Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Direct Monte Carlo Computation of the 't~Hooft Partition Function

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read By counting 't Hooft flux sectors in a direct Monte Carlo simulation of SU(2)/Z2 Yang-Mills, this paper measures the 't Hooft partition function and finds the light-flux pattern of ordinary confinement, with the Witten effect predicting…

desk verdict First direct Monte Carlo computation of the full 't Hooft partition function; a clean demonstration, but the central light/heavy pattern is exactly what a biased sampler would produce, and the paper lacks an independent validation of the B-histogram. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07042 v3 pith:ZLPFFH2V submitted 2025-01-13 hep-lat

Okuto Morikawa , Hiroshi Suzuki This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lat MSC 81-0881T1381T25 PACS 11.15.Ha
keywords 'tHooftpartitionfunctionlatticegaugetheory1-formsymmetrymonopolecondensateobliqueconfinementdyonWitteneffecthybridMonteCarlo
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that the 't Hooft partition function of SU(2) pure Yang-Mills theory can be measured directly on the lattice by simulating the SU(2)/Z2 gauge theory and simply counting how many Monte Carlo configurations carry each 't Hooft flux $B$. Because the Boltzmann weight is real-positive at $\theta=0$, the histogram of $B$ is the ratio $Z[B]/Z[0]$. The numerical results at $\beta=2.6$ on a $20^4$ lattice split the flux sectors cleanly into light and heavy: every flux with a non-zero electric component is heavy, while all purely magnetic fluxes are light. This is the pattern expected in the ordinary confining phase with a monopole condensate. Applying the Witten effect shifts the electric fluxes and yields the light-flux pattern at $\theta=2\pi$ that the authors identify with oblique confinement and a dyon condensate.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 't Hooft partition function $Z_{\mathrm{tH}}[E;B]=(1/N^3)\sum_{B_{14},B_{24},B_{34}}\exp((2\pi i/N)\sum_i E_i B_{i4})Z[B]$, the Fourier transform of the partition function $Z[B]$ with fixed magnetic 't Hooft flux $B$; its large-volume light/heavy pattern diagnoses the quantum phase. The carrying computational mechanism is the halfway hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm, which updates the SU(2)/Z2 link variables together with the 't Hooft flux $B$ as a dynamical variable, so each generated configuration carries a definite $B$ and the count of configurations with a given $B$ directly gives $Z[B]$. The Witten effect, the shift of electric charge by magnetic flux under $\theta\to\theta+2\pi$, connects the measured $\theta=0$ partition function to the predicted $\theta=2\pi$ pattern, while averaging $Z[B]$ over Euclidean $90^\circ$ rotations reduces the statistical error and makes the duality relation hold automatically.

What would settle it

Run the same flux-counting procedure on a substantially larger lattice and at a different $\beta$, and cross-check $Z[B]/Z[0]$ against an independent method such as reweighting from ordinary SU(2) configurations; if the ratios disagree beyond the jackknife errors, or if the Monte Carlo history of $B$ shows transitions between flux sectors too rarely to visit all sectors within many autocorrelation times, the histogram-based light/heavy pattern is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central numerical discovery is that, at vanishing $\theta$-angle, the large-volume 't Hooft partition function $Z_{\mathrm{tH}}[E;B]$ of SU(2) pure Yang-Mills has support only on flux sectors with zero electric flux, $E_i=0$, and all magnetic fluxes are light. The measured $Z[B]$ also satisfies the Euclidean $90^\circ$ rotation duality equation to good accuracy, and the result is consistent with the real semi-positivity of $Z_{\mathrm{tH}}$. Under the Witten effect, $Z_{\mathrm{tH},\theta+2\pi}[E;B]=Z_{\mathrm{tH},\theta}[E_1+B_{23},E_2+B_{31},E_3+B_{12};B]$, the same data predict that at $\theta=2\pi$ the light fluxes are exactly those with $E_1+B_{23}=E_2+B_{31}=E_3+B_{12}=0\bmod 2$, the oblique-confinement pattern of a dyon condensate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the halfway hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm correctly and ergodically samples the joint distribution of the SU(2)/Z2 link variables and the 't Hooft flux $B$ with weight $e^{-S}$, so that the fraction of configurations holding a given $B$ equals $Z[B]/Z_{\mathrm{total}}$; if the update has an acceptance or ergodicity bias, every partition-function value computed by counting is shifted and the light/heavy classification could be an artifact of the algorithm rather than of the theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $\theta=0$, the SU(2) pure Yang-Mills vacuum is diagnosed as ordinary confinement with a monopole condensate: in the large-volume limit the 't Hooft partition function vanishes on all electrically charged flux sectors.
  • The measured light-heavy pattern is consistent with the theoretical bound that for fixed $(E_3,B_{12})$ only $0$ or $N^2=4$ of the 16 flux combinations are light, supplying a consistency check of the direct-counting approach.
  • At $\theta=2\pi$, the Witten-effect image of the same data exhibits the oblique-confinement pattern, implying a dyon condensate rather than a pure monopole condensate.
  • Direct flux counting avoids the overlap problem of the traditional reweighting computation of $Z[B]/Z[0]$, making the method applicable whenever the functional-integral integrand is real-positive.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inferential extension: the same flux-counting data could be reweighted to intermediate $\theta$ values with small complex phases, revealing whether the light-flux pattern at $\theta=2\pi$ emerges continuously or through a sharp transition; the paper only evaluates the endpoints $\theta=0$ and $\theta=2\pi$.
  • Inferential extension: the rate at which $Z_{\mathrm{tH}}[E;B]/Z_{\mathrm{tH}}[0;0]$ approaches 0 or 1 encodes the dual string tension, so higher statistics and larger volumes could extract that tension from the same method, which the authors note their current data cannot determine.
  • Inferential extension: a natural next target is SU(3), where the $\mathbb{Z}_3$ structure and the fractional topological charge $Q=-B\wedge B/(8N)$ produce a richer light-flux pattern; the flux-counting method should transfer directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a direct Monte Carlo computation of the 't Hooft partition function ZtH[E;B] of SU(2) pure Yang-Mills theory by simulating the SU(2)/Z2 lattice theory with the halfway HMC algorithm, which treats the 't Hooft flux B as a dynamical variable. The partition function Z[B] is obtained by counting configurations of each flux sector, and ZtH[E;B] is then computed via the Fourier transform in Eq. (1.1). At β=2.6, L=20, with 2590 configurations, the authors find that ZtH[E;B] is nonzero only for E=0 and consistent with zero for E≠0, which they identify as the light-flux pattern of ordinary confinement with monopole condensation. Rotation averaging is used to reduce statistical errors and to enforce the duality equation (1.2). Applying the Witten effect (2.7) leads to a predicted oblique-confining pattern at θ=2π.

Significance. If the halfway HMC correctly samples the joint distribution of link variables and 't Hooft flux, the paper provides the first direct numerical determination of the full 't Hooft partition function, a quantity of long-standing interest in the context of 't Hooft's phase classification and generalized symmetries. The methodology is in principle general and the authors provide open-source code, jackknife error estimates, and a nontrivial consistency check with the duality equation. The significance, however, is conditional: the central observable is the marginal distribution of B, and the paper does not independently validate that this marginal equals Z[B]/Z[0].

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.4) and Figs. 1–2] The counting prescription in Eq. (2.4) is valid only if the halfway HMC of Ref. [17] samples the joint distribution (U,B) with weight e^{-S} and is ergodic over the 64 flux sectors. The manuscript gives no in-text validation of this marginal distribution. This is critical because a uniform B distribution would produce exactly the observed pattern ZtH[E;B] ∝ δ_{E,0}: the Fourier transform in Eq. (1.1) of a constant Z[B] is a delta function at E=0. Thus the agreement with the ordinary-confinement expectation and the duality check in Eq. (1.2) cannot by themselves rule out a sampler artifact, since a rotationally invariant, B-independent distribution also satisfies Eq. (1.2). Please add a direct validation of the B-marginal, for example a comparison with the reweighting approach of Refs. [15,16] on the same lattice, or quantitative autocorrelation and acceptance diagnostics for the B sectors from Ref. [17], or a test on a system with a known exact Z[B].
  2. [Sec. 2 (after Fig. 2) and Sec. 3] The light/heavy classification is an asymptotic large-volume statement [3,4], but the numerical support is a single lattice size and coupling (L=20, β=2.6, 2590 configurations). The sentence 'No attempt to find the continuum limit is made because the behavior is almost the same for all lattice parameters considered in Ref. [17]' shifts a load-bearing assertion to a companion paper without demonstrating it in this manuscript. Please include at least one additional volume (or bare coupling) to show that the E=0-only pattern is stable and not a finite-size accident, or explicitly reframe the central conclusion as a proof-of-principle at fixed volume.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.4)] The Kronecker delta notation δ_{B,(0,0,0,1,1,1)} is introduced without an explicit definition; please define it as a product of six single-component deltas.
  2. [Sec. 3] There is a typo: 'sting tension' should read 'string tension'.
  3. [Sec. 2, Figs. 1–2] The figures show the classification visually, but the 'heavy' fluxes appear to include small negative values. A table of ZtH values with jackknife errors, or a logarithmic plot, would make the light/heavy separation quantitative and easier to assess.
  4. [Footnote 2] The claim that the method is 'free from the overlap problem' is an expectation, not demonstrated; please soften the wording or provide evidence.
  5. [Sec. 2, Fig. 2] Please report the raw Z[B]/Z[0] values with errors; this would help the reader judge how close the distribution is to uniformity and would partly address the validation concern raised above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 't Hooft partition function is obtained by direct Monte Carlo counting, and the light/heavy classification is compared with, not fitted to, independent theoretical expectations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a direct numerical measurement, not a self-referential reduction. The paper defines ZtH[E;B] as the Fourier transform of Z[B] (Eq. 1.1) and computes Z[B] by Monte Carlo counting of configurations with definite 't Hooft flux B in the SU(2)/Z2 theory, using the estimator in Eq. (2.4). This is an operational application of the definition, not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction: the histogram of B is the measured output, and the Fourier transform is a fixed linear operation. The resulting light/heavy pattern is then compared with the theoretical expectation from ordinary confinement (Refs. [3,4]) and with the duality equation (1.2) as a consistency check. Neither the expectation nor the duality equation is used to construct the measured ZtH; they are benchmarks. The theta=2pi inference in Fig. 3 is explicitly obtained by applying the Witten effect relation (2.7) to the theta=0 data, and the paper labels it as an inference rather than an independent measurement. The only potential concern is the reliance on the authors' prior halfway-HMC algorithm (Ref. [17]) for ergodic sampling over the 64 flux sectors; if that sampler were biased, the central result could be an artifact. That is a correctness/validity risk, not a circularity: the algorithm is a tool cited from a separate paper, and there is no indication that the correctness of Ref. [17] depends on the present paper's conclusions. No equation in this paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is a numerical measurement, not a derivation, so there are no fitted free parameters; beta=2.6 and L=20 are chosen simulation parameters. The analysis assumes standard lattice gauge theory frameworks plus three tool-specific constructions: the flux action, the halfway HMC sampler, and the lattice theta-term. None of these is invented for this paper, but the last two come from the authors' own preceding work, which is the main reason to keep the non-circularity score imperfect.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The lattice action (2.1) with twisted plaquette variables correctly represents the SU(N)/Z_N Yang-Mills path integral on T^4 with 't Hooft flux B.
    Invoked at Eq. (2.1) via Refs. [30-34]; if the lattice action does not reproduce the correct flux sectors, the histogram counts are not Z[B]/Z_total.
  • domain assumption The halfway HMC algorithm of Ref. [17] samples the joint (U,B) configuration space ergodically with weight e^{-S}.
    The counting estimator in Section 2 requires unbiased sampling; this is the main numerical precondition, and its details are in a companion paper by the same group.
  • domain assumption For theta=0 the Boltzmann weight is real-positive, so the counting of configurations with a given B is a valid Monte Carlo estimator.
    Positivity is stated in the Introduction and Section 2 as the condition under which the method applies.
  • domain assumption The Witten effect relation (2.7), resting on the fractional topological charge (2.6), is valid for the lattice theory with the geometric theta-term of Ref. [38].
    Used to produce Fig. 3 and the oblique confinement inference; the lattice topological charge construction is from the authors' prior work.
  • standard math On a symmetric torus with equal radii, Z[B] is invariant under Euclidean 90 degree rotations, giving the duality equation (1.2).
    Used for the consistency check and for averaging Z[B] over rotation orbits in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption The large-volume classification of 't Hooft partition function values into light and heavy fluxes diagnoses the quantum phase.
    This is the theoretical framework of Refs. [3,4,8] used to interpret the measured pattern as ordinary confinement or oblique confinement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct Monte Carlo Computation of the 't~Hooft Partition Function." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZLPFFH2V

@misc{pith2026250107042,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct Monte Carlo Computation of the 't~Hooft Partition Function},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZLPFFH2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07042}
}
abstract

The 't~Hooft partition function~$\mathcal{Z}_{\text{tH}}[E;B]$ of an $SU(N)$ gauge theory with the $\mathbb{Z}_N$ 1-form symmetry is defined as the Fourier transform of the partition function~$\mathcal{Z}[B]$ with respect to the spatial-temporal components of the 't~Hooft flux~$B$. Its large volume behavior detects the quantum phase of the system. When the integrand of the functional integral is real-positive, the latter partition function~$\mathcal{Z}[B]$ can be numerically computed by a Monte Carlo simulation of the $SU(N)/\mathbb{Z}_N$ gauge theory, just by counting the number of configurations of a specific 't~Hooft flux~$B$. We carry out this program for the $SU(2)$ pure Yang--Mills theory with the vanishing $\theta$-angle by employing a newly-developed hybrid Monte Carlo (HMC) algorithm (the halfway HMC) for the $SU(N)/\mathbb{Z}_N$ gauge theory. The numerical result clearly shows that all non-electric fluxes are ``light'' as expected in the ordinary confining phase with the monopole condensate. Invoking the Witten effect on~$\mathcal{Z}_{\text{tH}}[E;B]$, this also indicates the oblique confinement at~$\theta=2\pi$ with the dyon condensate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07042 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The ’t Hooft partition function ZtH[E; B] for all possible combinations of the ’t Hooft fluxes, Ei and Bij . β = 2.6 and L = 20. The statistical errors are estimated by the jackknife method. No average over Euclidean 90◦ rotations is taken. The filled symbols represent ZtH[E; B] computed from Z[B] by Eq. (1.1) and the unfilled symbols represent the right￾hand side of the duality equation (1.2). We observe that the d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The ’t Hooft partition function ZtH[E; B] for all possible combinations of ’t Hooft fluxes, Ei and Bij . β = 2.6 and L = 20. The errors are estimated by the jackknife method. The average of Z[B] over Euclidean 90◦ rotations is made. Our result thus illustrates that a direct numerical computation of the ’t Hooft partition function can become a useful approach to study the quantum phase of SU(N) gauge theories with th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The ’t Hooft partition function with θ = 2π, ZtH,θ=2π[E; B] for all possible combina￾tions of ’t Hooft fluxes, Ei and Bij . β = 2.6 and L = 20. This plot was obtained by simply applying the Witten effect (2.7) with θ = 0 to data in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Confinement as Decoding: Higher Form Codes and Lattice Yang-Mills Theory

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Decoding a higher-form quantum code with Wilson-line noise is the same computation as comparing center-twisted Yang-Mills partition functions; the paper works out this dictionary and its strong-coupling consequences.

  2. Numerical simulation of fractional topological charge in $SU(N)$ gauge theory coupled with $\mathbb{Z}_N$ 2-form gauge fields

    hep-lat 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Numerical lattice simulation confirms that Z_2 2-form gauge-field coupling produces fractional (half-integer) topological charge in SU(2) gauge theory and reduces topological autocorrelation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [17]

    M. Abe, O. Morikawa and H. Suzuki, PTEP 2025, no.6, 063B03 (2025) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaf075 [arXiv:2501.00286 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg and B. Willett, JHEP 02, 172 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)172 [arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [2]

    Donagi and E

    R. Donagi and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 460, 299-334 (1996) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00609-5 [arXiv:hep- th/9510101 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 1996

  4. [3]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 153, 141-160 (1979) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90595-9

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90595-9 1979

  5. [4]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Scripta 24, 841-846 (1981) doi:10.1088/0031-8949/24/5/007 available from https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/4608

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/24/5/007 1981

  6. [5]

    E. T. Tomboulis and L. G. Yaffe, Commun. Math. Phys. 100, 313 (1985) doi:10.1007/BF01206134

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01206134 1985

  7. [6]

    Kitano, T

    R. Kitano, T. Suyama and N. Yamada, JHEP 09, 137 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2017)137 [arXiv:1709.04225 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    Tanizaki and M

    Y. Tanizaki and M. ¨Unsal, PTEP 2022, no.4, 04A108 (2022) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac042 [arXiv:2201.06166 [hep-th]]. 10

    arXiv 2022

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Nguyen, Y

    M. Nguyen, Y. Tanizaki and M. ¨Unsal, JHEP 08, 013 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)013 [arXiv:2306.02485 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, Z. Komargodski and N. Seiberg, JHEP 05, 091 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)091 [arXiv:1703.00501 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Yamazaki and K

    M. Yamazaki and K. Yonekura, JHEP 07, 088 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2017)088 [arXiv:1704.05852 [hep- th]]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Hayashi, Y

    Y. Hayashi, Y. Tanizaki and H. Watanabe, JHEP 10, 146 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)146 [arXiv:2307.13954 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Hayashi and Y

    Y. Hayashi and Y. Tanizaki, JHEP 08, 001 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)001 [arXiv:2402.04320 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Hayashi and Y

    Y. Hayashi and Y. Tanizaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, no.17, 171902 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.171902 [arXiv:2405.12402 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Hayashi, T

    Y. Hayashi, T. Misumi and Y. Tanizaki, JHEP 05, 194 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)194 [arXiv:2410.21392 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [15]

    T. G. Kov´ acs and E. T. Tomboulis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 704-707 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.704 [arXiv:hep-lat/0002004 [hep-lat]]

    2000 arXiv

  9. [16]

    de Forcrand and L

    P. de Forcrand and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rev. D 66, 011504 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.011504 [arXiv:hep-lat/0107018 [hep-lat]]

    2002 arXiv

  10. [18]

    I. G. Halliday and A. Schwimmer, Phys. Lett. B 101, 327 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90055-1

    1981 doi

  11. [19]

    Creutz and K

    M. Creutz and K. J. M. Moriarty, Nucl. Phys. B 210, 50-58 (1982) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90248-6

    1982 doi

  12. [20]

    R. G. Edwards, U. M. Heller and R. Narayanan, Phys. Lett. B 438, 96-98 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370- 2693(98)00951-4 [arXiv:hep-lat/9806011 [hep-lat]]

    1998 arXiv

  13. [21]

    de Forcrand and O

    P. de Forcrand and O. Jahn, Nucl. Phys. B 651, 125-142 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)01123-9 [arXiv:hep- lat/0211004 [hep-lat]]

    2003

  14. [22]

    I. G. Halliday and A. Schwimmer, Phys. Lett. B 102, 337-340 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90630-4

    1981 doi

  15. [23]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 138, 1-25 (1978) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(78)90153-0

    1978 doi

  16. [24]

    Aharony, N

    O. Aharony, N. Seiberg and Y. Tachikawa, JHEP 08, 115 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2013)115 [arXiv:1305.0318 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hoelbling, C

    C. Hoelbling, C. Rebbi and V. A. Rubakov, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 73, 527-529 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0920- 5632(99)85126-3 [arXiv:hep-lat/9809113 [hep-lat]]

    1999 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hoelbling, C

    C. Hoelbling, C. Rebbi and V. A. Rubakov, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 83, 485-487 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0920- 5632(00)91713-4 [arXiv:hep-lat/9909023 [hep-lat]]

    2000 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hoelbling, C

    C. Hoelbling, C. Rebbi and V. A. Rubakov, Phys. Rev. D 63, 034506 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.034506 [arXiv:hep-lat/0003010 [hep-lat]]

    2001 arXiv

  20. [28]

    de Forcrand, M

    P. de Forcrand, M. D’Elia and M. Pepe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1438 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1438 [arXiv:hep-lat/0007034 [hep-lat]]

    2001 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Del Debbio, A

    L. Del Debbio, A. Di Giacomo and B. Lucini, Phys. Lett. B 500, 326-329 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370- 2693(01)00091-0 [arXiv:hep-lat/0011048 [hep-lat]]

    2001 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mack and V

    G. Mack and V. B. Petkova, Annals Phys. 125, 117 (1980) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(80)90121-9

    1980 doi

  23. [31]

    Ukawa, P

    A. Ukawa, P. Windey and A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 21, 1013 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.1013

    1980 doi

  24. [32]

    Srednicki and L

    M. Srednicki and L. Susskind, Nucl. Phys. B 179, 239-252 (1981) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90237-6

    1981 doi

  25. [33]

    Seiler, Lect

    E. Seiler, Lect. Notes Phys. 159, 1-192 (1982)

    1982

  26. [34]

    Kapustin and N

    A. Kapustin and N. Seiberg, JHEP 04, 001 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)001 [arXiv:1401.0740 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    JuliaQCD: Portable lattice QCD package in Julia language,

    Y. Nagai and A. Tomiya, “JuliaQCD: Portable lattice QCD package in Julia language,” [arXiv:2409.03030 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    ’t Hooft, Commun

    G. ’t Hooft, Commun. Math. Phys. 81, 267-275 (1981) doi:10.1007/BF01208900

    1981 doi

  29. [37]

    van Baal, Commun

    P. van Baal, Commun. Math. Phys. 85, 529 (1982) doi:10.1007/BF01403503

    1982 doi

  30. [38]

    M. Abe, O. Morikawa, S. Onoda, H. Suzuki and Y. Tanizaki, JHEP 08, 118 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)118 [arXiv:2303.10977 [hep-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    L¨ uscher, Commun

    M. L¨ uscher, Commun. Math. Phys. 85, 39 (1982) doi:10.1007/BF02029132

    1982 doi

  32. [40]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 86, 283-287 (1979) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90838-4

    1979 doi

  33. [41]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 190, 455-478 (1981) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90442-9 11

    1981 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.