Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

The role of the chiral anomaly in polarized deeply inelastic scattering III: Wess-Zumino-Witten contributions and chiral Ward identities for finite quark mass

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quark masses shift the QCD anomaly pole by about ten percent, not by a complete cancellation.

desk verdict The QED pole cancellation and the finite-mass worldline PVV computation are solid, but the paper's central quantitative formula (Eq. 108) is dimensionally inconsistent as printed, so the advertised few-percent correction to Delta Sigma is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10519 v2 pith:LV3HYXRA submitted 2025-01-17 hep-ph hep-lathep-thnucl-th

Andrey Tarasov , Raju Venugopalan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-lathep-thnucl-th
keywords chiralanomalypolarizeddeepinelasticscatteringeta-primemesonWess-Zumino-WittentermtopologicalsusceptibilityprotonspinpuzzleworldlineformalismGoldberger-Treimanrelation
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

Finite quark masses do not undo the way QCD handles the chiral anomaly in polarized deep inelastic scattering. Computing both the axial-vector–vector–vector (AVV) and the pseudoscalar–vector–vector (PVV) triangle graphs in the worldline formalism, the paper shows that in QED the two sets of poles cancel exactly in the forward limit, whereas in QCD the chiral condensate blocks that cancellation by modifying the anomalous Ward identities. The pole is instead absorbed by a primordial isosinglet pseudoscalar $\bar{\eta}$ meson, whose Wess-Zumino-Witten coupling to the topological charge density shifts the anomaly pole to the physical $\eta'$ mass. The finite quark mass correction to the Witten-Veneziano formula comes out at the ten-percent level, while the correction to the earlier result relating the proton's net quark helicity $\Delta\Sigma$ to the slope of the topological susceptibility is only a few percent.

What carries the argument

The central object is the imaginary part of the worldline effective action, the phase of the Dirac determinant; functional derivatives with respect to the axial-vector and pseudoscalar sources generate the AVV and PVV triangles, and their forward-limit combination encodes the anomaly equation. The mechanism that cancels the pole is the Wess-Zumino-Witten vertex $S^{\bar{\eta}}_{\rm WZW} = -i\sqrt{2N_f}F_{\bar{\eta}}\int d^4x\,\bar{\eta}\Omega$, where $\Omega = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\mathrm{Tr}\,F\tilde{F}$ is the topological charge density. Polology — the assumption that the physical $\eta'$ pole saturates the relevant two-point correlators, with smoothly varying couplings $b(l^2)$ and $c(l^2)$ — turns the chiral Ward identities into algebraic relations that determine $m_{\bar{\eta}}^2$, $m_{\eta'}^2$, the slope relation $\chi'_{\rm YM}(0)=4\chi'_{\rm QCD}|_{m=0}(0)$, and ultimately $\Delta\Sigma$.

What would settle it

A lattice computation of the correlator $\langle 0|T J^5_\mu\,\Omega|0\rangle$ at small momentum transfer that does not show an $\eta'$ pole with the assumed smooth residue, or a determination of the susceptibility slopes violating $\chi'_{\rm YM}(0)=4\chi'_{\rm QCD}|_{m=0}(0)$, would falsify the polology assumption and the finite-mass formulas built on it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At finite quark mass the paper obtains, as its principal formula, $F_{\bar{\eta}}^2 = 2N_f\chi'_{\rm QCD}(0)\left[1 - \frac{m_{\bar{\eta}}^2}{2\chi'_{\rm QCD}(0)} - \frac{\chi'_{\rm YM}(0)}{\chi_{\rm YM}(0)}\right] + O(m^4)$, with $\chi_{\rm QCD}$ and $\chi_{\rm YM}$ the QCD and pure Yang-Mills topological susceptibilities and primes denoting $l^2$-slopes at $l^2=0$. Together with the Goldberger-Treiman relation this yields a finite-mass expression for $\Delta\Sigma$ in which the correction relative to the chiral-limit formula is of order a few percent. The paper also derives $m_{\eta'}^2 = -\frac{2N_f}{F_{\bar{\eta}}^2}\chi_{\rm YM}(0) + m_{\bar{\eta}}^2$, where $m_{\bar{\eta}}^2$ is set by a DGMOR-type relation (a pseudoscalar mass fixed by the quark mass and the chiral condensate), so the Witten-Veneziano formula receives a correction of order ten percent. The reason the QED-style cancellation of the AVV pole by the PVV pole fails in QCD is that the chiral Ward identity contains a quark-condensate term with no QED analogue; the $\bar{\eta}\Omega$ Wess-Zumino-Witten vertex, iterated through bubbles of the Yang-Mills susceptibility, is what moves the pole to the physical $\eta'$ mass.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that a single physical $\eta'$ pole, with smooth couplings $b(l^2)$ and $c(l^2)$, fully saturates the two-point correlators of the axial current with the topological charge density and with the pseudoscalar density, so a sharp momentum dependence of those couplings would break the extracted formulas.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, finite quark masses shift the Witten-Veneziano formula by of order ten percent, so the $\eta'$ mass relation remains a quantitatively reliable topological prediction.
  • The relation between $\Delta\Sigma$ and the slope of the QCD topological susceptibility survives with only a few-percent correction, keeping the measured proton spin puzzle a direct probe of QCD vacuum topology.
  • The prior prediction of a rapid quenching of $g_1$ at small $x$ from sphaleron-like topological transitions is unaffected by quark mass effects.
  • In QED and in perturbative QCD, the forward-limit anomaly pole is exactly canceled by the PVV pole, so recent claims based on that cancellation are correct there but do not extend to full QCD.
  • The derived slope relation $\chi'_{\rm YM}(0)=4\chi'_{\rm QCD}|_{m=0}(0)$ and the small predicted slope $b'(0)$ are concrete lattice-checkable consequences.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the smoothness of $b(l^2)$ and $c(l^2)$ fails at scales near $m_{\eta'}^2$, the extracted formula linking $\Delta\Sigma$ to $\chi'_{\rm QCD}(0)$ would need revision; a direct computation of the correlators at small momentum transfer could test this.
  • The same $\bar{\eta}$-pole mechanism should control off-forward extensions of $\Delta\Sigma$, such as the generalized parton distribution $\tilde{H}$, where the pole appears at $l^2=m_{\eta'}^2$; exclusive $\eta'$ production could expose the $l^2$-dependence of the Wess-Zumino-Witten coupling.
  • A precision lattice calculation of $\chi'_{\rm QCD}(0)$ at physical quark masses, combined with polarized DIS data on $\Delta\Sigma$, would independently test the few-percent correction and the size of the $\bar{\eta}$–nucleon coupling.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' earlier worldline treatment of the chiral anomaly in polarized deep inelastic scattering to finite quark masses. The paper computes the axial-vector–vector–vector (AVV) and pseudoscalar–vector–vector (PVV) triangle diagrams in the worldline formalism, shows explicitly that in QED the AVV pole is canceled by the PVV pole in the forward limit, and argues that in QCD this cancellation is replaced by the WZW coupling of a primordial isosinglet eta-bar meson to the topological charge density. The technical core is a set of finite-mass chiral Ward identities, the introduction of l^2-dependent WZW and interpolating functions b(l^2) and c(l^2), and the extraction of Eq. (108) for F_eta_bar^2 and Eq. (116) for Delta Sigma, with the finite-mass correction claimed to be a few percent.

Significance. If the central result were correct, it would sharpen the Shore–Veneziano relation by quantifying quark-mass corrections, connect Delta Sigma to lattice determinations of the slopes of the QCD and Yang–Mills topological susceptibilities, and provide a testable prediction for the Electron-Ion Collider. The paper has real strengths: the QED pole cancellation in Eqs. (44)–(60) is demonstrated explicitly, the Ward-identity structure is laid out transparently, and the polology assumptions are stated rather than hidden. However, the principal quantitative claim is not currently supported: Eq. (108), which feeds directly into the final Delta Sigma formula, is dimensionally inconsistent as written and is not algebraically connected to the subsequent estimate in Eq. (113). Until this is repaired and the sensitivity to the uncomputed slopes b'(0) and c'(0) is addressed, the advertised few-percent correction should be regarded as unverified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V B, Eq. (108)] Equation (108) is dimensionally inconsistent as printed and cannot support the few-percent claim. Throughout the paper, chi'_QCD(0) has mass dimension 2 (see Eq. (92) and the Sec. V C quote sqrt(chi'_QCD) ~ 18 MeV), so the bracket multiplying 2Nf chi'_QCD(0) must be dimensionless. The term chi'_YM(0)/chi_YM(0), however, has dimension M^{-2}: chi'_YM(0) has dimension M^2 and chi_YM(0) has dimension M^4. The companion term m_bar^2/(2 chi'_QCD(0)) is dimensionless but numerically huge with the paper's own inputs: taking sqrt(chi'_QCD) ~ 18 MeV and the Weinberg bound m_bar <= sqrt(3) m_pi, it is of order 10^2, not a few percent. Consequently Eq. (116), which inherits this bracket, is not evaluable as written. The replacement in Eq. (113) of the bracket by 1 - 2 m_bar^2/m_eta'^2 is not an algebraic consequence of Eq. (108); the expansion must be corrected or re-derived before the quantitative conclusion can be accepted.
  2. [§V B, Eqs. (95), (110)–(112)] The relation chi'_YM(0) = 4 chi'_QCD|m=0(0) is load-bearing: it is used to convert the extracted chi'_QCD into the comparison with the lattice value of sqrt(chi'_YM) in Sec. V C, and it enters the estimate in Eq. (113). The derivation combines Eq. (110) with Eq. (95) and explicitly assumes c(l^2) ~ c(0), as acknowledged in footnote 22. No estimate or bound on c'(0) is provided. If c'(0) is not negligible, Eq. (112) fails and the factor-of-two tension with the lattice value sqrt(chi'_YM) ~ 17 MeV becomes uncontrolled. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of the final correction to c'(0) or give a physical argument that this slope is parametrically subleading.
  3. [§V B, polology assumptions] The central extraction of m_eta' and Delta Sigma assumes that the physical eta-prime pole saturates the correlators in Eqs. (96), (97), and (103), and that the 1PI couplings b(l^2), c(l^2), and F_eta_bar(l^2) are smooth on the scale set by the eta-prime mass. This assumption is stated but not tested. Since the numerical phenomenology in Sec. V C already shows a factor-of-two disagreement with the lattice value of sqrt(chi'_YM) when Eq. (112) is used, the pole-dominance and smoothness assumptions are not obviously numerically safe. A concrete check would be to compare the l^2 dependence predicted by Eq. (90) for b(l^2) with lattice data for chi_YM(l^2) and chi_QCD(l^2); without such a check, the few-percent claim remains an assumption-dependent estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, after Eq. (2)] The phrase "to be anticipated since since" contains a duplicated "since" and should be corrected.
  2. [§V B, after Eq. (88)] The sentence "plugging this back into either Eq.(88) or Eq.(88)" should read "Eq. (87) or Eq. (88)".
  3. [§V B, Eqs. (108) and (113)] The O(m^4) notation in Eq. (108) is ambiguous and should be written as O(m_bar^4), with the same convention used in Eq. (113).
  4. [§V B, Eqs. (96)–(103)] The interpolating function c(l^2) is introduced without a precise normalization condition; specifying c(0) relative to the eta-prime decay constant would make the derivation easier to follow.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity in the finite-mass correction: the b(l^2) form factor is fixed by the same consistency condition that later controls the size of the correction; otherwise the derivation is largely self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Sec. V B, Eqs. (87)-(90), (95), (110)-(113)]
    "This expression explains the necessity of introducing b(l2) in the generalized WZW coupling. Since the masses are constants, the variation in b(l2) with l2 must compensate identically for the variation in χYM(l2)."

    The function b(l^2) is introduced as an unconstrained 'possible l^2 dependence' of the WZW vertex so that the two decompositions of chi_QCD, Eqs. (87) and (88), agree. Eq. (90) then fixes b^2 chi_YM to a constant, and Eq. (95), b'(0) = -chi'_YM(0)/(2 chi_YM(0)), is just the derivative of that enforced identity. When this consistency-determined slope is inserted into the Ward identity Eq. (110), the paper obtains Eq. (111), chi'_YM(0) = 2 F_bar^2/Nf, and then Eq. (112), chi'_YM = 4 chi'_QCD|_{m=0}. These relations are used in Eq. (113) to reduce the finite-mass bracket in Eq. (108) to the advertised 1 - 2 m_bar^2/m_eta'^2. Thus the numerical 'few percent' finite-mass correction is not a parameter-free prediction of the framework; it inherits the consistency condition used to define b(l^2).

  2. other [Eq. (108) and Eq. (113)]
    "F 2 ¯η = 2Nf χ′ QCD(0) (1 − m2 ¯η 2χ′ QCD(0) − χ′ YM(0) χYM(0) ) + O(m4 ¯η) ... 1 − m2 ¯η 2χ′ QCD(0) − χ′ YM(0) χYM(0) ≈ 1 + 2Nf m2 ¯η m2 η′ 2χ′ QCD|m=0(0) − χ′ YM(0) F 2 ¯η = 1 − 2 m2 ¯η m2 η′ ."

    This is not itself a circularity but a separate algebraic obstruction: the bracket in Eq. (108) as printed is dimensionally inconsistent, because chi'_YM(0)/chi_YM(0) has dimension mass^{-2} while the other terms are dimensionless, and Eq. (113) does not follow algebraically from Eq. (108) as written. I flag it separately so it is not mistaken for a derivational consequence of the circularity analysis.

full rationale

Most of the paper's derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The QED anomaly-pole cancellation is computed explicitly in Sec. IV C. The WZW term used for QCD is not merely imported from Paper II: it is re-derived in the present paper via Eqs. (61)-(64), and the chiral Ward identities are obtained from the generating functional in Sec. V A. The b(l^2) and c(l^2) functions are the main circularity-adjacent elements: they are introduced to make the two susceptibility decompositions equivalent, and their slopes are then used to estimate the finite-mass correction. That is partial circularity because the numerical correction is controlled by a self-imposed consistency condition rather than by a separately computed or externally fitted quantity. The polology assumptions and the neglect of c'(0) and of the glueball component are stated assumptions, not hidden circularity. Separately, Eq. (108) appears dimensionally inconsistent as printed, and Eq. (113) is not an algebraic consequence of Eq. (108); I regard that as a correctness issue rather than a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central QCD claim rests on polology and on two smooth form factors b(l^2) and c(l^2) that are constrained but not computed; the QED part is fully self-contained. The chi_YM(0), m_eta', and Delta Sigma_expt values are external inputs from lattice and experiment.

free parameters (4)
  • b(l^2) WZW form factor = b(0)=1, b'(0) = -chi'_YM(0)/(2 chi_YM(0))
    Introduced in Sec. V B (Eqs. 87-90) to absorb l^2 dependence in the decomposition of the topological susceptibility; not computed from first principles, its full shape is unconstrained.
  • c(l^2) interpolating function = c(0) fixed by Eq. (101); c'(0) neglected
    Relates phi_5 to the eta' field; slope neglected per footnote 22; value at zero fixed by Ward identity, functional form not derived.
  • m_eta_bar (primordial eta mass) = DGMOR relation Eq. (107)
    Sets the size of the finite-mass correction; derived from the condensate but ultimately an input scale from chiral symmetry breaking.
  • g_eta_bar N N coupling = taken from OZI/sum rule estimates
    Appears in the final Delta Sigma formula Eq. (116); not computed in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pole dominance (polology) of the eta' in two-point functions of J5, phi5 and Omega.
    Used throughout Sec. V B (Eqs. 82-103) to replace correlators by single-particle propagators; if multiple states or continuum contribute, the relations fail.
  • domain assumption Nonzero chiral condensate (quark condensate) breaks chiral symmetry.
    Appears in the Ward identity Eq. (75) and is the qualitative difference from QED; standard QCD assumption.
  • domain assumption WZW term from Paper II (Eq. 4) with coefficient sqrt(2 Nf)/F_bar is the correct coupling of eta_bar to topological charge.
    Derived in the chiral limit in Paper II; used here as input for finite mass. Parameter-free derivation but self-cited.
  • domain assumption Large Nc expansion with Nf/Nc small and eta_bar as the ninth Goldstone boson.
    Underlies the whole framework in Sec. V B; standard large-Nc phenomenology.
  • domain assumption g_eta'N N is approximately g_eta_bar N N, i.e., the glueball component of the eta' is small.
    Footnote 23; needed to equate couplings when taking the forward limit in Eq. (114).
invented entities (1)
  • l^2-dependent WZW coupling b(l^2) independent evidence
    purpose: Makes the two decompositions of the QCD topological susceptibility consistent (Eqs. 87-90).
    b(0)=1 and b'(0) are fixed by consistency and related to lattice-measurable slopes chi'_YM and chi_YM, so partially falsifiable; the full functional form is not derived and is an ad hoc smooth function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The role of the chiral anomaly in polarized deeply inelastic scattering III: Wess-Zumino-Witten contributions and chiral Ward identities for finite quark mass." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LV3HYXRA

@misc{pith2026250110519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The role of the chiral anomaly in polarized deeply inelastic scattering III: Wess-Zumino-Witten contributions and chiral Ward identities for finite quark mass},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LV3HYXRA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10519}
}
abstract

We extend our prior results on the worldline computation of the axial vector-vector-vector (AVV) triangle anomaly in polarized deeply inelastic scattering (DIS) to the finite mass case by computing in addition the pseudoscalar-vector-vector (PVV) triangle graph. For the well-studied QED case, we show explicitly how the off-forward AVV pole exactly cancels an identical PVV pole. We then demonstrate the dramatic difference in QCD due to the chiral condensate, which qualitatively modifies anomalous Ward identities. As in the massless case, the anomaly pole in QCD is canceled by the dynamics of a primordial isosinglet pseudoscalar $\bar \eta$-meson, whose Wess-Zumino-Witten coupling to the topological charge density shifts the pole to the physical $\eta^\prime$ mass, with the finite quark mass contribution differing by $O(10\%)$ from the Witten-Veneziano formula. We obtain a compact analytic expression for the finite mass corrections to Shore and Veneziano's result that the proton's net quark helicity $\Delta \Sigma\propto \sqrt{\chi_{\rm QCD}' |_{m=0}(0)}$, the forward slope of the topological susceptibility in the chiral limit, and show they are of the order of a few percent. Our prior prediction that the polarized DIS structure function $g_1$ is quenched by sphaleron-like topological transitions at small $x$ is unaffected by quark mass effects. Our results illustrate how worldline computations of anomalous processes, in synergy with lattice computations and nonet chiral perturbation theory, can uncover novel nonperturbative features of QCD at the Electron-Ion collider.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The box diagram in polarized DIS. Left: The figure depicts the imaginary part of the box, corresponding to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Depiction of the triangle AVV vertex function Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The contribution of the fermion determinant to the worldline effective action containing arbitrary numbers of insertions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The PVV triangle obtained by taking the functional derivative of the effective action, first with respect to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Topological generation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Contributions to the matrix element of the isosinglet axial-vector current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The two-point Green function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Diagrams representing the two-point Green function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Polarized Nucleon as a Topological Dipole

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A polarized nucleon generically hosts a topological charge dipole q_top ∝ S · r̂ whose moment equals −ΔΣ/N_f in the chiral limit.

  2. Off forward non-SCHC contributions to exclusive vector quarkonium production from the "spin dependent BFKL Pomeron"

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The spin-dependent BFKL Pomeron generates proton-helicity-flip amplitudes in exclusive quarkonium photoproduction at order momentum transfer squared, with explicit eikonal expressions and quark-model estimates.

  3. Gluon Gravitational $ D$-Form Factor: The $\sigma$-Meson as a Dilaton Confronted with Lattice Data II

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    σ-pole residues in gluon D-form factors for π, N, ρ and Δ are consistent with dilaton effective theory predictions within large uncertainties.

  4. Anomalies, Topology, and Hadron Structure in QCD

    hep-ph 2026-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A review unifying the QCD axial and trace anomalies with vacuum topology, arguing that the proton spin puzzle and the U(1)_A problem are both controlled by topological screening encoded in the susceptibility slope χ′(0).

  5. Hadron structure via Generalized Parton Distributions

    hep-lat 2025-02 unverdicted

    A proceedings review of lattice QCD calculations that extract x-dependent generalized parton distributions via the quasi-distribution approach, including recent asymmetric-frame results.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    20cm8sqi7/WkkjsoQwEaalbjllk=

    Topological susceptibility for finite quark mass We begin with the formal expression for the QCD topological susceptibility, δ2Z δΘδΘ (l2) θ=0 ≡ χQCD(l2) . (86) Employing the WZW term coupling the topological charge density to the ¯η, we can express the r.h.s either as χQCD(l2) = χYM(l2) + i h − iχYM(l2) i h − i p 2Nf F¯η b(l2) i i l2 − m2 η′ h − i p 2Nf ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    9wEEqzAx/C1jsqPOO2tg9xVeywY=

    The two-point Green function ⟨0|T ϕ5(x)Ω(0)|0⟩ This quantity, which also appears in Eq. (76), is obtained by computing δ2Z δΘδΠ (l2). As previously for the topological susceptibility, we can also write this expression, as shown in Fig. 8, in two equivalent ways. The first, corresponding to the left figure, can be expressed as δ2Z δΠδΘ (l2) = i Z d4x eilx ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Tarasov and R

    A. Tarasov and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114022 (2020), arXiv:2008.08104 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Tarasov and R

    A. Tarasov and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014020 (2022), arXiv:2109.10370 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

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

    arXiv 1992

  6. [6]

    Schubert, Phys

    C. Schubert, Phys. Rept. 355, 73 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0101036 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Bhattacharya, Y

    S. Bhattacharya, Y. Hatta, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 107, 014026 (2023), arXiv:2210.13419 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Bhattacharya, Y

    S. Bhattacharya, Y. Hatta, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014029 (2023), arXiv:2305.09431 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Veneziano, Mod

    G. Veneziano, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4, 1605 (1989)

    1989

  2. [10]

    Shore and G

    G. Shore and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 244, 75 (1990)

    1990

  3. [11]

    Shore and G

    G. Shore and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 381, 23 (1992)

    1992

  4. [12]

    G. M. Shore and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 516, 333 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709213

    1998 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Narison, G

    S. Narison, G. M. Shore, and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 546, 235 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9812333

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Narison, (2021), arXiv:2111.02873 [hep-ph]

    S. Narison, (2021), arXiv:2111.02873 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kaiser and H

    R. Kaiser and H. Leutwyler, Eur. Phys. J. C 17, 623 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0007101

    2000 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Herrera-Siklody, J

    P. Herrera-Siklody, J. Latorre, P. Pascual, and J. Taron, Nucl. Phys. B 497, 345 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9610549

    1997 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Leutwyler, Phys

    H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B 374, 163 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9601234

    1996 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Forte, Nucl

    S. Forte, Nucl. Phys. B 331, 1 (1990)

    1990

  11. [19]

    Forte and E

    S. Forte and E. V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. B 357, 153 (1991)

    1991

  12. [20]

    Zahed, Symmetry 14, 932 (2022)

    I. Zahed, Symmetry 14, 932 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    S. R. Coleman and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 100 (1980)

    1980

  14. [22]

    Bilal, (2008), arXiv:0802.0634 [hep-th]

    A. Bilal, (2008), arXiv:0802.0634 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Wess and B

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B 37, 95 (1971)

    1971

  16. [24]

    ’t Hooft, NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft, NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 135 (1980). 32

    1980

  17. [25]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 156, 269 (1979)

    1979

  18. [26]

    Veneziano, Nucl

    G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 159, 213 (1979)

    1979

  19. [27]

    Hannaford-Gunn, K

    A. Hannaford-Gunn, K. U. Can, R. Horsley, Y. Nakamura, H. Perlt, P. E. L. Rakow, H. St¨ uben, G. Schierholz, R. D. Young, and J. M. Zanotti (CSSM/QCDSF/UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D 105, 014502 (2022), arXiv:2110.11532 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The U(1)(A) Anomaly and QCD Phenomenology,

    G. Shore, “The U(1)(A) Anomaly and QCD Phenomenology,” (2008) pp. 235–288, arXiv:hep-ph/0701171

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bhattacharya, Y

    S. Bhattacharya, Y. Hatta, and J. Schoenleber, (2024), arXiv:2411.07024 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gelis, E

    F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian, and R. Venugopalan, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 463 (2010), arXiv:1002.0333 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Accardi et al

    A. Accardi et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A52, 268 (2016), arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    E. C. Aschenauer, S. Fazio, J. H. Lee, H. Mantysaari, B. S. Page, B. Schenke, T. Ullrich, R. Venugopalan, and P. Zurita, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82, 024301 (2019), arXiv:1708.01527 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    F. R. Brown, F. P. Butler, H. Chen, N. H. Christ, Z.-h. Dong, W. Schaffer, L. I. Unger, and A. Vaccarino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2491 (1990)

    1990

  26. [34]

    Castelli, A

    I. Castelli, A. Freese, C. Lorc´ e, A. Metz, B. Pasquini, and S. Rodini, Phys. Lett. B 857, 138999 (2024), arXiv:2408.00554 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    R. D. Carlitz, J. C. Collins, and A. H. Mueller, Phys. Lett. B214, 229 (1988)

    1988

  28. [36]

    Altarelli and G

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

    1988

  29. [37]

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

    1990

  30. [38]

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

    1969

  31. [39]

    S. L. Adler, R. W. Brown, T. F. Wong, and B. L. Young, Phys. Rev. D 4, 1787 (1971)

    1971

  32. [40]

    Anomalies to all orders,

    S. L. Adler, “Anomalies to all orders,” in 50 years of Yang-Mills theory , edited by G. ’t Hooft (2005) arXiv:hep-th/0405040

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Banks and A

    T. Banks and A. Casher, Nucl. Phys. B 169, 103 (1980)

    1980

  34. [42]

    Leutwyler and A

    H. Leutwyler and A. V. Smilga, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5607 (1992)

    1992

  35. [43]

    Anselmino, A

    M. Anselmino, A. Efremov, and E. Leader, Phys. Rept. 261, 1 (1995), [Erratum: Phys.Rept. 281, 399–400 (1997)], arXiv:hep-ph/9501369

    1995 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Leader, Camb

    E. Leader, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 15, pp.1 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    M. A. Vasquez-Mozo, Introduction to anomalies, Universidad Aut´ onoma de Madrid, PhD Course, available online, (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    W. A. Bardeen and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B 244, 421 (1984)

    1984

  39. [47]

    Alvarez-Gaume and P

    L. Alvarez-Gaume and P. H. Ginsparg, Annals Phys. 161, 423 (1985), [Erratum: Annals Phys. 171, 233 (1986)]

    1985

  40. [48]

    D’Hoker and D

    E. D’Hoker and D. G. Gagne, Nucl. Phys. B467, 297 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9512080 [hep-th]

    1996 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Mondragon, L

    M. Mondragon, L. Nellen, M. G. Schmidt, and C. Schubert, Phys. Lett. B 366, 212 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9510036

    1996 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Tarasov and R

    A. Tarasov and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054007 (2019), arXiv:1903.11624 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    D’Hoker and D

    E. D’Hoker and D. G. Gagne, Nucl. Phys. B467, 272 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9508131 [hep-th]

    1996 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Alvarez-Gaume, S

    L. Alvarez-Gaume, S. Della Pietra, and V. Della Pietra, Phys. Lett. B 166, 177 (1986)

    1986

  45. [53]

    R. D. Ball and H. Osborn, Phys. Lett. B 165, 410 (1985)

    1985

  46. [54]

    Mueller and R

    N. Mueller and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D 99, 056003 (2019), arXiv:1901.10492 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Mueller, A

    N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D 102, 016007 (2020), arXiv:1908.07051 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

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

    1969

  49. [57]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 140, B516 (1965)

    1965

  50. [58]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D 14, 3432 (1976), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 18, 2199 (1978)]

    1976

  51. [59]

    Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields. Vol. 1: Foundations (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    L. Gan, B. Kubis, E. Passemar, and S. Tulin, (2020), arXiv:2007.00664 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Di Vecchia and G

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

    1980

  54. [62]

    Leutwyler, Nucl

    H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 64, 223 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709408

    1998 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bonanno, JHEP 01, 116 (2024), arXiv:2311.06646 [hep-lat]

    C. Bonanno, JHEP 01, 116 (2024), arXiv:2311.06646 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 11, 3583 (1975)

    1975

  57. [65]

    G. S. Bali, V. Braun, S. Collins, A. Sch¨ afer, and J. Simeth, (2021), arXiv:2106.05398 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Leutwyler, , 271 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0008124

    H. Leutwyler, , 271 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0008124

    2000 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Koma, E.-M

    Y. Koma, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, K. Koller, M. Koma, G. Schierholz, T. Streuer, and V. Weinberg, PoS LA TTICE2010, 278 (2010), arXiv:1012.1383 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Narison, G

    S. Narison, G. Shore, and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 433, 209 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9404277

    1995 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Aoki et al

    Y. Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 869 (2022), arXiv:2111.09849 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES), Phys. Rev. D 75, 012007 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0609039

    2007 arXiv

  63. [71]

    M. G. Alekseev et al. (COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B 693, 227 (2010), arXiv:1007.4061 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  64. [72]

    A. e. a. Airapetian (HERMES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 75, 012007 (2007)

    2007

  65. [73]

    V. Y. Alexakhin et al. (COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B 647, 8 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0609038

    2007 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Harindranath and W.-M

    A. Harindranath and W.-M. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 408, 347 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9706419

    1997 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Corian` o, S

    C. Corian` o, S. Lionetti, D. Melle, and R. Tommasi, (2024), arXiv:2409.05609 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Corian` o, S

    C. Corian` o, S. Lionetti, D. Melle, and R. Tommasi, EPJ Web Conf. 314, 00030 (2024), arXiv:2409.19586 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.