Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Certain 't Hooft anomalies invisible on standard closed four-manifolds become visible on the Eguchi–Hanson ALE space, adding a new consistency condition on infrared composite spectra.

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 16:43 UTC pith:PRGLTJXS

load-bearing objection New ALE-space anomaly probe worth taking seriously, but the composite exclusions hinge on an unproven boundary-triviality assumption. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.11970 v2 pith:PRGLTJXS submitted 2025-12-12 hep-th cond-mat.str-elhep-ph

Anomalies on ALE spaces and phases of gauge theory

Mohamed M. Anber This is my paper
classification hep-th cond-mat.str-elhep-ph
keywords 't Hooft anomalyEguchi-Hanson spaceALE spaceeta-invariantAtiyah-Patodi-Singer index theoremanomaly matchinginfrared composite fermionsgauge theory phases
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.

The paper argues that some 't Hooft anomalies—obstructions to promoting global symmetries to gauge symmetries—are invisible when a quantum field theory is placed on the usual closed four-manifolds (S4, T4, S2×S2, CP2) but become visible on the Eguchi–Hanson (EH) space, a non-compact asymptotically locally Euclidean geometry. The anomaly phase is A = e^(−2πi βτ I(EH)), where I(EH) counts normalizable fermion zero modes in the background flux and receives a boundary contribution from the η-invariant of the RP^3 boundary. Because this index is a topological invariant, the anomaly is robust under renormalization-group flow and cannot be removed by local counterterms. As a result, infrared spectra built from composite fermions that match all anomalies on standard closed manifolds can still fail to reproduce the EH anomaly, and hence cannot by themselves be the complete symmetry-preserving low-energy realization. This yields a new, sharper diagnostic for the phases of vector-like and chiral gauge theories.

Core claim

This paper shows that placing a four-dimensional quantum field theory on the Eguchi–Hanson (EH) space turns certain 't Hooft anomalies into visible phases of the partition function, even though the same anomalies evade detection on S^4, T^4, S^2 × S^2, and CP^2. For a theory with symmetry G1 × G2, the recipe is to switch on background flux for G1 along the EH bolt and then apply a global G2 transformation; the anomaly phase is the η-invariant of a five-dimensional mapping torus and evaluates to A = e^(−2πi βτ I(EH)). Here I(EH) is the number of normalizable fermion zero modes on EH in the background flux, computed either by solving the Dirac equation, by the Atiyah–Patodi–Singer index theore

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Eguchi–Hanson (EH) space, the simplest ALE four-manifold: non-compact, spin, with second cohomology generated by a self-intersecting bolt two-sphere (self-intersection −2) and asymptotic boundary RP^3 = S^3/Z2, whose first cohomology group is Z2 torsion. That boundary torsion is the key: a bulk U(1) flux determines a Z2 holonomy at infinity, which feeds a non-vanishing η-invariant into the Atiyah–Patodi–Singer index formula. The anomaly itself is computed as the η-invariant of the five-dimensional mapping torus obtained by implementing a G2 transformation on EH, giving A = e^(−2πi βτ I(EH)) with I(EH) the number of normalizable fermion zero modes localized at t

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the infrared theory creates no new three-dimensional degrees of freedom or topological sector on the asymptotic RP^3 boundary, so both the ultraviolet and infrared descriptions share the same trivial boundary theory; if boundary degrees of freedom were dynamically generated, they could carry the EH anomaly and the paper's exclusion of composite spectra would not follow.

What would settle it

A concrete test: for the SU(7) theory with a single two-index antisymmetric fermion, search over all nonnegative integer multiplicities N_k of the composites (ψ^{(2k+1)7}, ψ̃^{(2k+1)7}) bounded by the a-theorem inequality, solving simultaneously the three anomaly-matching conditions in Table 2 of the paper (from T^4, CP^2, and EH). The paper claims no solution exists; any explicit integer solution would refute that exclusion, and a broader family of such solutions across Nc would refute the central claim that composites cannot reproduce the EH anomaly.

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

If this is right

  • The EH anomaly is a genuine, RG-invariant 't Hooft anomaly: the index I(EH) is topological because the twisted boundary Dirac operator on RP^3 has no zero modes, so no local counterterm can remove the phase.
  • Anomaly matching on closed manifolds is insufficient: IR composite spectra that satisfy all T^4, S^2×S^2, and CP^2 conditions can still fail the EH condition, so additional gapless states, a TQFT, or spontaneous symmetry breaking is required.
  • In single-flavour vector-like theories the EH anomaly can force the discrete chiral symmetry to break all the way down to fermion number, a stronger conclusion than standard anomaly matching gives.
  • For theories with fermions in the two-index antisymmetric representation, composite spectra of the form (ψ^Nc, ψ̃^Nc) with arbitrary multiplicity cannot simultaneously satisfy the T^4, CP^2, and EH conditions for several values of Nc, ruling them out as a complete IR description.
  • In Bars–Yankielowicz chiral models, the known composite set fails to match the EH anomaly whenever Nc or p is odd, although it passes the conventional anomaly tests.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same mechanism should carry over to other ALE gravitational instantons, whose asymptotic boundaries are different finite quotients of S^3; those boundary quotients would furnish a family of new anomaly conditions indexed by torsion data, so the EH example is likely the first of a class rather than a special case.
  • A testable extension is to probe non-invertible or higher-group symmetries on EH backgrounds: the Z2 boundary holonomy may mix with such generalized symmetries and produce constraints invisible to the standard bordism classification on closed manifolds.
  • The Hilbert-space formulation suggests the EH anomaly is a relative anomaly of a state on RP^3; if one allowed nontrivial boundary states, the same phase could be saturated by a three-dimensional TQFT, turning the paper's exclusions into a classification problem of boundary completions rather than an outright impossibility.
  • Whenever the capping construction applies, the EH anomaly is equivalent to a flux-dependent anomaly on S^2×S^2, so the genuinely new information lies precisely in the cases without a cap; systematically determining which representations admit a cap would map the strength of the new constraint.

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 argues that 't Hooft anomalies invisible on closed four-manifolds such as S^4, T^4, S^2×S^2, and CP^2 can be detected on the Eguchi–Hanson (EH) ALE space, whose asymptotic boundary is RP^3 with H^1(RP^3;Z)=Z_2. For a theory with symmetry G_1×G_2, the authors turn on background G_1 flux on EH and perform a G_2 transformation, computing the resulting phase from the five-dimensional mapping torus. They obtain A=exp(-2πi β I(EH)), where I(EH) is the number of normalizable fermion zero modes, and they evaluate I(EH) by three methods: direct solution of the Dirac equation, the APS index theorem, and a gluing/capping construction. They then apply this "EH anomaly" to vector-like single-flavour theories, composites in the two-index antisymmetric representation, and Bars–Yankielowicz models, concluding in several cases that IR composite spectra which match standard anomalies fail to match the EH anomaly. The exclusions are explicitly made under the assumption that no independent 3-D degrees of freedom emerge on the asymptotic RP^3 boundary, so the UV and IR theories share the same trivial boundary theory.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper introduces a new class of anomaly constraints that go beyond what can be learned from closed manifolds, and it backs the zero-mode computations with three independent methods. The anomaly phase is parameter-free once the background integers m_(N), C, C' are fixed, and the paper gives concrete, checkable predictions: for example, certain composite spectra in §4.2 and §5 are claimed to be incompatible with the EH anomaly. The explicit counting via the Dirac equation and the APS index, with the boundary η-invariant entering through Eq. (2.50), is a genuine technical contribution. However, the scope of the result is narrower than the abstract suggests: the central exclusions are conditional on an unproven assumption about the triviality of the 3-D boundary theory in the IR, and the gluing construction that supports part of the index computation is admittedly non-rigorous and non-universal.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, "Are there boundary degrees of freedom on RP^3?" and §4.2, Table 2] The central exclusion results are conditional on the explicit assumption that no independent 3-D topological sector or boundary degrees of freedom are dynamically generated on the asymptotic RP^3 boundary, and that the UV and IR theories are defined with the same trivial boundary theory. The paper states this assumption but does not prove it; the justification that such states "have no natural origin" is heuristic. Since 't Hooft anomaly matching constrains the full IR theory including any boundary sector, a dynamically generated 3-D TQFT or localized edge modes could in principle saturate the EH anomaly. This directly affects the load-bearing claims of §4.2 and §5 (e.g., the statement that the composites "cannot by themselves" match the anomaly). The paper should either supply a proof that the assumed trivial boundary theory is preserved under RG flow, or explicitly frame all exclusions
  2. [§2.5, Eqs. (2.52)–(2.72)] The identification M=EH∪EH' ≅ S^2×S^2 is only argued heuristically. The evidence given is the Euler characteristic, signature, and Dirac index, but these invariants do not uniquely determine a smooth 4-manifold. This identification is used to derive Eq. (2.72) and the claim that EH has stronger anomaly-detection power than its closed extension. The paper itself admits "it is unclear to us, a priori, without computing all the weights, which representations admit capping and which do not." Given that the gluing also depends sensitively on boundary holonomy (Eq. (2.48)), the capping construction should be either proved rigorously or designated as a conjecture and confined to cases verified by the Verma-basis/APS methods.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (3.10)] The Dai–Freed theorem is used for the non-compact mapping torus EH×S^1_τ/r, but the theorem is stated for compact Y_5. The paper mentions adapting the theorem and thanks I. García Etxebarria for discussion, but gives no detailed argument that the eta-invariant of the open five-manifold is well-defined and equals I(EH) η(iD_τ). The accompanying field-theoretic derivation is helpful, but it assumes the decomposition into normalizable zero modes plus a continuous scattering spectrum and that the continuous part cancels. If the boundary contributes additional spectral asymmetry not captured by the zero modes, Eq. (3.10) could miss a boundary term. Please provide a more explicit regularization or a reference that covers the non-compact case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §2.1] The phrase "self-intersecting two-sphere" is confusing; the bolt has self-intersection number −2. In §2.1, "self-intersection number 3 (−2)" is ambiguous—please clarify the convention once and use one number consistently.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos: "η-inavriant" (p. 16), "eignevalues" and "degenerecy" (footnote 11), "discreet" (p. 37), and "inavriant" in the introduction. A careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Table 1] The green highlighting is invisible in monochrome print. Please use bold face, an asterisk, or a separate column to indicate the cases where the EH anomaly is strictly stronger.
  4. [§2.5] The sentence "We now argue, though not rigorously, that M should be understood as S^2×S^2" is an explicit admission of a gap; if kept, it should be flagged as a conjecture in the main text, not only in a parenthetical.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the EH anomaly is derived from first-principles index computations; self-citations are non-load-bearing; exclusion results are conditional on the stated trivial-RP3-boundary assumption.

full rationale

The paper's central anomaly, A = e^{-2πi βτ I(EH)}, is not an input assumption. The number of normalizable zero modes I(EH) is computed three independent ways—direct Dirac-equation counting in Sec. 2.3/App. C, the APS index with an explicit η-invariant in Sec. 2.4, and the gluing/capping construction in Sec. 2.5—and all three agree. The mapping-torus derivation in Sec. 3.1 (Eq. 3.10) and the fermionic zero-mode measure derivation both give the same phase, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper does cite the author's prior work [13] for η(RP3) values and for EH conventions, and [6,7] for the baseline BC anomalies on T4 and CP2; however, the η values are independently rederived in Sec. 2.5 via the capping construction, and the BC anomalies are externally checkable prior results, so these self-citations are not load-bearing for the central claim. The composite-exclusion results (Secs. 4.2 and 5) are explicitly conditional on the paper's stated assumption in Sec. 3.3 ('Are there boundary degrees of freedom on RP3?') that no independent 3D topological sector or boundary degrees of freedom are dynamically generated at asymptotic infinity in the IR. That is a recognized physical limitation of the argument, not a circular reduction: it does not define the anomaly in terms of the conclusion, and the paper flags it openly. No step of the derivation reduces an equation to its own input, and no known result is merely renamed as a new anomaly.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are postulated. The paper's extras are background flux choices and the geometric assumption of a trivial asymptotic boundary theory. The main unproved ingredients are the boundary triviality assumption and the non-rigorous S2×S2 gluing identification.

free parameters (1)
  • background flux integers m_(N), C, C' = m_(N)=1, C=0 or 1, C'=0 or -1 in worked examples
    Integer flux parameters defining the EH background. They are chosen by hand to maximize the anomaly or ensure global consistency, not fitted to data. The central claim is parametric in these choices.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Atiyah–Patodi–Singer index theorem and Dai–Freed anomaly formula
    Used to relate the anomaly phase to the η-invariant of the 5D mapping torus and to compute zero modes via bulk characteristic classes plus boundary η. Invoked throughout Sections 2.4 and 3.1.
  • domain assumption The twisted boundary Dirac operator on RP3 has no zero modes for the backgrounds considered, so the APS index is topological.
    Stated in Section 2.4 with reference to the spectral analysis of [21] and continuity arguments. Needed for the index I(EH) to be deformation-invariant.
  • domain assumption The IR theory has the same trivial 3-D asymptotic boundary theory as the UV; no 3-D topological sector is generated on RP3.
    Explicitly assumed in the introduction and in Section 3.3. This is load-bearing for all composite-spectrum exclusions.
  • ad hoc to paper The glued closed manifold M=EH∪EH' is diffeomorphic/homeomorphic to S2×S2.
    The paper says 'We now argue, though not rigorously' in Section 2.5, matching only Euler characteristic and signature. Used as a computational device to derive the index in some representations.
  • standard math Verma-basis construction produces complete, correct weight systems for SU(N) representations.
    Used to compute signatures of holonomy and table entries; standard representation theory, reviewed in Appendix B.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 46510 in / 10894 out tokens · 109767 ms · 2026-08-03T16:43:50.988617+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We show that certain 't Hooft anomalies not detected by standard closed four-dimensional probes can become visible when a quantum field theory is placed on asymptotically locally Euclidean (ALE) spaces. As a concrete example, we use the Eguchi-Hanson (EH) space, whose defining features are its nontrivial second cohomology generated by the self-intersecting two-sphere and its asymptotic boundary $\mathbb{RP}^3$, which carries torsion and thus furnishes additional cohomological data absent on conventional backgrounds. For a theory with symmetry $G_1\times G_2$, we turn on background flux for $G_1$ and probe potential anomalies by performing a global $G_2$ transformation; the resulting anomaly is captured by a five-dimensional mapping torus. The anomaly receives contributions from the four-dimensional characteristic classes on EH space as well as from the $\eta$-invariant associated with the $\mathbb{RP}^3$ boundary. The anomaly detected in this way imposes additional constraints on asymptotically free gauge theories with fixed trivial asymptotic boundary conditions. In particular, infrared composite spectra that match anomalies on standard closed manifolds may nevertheless fail to reproduce the EH anomaly, and thus cannot by themselves furnish a complete symmetry-preserving infrared realization.

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. $S$-duality, boundary states, and higher-form symmetries on ALE spaces

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Maxwell theory on ALE spaces yields vector-valued modular boundary states whose gluing produces ordinary closed-manifold partition functions, with extensions to mixed electric-magnetic 1-form anomalies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 32 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett,Generalized Global Symmetries, JHEP02(2015) 172, [arXiv:1412.5148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    T. D. Brennan and S. Hong,Introduction to Generalized Global Symmetries in QFT and Particle Physics,arXiv:2306.00912

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Shao,What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries,arXiv:2308.00747

    S.-H. Shao,What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries,arXiv:2308.00747

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Dai and D

    X.-z. Dai and D. S. Freed,eta invariants and determinant lines,J. Math. Phys.35 (1994) 5155–5194, [hep-th/9405012]. [Erratum: J.Math.Phys. 42, 2343–2344 (2001)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  5. [5]

    Witten and K

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    M. M. Anber and E. Poppitz,On the baryon-color-flavor (BCF) anomaly in vector-like theories,JHEP11(2019) 063, [arXiv:1909.09027]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    M. M. Anber and E. Poppitz,Generalized ’t Hooft anomalies on non-spin manifolds, JHEP04(2020) 097, [arXiv:2002.02037]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    P. B. Kronheimer,The construction of ALE spaces as hyper-K¨ ahlerquotients,J. Diff. Geom.29(1989), no. 3 665–683. – 63 –

    1989

  9. [9]

    P. B. Kronheimer and H. Nakajima,Yang-Mills instantons on ALE gravitational instantons,Math. Ann.288(1990), no. 1 263–307

    1990

  10. [10]

    Eguchi and A

    T. Eguchi and A. J. Hanson,Asymptotically Flat Selfdual Solutions to Euclidean Gravity,Phys. Lett. B74(1978) 249–251

    1978

  11. [11]

    Eguchi and A

    T. Eguchi and A. J. Hanson,Selfdual Solutions to Euclidean Gravity,Annals Phys. 120(1979) 82

    1979

  12. [12]

    Eguchi, P

    T. Eguchi, P. B. Gilkey, and A. J. Hanson,Gravitation, Gauge Theories and Differential Geometry,Phys. Rept.66(1980) 213

    1980

  13. [13]

    M. M. Anber,Gauging the Standard Model 1-form symmetry via gravitational instantons,arXiv:2509.22788

    arXiv

  14. [14]

    A. L. Yuille,Israel-wilson Metrics in the Euclidean Regime,Class. Quant. Grav.4 (1987) 1409–1426

    1987

  15. [15]

    Bianchi, F

    M. Bianchi, F. Fucito, G. Rossi, and M. Martellini,Explicit construction of Yang-Mills instantons on ALE spaces,Nucl. Phys. B473(1996) 367–404, [hep-th/9601162]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  16. [16]

    S. Li, R. V. Moody, M. Nicolescu, and J. Patera,Verma bases for representations of classical simple lie algebras,Journal of Mathematical Physics27(1986), no. 3 668–677

    1986

  17. [17]

    A. Back, P. G. O. Freund, and M. Forger,New Gravitational Instantons and Universal Spin Structures,Phys. Lett. B77(1978) 181–184

    1978

  18. [18]

    M. F. Atiyah, V. K. Patodi, and I. M. Singer,Spectral asymmetry and Riemannian Geometry 1,Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc.77(1975) 43

    1975

  19. [19]

    M. F. Atiyah, V. K. Patodi, and I. M. Singer,Spectral asymmetry and Riemannian geometry. III,Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc.79(1976) 71–99

    1976

  20. [20]

    M. F. Atiyah, V. K. Patodi, and I. M. Singer,Spectral asymmetry and Riemannian geometry 2,Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc.78(1976) 405

    1976

  21. [21]

    C. N. Pope,TheηInvariant for Charged Spinors in Taub - Nut,J. Phys. A14(1981) L133–L137

    1981

  22. [22]

    Witten,Fermion Path Integrals And Topological Phases,Rev

    E. Witten,Fermion Path Integrals And Topological Phases,Rev. Mod. Phys.88(2016), no. 3 035001, [arXiv:1508.04715]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    J. W. Milnor,On simply connected 4-manifolds, inSymposium Internacional de Topolog ´ ıa Algebraica, (Mexico City), pp. 122–128, Universidad Nacional Aut´ onoma de M´ exico and UNESCO, 1958

    1958

  24. [24]

    C. T. C. Wall,On simply-connected 4-manifolds,Journal of the London Mathematical Societys1-39(1964), no. 1 141–149, [https://londmathsoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1112/jlms/s1-39.1.141]. – 64 –

    doi:10.1112/jlms/s1-39.1.141 1964

  25. [25]

    S. W. Hawking, D. N. Page, and C. N. Pope,Quantum Gravitational Bubbles,Nucl. Phys. B170(1980) 283–306

    1980

  26. [26]

    Garc ´ ıa-Etxebarria and M

    I. Garc ´ ıa-Etxebarria and M. Montero,Dai-Freed anomalies in particle physics,JHEP 08(2019) 003, [arXiv:1808.00009]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    P. B. Gilkey,The Geometry of Spherical Space Form Groups. World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 2nd ed., 2018

    2018

  28. [28]

    G. W. Gibbons,Spectral Asymmetry and Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-time, Annals Phys.125(1980) 98

    1980

  29. [29]

    M. M. Anber and E. Poppitz,Mass-deformed super Yang-Mills theory onT 4: sum over twisted sectors,θ-angle, and CP violation,JHEP10(2025) 182, [arXiv:2509.00157]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao,Noninvertible Global Symmetries in the Standard Model,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022), no. 16 161601, [arXiv:2205.05086]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Cordova and K

    C. Cordova and K. Ohmori,Noninvertible Chiral Symmetry and Exponential Hierarchies,Phys. Rev. X13(2023), no. 1 011034, [arXiv:2205.06243]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Bilal,Lectures on Anomalies,arXiv:0802.0634

    A. Bilal,Lectures on Anomalies,arXiv:0802.0634

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    ’t Hooft,A Physical Interpretation of Gravitational Instantons,Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft,A Physical Interpretation of Gravitational Instantons,Nucl. Phys. B315 (1989) 517–527

    1989

  34. [34]

    M. M. Anber and E. Poppitz,Deconfinement on axion domain walls,JHEP03(2020) 124, [arXiv:2001.03631]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    M. M. Anber, S. Hong, and M. Son,New anomalies, TQFTs, and confinement in bosonic chiral gauge theories,JHEP02(2022) 062, [arXiv:2109.03245]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    M. M. Anber,Condensates and anomaly cascade in vector-like theories,JHEP03 (2021) 191, [arXiv:2101.04132]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    M. M. Anber, N. Lohitsiri, and T. Sulejmanpasic,Remarks on QCD 4 with fundamental and adjoint matter,JHEP12(2023) 063, [arXiv:2306.01849]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    M. M. Anber and S. Y. L. Chan,2-index chiral gauge theories,JHEP10(2023) 025, [arXiv:2308.08052]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Nakajima, T

    T. Nakajima, T. Sakai, and R. Yokokura,BCF anomaly and higher-group structure in the low energy effective theories of mesons,JHEP01(2023) 175, [arXiv:2212.12987]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    M. J. Kang, C. Lawrie, K.-H. Lee, and J. Song,Generalized symmetry constraints on deformed 4D SCFTs,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 8 086028, [arXiv:2408.14532]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Vafa and E

    C. Vafa and E. Witten,Restrictions on Symmetry Breaking in Vector-Like Gauge Theories,Nucl. Phys. B234(1984) 173–188

    1984

  42. [42]

    Bars and S

    I. Bars and S. Yankielowicz,Composite Quarks and Leptons as Solutions of Anomaly Constraints,Phys. Lett. B101(1981) 159–165. – 65 –

    1981

  43. [43]

    Bolognesi, K

    S. Bolognesi, K. Konishi, and A. Luzio,Probing the dynamics of chiralSU(N)gauge theories via generalized anomalies,Phys. Rev. D103(2021), no. 9 094016, [arXiv:2101.02601]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Bolognesi, K

    S. Bolognesi, K. Konishi, and A. Luzio,Dynamical Abelianization and anomalies in chiral gauge theories,JHEP12(2022) 110, [arXiv:2206.00538]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Bolognesi, K

    S. Bolognesi, K. Konishi, and A. Luzio,Dynamics from symmetries in chiralSU(N) gauge theories,JHEP09(2020) 001, [arXiv:2004.06639]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Bolognesi, K

    S. Bolognesi, K. Konishi, and M. Shifman,Patterns of symmetry breaking in chiral QCD,Phys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 9 094007, [arXiv:1712.04814]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Cs´ aki, H

    C. Cs´ aki, H. Murayama, and O. Telem,Some exact results in chiral gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 6 065018, [arXiv:2104.10171]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Cs´ aki, H

    C. Cs´ aki, H. Murayama, and O. Telem,More exact results on chiral gauge theories: The case of the symmetric tensor,Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 4 045007, [arXiv:2105.03444]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Sheu and M

    C.-H. Sheu and M. Shifman,Consistency of chiral symmetry breaking in chiral Yang-Mills theory with adiabatic continuity,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 5 054030, [arXiv:2212.14794]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Seiberg,Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories, Nucl

    N. Seiberg,Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B435(1995) 129–146, [hep-th/9411149]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  52. [52]

    Csaki, M

    C. Csaki, M. Schmaltz, and W. Skiba,A Systematic approach to confinement in N=1 supersymmetric gauge theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997) 799–802, [hep-th/9610139]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  53. [53]

    Slansky,Group Theory for Unified Model Building,Phys

    R. Slansky,Group Theory for Unified Model Building,Phys. Rept.79(1981) 1–128

    1981

  54. [54]

    Georgi,Lie algebras in particle physics, vol

    H. Georgi,Lie algebras in particle physics, vol. 54. Perseus Books, Reading, MA, 2nd ed. ed., 1999

    1999

  55. [55]

    P. L. White,Discrete symmetries from broken SU(N) and the MSSM,Nucl. Phys. B 403(1993) 141–158, [hep-ph/9207231]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  56. [56]

    J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano,Modern Quantum Mechanics. Quantum physics, quantum information and quantum computation. Cambridge University Press, 3 ed., 10, 2020

    2020

  57. [57]

    T. D. Brennan and K. Intriligator,Anomalies of 4d Spin G theories,JHEP07(2024) 157, [arXiv:2312.04756]. – 66 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024