To recap the problem, consider QCD with three massless quark flavors. There is a symmetry $$SU(3)_L \times SU(3)_R \times U(1)_L \times U(1)_R$$ corresponding to independent rotations of the left-chiral and right-chiral quark fields. Vector symmetries are the subset $$SU(3)_V \times U(1)_V$$ which rotate the left-chiral and right-chiral quark fields the same way, while the axial symmetry $U(1)_A$ rotates the fields in opposite directions. Finally, we define $SU(3)_A$ by $$SU(3)_A = SU(3)_L \times SU(3)_R / SU(3)_V$$ and conventionally call it an "axial symmetry group", though it's merely a coset. All of these symmetries except $U(1)_V$ are explicitly broken by the quark masses, but we can treat this as a small effect and ignore it below.

The formation of the chiral condensate spontaneously breaks the symmetry to $SU(3)_V \times U(1)_V$, so we should have $8 + 1$ Goldstone bosons due to $SU(3)_A$ and $U(1)_A$. The $U(1)_A$ problem is the fact that there is no Goldstone boson corresponding to it. The candidate is the $\eta'$, which is much heavier than the $8$ others.

According to most textbooks, the resolution of the $U(1)_A$ problem is that the $U(1)_A$ symmetry is anomalous by a $U(1)_A SU(3)^2$ triangle diagram, and hence not a true symmetry of the quantum field theory. Since it's not a symmetry, it can't be spontaneously broken.

I don't buy this. The problem is that $SU(3)_A$ is also anomalous, by about the same amount. For example, the $U(1)$ subgroup of $SU(3)_A$ corresponding to the pion $\pi^0$ has a $U(1) U(1)_{\text{EM}}^2$ anomaly which accounts for the fast decay $\pi^0 \to \gamma \gamma$. This is important because it's how anomalies were discovered in the first place. So by this reasoning the pion should be heavy as well, but it isn't.

What distinguishes $U(1)_A$ here? Is the anomaly alone really the solution to the $U(1)_A$ problem?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Indeed, no EM configurations exist to "seize the vacuum" and give the neutral pion extra mass, as QCD instantons give the $\eta '$ extra mass and also. But it is a longish story, relying on the topological structure of the vacuum... There may be related questions with bits and pieces of it. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 25, 2018 at 18:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you only consider the symmetries that you mention at the beginning of your post, then $SU(3)_A$ is not anomalous. The problem arises when you add electromagnetic interactions that break the $SU(3)_L \times SU(3)_R$ symmetry. And indeed, there is a mass difference between the neutral and charged pions precisely due to electromagnetic interactions. This splitting is small compared to the mass of the $\eta'$ because electromagnetism is much weaker than the strong interaction. $\endgroup$
    – M.Jo
    Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 10:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Did you ever find a good resolution to this problem? It seems to me as though M.Jo is on the right track: $U(1)_A$ is anomalous in pure QCD, whereas $SU(3)_A$ is not. Only when we couple to QED do we see an anomaly in $SU(3)_A$ (specifically, the $\lambda_3$ and $\lambda_8$ generators), and these effects are relatively smaller on account that $e < g_s$. $\endgroup$
    – gj255
    Commented Apr 8, 2019 at 16:27
  • $\begingroup$ See arxiv.org/abs/1810.05338 for an explanation using more modern language. $\endgroup$
    – Thomas
    Commented Aug 1, 2019 at 20:05

1 Answer 1


We are trying to understand why the $\eta'$ acquires a mass in pure QCD (no external fields). This is indeed explained by the $U(1)_A\times [SU(3)]^2$ anomaly. Note that the $SU(3)$ is the QCD gauge symmetry, so we cannot turn these fields off. The anomaly in the $U(1)_A$ current is proportional to $G_{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}$, which is a total divergence. This is not an impediment, because QCD has topological $|n\rangle$ sectors, and the partition function in the presence of a topological $\theta$-term ${\cal L}_\theta\sim\theta G_{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}$ has $\theta$ dependence. The topological term has a vanishing vacuum expectation value (QCD does not spontaneously break CP), but the $\eta'$ mass is controlled by the associated susceptibility (with a caveat, explained by Witten and Veneziano) $$ \chi_{top} \sim \frac{1}{V} \int d^4x\, \langle G_{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}(0)G_{\alpha\beta}\tilde{G}^{\alpha\beta}(x)\rangle . $$ This quanitity is of order $\Lambda_{QCD}^4$, and as a result the $\eta'$ acquires a mass comparable to other non-Goldstone bosons.

Pure QCD has a $SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$ flavor symmetry, which I can try to (weakly) gauge. We find that this symmetry is anomalous, and in the chiral broken phase this anomaly can be represented by a Wess-Zumino term, which (among other things) reproduces the $\pi^0\to 2\gamma$ decay. I can ask whether this anomaly contributes to the mass of the $\pi^0$. Note that 1) EM certainly does contribute to the mass of charged Goldstone bosons, 2) the anomaly is again proportional to $F_{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}$, which is a surface term (but QED does not have topological sectors). Finally, in the standard model $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ is gauged, but the QCD anomaly (represented by the Wess-Zumino term) is cancelled by leptons.

P.S.: An explanation of why the $\pi^0$ does not acquire a mass (in more modern language) is also given here.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.