CHIBA-EP-219v2, 2016.07.

18

Higgs mechanism without spontaneous symmetry breaking and quark confinement

Kei-Ichi Kondo
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522, Japan

arXiv:1606.06194v2 [hep-th] 20 Jul 2016

We propose a novel description for the Higgs mechanism by which a gauge boson acquires the mass.
We do not assume spontaneous breakdown of gauge symmetry signaled by a non-vanishing vacuum
expectation value of the scalar field. In fact, we give a manifestly gauge-invariant definition of the
Higgs mechanism in the operator level, which does not rely on spontaneous symmetry breaking.
This enables us to discuss the confinement-Higgs complementarity from a new perspective. The
Abelian dominance in quark confinement of the Yang-Mills theory is understood as a consequence
of the gauge-invariant Higgs phenomenon for the equivalent Yang-Mills-Higgs model.
PACS numbers: 12.38.Aw, 05.10.Cc, 11.10.Wx

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism or Higgs phenomenon is one of the most well-known mechanisms by
which gauge bosons [1] acquire their masses [24]. In the
conventional wisdom, the Higgs mechanism is understood
in such a way that the spontaneous symmetry breaking
(SSB) generates mass for a gauge boson: The original
gauge group G is spontaneously broken down to a subgroup H by choosing a specific vacuum as the physical
state from all the possible degenerate ground states (the
lowest energy states). Such SSB of the original gauge
symmetry is caused by a non-vanishing vacuum expectation value (VEV) hi 6= 0 of a scalar field governed
by a given potential V (). For a continuous group G,
there appear the massless Nambu-Goldstone bosons associated with the SSB G H according to the NambuGoldstone theorem [5, 6]. When the scalar field couples
to a gauge field, however, the massless Nambu-Goldstone
bosons are absorbed to provide the gauge boson with the
mass. Thus, the massless Nambu-Goldstone bosons disappear from the spectrum and the gauge boson acquires
the mass. In a semi-classical treatment, the VEV hi is
identified with one of the minima 0 of the scalar potential V (), namely, hi = 0 6= 0 with V (0 ) = 0.
The lattice gauge theory a
` la Wilson [7] gives a welldefined gauge theory without gauge fixing. Due to the
Elitzur theorem [8], however, the local continuous gauge
symmetry cannot break spontaneously, if no gauge fixing is introduced. In the absence of gauge fixing, all
gauge non-invariant Green functions vanish identically,
especially, the VEV hi of the scalar field is rigorously
zero,
hi = 0,

(1)

no matter what the form of the scalar potential V ().

Therefore, we are forced to fix the gauge to cause the
non-zero VEV. Even after the gauge fixing, however, we

Electronic

address: kondok@faculty.chiba-u.jp

still have the problem. Whether SSB occurs or not depends on the gauge choice. In non-compact U (1) gaugeHiggs model with covariant gauge fixing with a gauge
fixing parameter , the SSB occurs hi 6= 0 only in the
Landau gauge = 0, and no SSB occur hi = 0 in all
other covariant gauges with 6= 0, as rigorously shown
in [9, 10]. In axial gauge, hi = 0 for compact models
[11]. In contrast, in a unitary gauge, it can happen that
hi =
6 0 regardless of the shape of the scalar potential.
Thus, the spontaneous gauge symmetry breaking is a
rather misleading terminology. A global subgroup H
remains unbroken after imposing the gauge fixing condition for the original local gauge group G. Such a global
symmetry is called the remnant global gauge symmetry
[12, 13]. Only a remnant global gauge symmetry of the
local gauge symmetry can break spontaneously to cause
the Higgs phenomenon [14]. However, notice that such
subgroup is not unique and the location of the breaking in the phase diagram depends on the remnant global
gauge symmetries in the gauge-Higgs model. The relevant numerical evidences are given on a lattice [13] for
different remnant symmetries allowed for various confinement scenarios. Moreover, the transition occurs in the regions where the Fradkin-Shenker-Osterwalder-Seiler theorem [15, 16] assures us that there is no transition in the
physical state. The SSB in the gauge-Higgs theory, if it
occurs at all, is a gauge-fixing artifact.
The above observations show that the Higgs mechanism should be characterized in a gauge-invariant way
without breaking the original gauge symmetry. In this
paper, we show that a gauge boson can acquire the mass
in a gauge-independent way without assuming spontaneous breakdown of gauge symmetry signaled by the nonvanishing VEV of the scalar field. We demonstrate that
the Higgs phenomenon occurs even without the SSB. The
spontaneous symmetry breaking is sufficient but not necessary for the Higgs mechanism to work. It is obvious
that the non-vanishing VEV of the scalar field is not a
gauge-invariant criterion of SSB. Remember that quark
confinement is realized in the unbroken gauge symmetry
phase with mass gap. Thus, the gauge-invariant description of the Higgs mechanics can shed new light on the
complementarity between confinement and Higgs [17].

2
II.

YANG-MILLS-HIGGS MODEL AND THE

CONVENTIONAL HIGGS MECHANISM

In this paper we use the notation of the inner product

for the Lie-algebra valued quantities A = A A TA and
B = B A TA ; A B := 2tr(A B) = A A B B 2tr(TA TB ) =
A A B A under the normalization tr(TA TB ) = 21 AB
for the generators TA of the Lie algebra su(N ) (A =
1, 2, ..., dimG = N 2 1) for a gauge group G = SU (N ).
The SU (N ) Yang-Mills field A (x) = AA (x)TA has the
A
field strength F (x) = F
(x)TA defined by F :=
A A ig[A , A ], while the scalar field (x) =
A (x)TA belongs to the adjoint representation of SU (N ).
We consider a Yang-Mills-Higgs theory specified by a
gauge-invariant action. The Yang-Mills field A and the
scalar field obey the gauge transformation:
A (x) U (x)A (x)U 1 (x) + ig 1 U (x) U 1 (x),
(x) U (x)(x)U 1 (x),

U (x) G = SU (N ). (2)

Hence, denotes an adjoint scalar field. For concreteness, consider the SU (N ) Yang-Mills-Higgs theory with
the Lagrangian density:
1
LYMH = F (x) F (x)
4
1
+ (D [A ](x)) (D [A ](x))
2
V ((x) (x)),

(3)

where we assume that the adjoint scalar field has the

fixed radial length, which is represented by a constraint:
A

(x) (x) (x) (x) = v .

(4)

Notice that (x) (x) is a gauge-invariant combination. Therefore, the potential V as an arbitrary function
of (x) (x) is invariant under the gauge transformation. The covariant derivative D [A ] := ig[A , ]
transforms according to the adjoint representation under
the gauge transformation: D [A ] U (x)D [A ]U 1 (x).
This is also the case for the field strength F (x). Moreover, the constraint (4) is invariant under the gauge
transformation and does not break the gauge invariance
of the theory. Therefore, LYMH of (3) with the constraint
(4) is invariant under the local gauge transformation (2).
For N = 2, this theory is nothing but the well-known
Georgi-Glashow model which exemplifies the SSB of the
local gauge symmetry from SU (2) down to U (1) except
for the magnitude of the scalar field being fixed (4). In
this paper, we focus our discussions on the SU (2) case.
First, we recall the conventional description for mass
generation of gauge bosons given for the Higgs mechanism. If the scalar field (x) acquires a VEV h(x)i =
hi, we find that the covariant derivative reduces to
D [A ](x) := (x) ig[A (x), (x)]
ig[A (x), hi],

(5)

and the Lagrangian density reads

1
LYMH trG {F (x)F (x)}
2
g 2 trG {[A (x), hi][A (x), hi]}
1
= trG {F (x)F (x)}
2
g 2 trG {[TA , hi][TB , hi]}A A (x)AB (x).
(6)
To break spontaneously the local continuous gauge symmetry by the non-vanishing VEV of the scalar field, we
choose the unitary gauge in which the scalar field is
pointed to a specific direction (x) uniformly
over the spacetime.
This procedure does not completely break the original
gauge symmetry G. Indeed, there may exist a subgroup
H of G such that does not change under the local
H gauge transformation. The partial breaking G H
provides the coset G/H parts with the mass, while the
mass is not supplied for the H-commutative part of A :
1
LYMH trG {F F } (gv)2 trG/H {A A }.
2
(7)
Therefore, the resulting theory is a gauge theory with the
residual gauge group H.
For G = SU (2), by taking the usual unitary gauge in
which the scalar field = A TA (A = 1, 2, 3) is chosen
so that
h i = vT3 ,

A3
or hA
,
i = v

(8)

the second term of (6) reduces to the mass term,

g 2 v 2 trG {[TA , T3 ][TB , T3 ]}A A (x)AB (x)
1
g 2 v 2 (A 1 (x)A1 (x) + A 2 (x)A2 (x)).
2

(9)

For SU (2), indeed, the off-diagonal gluons Aa (a = 1, 2)

acquire the same mass MW := gv, while the diagonal
gluon A3 remains massless. Even after taking the unitary gauge (8), U (1) gauge symmetry described by A3
still remains as the residual gauge symmetry H = U (1)
(the rotation around the third axis in the space of scalar
field), which leaves invariant.
Thus, the SSB is sufficient for the Higgs mechanism
to take place. But, it is not clear whether the SSB is
necessary or not for the Higgs mechanism to work.
In the complete breaking G H = {1}, all components of the Yang-Mills field become massive with no
massless components:
1
LYMH trG {F F } (gv)2 trG {A A }, (10)
2
and the resulting theory has no residual gauge symmetry.
This case should be separately discussed elsewhere.

3
III.

GAUGE-INDEPENDENT HIGGS
MECHANISM: SU(2) CASE

Next, we give a novel description, namely, a gaugeinvariant (gauge-independent) description of mass generation for gauge bosons without SSB. We construct a
composite vector field W (x) from the Yang-Mills field
A (x) and the (adjoint) scalar field (x) by

W (x) = ig 1 [(x),
D [A ](x)],

(11)

where D [A ] is the covariant derivative in the adjoint

is the
representation D [A ] := ig[A ], and
unit scalar field defined by

(x)
:= (x)/v.

(12)

We show that the kinetic term of the Yang-Mills-Higgs

model is identical to the mass term of the vector field
W (x):
1
1 2
D [A ](x) D [A ](x) = MW
W (x) W (x),
2
2
MW :=gv,
(13)
as far as the constraint (4) is satisfied. This fact is shown
explicitly for G = SU (2):
g 2 v 2 W W =v 2 2tr([, D [A ]][, D [A ]])

=v 2 [( )(D [A ] D [A ])
( D [A ])( D [A ])]
=(D [A ]) (D [A ]),
(14)

where we have used the constraint (4) and D [A ] =

+(gA ) = gA () = 0, with = 0
following from differentiating the constraint (4).
Remarkably, the mass term (13) of W is gauge invariant, since W transforms according to the adjoint representation under the gauge transformation:
W (x) U (x)W (x)U 1 (x).

(15)

Therefore, the vector field W becomes massive without

breaking any gauge symmetry. The above description
shows that the SSB of gauge symmetry is not necessary
for mass generation of gauge bosons W , since we do not
need to choose a specific vacuum from all possible degenerate ground states distinguished by the direction of .
The relation (11) gives a gauge-independent definition of
the massive gluon mode in the operator level.
The constraint = v 2 represents the vacuum manifold in the target space of the scalar field. The scalar
field subject to the constraint = v 2 is regarded as
the Nambu-Goldstone modes living in the flat direction
at the bottom of the potential V (), giving the degenerate lowest energy states. Therefore, the massive field W
is formed by combining the massless (would-be) NambuGoldstone modes with the original massless Yang-Mills

field A . This corresponds to the explanation that the

gauge boson acquires the mass by absorbing the NambuGoldstone boson appeared in association with the SSB.
Despite its appearance (11) of W obeying the adjoint
gauge transformation, the independent internal degrees
of freedom of the new field W = (WA ) (A = 1, 2, 3)
is equal to dim(G/H) = 2, since W has no components
parallel to the scalar field, that is to say, W is orthogonal
to the scalar field :
W (x) (x) = 0.

(16)

Notice that this is a gauge-invariant statement. Thus,

W (x) represent the massive modes for the coset G/H
components as expected. In this way, we can understand
the residual gauge symmetry corresponding to the partial
SSB: G = SU (2) H = U (1). This fact is explicitly
,
shown: by taking the unitary gauge (x) = v
W reduces to
, D [A ]
]
W (x) ig 1 [
, [
, A (x)]]
=[
)
.
=A (x) (A (x)

(17)

Indeed, W agrees with the off-diagonal parts in the

A = A3 :
SU (2) case for the specific choice

(
Aa (x) (A = a = 1, 2)
WA (x)
.
(18)
0
(A = 3)
This suggests that the original gauge field A is separated into two pieces:
A (x) = V (x) + W (x).

(19)

By definition, the field V (x) transforms under the gauge

transformation just like the original gauge field A (x):
V (x) U (x)V (x)U 1 (x) + ig 1 U (x) U 1 (x). (20)
Then the question is how to characterize the first piece
V (x) which becomes dominant in the low-energy E
MW region, where W (x) with the mass MW becomes
negligible. According to (11), it is shown that W (x) = 0
is equivalent to

D [V ](x)
= 0.

(21)

The second equation (21) can be modified by taking the

exterior product. Using the first equation (16), we find
that a composite vector field V is constructed from the
Yang-Mills field A and the scalar field by

V (x) =c (x)(x)
+ ig 1 [(x),
(x)],

c (x) := A (x) (x).

(22)

In fact, this form for V (x) agrees with V (x) = A (x)

W (x) when eq.(11) is substituted into W (x). In the
, V reduces to
unitary gauge (x) = v
)
.
V (x) (A (x)

(23)

4
A = A3 :
Indeed, V agrees with the diagonal part for
(
0
(A = a = 1, 2)
VA (x)
.
(24)
3
A (x) (A = 3)
Thus, the above arguments go well in the topologically
trivial sector.
In the topologically non-trivial sector, the above argu is not identically zero
ment must be improved, since
in the presence of singularities related to the topological configuration. Indeed, in order to realize the unitary
gauge configuration starting from the hedgehog configuration of the scalar field, we need to perform the singular gauge transformation in the presence of the t HooftPolyakov magnetic monopole [18]. This case will be refined.
IV.

CONFINED MASSIVE PHASE: SU(2) CASE

According to the decomposition (19), the field strength

F (x) of the gauge field A (x) is decomposed as
F [A ] := A A ig[A , A ]
=F [V ] + D [V ]W D [V ]W
ig[W , W ].

(25)

Then, W has the kinetic term in the Lagrangian and

W is not an auxiliary field, but is a propagating field
with the mass MW . Remarkably, the field strength
F [V ](x) := V (x) V (x) ig[V (x), V (x)] of

V is proportional to (x)
[19]:

F [V ](x) =(x){
c (x) c (x) + H (x)},
1

(26)
(x)],
H (x) :=ig (x) [ (x),
Notice that H (x) is locally closed (dH = 0) and hence
it can be locally exact (H = dh) due to the Poincare
lemma. Then H (x) has the Abelian potential h (x):
H (x) = h (x) h (x).

(27)

In the low-energy E MW or the long-distance r

1
MW
region, we can neglect the field W in the first
approximation. We can introduce the Abelian-like field
strength f which is SU (2) gauge-invariant:
F [V ].
f :=

(28)

Then the dominant low-energy modes are described by

the restricted Lagrangian density:
1
1
rest
LYM
= F [V ] F [V ] = f f ,
4
4
f = G G , G := c + h .
(29)
The resulting gauge theory with the Lagrangian (29) is
called the restricted Yang-Mills theory and we call c

the electric potential and h the magnetic potential. Indeed, h agrees with the Dirac magnetic potential, see
section 6.10 of [19]. Consequently, the SU (2) Yang-Mills
theory looks like the Abelian gauge theory (29). Notice
that even at this stage the original non-Abelian gauge
symmetry is not broken. In fact, f is SU (2) invariant. The restricted Yang-Mills theory obtained from the
original SU (2) Yang-Mills theory has the magnetic part
besides the electric part for the usual non-compact U (1)
gauge theory, which is the continuum counterpart to the
compact U (1) gauge theory on the lattice which involves
the magnetic monopoles leading to confinement in the
strong coupling region [22, 23]. It is known [20, 21] that
the compact U (1) gauge theory on the lattice has two
phases: confinement phase due to magnetic monopoles
in the strong coupling region [22, 23] which is separated
from the Coulomb phase in the weak coupling region
[24, 25] by a critical coupling.
The magnetic part involves the magneticmonopole
current which is defined in a gauge-invariant way:
k (x) = f (x),

(30)

where denotes the Hodge dual, e.g., for D = 4,

the dual tensor f of f is defined by f (x) :=
1
f (x). The magnetic current is not identically
2
zero, since the Bianchi identity valid for the electric potential c is violated by the magnetic potential h . The
contribution of the gauge-invariant magnetic monopole
to the Wilson loop average can be detected using the
non-Abelian Stokes theorem for the Wilson loop operator, see [26, 27] and section 6 of [19].
In the low-energy E MW or the long-distance
1
r MW
region, the massive component W (x) become

negligible and the restricted field (G or (x),

c (x))
become dominant in this region. This is equal to a
phenomenon called the Abelian dominance [28, 29] in
quark confinement. We have shown that the Abelian
dominance in quark confinement of the Yang-Mills theory is understood as a consequence of the Higgs mechanism defined in a gauge-invariant way for the equivalent
Yang-Mills-Higgs model. The Abelian dominance was
confirmed for the string tension [30] and for the propagator [31, 32] for the SU (2) Yang-Mills theory on the lattice
in the Maximal Abelian gauge [33], and later reconfirmed
based on the gauge-invariant formulation on the lattice
for the string tension [34] and the full propagator [35].
The Yang-Mills-Higgs model includes the parameters
specifying the potential besides the gauge coupling. They
are arbitrary and hence the mass gap of the theory is
not uniquely determined. In sharp contrast to the YangMills-Higgs model, the mass gap the Yang-Mills theory
should be generated in a dynamical way without breaking gauge invariance, and it is determined without free
parameters to be adjusted.
In the Yang-Mills theory, indeed, the mass MW
can be generated in a dynamical way, e.g., by a
gauge-invariant vacuum condensation hW W i so that
2
MW
hW W i, due to the quartic self-interactions

5
14 (ig[W (x), W (x)])2 among W (x) field, in sharp contrast to the ordinary Yang-Mills-Higgs model. The analytical calculation for such a condensate was done in [36].
Moreover, the mass MW has been measured by the numerical simulations on the lattice in [35] (see also section
9.4 of [19]) as

(31)
MW 2.69 phys 1.19GeV,
where phys is the string tension of the linear potential
in the quark-antiquark potential.
The mass MW is used to show the existence of
confinement-deconfinement phase transition at a finite
critical temperature Tc , separating confinement phase
with vanishing Polyakov loop average at low temperature
and deconfinement phase with non-vanishing Polyakov
loop average at high temperature [37]. The critical temperature Tc is obtained from the calculated ratio Tc /MW
for a given value of MW , which gives a reasonable estimate.
Notice that we cannot introduce the ordinary mass
term for the V field, since it breaks the original gauge
invariance. But, another mechanism of generating mass
for the Abelian gauge field G := c + h could be available, e.g., magnetic mass for photon due to the Debye
screening by magnetic monopoles, yielding confinement
and mass gap in three-dimensional Yang-Mills-Higgs theory as shown in [38]. Moreover, the Abelian gauge field
must be confined, which is a problem of gluon confinement. In view of these, the full propagator of the Abelian
gauge field has a quite complicated form, as has been discussed in e.g., [39].
In the Yang-Mills-Higgs model, the gauge field A and
the scalar field are independent field variables. However, the Yang-Mills theory should be described by the
gauge field A alone and hence the scalar field must
be supplied as a composite field of the gauge field due to
the strong interactions. In other words, the scalar field
should be given as a (complicated) functional of the
gauge field. This is achieved by imposing the constraint
which we call the reduction condition [40, 41], see also
section 4 of [19]. We choose e.g.,

(x) := [(x),
D [A ]D [A ](x)]
= 0.

(32)

This condition is gauge covariant,

(x) U (x)(x)U 1 (x),

(33)

which is easily shown from the gauge transformation of

the scalar field and the Yang-Mills field. Therefore, Eq.
(29) is compatible with the required gauge transformation of both the scalar field and the Yang-Mills field.
The reduction condition plays the role of eliminating
the extra degrees of freedom introduced by the scalar
field to be compared with the Yang-Mills theory [19].
The reduction condition represents as many conditions as
the independent degrees of freedom of the radially fixed
scalar field (x), since

(x) (x)
= 0.

(34)

Therefore, imposing the condition (29) exactly eliminates

extra degrees of freedom introduced by the radially fixed
scalar field (3), see [19].
Fortunately, the reduction condition is automatically
satisfied in the level of classical and quantum field equation for : We introduce a Lagrange multiplier field to
incorporate the constraint (4) into the Lagrangian:

(35)
LYMH
= LYMH + (x) (x) (x) v 2 .
Then the field equations are obtained as

SYMH
=D [A ]F (x) ig[(x), D [A ](x)] = 0,
A (x)

SYMH
=(x) (x) v 2 = 0,
(x)

SYMH
= D [A ]D [A ](x) 2(x)V ((x) (x))
(x)
+ 2(x)(x) = 0.
(36)

Taking the commutator of the field equation (36) for the

scalar field with , we find that the reduction condition
(32) is automatically satisfied, irrespective of the choice
of the potential function V ( ). Notice that the field
equation for the gauge field A is not needed for this
argument, which allows any field configuration for A .
The quantum version of the reduction condition
h0|[(x), D [A ]D [A ](x)]|0iYMH = 0,

(37)

follows from the integration by parts in the path integral

using antisymmetry of the structure constant f ABC :
Z
Z

{f ABC B (x)eiSYMH [A ,,] }

0 DDA
D C
(x)
SYMH
=ih0|f ABC B (x) C
|0iYMH .
(x)
=ih0|f ABC B (x)(D [A ]D [A ])C (x)|0iYMH . (38)
Notice that the equivalence between the Yang-MillsHiggs model and the Yang-Mills theory is shown only
when the scalar field is radially fixed. If we include the
radial degree of freedom for the scalar field, the equivalence is lost. Indeed, the radial degree of freedom for
the scalar field corresponds to the Higgs particle with a
non-zero mass.
V.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

In this paper we have given a gauge-independent description for the Higgs mechanism by which a gauge boson acquires the mass in a manifestly gauge-invariant
way. We have written the resulting massive gauge modes
W explicitly in the operator level. Therefore, we can
define the Higgs mechanism without assuming spontaneous breakdown of gauge symmetry signaled by a nonvanishing vacuum expectation value of the scalar field.

6
In this way, we can understood the mass generation of
gauge bosons in the gauge-invariant way without breaking the original gauge symmetry. The spontaneous symmetry breaking is sufficient but not necessary for the
Higgs mechanism to work.
The novel description of the Higgs mechanism enables us to discuss the confinement-Higgs complementarity from a new perspective. Our result shows that the
SU (2) Yang-Mills theory in the gapped or massive phase
is equivalent to the Yang-Mills-Higgs theory with a radially fixed adjoint scalar field in the Higgs phase which is
conventionally considered to be associated to the spontaneous symmetry breaking G = SU (2) H = U (1). The
gapped or massive phase is regarded as the confinement
phase, which has been confirmed on a lattice by numerical simulations for the reformulated Yang-Mills theory.
Moreover, we have discussed the implications of the
gauge-invariant Higgs mechanism for quark confinement.

We have shown that the Abelian dominance in quark

confinement of the SU (2) Yang-Mills theory is understood as a consequence of the gauge-invariant Higgs
phenomenon for the equivalent SU (2) Yang-Mills-Higgs
model.
The case of larger gauge groups SU (N ) (N 3) will
be treated in a subsequent paper. In particular, some
interesting cases SU (3) U (1) U (1), SU (3) U (2),
and SU (2) U (1) U (1) will be discussed in detail.

[1] C.N. Yang and R.L. Mills, Phys. Rev. 96, 191(1954).
[2] P.W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12, 132(1964).
P.W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508(1964).
[3] F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321(1964).
[4] G.S. Guralnik, C.R. Hagen, and T.W.B. Kibble, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 13, 585 (1964).
[5] Y.Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.112,
345(1961).
[6] J. Goldstone, Nuovo Cimento 19, 154164 (1961).
J. Goldstone, A. Salam and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 127,
965(1962).
[7] K. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D10, 2445(1974).
[8] S. Elitzur, Phys. Rev. D12, 3978(1975).
G. F. De Angelis, D. de Falco, and F. Guerra, Phys.Rev.
D17, 1624(1978).
[9] T. Kennedy and C. King, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 776(1985).
Commun. Math. Phys. 104, 327(1986).
[10] C. Borgs and F. Nill, Commun. Math. Phys. 104,
349(1986). Phys. Lett. B171, 289(1986). Nucl. Phys.
B270, 92(1986).
[11] J. Fr
ohlich, G. Morchio, and F. Strocchi, Phys. Lett.
B97, 249(1980). Nucl. Phys. B190, 553(1981).
[12] J. Greensite, S. Olejnik, and D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev.
D69, 074506 (2004). e-Print: hep-lat/0401003.
[13] W. Caudy and J. Greensite, Phys. Rev. D78, 025018
(2008). e-Print: arXiv:0712.0999 [hep-lat].
[14] T. Kugo, Prog. Theor. Phys. 66, 2249(1981).
[15] K. Osterwalder and E. Seiler, Ann. Phys. 110, 440(1978).
E. Seiler, Lect. Notes Phys. 159, 1(1982).
[16] E. Fradkin and S. Shenker, Phys. Rev. D19, 3682(1979).
[17] G. t Hooft, Which Topological Features of a Gauge Theory Can Be Responsible for Permanent Confinement?
Lecture given at Cargese Summer Inst.1979, NATO
Sci.Ser.B 59, 17 (1980).
[18] G. t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B79, 276(1974).
A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20, 194(1974).
[19] K.-I. Kondo, S. Kato, A. Shibata and T. Shinohara, Phys.
Rept. 579, 1(2015). arXiv:1409.1599 [hep-th].
[20] M. Creutz, L. Jacob, C. Rebbi, Phys. Rept. 95, 201282
(1983).

[21] R.C. Brower, D.A. Kessler, T. Schalk, H. Levine, and M.

Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. D25, 3319(1982).
[22] T. Banks, R. Myerson, and J.B. Kogut, Nucl. Phys.
B129, 493(1977).
[23] A.M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B59, 82(1975).
[24] A.H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D21, 2291 (1980).
[25] J. Fr
ohlich and T. Spencer, Commun. Math. Phys. 83,
411454 (1982).
[26] R. Matsudo and K.-I. Kondo, Phys.Rev. D92, 125038
(2015). arXiv:1509.04891 [hep-th]
[27] K.-I. Kondo, Phys. Rev. D 77, 085029 (2008).
arXiv:0801.1274 [hep-th]
[28] G. t Hooft, Nucl.Phys. B190 [FS3], 455478 (1981).
[29] Z.F. Ezawa and A. Iwazaki, Phys. Rev. D25, 26812689
(1982).
[30] T. Suzuki and I. Yotsuyanagi, Phys. Rev. D42, 4257
4260 (1990).
[31] K. Amemiya and H. Suganuma, Phys. Rev. D60, 114509
(1999). [hep-lat/9811035]
[32] V.G. Bornyakov, M.N. Chernodub, F.V. Gubarev, S.M.
Morozov and M.I. Polikarpov, Phys. Lett. B559, 214222
(2003). [hep-lat/0302002]
[33] A. Kronfeld, M. Laursen, G. Schierholz and U.-J. Wiese,
Phys. Lett. B198, 516520 (1987).
[34] S. Kato, K.-I. Kondo, and A. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D91,
034506 (2015).arXiv:1407.2808 [hep-lat]
[35] A. Shibata, S. Kato, K.-I. Kondo, T. Murakami, T. Shinohara and S. Ito, Phys. Lett. B653, 101108 (2007).
arXiv:0706.2529 [hep-lat]
[36] K.-I. Kondo, Phys. Rev. D74, 125003 (2006).
[hep-th/0609166]
[37] K.-I. Kondo, e-Print: arXiv:1508.02656 [hep-th].
[38] A.M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B120, 429(1977).
[39] K.-I. Kondo, Phys. Rev. D84, 061702 (2011).
arXiv:1103.3829 [hep-th]
[40] K.-I. Kondo, T. Murakami and T. Shinohara, Prog.
Theor. Phys. 115, 201216 (2006). [hep-th/0504107]
[41] K.-I. Kondo, T. Murakami and T. Shinohara, Eur. Phys.
J. C42, 475481 (2005). [hep-th/0504198]

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific

Research (C) No.15K05042 from the Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science (JSPS).