Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 165 references

Color-screened QCD phases must break chiral symmetry

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

2026-08-04 23:58 UTC pith:RZ52POOZ

load-bearing objection A clear, honest review of the author's own no-go theorem, but the theorem's scope is narrower than the abstract suggests and the proof leans on an explicitly acknowledged continuity assumption. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06190 v1 pith:RZ52POOZ submitted 2025-09-07 hep-ph hep-lathep-th

To Break or Not to Break: A Review of a No-Go Theorem on Chiral Symmetry Breaking in QCD-like Theories

Ling-Xiao Xu This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-lathep-th MSC 81T1381T5081V05 PACS 11.10.-z11.15.-q11.30.Rd11.30.Qc12.38.Aw
keywords chiral symmetry breakingQCD-like theoriesanomaly matchingpersistent mass conditioncolor screeningconfinementno-go theoremdownlifting
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.

This paper reviews a proof that in a family of theories that mimic real QCD — SU(N_c) gauge fields coupled to N_f massless quark flavors in the fundamental representation — a fully color-screened hadron phase cannot have unbroken chiral symmetry. The argument combines two constraints: anomaly matching, which says any low-energy spectrum of color-singlet hadrons must reproduce certain quantum numbers of the quarks, and persistent mass conditions, which say bound states built from massive constituents must themselves be massive. A downlifting argument shows that if a would-be chirally symmetric hadron phase existed for N_f flavors, the same would have to hold for N_f minus one flavors, and repeating reaches a number of flavors equal to the smallest prime factor of N_c, where anomaly matching alone has no solution. Hence either the free-hadron description fails or chiral symmetry breaks; a phase with both color screening and unbroken chiral symmetry is impossible. This matters because it converts a widely assumed folk theorem into a theorem with a proof covering generic N_c and all N_f above the smallest prime factor of N_c.

Core claim

The paper reviews a general no-go theorem, Theorem 1.1: in any infrared phase of SU(N_c) gauge theory with N_f massless fundamental quarks, either the free hadron description with full color screening breaks down, or chiral symmetry SU(N_f)_L × SU(N_f)_R must be spontaneously broken. Equivalently, any phase with unbroken chiral symmetry cannot be described by free color-singlet hadrons; unscreened color charges must remain. The theorem covers generic N_c ≥ 3 for every N_f no smaller than the smallest nontrivial prime factor of N_c; even N_c follows from a simpler argument because every color-singlet hadron is bosonic, and N_c = 2 is treated separately. The proof is algebraic, uses anomaly ma

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by downlifting, an inductive contradiction strategy: assume a color-screened, chirally symmetric phase for N_f flavors, translate it into integer indices of massless color-singlet hadrons that solve the anomaly-matching and persistent-mass equations, then construct from those a solution for N_f − 1 flavors. Repeating reaches N_f equal to the smallest prime factor of N_c, where a modular-arithmetic lemma using representation-theoretic index and dimension divisibility by that prime proves no integral solution exists. The persistent mass condition is the physical input that makes the indices of hadrons containing a massive constituent vanish; it comes from positivity of

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes the persistent mass condition survives the limits of infinite ultraviolet cutoff and zero quark masses; if a phase transition occurs as a quark mass is sent to zero, the exponential bound and mass inequalities fail and downlifting cannot be applied.

What would settle it

A lattice calculation in SU(3) with, say, three massless flavors finding a chirally symmetric confined spectrum of massless color-singlet baryons would falsify the theorem. More directly: measuring a hadron mass as a function of a small quark mass m2 at fixed m1 > 0 and finding a discontinuity or a value below the bound m_hadron ≥ m1 n1 as m2 → 0 would show the persistent mass condition fails in the required limit.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • For N_f at least the smallest prime factor of N_c, a confinement-without-chiral-symmetry-breaking hadron phase is impossible; any chirally symmetric phase must be deconfined or conformal rather than described by free color-singlet hadrons.
  • When the hadronic description applies, chiral symmetry breaking is forced, with pattern SU(N_f)_L × SU(N_f)_R → SU(N_f)_V, and the anomalies are matched by the topological term in the pion effective action.
  • For real-world-like QCD with N_c = 3, the theorem covers all N_f ≥ 3, leaving N_f = 2 as the remaining open case.
  • Because the proof relies only on the vectorlike structure of the quarks, the same no-go reasoning extends to other vectorlike gauge theories where the persistent mass condition holds, but not to chiral gauge theories or theories with Yukawa couplings.
  • Combined with the result that vectorlike symmetries are not spontaneously broken, the low-energy description of a fully color-screened phase is fixed as a nonlinear sigma model with that breaking pattern.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable corollary: lattice scans of the phase diagram should never find a chirally symmetric, confined hadron phase for the covered N_f; a candidate signal would indicate the persistent-mass bound is being violated.
  • The modulo-prime structure suggests the obstruction is number-theoretic, tied to prime factors of N_c, so analogous theorems for other gauge groups and matter representations could be derived by identifying the relevant divisibility ring.
  • The sensitive assumption — continuity as quark masses go to zero — could be probed directly by measuring hadron masses as functions of two small masses near the chiral limit; any discontinuity there would break the proof even if the theorem's conclusion is true.
  • If the theorem is correct, the common phenomenological assumption that confinement and chiral symmetry breaking always co-occur in QCD becomes a provable consequence rather than an empirical input, which sharpens searches for composite Higgs and walking technicolor scenarios.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a pedagogical review of a claimed proof that in SU(N_c) gauge theories with N_f massless fundamental quarks, a fully color-screened, infrared-free hadronic phase with unbroken chiral symmetry is impossible. The main result, Theorem 1.1, states that either the free hadron description breaks down or chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken. The proof combines 't Hooft anomaly matching, persistent mass conditions (PMC) derived from Vafa–Witten inequalities, and a 'downlifting' induction: assuming a solution of the AMC+PMC equations for N_f flavors, the author constructs a solution for N_f−1 flavors, iterating down to the smallest nontrivial prime factor of N_c, where an algebraic no-solution lemma (Lemma 2.2) applies. The review includes a detailed discussion of the PMC derivation, the group-theoretic decomposition structure, several worked examples, and a comparison with earlier approaches such as 'N_f independence' and supersymmetric algebra methods.

Significance. If the theorem is established, it would rule out a 'confinement without χSB' phase for a wide class of QCD-like theories and convert a long-standing folklore into a rigorous statement, with direct relevance to models of dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking. The paper is valuable as a pedagogical presentation: it carefully distinguishes screening confinement from genuine confinement, spells out the derivation of the persistent mass inequalities, provides clear diagrams of the decomposition chains, and explicitly acknowledges several limitations. However, the central claim remains conditional: the extension of the PMC to the massless-quark limit is made under an explicit continuity assumption (Section 3.1), and the proof of the key base-case lemma is deferred to a cited paper. Thus the significance is high if the missing continuity property can be supplied, but the present manuscript does not fully deliver a closed proof of the theorem as advertised.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (39)–(43) and Lemma 4.1] The derivation of the persistent mass conditions in the massless limit rests on an explicit but unproven continuity assumption: 'Assuming that the physical quantities should vary continuously with these parameters, the bound is expected to hold in the limits of Δ→∞, or m_{1,2}→0.' This is load-bearing. The downlifting proof of Lemma 4.1 uses PMC[N_f,1] (Eq. (43)) to set to zero the indices of all hadrons with H_1≠0 when deriving the anomaly matching equation (55). If a phase transition as m_2→0 produces massless composite fermions with H_1≠0 discontinuously, Eq. (43) fails and the construction of a downlifted solution collapses. The manuscript should either provide a proof or a precise citation for this continuity property, or state Theorem 1.1 explicitly as conditional on it. The abstract should not present the theorem as unconditional while this premise is unresolved.
  2. [Theorem 1.1 and abstract] The abstract and the opening summary state a 'general no-go theorem' for SU(N_c) with N_f massless flavors without mentioning the domain restriction. The theorem itself is restricted to N_f no smaller than the smallest nontrivial prime factor of N_c, which for real-world N_c=3 means N_f≥3 and excludes the physically relevant N_f=2 case. This limitation is acknowledged only in the concluding remarks. The statement of Theorem 1.1 and the abstract must be revised to make the domain explicit, so that the advertised scope matches the proven result.
  3. [Lemma 2.2 and Section 2.2] Lemma 2.2, which provides the base case for the downlifting induction, is not proved in the review; the reader is referred to [89] for the details of steps (i) and (ii). Because this lemma is essential to the no-go theorem, the review as it stands is not self-contained: a skeptical reader cannot verify the theorem without consulting an external paper. In a review this may be acceptable, but the manuscript should clearly mark this as an outline and perhaps include a more substantive sketch of the group-theoretic arguments, especially since the theorem is described as established with 'a new level of rigor.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says the review establishes a no-go theorem for 'massless quarks' without noting the N_f domain; adding the range N_f ≥ p_min would prevent overclaiming.
  2. [Section 3.2, sentence after Eq. (41)] Typo: 'associated wth' should be 'associated with'.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (42)] It would help to explain explicitly that |H_1| is a lower bound on the number of heavy-quark propagators in any operator interpolating the hadron, as this is the physical input behind the mass bound.
  4. [Section 5, concluding remarks] The sentence 'Still, we are not able to coherently understand the IR phases...' is informal; suggest rewording to 'Further work is required...' and moving the technical limitations to a dedicated 'Open problems' paragraph.
  5. [Appendix A] The notation for superalgebra Young diagrams is introduced without a reference at the point of use; the reader may not follow the example without consulting [167–169].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the no-go theorem is a genuine derivation from anomaly matching and persistent mass conditions; the main caveat is an explicit continuity assumption in the massless limit, not a hidden equivalence.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1.1 is proved by combining (i) 't Hooft anomaly matching (Section 2, Eqs. (9), (12)), (ii) persistent mass conditions derived from Vafa-Witten positivity and exponential bounds (Section 3.1, Eqs. (29)-(40)), and (iii) a downlifting argument that maps an integral AMC/PMC solution at N_f to one at N_f-1 (Section 4.1, Lemma 4.1, Eqs. (52)-(56)). The contradiction at the smallest prime factor of N_c (Lemma 2.2) is a group-theoretic statement about integrality of anomaly coefficients, not an assumption of chiSB. The PMC identification PMC[N_f,h] ~ PMC[N_f-1,h-1] (Eq. (50)) follows from representation decomposition and is a mathematical identity, not a fit. The review does contain load-bearing citations to the author's own papers [88-90] for details (e.g., the proof of Lemma 2.2 is deferred: 'We refer the reader to [89] for the detailed proof of (i) and (ii), which we will not repeat here'), but these are prior peer-reviewed mathematical results that do not assume the theorem; self-citation alone is not circularity. The most important caveat is explicit: in Section 3.1, after Eq. (39), the paper states 'Assuming that the physical quantities should vary continuously with these parameters, the bound is expected to hold in the limits of Δ→∞, or m_{1,2}→0.' This continuity assumption is a genuine premise needed for the downlifting proof, and its failure would invalidate Eq. (43) and Lemma 4.1; however, it is stated as an assumption rather than disguised as a derivation, so it is a correctness risk, not an equation-level circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The abstract's omission of the N_f >= p_min restriction is a presentation imprecision, not evidence of circularity. Accordingly the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new parameters or entities; its result follows from standard tools (anomaly matching, Vafa-Witten PMC) plus a recent group-theoretic decomposition ('downlifting') from the author's prior work [88-90]. The main input the reader must accept is the PMC continuity assumption.

axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The UV theory is SU(N_c) gauge theory with N_f massless Dirac fermions in the fundamental representation.
    Defines the class of theories under consideration (Section 1).
  • domain assumption The IR phase is fully color-screened and described by an infrared-free theory of color-singlet hadrons with integer baryon number (Eqs. 10-11).
    This is the hypothesis of Theorem 1.1; the no-go theorem applies only when this phase is assumed.
  • domain assumption Persistent mass conditions (PMC) hold: hadrons built from quarks with masses m_i have masses bounded below by constituent masses, even in the massless-quark limit.
    Derived from Vafa-Witten positivity and exponential decay (Eqs. 29-38), but relies on the continuity assumption discussed in Section 3.1. Used to kill hadron indices in Section 3.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Physical quantities vary continuously as quark masses go to zero and the UV cutoff is removed, so the PMC bound survives these limits.
    Stated in Section 3.1: 'Assuming that the physical quantities should vary continuously with these parameters...' This is load-bearing for the massless limit and is the weakest step.
  • standard math 't Hooft anomaly matching: perturbative triangle anomalies of the chiral symmetry are unrenormalized and must be reproduced by massless IR states.
    Foundational tool (Section 2); used in Eq. (12).
  • standard math Weinberg-Witten: massless particles with spin > 1/2 cannot carry conserved charges; so only spin-1/2 fermions can match anomalies in an unbroken phase.
    Restricts the putative hadron spectrum to spin-1/2 fermions for anomaly matching.
  • standard math Group-theoretic properties of SU(N) representations: Dynkin indices, dimensionalities, N-ality and center charges satisfy congruences used in Lemma 2.2 and decomposition formulas.
    Used to prove that anomaly coefficients vanish modulo N_f^p for color-singlet hadrons (Eqs. 19-23).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28729 in / 13982 out tokens · 152045 ms · 2026-08-04T23:58:18.566671+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of To Break or Not to Break: A Review of a No-Go Theorem on Chiral Symmetry Breaking in QCD-like Theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZ52POOZ

@misc{pith2026250906190,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: To Break or Not to Break: A Review of a No-Go Theorem on Chiral Symmetry Breaking in QCD-like Theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZ52POOZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06190}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

This is a pedagogical review of some recent progress in rigorously proving chiral symmetry breaking in a class of QCD-like theories that closely resemble the real-world QCD, namely the $SU(N_c)$ Yang-Mills theory coupled to $N_f$ flavors of massless quarks in the fundamental representation. Based on 't Hooft anomaly matching and persistent mass conditions, a general no-go theorem is formulated: assuming that the theory flows in the infrared to a fully color-screened, infrared-free phase described by color-singlet hadrons, symmetry and anomaly constraints necessarily imply spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking; conversely, any phase with unbroken chiral symmetry must retain unscreened color charges, thereby ruling out a fully color-singlet hadron description in the infrared. While these results have been widely assumed, the recent developments reviewed here establish them with a new level of rigor. The persistent mass condition, carefully formulated here, plays a central role, just as it does in the Vafa-Witten theorem on unbroken vectorlike symmetries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06190 by Ling-Xiao Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A schematic illustration of the derivation of the ’t Hooft AMC, i.e., Eq. (9). In the UV, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A schematic illustration of the derivation of various PMC[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A coherent view of PMC equations for QCD-like theories with the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the proof of Theorem 1.1 based on the strategy of “ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.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

165 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    O’Raifeartaigh,GROUP STRUCTURE OF GAUGE THEORIESCambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 5 1988)

    L. O’Raifeartaigh,GROUP STRUCTURE OF GAUGE THEORIESCambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 5 1988)

    1988

  2. [2]

    Hucks,Phys

    J. Hucks,Phys. Rev. D43, 2709 (1991), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.2709

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.43.2709 1991

  3. [3]

    Tong,JHEP07, 104 (2017),arXiv:1705.01853 [hep-th], doi:10.1007/ JHEP07(2017)104

    D. Tong,JHEP07, 104 (2017),arXiv:1705.01853 [hep-th], doi:10.1007/ JHEP07(2017)104

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Davighi, B

    J. Davighi, B. Gripaios and N. Lohitsiri,JHEP07, 232 (2020),arXiv:1910.11277 [hep-th], doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2020)232. September 14, 2025 19:5 ws-ijmpa 28Ling-Xiao Xu

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Wan and J

    Z. Wan and J. Wang,JHEP07, 062 (2020),arXiv:1910.14668 [hep-th], doi:10. 1007/JHEP07(2020)062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    J. Wang, Z. Wan and Y.-Z. You,Phys. Rev. D106, L041701 (2022), arXiv:2112.14765 [hep-th], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L041701

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Wang,Phys

    J. Wang,Phys. Rev. D103, 105024 (2021),arXiv:2012.15860 [hep-th], doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.103.105024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Alonso, D

    R. Alonso, D. Dimakou and M. West,Phys. Lett. B863, 139354 (2025), arXiv:2404.03438 [hep-ph], doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139354

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Li and L.-X

    H.-L. Li and L.-X. Xu,JHEP07, 199 (2024),arXiv:2404.04229 [hep-ph], doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2024)199

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Koren and A

    S. Koren and A. Martin,SciPost Phys.18, 004 (2025),arXiv:2406.17850 [hep-ph], doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.18.1.004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Frohlich, G

    J. Frohlich, G. Morchio and F. Strocchi,Phys. Lett. B97, 249 (1980), doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(80)90594-8

    1980

  12. [12]

    Frohlich, G

    J. Frohlich, G. Morchio and F. Strocchi,Nucl. Phys. B190, 553 (1981), doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(81)90448-X

    1981

  13. [14]

    Egger, A

    L. Egger, A. Maas and R. Sondenheimer,Mod. Phys. Lett. A32, 1750212 (2017), arXiv:1701.02881 [hep-ph], doi:10.1142/S0217732317502121

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [15]

    Maas and R

    A. Maas and R. Sondenheimer,Phys. Rev. D102, 113001 (2020),arXiv:2009.06671 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.113001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [16]

    Elitzur,Phys

    S. Elitzur,Phys. Rev. D12, 3978 (1975), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.3978

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.12.3978 1975

  16. [17]

    E. H. Fradkin and S. H. Shenker,Phys. Rev. D19, 3682 (1979), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.19.3682

    1979

  17. [18]

    Banks and E

    T. Banks and E. Rabinovici,Nucl. Phys. B160, 349 (1979), doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(79)90064-6

    1979

  18. [19]

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek,Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 1343 (1973), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.30.1343

    1973

  19. [20]

    H. D. Politzer,Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 1346 (1973), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1346

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.30.1346 1973

  20. [21]

    Seiberg,Nucl

    N. Seiberg,Nucl. Phys. B435, 129 (1995),arXiv:hep-th/9411149, doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(94)00023-8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  21. [22]

    Terning,Phys

    J. Terning,Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2517 (1998),arXiv:hep-th/9706074, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.80.2517

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  22. [23]

    Schmaltz,Phys

    M. Schmaltz,Phys. Rev. D59, 105018 (1999),arXiv:hep-th/9805218, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.59.105018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  23. [24]

    Armoni, D

    A. Armoni, D. Israel, G. Moraitis and V. Niarchos,Phys. Rev. D77, 105009 (2008), arXiv:0801.0762 [hep-th], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.105009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [25]

    Sannino,Phys

    F. Sannino,Phys. Rev. D80, 065011 (2009),arXiv:0907.1364 [hep-th], doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.80.065011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  25. [26]

    Sannino,Nucl

    F. Sannino,Nucl. Phys. B830, 179 (2010),arXiv:0909.4584 [hep-th], doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.12.026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [27]

    Mojaza, M

    M. Mojaza, M. Nardecchia, C. Pica and F. Sannino,Phys. Rev. D83, 065022 (2011), arXiv:1101.1522 [hep-th], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.065022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  27. [28]

    Sannino,Mod

    F. Sannino,Mod. Phys. Lett. A26, 1763 (2011),arXiv:1102.5100 [hep-ph], doi: 10.1142/S0217732311036279

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  28. [29]

    Karasik, K

    A. Karasik, K. ¨Onder and D. Tong,JHEP11, 122 (2022),arXiv:2208.07842 [hep-th], doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2022)122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [30]

    Cacciapaglia and F

    G. Cacciapaglia and F. Sannino,Phys. Rev. D111, 035013 (2025),arXiv:2407.17281 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.035013. September 14, 2025 19:5 ws-ijmpa ProvingχSB in QCD-like Theories from Anomaly Matching29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [31]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg and B. Willett,JHEP02, 172 (2015), arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th], doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)172

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [32]

    Cherman, T

    A. Cherman, T. Jacobson and M. Neuzil,JHEP02, 192 (2023),arXiv:2209.00027 [hep-th], doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2023)192

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [33]

    Cherman and T

    A. Cherman and T. Jacobson,Phys. Rev. D109, 125013 (2024),arXiv:2304.13751 [hep-th], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.125013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [36]

    Greensite,Lect

    J. Greensite,Lect. Notes Phys.821, 1 (2011), doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14382-3

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14382-3 2011

  34. [37]

    Greensite and K

    J. Greensite and K. Matsuyama,Phys. Rev. D96, 094510 (2017),arXiv:1708.08979 [hep-lat], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.094510

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [38]

    Greensite and K

    J. Greensite and K. Matsuyama,PoSConfinement2018, 046 (2018), arXiv:1811.01512 [hep-lat], doi:10.22323/1.336.0046

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [39]

    Greensite and H

    J. Greensite and H. Y. Yau,Phys. Rev. D109, 034502 (2024),arXiv:2310.01354 [hep-lat], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.034502

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [40]

    T. T. Dumitrescu and P.-S. Hsin,SciPost Phys.17, 093 (2024),arXiv:2312.16898 [hep-th], doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.17.3.093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [41]

    K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.45BC, 1 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9509066, doi:10.1016/0920-5632(95)00626-5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  39. [42]

    Csaki, M

    C. Csaki, M. Schmaltz and W. Skiba,Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 799 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9610139, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.799

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  40. [43]

    Csaki, M

    C. Csaki, M. Schmaltz and W. Skiba,Phys. Rev. D55, 7840 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9612207, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.7840

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  41. [44]

    E. T. Neil,PoSLA TTICE2011, 009 (2011),arXiv:1205.4706 [hep-lat], doi:10. 22323/1.139.0009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [45]

    Gies and J

    H. Gies and J. Jaeckel,Eur. Phys. J. C46, 433 (2006),arXiv:hep-ph/0507171, doi:10.1140/epjc/s2006-02475-0

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  43. [46]

    Braun and H

    J. Braun and H. Gies,JHEP06, 024 (2006),arXiv:hep-ph/0602226, doi:10.1088/ 1126-6708/2006/06/024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  44. [47]

    Braun and H

    J. Braun and H. Gies,JHEP05, 060 (2010),arXiv:0912.4168 [hep-ph], doi:10. 1007/JHEP05(2010)060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  45. [48]

    Braun, C

    J. Braun, C. S. Fischer and H. Gies,Phys. Rev. D84, 034045 (2011), arXiv:1012.4279 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.034045

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  46. [49]

    Goertz, ´A

    F. Goertz, ´A. Pastor-Guti´ errez and J. M. Pawlowski (12 2024),arXiv:2412.12254 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [50]

    V. A. Miransky,Phys. Rev. D59, 105003 (1999),arXiv:hep-ph/9812350, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.59.105003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  48. [51]

    Mi- ransky and K

    V. Mi- ransky and K. Yamawaki,Phys. Rev. D55, 5051 (1997),arXiv:hep-th/9611142, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.3768, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 56, 3768 (1997)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  49. [52]

    D. B. Kaplan, J.-W. Lee, D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov,Phys. Rev. D80, 125005 (2009),arXiv:0905.4752 [hep-th], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.125005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  50. [53]

    W. E. Caswell,Phys. Rev. Lett.33, 244 (1974), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.244

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.33.244 1974

  51. [54]

    Banks and A

    T. Banks and A. Zaks,Nucl. Phys. B196, 189 (1982), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82) 90035-9

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82 1982

  52. [55]

    Casher,Phys

    A. Casher,Phys. Lett. B83, 395 (1979), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)91137-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)91137-7 1979

  53. [56]

    Banks and A

    T. Banks and A. Casher,Nucl. Phys. B169, 103 (1980), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(80) 90255-2. September 14, 2025 19:5 ws-ijmpa 30Ling-Xiao Xu

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(80 1980

  54. [57]

    G. P. Engel, L. Giusti, S. Lottini and R. Sommer,Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 112001 (2015),arXiv:1406.4987 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.112001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [58]

    G. P. Engel, L. Giusti, S. Lottini and R. Sommer,Phys. Rev. D91, 054505 (2015), arXiv:1411.6386 [hep-lat], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.054505

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [59]

    Giusti,PoSLA TTICE2015, 001 (2016),arXiv:1511.08786 [hep-lat], doi:10

    L. Giusti,PoSLA TTICE2015, 001 (2016),arXiv:1511.08786 [hep-lat], doi:10. 22323/1.251.0001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [60]

    Faber and R

    M. Faber and R. H¨ ollwieser,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.97, 312 (2017), arXiv:1908.09740 [hep-lat], doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.08.001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [61]

    S. R. Coleman and E. Witten,Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 100 (1980), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.45.100

    1980

  59. [62]

    Veneziano,Phys

    G. Veneziano,Phys. Lett. B95, 90 (1980), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90406-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90406-2 1980

  60. [63]

    Sato,PTEP2022, 103B03 (2022),arXiv:2202.07664 [hep-th], doi:10.1093/ ptep/ptac133

    R. Sato,PTEP2022, 103B03 (2022),arXiv:2202.07664 [hep-th], doi:10.1093/ ptep/ptac133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [64]

    Witten,Nucl

    E. Witten,Nucl. Phys. B149, 285 (1979), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90243-8

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90243-8 1979

  62. [65]

    Witten,Nucl

    E. Witten,Nucl. Phys. B156, 269 (1979), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90031-2

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90031-2 1979

  63. [66]

    Witten,Annals Phys.128, 363 (1980), doi:10.1016/0003-4916(80)90325-5

    E. Witten,Annals Phys.128, 363 (1980), doi:10.1016/0003-4916(80)90325-5

    doi:10.1016/0003-4916(80)90325-5 1980

  64. [67]

    Di Vecchia and G

    P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano,Nucl. Phys. B171, 253 (1980), doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(80)90370-3

    1980

  65. [68]

    Witten,Phys

    E. Witten,Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2862 (1998),arXiv:hep-th/9807109, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.81.2862

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  66. [69]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, Z. Komargodski and N. Seiberg,JHEP05, 091 (2017), arXiv:1703.00501 [hep-th], doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)091

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [70]

    Jaffe and E

    A. Jaffe and E. Witten, Quantum yang-mills theory, inThe Millennium Prize Prob- lems, eds. J. Carlson, A. Jaffe and W. Andrew (American Mathematical Society and Clay Mathematics Institute, 2006), pp. 129–152.https://www.claymath.org/ millennium/yang-mills-the-maths-gap/

    2006

  68. [71]

    Seiberg,Phys

    N. Seiberg,Phys. Rev. D49, 6857 (1994),arXiv:hep-th/9402044, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.49.6857

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  69. [72]

    Aharony, J

    O. Aharony, J. Sonnenschein, M. E. Peskin and S. Yankielowicz,Phys. Rev. D52, 6157 (1995),arXiv:hep-th/9507013, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.6157

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  70. [73]

    Cheng and Y

    H.-C. Cheng and Y. Shadmi,Nucl. Phys. B531, 125 (1998),arXiv:hep-th/9801146, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00539-2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  71. [74]

    Arkani- Hamed and R

    N. Arkani- Hamed and R. Rattazzi,Phys. Lett. B454, 290 (1999),arXiv:hep-th/9804068, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00406-2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  72. [75]

    M. A. Luty and R. Rattazzi,JHEP11, 001 (1999),arXiv:hep-th/9908085, doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/1999/11/001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  73. [76]

    S. Abel, M. Buican and Z. Komargodski,Phys. Rev. D84, 045005 (2011), arXiv:1105.2885 [hep-th], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.045005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  74. [77]

    Murayama,Phys

    H. Murayama,Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 251601 (2021),arXiv:2104.01179 [hep-th], doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.251601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  75. [78]

    Kondo, H

    D. Kondo, H. Murayama, B. Noether and D. R. Varier,JHEP04, 152 (2025), arXiv:2111.09690 [hep-th], doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2025)152

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [79]

    Luzio and L.-X

    A. Luzio and L.-X. Xu,JHEP08, 016 (2022),arXiv:2202.01239 [hep-th], doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2022)016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [80]

    Dine and Y

    M. Dine and Y. Yu (4 2022),arXiv:2205.00115 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [81]

    Cs´ aki, A

    C. Cs´ aki, A. Gomes, H. Murayama, B. Noether, D. R. Varier and O. Telem,Phys. Rev. D107, 054015 (2023),arXiv:2212.03260 [hep-th], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 107.054015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  79. [82]

    C. H. de Lima and D. Stolarski,JHEP10, 020 (2023),arXiv:2307.13154 [hep-th], September 14, 2025 19:5 ws-ijmpa ProvingχSB in QCD-like Theories from Anomaly Matching31 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  80. [83]

    Y. Bai, C. H. de Lima and D. Stolarski (6 2025),arXiv:2506.18964 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.