking in twisted Eguchi-Kawai models,

M. Teper and H. Vairinhos, “Symmetry breaking in twisted Eguchi-Kawai models,” Phys. Lett. B652 (2007) 359–369, arXiv:hep-th/0612097. – 12 –

arXiv 2007
[8]

Strong coupling phenomena on the non-commutative plane,

Z. Guralnik, “Strong coupling phenomena on the non-commutative plane,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2002 (2001) 010, arXiv:0109079 [hep-th]

work page 2001

Show all 30 references

[9]

Quantum field theory on noncommutative spaces,

R. Szabo, “Quantum field theory on noncommutative spaces,” Physics Reports378 (2003) 207–299, arXiv:0109162 [hep-th]

2003
[10]

Introduction to noncommutative field theory,

J. Barbon, “Introduction to noncommutative field theory,” ICTP Lect. Notes Ser.10 (2002) 185–219

2002
[11]

Noncommutative Perturbative Dynamics,

S. Minwalla, M. Raamsdonk, and N. Seiberg, “Noncommutative Perturbative Dynamics,” Journal of High Energy Physics2000 (1999) 020, arXiv:9912072 [hep-th]

1999
[12]

A non-perturbative study of 4d U(1) non-commutative gauge theory – the fate of one-loop instability,

W. Bietenholz, J. Nishimura, Y. Susaki, and J. Volkholz, “A non-perturbative study of 4d U(1) non-commutative gauge theory – the fate of one-loop instability,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2006 (2006) 042, arXiv:0608072 [hep-th]

2006
[13]

Closed Strings Tachyons and Non-Commutative Instabilities,

A. Armoni, E. Lopez, and A. Uranga, “Closed Strings Tachyons and Non-Commutative Instabilities,” Journal of High Energy Physics2003 (2003) 020, arXiv:0301099 [hep-th]

2003
[15]

Volume independence for Yang-Mills fields on the twisted torus ,

M. Perez, A. Gonzalez-Arroyo, and M. Okawa, “Volume independence for Yang-Mills fields on the twisted torus ,” International Journal of Modern Physics A29 (2014) , arXiv:1406.5655 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[16]

Tachyonic instabilities in 2+1 dimensional Yang-Mills theory and its connection to Number Theory ,

F. Chamizo and M. Perez, “Tachyonic instabilities in 2+1 dimensional Yang-Mills theory and its connection to Number Theory ,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 50 (2017) , arXiv:1610.07972 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[17]

SU(N) fractional instantons and the Fibonacci sequence ,

M. Perez and J. Golan, “SU(N) fractional instantons and the Fibonacci sequence ,” Journal of High Energy Physics(2022) , arXiv:2208.07133 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[18]

Large N reduction with the Twisted Eguchi-Kawai model ,

A. Gonzalez-Arroyo and M. Okawa, “Large N reduction with the Twisted Eguchi-Kawai model ,” Journal of High Energy Physics07 (2010) 043, arXiv:1005.1981 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[19]

Spatial volume dependence for 2+1 dimensional SU(N) Yang-Mills theory,

M. Perez, A. Gonzalez-Arroyo, and M. Okawa, “Spatial volume dependence for 2+1 dimensional SU(N) Yang-Mills theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics2013 (2013) , arXiv:1307.5254 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[20]

Volume independence in large Nc QCD-like gauge theories,

P. Kovtun, M. Unsal, and L. Yaffe, “Volume independence in large Nc QCD-like gauge theories,” Journal of High Energy Physics(2007) , arXiv:0702021 [hep-th]

2007
[21]

Aspects of Gauge Theory on Commutative and Non-commutative Tori,

Z. Guralnik and J. Troost, “Aspects of Gauge Theory on Commutative and Non-commutative Tori,” Journal of High Energy Physics2001 (2001) 022, arXiv:0103168 [hep-th]

2001
[22]

Morita Duality and Large N Limits,

L. Alvarez-Gaume and J. Barbon, “Morita Duality and Large N Limits,” Nuclear Physics B 623 (2002) 165–200, arXiv:0109176v3 [hep-th]

2002
[23]

Study of gapped phases of 4d gauge theories using temporal gauging of the ZN 1-form symmetry,

M. Nguyen, Y. Tanizaki, and M. Unsal, “Study of gapped phases of 4d gauge theories using temporal gauging of the ZN 1-form symmetry,” arXiv:2306.02485 [hep-th]

arXiv
[24]

Strongly coupled QFT dynamics via TQFT coupling,

M. ¨Unsal, “Strongly coupled QFT dynamics via TQFT coupling,” JHEP 11 (2021) 134, arXiv:2007.03880 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[25]

M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction To Quantum Field Theory (Frontiers in Physics). Westview Press, 8, 1995. – 13 –

1995
[26]

Noncommutative Two-Dimensional Gauge Theories,

A. Armoni, “Noncommutative Two-Dimensional Gauge Theories,” arXiv:1107.3651 [hep-th]

arXiv
[27]

Noncommutative gauge field theories: a no-go theorem ,

M. Chaichian, P. Presnajder, M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and A. Tureanu, “Noncommutative gauge field theories: a no-go theorem ,” Physics Letters B526 (2002) 132–136, arXiv:0107037 [hep-th]

2002
[28]

Seiberg-Witten and ’Polyakov-like’ magnetic bion confinements are continuously connected,

E. Poppitz and M. Unsal, “Seiberg-Witten and ’Polyakov-like’ magnetic bion confinements are continuously connected,” JHEP 07 (2011) 082, arXiv:1105.3969 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[29]

Monopole-vortex continuity of N = 1 super Yang-Mills theory on R2 × S1 × S1 with ’t Hooft twist,

Y. Hayashi, T. Misumi, and Y. Tanizaki, “Monopole-vortex continuity of N = 1 super Yang-Mills theory on R2 × S1 × S1 with ’t Hooft twist,” arXiv:2410.21392 [hep-th]

arXiv
[30]

Unifying Monopole and Center Vortex as the Semiclassical Confinement Mechanism,

Y. Hayashi and Y. Tanizaki, “Unifying Monopole and Center Vortex as the Semiclassical Confinement Mechanism,” arXiv:2405.12402 [hep-th]

arXiv
[31]

The metamorphosis of semi-classical mechanisms of confinement: From monopoles on R3 × S1 to center-vortices on R2 × T 2,

C. G¨ uvendik, T. Schaefer, and M. ¨Unsal, “The metamorphosis of semi-classical mechanisms of confinement: From monopoles on R3 × S1 to center-vortices on R2 × T 2,” arXiv:2405.13696 [hep-th]. – 14 –

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

Perturbative Instabilities on the Non-Commutative Torus, Morita Duality and Twisted Boundary Conditions ,

Z. Guralnik, C. Helling, K. Landsteiner, and E. Lopez, “Perturbative Instabilities on the Non-Commutative Torus, Morita Duality and Twisted Boundary Conditions ,” Journal of High Energy Physics(2002) , arXiv:0204037 [hep-th]

work page 2002

[2] [1]

Center vortex and confinement in Yang–Mills theory and QCD with anomaly-preserving compactifications,

Y. Tanizaki and M. ¨Unsal, “Center vortex and confinement in Yang–Mills theory and QCD with anomaly-preserving compactifications,” PTEP 2022 no. 4, (2022) 04A108, arXiv:2201.06166 [hep-th]

arXiv 2022

[3] [2]

Magnetic bion condensation: A New mechanism of confinement and mass gap in four dimensions,

M. Unsal, “Magnetic bion condensation: A New mechanism of confinement and mass gap in four dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 065001, arXiv:0709.3269 [hep-th]

arXiv 2009

[4] [3]

Notes on Confinement on R3 × S1: From Yang-Mills, Super-Yang-Mills, and QCD (adj) to QCD(F),

E. Poppitz, “Notes on Confinement on R3 × S1: From Yang-Mills, Super-Yang-Mills, and QCD (adj) to QCD(F),” Symmetry 14 no. 1, (2022) 180, arXiv:2111.10423 [hep-th]

arXiv 2022

[5] [4]

Center-stabilized Yang-Mills theory: Confinement and large N volume independence,

M. Unsal and L. G. Yaffe, “Center-stabilized Yang-Mills theory: Confinement and large N volume independence,” Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 065035, arXiv:0803.0344 [hep-th]

arXiv 2008

[6] [5]

The Twisted Eguchi-Kawai Model: A Reduced Model for Large N Lattice Gauge Theory,

A. Gonzalez-Arroyo and M. Okawa, “The Twisted Eguchi-Kawai Model: A Reduced Model for Large N Lattice Gauge Theory,” Phys. Rev. D27 (1983) 2397

work page 1983

[7] [7]

Symmetry breaking in twisted Eguchi-Kawai models,

M. Teper and H. Vairinhos, “Symmetry breaking in twisted Eguchi-Kawai models,” Phys. Lett. B652 (2007) 359–369, arXiv:hep-th/0612097. – 12 –

arXiv 2007

[8] [8]

Strong coupling phenomena on the non-commutative plane,

Z. Guralnik, “Strong coupling phenomena on the non-commutative plane,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2002 (2001) 010, arXiv:0109079 [hep-th]

work page 2001