Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 31 references

This paper constructs a modified Z_k-valued gauge theory whose k→∞ limit recovers Maxwell theory without magnetic monopoles, correcting a naive finite-group discretisation.

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 13:52 UTC pith:36VNHYMX

load-bearing objection The T_k construction is fresh and the finite-k checks are clean, but the unit-section condition trivializes the bundle, so the k→∞ limit claim fails on manifolds with torsion H^2. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.22114 v4 pith:36VNHYMX submitted 2025-12-26 hep-th math-phmath.MP

Discrete Approximations to operatorname{U}(1) Principal Bundles in Abelian Gauge Theory

Leron Borsten , Hyungrok Kim This is my paper
classification hep-th math-phmath.MP
keywords discrete gauge theoryZ_k gauge theoryMaxwell theorymonopoleless sectornonlocal operatorČech cohomologygauge symmetry discretisationhigher-form symmetries
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.

Maxwell theory is based on the continuous group U(1), which is a limit of the finite groups Z_k, so one might expect Z_k-valued gauge theory to approximate Maxwell theory as k grows. The paper shows this naive expectation fails: a Z_k connection is always flat, so the limit is flat Maxwell theory with no local degrees of freedom. The authors construct a different discretised theory, T_k, by keeping a circle-valued scalar field a and a globally defined one-form A^# alongside the Z_k bundle, with matter couplings ('admissible' ones) that avoid using the canonical flat connection on associated bundles. Their central claim is that, in the k→∞ limit with charges held fixed, T_k with only admissible couplings reproduces the monopoleless sector of Maxwell theory—preserving local degrees of freedom, Wilson loops, charges, and higher-form symmetries. They further argue T_k is exactly ordinary Maxwell theory with a nonlocal operator inserted in the path integral that projects out U(1) bundles that do not arise from Z_k bundles, i.e. monopole sectors.

Core claim

In the Čech formulation, a Maxwell connection on a flattenable U(1) bundle splits (non-uniquely) as A = A^♭ + A^♯, with A^♭ flat and A^♯ a globally defined one-form; the flat part is written as d ln a / 2πi for a unit-modulus section a of an associated line bundle. Discretising U(1) to Z_k in this data gives T_k: a Z_k principal bundle, the section a transforming under Z_k, and the one-form A^#, with a gauge symmetry mixing a and A^#. The paper's claim, stated in §2.3, is that T_k with admissible couplings—those that never use the canonical flat connection on a nontrivial associated Z_k bundle—tends to Maxwell theory without monopoles as k→∞ when charges are held fixed. Section 4 sharpens th

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are: (1) the Čech-cocycle description of principal bundles, in which a bundle is a collection of transition functions on overlaps of an open cover; (2) the decomposition of the connection into a flat part A^♭ and a globally defined one-form A^♯, made gauge-invariant by a shift symmetry mixing the two; (3) the unit-modulus section a of the associated line bundle, which encodes A^♭ and turns the Z_k bundle data into a smooth field; and (4) the notion of admissible couplings, which forbid derivatives of sections of nontrivial associated bundles and instead use the covariant derivative D^{(q)}φ = a^q d(a^{-q}φ) - 2πi q A^# φ. The paper also introduces a nonlocal topologi

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the k→∞ limit of the theories T_k exists and reproduces the path integral of monopoleless Maxwell theory—a convergence of path integrals and correlation functions that the paper does not prove, only checks at finite k.

What would settle it

Compute the partition function of T_k on a compact spacetime with non-trivial H^2(M;Z) (such as S^2×S^2) and take k→∞: the claim predicts it equals the Maxwell partition function restricted to flat bundles, so any surviving monopole contribution, a divergent piece, or a mismatched Wilson-loop expectation value on a non-simply-connected manifold would falsify the central claim.

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

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, Maxwell theory in the monopoleless sector admits a genuine discrete approximation by finite-group gauge theories that keeps the d-2 local degrees of freedom of the photon, unlike pure Z_k gauge theory, which is topological.
  • The identification with a nonlocal operator insertion means the truncation to Z_k bundles can be implemented as a projector in the continuum Maxwell path integral, giving a concrete handle on the monopoleless subsector.
  • The charge lattice of T_k is Z/kZ, but with charges held fixed as k→∞ it reproduces the integer charges and the integer-labelled Wilson loops of Maxwell theory; the higher-form symmetries match as well.
  • The Higgs-mechanism argument in the appendix explains why a charge-k Higgs field can reduce U(1) to Z_k only when the U(1) bundle is flattenable, reinforcing the monopolelessness condition as the natural domain for such discrete approximations.
  • The paper's consistency checks (perturbative equivalence, charges, Wilson loops, higher-form symmetries) pass at finite k, so the construction is coherent before the limit is taken.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The construction suggests a general recipe for discretising a continuous gauge group: the flat part of the connection must be kept as a separate scalar field with its own shift symmetry, rather than being discarded, so that the local degrees of freedom survive the finite-group limit.
  • Inference: The nonlocal operator O may be useful as a topological defect or an insertion in lattice simulations to isolate the monopoleless sector of compact QED, providing a testable way to compare the k→∞ limit against Wilson-loop expectation values.
  • Inference: The paper leaves open whether this discretisation can be extended to capture theta-terms or topological angles; understanding how O interacts with instanton sectors would be a natural next step, since O projects out magnetic charge but the treatment of electric-magnetic duality in the projected theory is not explored.
  • Inference: A concrete opportunity to stress-test the claim is to compute T_k's partition function on a spacetime with non-trivial second cohomology (e.g., S^2 × S^2) and verify that the k→∞ result equals Maxwell restricted to flat bundles; this is a finite calculation the paper does not perform.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a family of field theories T_k intended to approximate Maxwell theory as k→∞. Each T_k consists of a principal Z_k-bundle P_{Z_k}, a globally defined 1-form A^#, and a unit section a of the associated complex line bundle P_{Z_k}×_1 C, together with a gauge redundancy mixing a and A^#. Matter couplings are restricted to those deemed "admissible," i.e. not using the canonical flat connection on nontrivial associated bundles. The authors claim that, with charges held fixed, T_k tends to the monopoleless sector of Maxwell theory in the k→∞ limit, and that T_k can be understood as ordinary Maxwell theory with a nonlocal projector O onto U(1)-bundles that arise from Z_k-bundles. Section 3 presents finite-k consistency checks: perturbative equivalence, matter charge spectra, Wilson loops, and higher-form symmetries. Section 4 introduces the projector O.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would offer a novel discrete approximation to Maxwell theory that retains local degrees of freedom, in contrast to naive Z_k gauge theory, and would provide a concrete relation between finite-group bundle topology and the monopoleless sector of abelian gauge theory. The finite-k checks in Section 3 are clear and the notion of admissible couplings is an interesting and potentially useful idea. However, the central claim is not established and, more seriously, is obstructed by a topological inconsistency: the field a, required to satisfy |a|=1 everywhere, is a nowhere-vanishing global section and therefore forces the associated complex line bundle to be trivial. This excludes all Z_k-bundles whose induced U(1)-bundle has nontrivial torsion first Chern class, even though those bundles belong to the flat, monopoleless sector. The result, as stated, does not hold on general manifolds.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (15)-(17)] A field a with |a|=1 everywhere is a nowhere-vanishing section of P_{Z_k}×_1 C. Such a section exists only if that complex line bundle is topologically trivial. Therefore T_k has no configurations for principal Z_k-bundles whose induced U(1)-bundle has nontrivial torsion first Chern class (e.g. the double cover of RP^3 with k=2). This contradicts the statement that T_k sums over principal Z_k-bundles and invalidates the claimed recovery of the monopoleless sector on manifolds with torsion H^2(M;Z). The manuscript itself calls a a section of a nontrivial line bundle while imposing |a|=1; this is internally inconsistent.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (9)] The representation A^b = d ln a/(2πi) with a global unit section a only produces flat connections with trivial holonomy: around any loop, ∮ d ln a/(2πi) is the winding number of the single-valued map a, an integer, so the Wilson loop is 1. Nontrivial flat connections, such as A = θ dt on a circle with noninteger θ, cannot be written in this form. Thus the kinematic decomposition in §2.2 does not cover the full monopoleless sector it claims to describe; nontrivial flat U(1)-bundles are missed even before discretisation.
  3. [§2.3, end; §3] The central claim that T_k "tends to Maxwell theory without monopoles" in the limit k→∞ is not derived. No topology or metric on the space of theories is defined, and no convergence of partition functions or correlation functions is shown. Section 3 only verifies finite-k properties: perturbative equivalence, charges, Wilson loops, and higher-form symmetries. These checks do not establish that the k→∞ limit of the T_k path integral reproduces the Maxwell path integral. As written, the statement at the end of §2.3 is an assertion, not a demonstrated result.
  4. [§4, Eqs. (26)-(28)] The projector O is defined by counting isomorphism classes of Z_k-bundles that give rise to a given U(1)-bundle. For a U(1)-bundle with torsion first Chern class that arises from a Z_k-bundle, O is nonzero, but T_k has no a-field configurations because the required unit section does not exist. Hence the identification of T_k with Maxwell theory plus the insertion of O fails precisely on the sectors where the two sides differ. The equality of partition functions is not demonstrated in any case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (5)] Eq. (5) contains a stray symbol after ℤ_k. Also, the statement that the transition functions g_{ij} are constant should be phrased as locally constant, since the overlaps U_i∩U_j need not be connected unless the open cover is chosen with that property.
  2. [§2.3, Eq. (16)] Both gauge parameters α and c are introduced as U(1)-valued functions, but the paper states that the true gauge group is Z_k. Please clarify how c is restricted to the subgroup Z_k ⊂ C^∞(M,U(1)) and in what sense α is a gauge symmetry rather than a field-redefinition redundancy.
  3. [§3.3, footnote 8] The footnote says ln a is not globally defined, which is in tension with the requirement |a|=1 making a a global unit section. This apparent contradiction should be resolved, especially since the existence of such a section is central to the construction.
  4. [Appendix A, text after Eq. (35)] The statement "This is only possible if P_{U(1)} is flattenable" is only a necessary condition; the actual condition for a global gauge-fixing θ is that the associated line bundle P_{U(1)}×_k C be topologically trivial. A flattenable bundle can still have a nontrivial associated line bundle with torsion first Chern class.
  5. [§3.2] The phrase "as k tends to infinity, the set of charges ℤ/kℤ approximates the set of charges ℤ" is informal. Since this is not the main claim, a brief statement of the intended sense (e.g. as a nested family of subsets of ℤ under a choice of representatives) would suffice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: T_k is deliberately constructed from Maxwell data, and the central limit claim is asserted rather than derived from a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a construction statement, not a derivation: §2.3 defines T_k and then asserts 'the claim is that...' The finite-k theory is deliberately built from Maxwell's Čech data by replacing U(1) with Z_k, so the local action (23) and §3.1's perturbative equivalence are design features, not circular predictions. The §4 formulation with the operator O is likewise a relabelling of the same Z_k-image sector; it is presented as an 'understanding' and is not used as evidence for the k→∞ limit. The self-citations [30] (split appearance) and [31] (magnetic symmetry triviality) occur only in consistency checks and do not support the central limit claim. The mathematical issue that a nowhere-vanishing section a trivializes the line bundle (so T_k as written includes only bundles with trivial associated U(1)-bundle) is a correctness/mathematical-consistency concern, and the convergence is asserted rather than proved; neither is an instance of a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction or of a self-citation chain forcing the result. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary standard.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The construction relies on standard bundle theory and formal path-integral manipulations; its novel content is the specific field content of T_k and the admissibility rule. No numerical parameters are fitted.

axioms (7)
  • standard math Principal U(1)-bundles and connections can be described by Čech cocycles and local one-forms.
    Section 2.1; standard differential geometry.
  • domain assumption The path integral of a gauge theory sums over isomorphism classes of principal bundles and integrates over connections.
    Equation (26); formal continuum path integral, not rigorously defined.
  • standard math Any connection on a flattenable U(1)-bundle splits as A = A_flat + A_sharp with A_flat flat and A_sharp a global one-form.
    Section 2.2, Eq. (7); follows from the triviality of the adjoint bundle for an Abelian group, but presented without proof.
  • domain assumption The k→∞ limit of Z_k gauge theory is flat Maxwell theory.
    Introduction, citing [16-18]; essential motivation for the construction.
  • ad hoc to paper Admissible couplings are precisely those not using the canonical flat connection on nontrivial associated Z_k bundles.
    Section 2.3; this rule is chosen to make the continuum limit work.
  • ad hoc to paper Charges q are held fixed with |q| ≪ k as k→∞.
    Section 2.3, around Eq. (22); limit prescription for matter charges.
  • domain assumption The nonlocal operator O counting Z_k lifts, inserted in the path integral, reproduces T_k.
    Section 4, Eq. (27)-(28); formal path-integral manipulation without a rigorous measure-theoretic justification.
invented entities (1)
  • Nonlocal projection operator O no independent evidence
    purpose: Selects U(1)-bundles that arise from Z_k-bundles in the Maxwell path integral, yielding T_k.
    Introduced in §4, Eq. (27); mathematically well-defined count of isomorphism classes but has no falsifiable handle outside the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12275 in / 16775 out tokens · 160587 ms · 2026-08-03T13:52:17.693143+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A $(d+1)$-dimensional field theory with a periodic spatial dimension may be approximated by a $d$-dimensional theory with a truncated Kaluza-Klein tower of $k$ fields; as ${k\to\infty}$, one recovers the original $(d+1)$-dimensional theory. One may similarly expect that $\operatorname{U}(1)$-valued Maxwell theory may be approximated by $\mathbb Z_k$-valued gauge theory and that, as $k\to\infty$, one recovers the original Maxwell theory. However, this fails: the ${k\to\infty}$ limit of $\mathbb Z_k$-valued gauge theory is flat Maxwell theory with no local degrees of freedom. We instead construct field theories $\mathcal T_k$ such that, with appropriate matter couplings, the $k\to\infty$ limit does recover Maxwell theory in the absence of magnetic monopoles (but with possible Wilson loops), and show that $\mathcal T_k$ can be understood as Maxwell theory with the insertion of a certain nonlocal operator that projects out principal $\operatorname{U}(1)$-bundles that do not arise from principal $\mathbb Z_k$-bundles sectors (in particular, projecting out sectors with monopole charges).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.22114 by Hyungrok Kim, Leron Borsten.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Correspondence between Maxwell theory and the discretised Maxwell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Confinement of quarks.Physical Review D, 10(8):2445–2459, October 1974.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2445

    Kenneth Geddes Wilson. Confinement of quarks.Physical Review D, 10(8):2445–2459, October 1974.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2445

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.10.2445 1974

  2. [2]

    An introduction to lattice gauge theory and spin systems.Reviews in Modern Physics, 51(4):659, October 1979.doi:10.1103/ RevModPhys.51.659

    John Benjamin Kogut. An introduction to lattice gauge theory and spin systems.Reviews in Modern Physics, 51(4):659, October 1979.doi:10.1103/ RevModPhys.51.659

    1979

  3. [3]

    Cambridge Monographs in Mathematical Physics

    Michael Creutz.Quarks, Gluons and Lattices. Cambridge Monographs in Mathematical Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1983.doi:10.1017/9781009290395

    work page doi:10.1017/9781009290395 1983

  4. [4]

    Rothe.Lattice Gauge Theories: An Introduction, volume 43 ofWorld Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics

    Heinz J. Rothe.Lattice Gauge Theories: An Introduction, volume 43 ofWorld Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics. World Scientific, fourth edition, March 2012.doi:10.1142/8229

    doi:10.1142/8229 2012

  5. [5]

    Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, United Kingdom, March 1994.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511470783

    IstvánMontvayandGernotMünster.QuantumFieldsonaLattice.Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, United Kingdom, March 1994.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511470783. 13

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511470783 1994

  6. [6]

    Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, United Kingdom, 2003.doi:10.1017/9781009402705

    JanSmit.IntroductiontoQuantumFieldsonaLattice: ‘arobustmate’,volume15 ofCambridge Lecture Notes in Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, United Kingdom, 2003.doi:10.1017/9781009402705

    doi:10.1017/9781009402705 2003

  7. [7]

    Lang.Quantum Chromodynamics on the Lattice: An Introductory Presentation, volume 788 ofLecture Notes in Physics

    Christof Gattringer and Christian B. Lang.Quantum Chromodynamics on the Lattice: An Introductory Presentation, volume 788 ofLecture Notes in Physics. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany, 2010.doi:10.1007/ 978-3-642-01850-3

    2010

  8. [8]

    Recovering General Relativity from a Planck scale discrete theory of quantum gravity, June 2021.arXiv: 2106.01297,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2106.01297

    Helen Fay Dowker and Jeremy Butterfield. Recovering General Relativity from a Planck scale discrete theory of quantum gravity, June 2021.arXiv: 2106.01297,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2106.01297

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.01297 2021

  9. [9]

    Statistical geometry

    Jan Myrheim. Statistical geometry. Technical Report CERN-TH-2538, L’Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire, Geneva, Switzer- land, August 1978. URL:https://cds.cern.ch/record/293594

    1978

  10. [10]

    Quantum gravity: A fundamental problem and some radical ideas

    Gerardus ’t Hooft. Quantum gravity: A fundamental problem and some radical ideas. In Maurice Marc Lévy and Stanley Deser, editors,Recent Developments in Gravitation: Cargèse 1978, volume 44 ofNATO Science Series B, pages 323–345. Plenum Press, New York, United States of America, 1979. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-2955-8_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-2955-8_8 1978

  11. [11]

    Space-time as a causal set.Physical Review Letters, 59(5):521–524, August 1987.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.521

    Luca Mario Per Bombelli, Joohan Lee (ᄋ ᅵᄌ ᅮ한), David Alan Meyer, and Rafael Dolnick Sorkin. Space-time as a causal set.Physical Review Letters, 59(5):521–524, August 1987.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.521

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.521 1987

  12. [12]

    First steps with causal sets

    Rafael Dolnick Sorkin. First steps with causal sets. In Roberto Cianci, Ruggiero de Ritis, Mauro Francaviglia, Giuseppe Marmo, Claudio Rubano, and Paolo Scudellaro, editors,General Relativity and Gravitational Physics: 9th Italian Conference on General Relativity and Gravitational Physics, pages 68–90, Singapore, 1991. World Scientific.doi:10.1142/9789814538473

    work page doi:10.1142/9789814538473 1991

  13. [13]

    The causal set approach to quantum gravity.Living Reviews in Relativity, 22(1):5, December 2019.arXiv:1903.11544, doi:10.1007/ s41114-019-0023-1

    Sumati Surya. The causal set approach to quantum gravity.Living Reviews in Relativity, 22(1):5, December 2019.arXiv:1903.11544, doi:10.1007/ s41114-019-0023-1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    The causal set approach to the prob- lem of quantum gravity

    Helen Fay Dowker and Sumati Surya. The causal set approach to the prob- lem of quantum gravity. In Cosimo Bambi, Leonardo Modesto, and Ilya Lvovich Shapiro(Илья Львович Шапиро), editors,Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Springer, Singapore, 2024.doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3079-9_ 70-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3079-9_ 2024

  15. [15]

    Cohen, and Howard Mason Georgi, III

    Nima Arkani-Hamed, Andrew G. Cohen, and Howard Mason Georgi, III. (De)constructing dimensions.Physical Review Letters, 86(21):4757–4761, May 2001.arXiv:hep-th/0104005,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.4757

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  16. [16]

    Topological gauge theories and group cohomology.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 129(2):393– 429, April 1990.doi:10.1007/BF02096988

    Robbert Dijkgraaf and Edward Witten. Topological gauge theories and group cohomology.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 129(2):393– 429, April 1990.doi:10.1007/BF02096988

    doi:10.1007/bf02096988 1990

  17. [17]

    Chern-Simons theory with finite gauge group.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 156(3):435–472, Oc- tober 1993.arXiv:hep-th/9111004,doi:10.1007/BF02096860

    Daniel Stuart Freed and Frank Quinn. Chern-Simons theory with finite gauge group.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 156(3):435–472, Oc- tober 1993.arXiv:hep-th/9111004,doi:10.1007/BF02096860. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  18. [18]

    On gauging finite subgroups.SciPost Physics, 8(1):015, January 2020.arXiv:1712.09542,doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys

    Yuji Tachikawa (立川裕二). On gauging finite subgroups.SciPost Physics, 8(1):015, January 2020.arXiv:1712.09542,doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys. 8.1.015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics

    Mark Anthony Armstrong.Groups and Symmetry. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, United States of America, Octo- ber 1988.doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4034-9

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4034-9 1988

  20. [20]

    Higher gauge theory

    Leron Borsten, Mehran Jalali Farahani, Branislav Jurčo, Hyungrok Kim (金 炯錄), Jiří Nárožný, Dominik Rist, Christian Sämann, and Martin Wolf. Higher gauge theory. In Richard Joseph Szabo and Martin Bojowald, ed- itors,Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, volume 4, pages 159–185. Aca- demic Press, New York, United States of America, second edition, 2025. ar...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, United States of America, second edition, 2003.doi: 10.1201/9781315275826

    Mikio Nakahara (中原幹夫).Geometry, T opology and Physics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, United States of America, second edition, 2003.doi: 10.1201/9781315275826

    doi:10.1201/9781315275826 2003

  22. [22]

    Knudson.Homology of Linear Groups, volume 193 ofProgress in Mathematics

    Kevin P . Knudson.Homology of Linear Groups, volume 193 ofProgress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland, 2001.doi:10.1007/ 978-3-0348-8338-2

    2001

  23. [23]

    D-brane charges in five-brane backgrounds.Journal of High Energy Phys- ics, 2001(10):005, October 2001.arXiv:hep-th/0108152,doi:10.1088/ 1126-6708/2001/10/005

    Juan Martín Maldacena, Nathan Seiberg, and Gregory Winthrop Moore. D-brane charges in five-brane backgrounds.Journal of High Energy Phys- ics, 2001(10):005, October 2001.arXiv:hep-th/0108152,doi:10.1088/ 1126-6708/2001/10/005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  24. [24]

    Symmetries and strings in field theory and gravity.Physical Review D, 83(8):084019, April 2011.arXiv: 1011.5120,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.084019

    Thomas Israel Banks and Nathan Seiberg. Symmetries and strings in field theory and gravity.Physical Review D, 83(8):084019, April 2011.arXiv: 1011.5120,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.084019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  25. [25]

    Generalized global symmetries.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(02):172, February 2015.arXiv:1412.5148,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)172

    Davide Silvano Achille Gaiotto, Anton Nikolaevich Kapustin (Антон Ни- колаевич Капустин), Nathan Seiberg, and Brian Willett. Generalized global symmetries.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(02):172, February 2015.arXiv:1412.5148,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)172

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Introduction to generalized global symmetries in QFT and particle physics, June 2023

    Theodore Daniel Brennan and Sungwoo Hong (홍성ᄋ ᅮ). Introduction to generalized global symmetries in QFT and particle physics, June 2023. arXiv:2306.00912,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.00912

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.00912 2023

  27. [27]

    Bottini, Ludovic Fraser-Taliente, Liam Gladden, Dewi Sid William Gould, Arthur Platschorre, and Hannah Tillim

    Lakshya Bhardwaj, Lea E. Bottini, Ludovic Fraser-Taliente, Liam Gladden, Dewi Sid William Gould, Arthur Platschorre, and Hannah Tillim. Lec- tures on generalized symmetries.Physics Reports, 1051:1–87, February 2024.arXiv:2307.07547,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.11.002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Brout–Englert–Higgs physics: From foundations to phenomenology.Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 106:132–209, May 2019.arXiv:1712.04721,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.02.003

    Axel Torsten Maas. Brout–Englert–Higgs physics: From foundations to phenomenology.Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 106:132–209, May 2019.arXiv:1712.04721,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.02.003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Electromagnetic du- ality and entanglement anomalies.Physical Review D, 96(4):045008, August 2017.arXiv:1611.05920,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.045008

    William Donnelly, Ben Michel, and Aron Clark Wall. Electromagnetic du- ality and entanglement anomalies.Physical Review D, 96(4):045008, August 2017.arXiv:1611.05920,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.045008. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Duality anomalies in linearized gravity.Physical Review D, 112(4):045010, August 2025.arXiv:2504.15973,doi:10.1103/ 3nkh-t15m

    Leron Borsten, Michael James Duff, Dimitri Kanakaris Decavel, and Hy- ungrok Kim (金炯錄). Duality anomalies in linearized gravity.Physical Review D, 112(4):045010, August 2025.arXiv:2504.15973,doi:10.1103/ 3nkh-t15m

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Symmetries beget symmetries: Ghostly higher-form symmetries and the descent equation, September 2025.arXiv:2509.15978,doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2509.15978

    Leron Borsten, Dimitri Kanakaris Decavel, and Hyungrok Kim (金炯錄). Symmetries beget symmetries: Ghostly higher-form symmetries and the descent equation, September 2025.arXiv:2509.15978,doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2509.15978. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.15978 2025