A relativistic continuous matrix product state study of field theories with defects

Antoine Tilloy; Edoardo Lauria; Karan Tiwana

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 74 references

A relativistic continuous matrix product state study of field theories with defects

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 Magnetic line-defect observables are computable in the continuum at the same cost as bulk correlators.

desk verdict A careful and honest methods paper extending RCMPS to magnetic line defects; the core derivations look right and weak-coupling checks pass, but strong-coupling results lack independent benchmarks and the tail-accuracy caveat is real. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09797 v2 pith:GPWTLPBQ submitted 2025-01-16 hep-th cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Karan Tiwana , Edoardo Lauria , Antoine Tilloy This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thcond-mat.str-elquant-ph

keywords relativisticcontinuousmatrixproductstatesRCMPSlinedefectsmagneticphi^4theoryvariationalmethodsinquantumfieldnon-perturbativeconformalscaling

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 proposes a numerical method for expectation values in 1+1-dimensional massive quantum field theories with line defects, using relativistic continuous matrix product states (RCMPS). The key move is to rotate the Euclidean quantization direction so that time runs perpendicular to the defect; a magnetic line defect then becomes an extended operator inserted in the translation-invariant bulk vacuum, which is approximated by a homogeneous RCMPS. The paper shows that the defect expectation value and correlation functions of local operators in the defect's presence reduce to solutions of the same kind of matrix ordinary differential equations used for no-defect observables, with the same asymptotic $D^3$ cost. It demonstrates the method on $\phi^4$ theory with a magnetic line defect across perturbative, strong-coupling, critical, and symmetry-broken regimes. If correct, this gives a non-perturbative, cutoff-free route to a class of impurity and defect problems that are difficult for both perturbation theory and lattice methods.

What carries the argument

The central object is the relativistic continuous matrix product state, a translation-invariant variational ansatz built on the free Fock vacuum with two $D\times D$ matrices $Q,R$, defined by the path-ordered exponential $|Q,R\rangle = \operatorname{tr}\{P\exp[\int dx\,(Q\otimes 1 + R\otimes \hat a^\dagger(x))]\}|0\rangle$. What carries the argument is the rotation of the quantization axis: after Euclidean rotation the defect becomes the extended operator $D_L = e^{-\mu\int\hat\phi}$, and its normal-ordered form has a source $G(x)=\int_{-L}^{0}dy\,J(x-y)$ built from the field's convolution kernel $J$. All defect observables are then values of the RCMPS generating functional $Z_{j',j}$, computed by integrating the superoperator ODE $d\rho/dx = \mathcal{L}\cdot\rho - \mu G(x)(R\rho+\rho R^\dagger) + \frac{\mu^2}{2}G^2\rho$ in the left-canonical gauge where $\mathcal{L}\cdot\rho = Q\rho+\rho Q^\dagger + R\rho R^\dagger$ is Lindblad-form and costs $D^3$ per step. The extended operator therefore costs no more asymptotically than a local insertion.

What would settle it

Compute the D-converged RCMPS defect expectation value $L^{-1}\log\langle D_L\rangle$ in the strongly coupled symmetric phase ($g=2$, $\mu=4$) for $L$ up to about 10 and compare it with an independent high-precision lattice Monte Carlo result in the combined limit of small lattice spacing and large volume; if the two disagree beyond the extrapolation error, the tail-weighting assumption fails, while agreement would support the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a Euclidean line defect in a gapped 1+1-dimensional scalar QFT can be studied without ever discretizing space-time. Because the bulk theory is Euclidean invariant, one may quantize with imaginary time perpendicular to the defect; the defect $D_L = e^{-\mu\int_0^{-L}\hat\phi}$ then acts as an extended operator inserted in the undeformed vacuum. Replacing that vacuum by an RCMPS ground state obtained from the bulk Hamiltonian, the paper derives explicit linear matrix ODEs, equations (3.19) and (3.22), whose solutions give $\langle D_L\rangle$ and the ratio defining vertex operators in the presence of the defect. The numerical cost is the same asymptotic $D^3$ as for local correlators, with $D$ the RCMPS bond dimension, so the defect is a cheap post-processing step on an already-optimized bulk state. The paper reports convergence in $\phi^4$ theory for weak, strong, critical, and symmetry-broken couplings, including regimes where the defect pulls against the bulk order.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an RCMPS optimized to minimize the bulk energy density also represents the rare, tail field fluctuations that the magnetic defect amplifies; if the tails are wrong, defect expectation values could converge in bond dimension to a wrong value even though the bulk energy looks right.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Defect expectation values and one-point functions in the presence of a magnetic line defect can be computed directly in the continuum, without a UV lattice cutoff and with the bulk thermodynamic limit taken first, at cost $D^3$ in the bond dimension.
The same bulk RCMPS ground state works across coupling regimes; the paper demonstrates converged results for $\phi^4$ at weak coupling ($g=0.1$, matching fourth-order perturbation theory), strong coupling ($g=2$), critical coupling ($g\simeq 2.771525$), and in the symmetry-broken phase ($g=4$), including the rare-event case where the bulk magnetization opposes the defect.
Because the defect is linear in the field, the $\mu$-expansion of the diagrams is exact, but the paper shows the $g$-expansion becomes unreliable at large $\mu$ even for small $g$; RCMPS handles large $\mu$ with no change of ansatz.
All operator insertions must lie on a line aligned with the defect; non-aligned insertions are not accessible with this static method and would require a time-dependent variational principle evolution.
At the critical point, fixed-bond-dimension RCMPS introduce an effective length scale, so precision degrades at long distance; extracting universal exponents would require finite-entanglement scaling, while lattice MPS remain better suited for pure universal data.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the defect weight $e^{-\mu\int\phi}$ acts as a tail probe of the probability distribution of the spatially averaged field in the variational ground state; convergence of defect observables in $D$ could therefore serve as a sharper quality test for RCMPS ground states than bulk energy convergence alone.
Beyond the paper, the rotation trick is not tied to RCMPS in principle: any homogeneous approximate vacuum for a Euclidean-invariant bulk could be used if extended-operator insertions can be evaluated; RCMPS make it practical because the source term folds into a small matrix ODE.
Beyond the paper, the observation that $\mu$ may be taken imaginary with no change in the RCMPS formulas suggests a route to complex magnetic defects that would suffer a severe sign problem in Monte Carlo, at the price of interpreting the resulting oscillatory expectation values.
Beyond the paper, combinations of multiple aligned defects of different lengths and strengths should be computable by the same ODE machinery, since the source $G$ is additive; this could give a continuum method for defect networks or periodic arrays of impurities.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid, honest methods paper. The new content is the set of RCMPS formulas for line-defect expectation values—Eqs. (3.19), (3.22), plus the appendix derivations—and the demonstration that these extended operators cost the same D^3 as local ones. The Euclidean rotation trick is not new, but turning it into a working variational algorithm for finite-length magnetic defects in a gapped QFT is real work. The weak-coupling benchmarks against O(g^4) perturbation theory are convincing, and the authors are unusually candid about where the method struggles, especially at criticality.

The main soft spot, as the stress-test notes, is the tail problem. ⟨e^{-μ∫φ}⟩ weights rare configurations of the spatially averaged field, and the RCMPS is optimized for bulk energy density at μ=0. The paper explicitly says in Section 4.3 that the state is 'inevitably less accurate in the tails,' so this is not a hidden flaw—but it does mean the strong-coupling results in Figs. 5, 6, 9, 11 are validated only by D-convergence within the RCMPS family. That cannot detect a systematic bias. The symmetry-broken 'frustrated' case is the most dangerous, because the relevant configurations are maximally atypical. I don't think this sinks the paper, but it does mean the strong-coupling numbers are plausible rather than proven.

The critical-regime comparison is also honest but inconclusive: the scaling agreement is qualitative, and the constant C_phi is fitted from the no-defect two-point function, so the check is partly circular. Minor complaint: no code or data is shipped, which would make the results much easier to build on.

Who should read this: anyone working on tensor-network methods for continuum QFT, or on impurity/defect physics in 1+1D gapped systems. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review and ask for one external benchmark in the strong-coupling or symmetry-broken regime—lattice data or an exactly solvable limit—and for code/data. The tail concern is the right question to put to the authors.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a variational method for magnetic line defects in 1+1-dimensional scalar QFTs. The key idea is Euclidean rotation: a line defect, originally an impurity in the Hamiltonian picture, is turned into an extended operator e^{-μ∫_{-L}^0 φ} evaluated in the bulk ground state. Replacing that ground state by a homogeneous RCMPS optimized on the bulk energy density, the authors derive linear matrix ODEs for ⟨D_L⟩ and for vertex-operator insertions in the defect theory, all at O(D^3) cost. They benchmark against fourth-order perturbation theory at weak coupling, against CFT scaling predictions at the critical coupling, and present D-convergence studies at strong coupling and in the symmetry-broken phase, including a “frustrated” configuration where the bulk vacuum is opposed to the defect.

Significance. If correct, the method gives a new non-perturbative tool for line-defect problems in gapped 1+1-dimensional QFTs, complementing Monte Carlo and Hamiltonian truncation. The derivation of the defect ODEs is careful, and the weak-coupling benchmarks are quantitative. The paper is transparent about the method's limitations (aligned insertions, finite-entanglement effects at criticality, tail accuracy). A particularly clean feature is that the defect results are not fitted: the only fitted constant, C_phi, is determined from the no-defect two-point function in Appendix B and then used in the CFT comparison. The main gap is the absence of an independent non-perturbative check of the strong-coupling results, which is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

major comments (2)

[Section 4.3, Figs. 5-6 and 9-11] The strong-coupling and symmetry-broken defect results are validated only by convergence in the bond dimension D. This does not control the specific quantity being computed: as the paper itself notes in Section 4.3, the RCMPS is "inevitably less accurate in the tails, for very small probabilities that almost do not contribute to the energy density." The defect expectation value (3.19) is the Laplace transform of the probability distribution of the spatially averaged field; as μ and L grow, it is increasingly dominated by those same tails, and the "frustrated" configurations of Section 4.5 are even more atypical. D-convergence within the RCMPS family cannot exclude a systematic bias shared by all D. Please provide at least one independent non-perturbative benchmark in this regime, for example a lattice Monte Carlo computation of ⟨D_L⟩ and ⟨φ(x)⟩_defect for a representative strong-coupling parameter set (e.g., g=2, μ=4, L=6-10), or a quantitative tail diagnostic/error estimate on the Laplace transform. Without this, the central claim of strong-coupling effectiveness is not established.
[Section 4.4, Figs. 7-8] The critical-regime comparison does not support the abstract's claim that the method is demonstrated "in ... critical ... regimes". In Fig. 7 the CFT prediction is shifted by an arbitrary vertical constant, and the authors state that the expected scaling is not clearly seen even at D=64. In Fig. 8 the amplitude C_phi in the scaling formula (4.11) is obtained by a crude fit to the same RCMPS two-point function (Appendix B), so the comparison additionally inherits any IR bias of the RCMPS. Please either add a finite-entanglement scaling analysis that produces an exponent estimate with uncertainties, or explicitly restrict the conclusion to gapped regimes and rephrase the abstract accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix A.2.1, Eq. (A.15)] In Eq. (A.15) the ODE's independent variable is y, but the source terms contain ρ(x); please unify the notation to avoid confusion between x and y.
[Fig. 4] The caption of Fig. 4 is missing the symbol for the plotted quantity on the left-hand side of the equality; please define it explicitly.
[Section 4.1 and Appendix B, Eqs. (4.5), (4.7), (4.8), (B.2)] The expansions are written in terms of Feynman diagrams that are not rendered in the version I reviewed; if this is not a rendering artifact, the diagram labels need to be provided in text form because the diagrammatic values are otherwise impossible to follow.
[Section 4.4 and Appendix B] In Fig. 7 the vertical shift of the CFT line is arbitrary; please state the shift value or plot the curves with the same scale, and also describe the fit procedure for C_phi (window selection, fit function, uncertainty).
[Section 4.5, Fig. 10] The L=32 approximation to the L→∞ growth rate in Eq. (4.13) is used without a check of convergence in L; a short statement or an inset showing the L-dependence of the rate would strengthen the quantitative claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: defect observables are computed from a bulk-optimized RCMPS and checked against independent perturbation theory and BCFT scaling.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The RCMPS state is optimized on the bulk Hamiltonian density (Section 3.4, Eq. (1.5)) with no knowledge of the defect; the defect expectation value and one-point functions are then computed as post-processing of this fixed state via the ODEs (3.19) and (3.22), so no target observable is used as an input. The only fitted constant, C_phi ≈ 0.34, is obtained in Appendix B from the no-defect two-point function and used in Eq. (4.11) to compare with the BCFT scaling prediction; this is a calibration from an independent bulk observable, not a fit to the defect data, and the power-law exponent and coefficient 2^{1/8} are external predictions. Self-citations to [54-56] supply the RCMPS ansatz and optimization machinery, but the defect extension is derived in the paper (Appendix A) and validated against third-order perturbation theory (Section 4.2, Figures 3-4) and critical scaling expectations (Section 4.4, Figures 7-8). The strong-coupling tests (Section 4.3) are explicitly labeled self-comparisons, which is a limitation in validation strength, not circularity; the paper also candidly flags the tail-accuracy limitation of the bulk-optimized state in Section 4.3. No equation or claim reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are the variational RCMPS matrices and the fitted normalization constant C_phi. The main assumptions are the validity of the variational approximation, especially in the tails of the field distribution, and the geometric restriction that all operator insertions be aligned with the defect.

free parameters (2)

RCMPS variational parameters Q, R = D-dependent matrices, optimized per coupling g
The homogeneous RCMPS state is parameterized by Q and R, which are found by minimizing the bulk energy density. All defect expectation values inherit the accuracy of this variational approximation; the method's precision is controlled by the bond dimension D.
C_phi = approximately 0.34
Non-universal normalization constant in the critical no-defect two-point function, obtained by fitting the RCMPS data in Appendix B.2 and then used to test the defect one-point scaling prediction (Eq. 4.11). No uncertainty is quoted.

assumptions (5)

standard math The Euclidean path integral with a magnetic line defect equals the expectation value of the extended operator e^{-mu*integral phi} in the bulk vacuum (Eqs. 1.3 and 1.7).
This is a standard path-integral identity, relying on the Euclidean invariance of the bulk theory, which allows rotating the quantization direction.
standard math Normal ordering of the phi^4 Hamiltonian yields a well-defined, bounded-from-below operator in 1+1D.
The authors cite Glimm and Federbush (refs. 61-62) for the rigorous construction of the normal-ordered Hamiltonian. This underpins the variational minimization of the energy density.
domain assumption A homogeneous RCMPS with finite bond dimension D approximates the true bulk ground state well enough for the defect observables considered.
The entire method replaces the exact vacuum by the variational RCMPS state. The authors check convergence in D numerically but do not prove bounds; the tail accuracy concern in Section 4.3 is the main fragility.
domain assumption The defect and local operator insertions are aligned on the same imaginary-time slice.
The method only treats configurations where all operator insertions are at the same imaginary time as the defect (Fig. 2); non-aligned setups would require time evolution, which is explicitly excluded.
standard math Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff normal-ordering identities are applied to the defect and vertex operators.
Used in Appendix A to express products of exponentials of the field as normal-ordered exponentials times c-number factors. This is exact and not an approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A relativistic continuous matrix product state study of field theories with defects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GPWTLPBQ

@misc{pith2026250109797,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A relativistic continuous matrix product state study of field theories with defects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GPWTLPBQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09797}
}

abstract

We propose a method to compute expectation values in 1+1-dimensional massive Quantum Field Theories (QFTs) with line defects using Relativistic Continuous Matrix Product State (RCMPS). Exploiting Euclidean invariance, we use a quantization scheme where (imaginary) time runs perpendicularly to the defect. With this choice, correlation functions of local operators in the presence of the defect can be computed as expectation values of extended operators in the no-defect vacuum, which can be approximated by a homogeneous RCMPS. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this machinery by computing correlation functions of local bulk and defect operators in $\phi^4$ theory with a magnetic line defect, in perturbative, strong coupling, critical, and symmetry-broken regimes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

K. G. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys.47, 773 (1975)

1975
[2]

Kondo,Theory of Dilute Magnetic Alloys, edited by F

J. Kondo,Theory of Dilute Magnetic Alloys, edited by F. Seitz, D. Turnbull, and H. Ehrenreich, Solid State Physics, Vol. 23 (Academic Press, 1970) pp. 183–281

work page 1970
[3]

Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

J. Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1996). – 29 – D = 10 D = 14 D = 18 D = 24 upto 0 1 2 3 4 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 g = 0.1 (a) D = 16 D = 24 D = 32 D = 40 D = 64 0.1 0.5 1 5 100.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 g = 2.771525 (b) Figure 12: In (a), up toO(g4) p...

work page 1996
[4]

Di Francesco, P

P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. Senechal,Conformal Field Theory, Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997)

1997
[5]

Gaiotto, A

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

arXiv 2015
[6]

Cordova, T

C. Cordova, T. T. Dumitrescu, K. Intriligator, and S.-H. Shao, inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2205.09545 [hep-th]

arXiv 2022
[7]

D. C. Lewellen, Nucl. Phys. B372, 654 (1992)

1992
[8]

Runkel, Nucl

I. Runkel, Nucl. Phys. B549, 563 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9811178

arXiv 1999

Show all 74 references

[9]

J. L. Cardy, arXiv e-prints (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0411189

2004 arXiv
[10]

Liendo, L

P. Liendo, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees, JHEP07, 113 (2013), arXiv:1210.4258 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[11]

Billò, V

M. Billò, V. Gonçalves, E. Lauria, and M. Meineri, JHEP04, 091 (2016), arXiv:1601.02883 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[12]

Lauria, P

E. Lauria, P. Liendo, B. C. Van Rees, and X. Zhao, JHEP01, 060 (2021), arXiv:2005.02413 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[13]

Cuomo, Z

G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, and M. Mezei, JHEP02, 134 (2022), arXiv:2112.10634 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[14]

Nishioka, Y

T. Nishioka, Y. Okuyama, and S. Shimamori, JHEP03, 203 (2023), arXiv:2212.04076 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[15]

Gimenez-Grau, arXiv e-prints (2022), arXiv:2212.02520 [hep-th]

A. Gimenez-Grau, arXiv e-prints (2022), arXiv:2212.02520 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[16]

Giombi, E

S. Giombi, E. Helfenberger, and H. Khanchandani, JHEP08, 224 (2023), arXiv:2211.11073 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[17]

Rodriguez-Gomez and J

D. Rodriguez-Gomez and J. G. Russo, JHEP11, 167 (2022), arXiv:2209.00663 [hep-th] . – 30 –

2022 arXiv
[18]

Bianchi, D

L. Bianchi, D. Bonomi, and E. de Sabbata, JHEP04, 069 (2023), arXiv:2212.02524 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[19]

Aharony, G

O. Aharony, G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, M. Mezei, and A. Raviv-Moshe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 151601 (2023), arXiv:2211.11775 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[20]

Cuomo, Z

G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, M. Mezei, and A. Raviv-Moshe, JHEP06, 112 (2022), arXiv:2202.00040 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[21]

Aharony, G

O. Aharony, G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, M. Mezei, and A. Raviv-Moshe, JHEP12, 183 (2023), arXiv:2310.00045 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[22]

Barrat, P

J. Barrat, P. Liendo, and P. van Vliet, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2304.13588 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[23]

Bianchi, D

L. Bianchi, D. Bonomi, E. de Sabbata, and A. Gimenez-Grau, JHEP05, 080 (2024), arXiv:2312.05221 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Nagar, A

I. Nagar, A. Sever, and D.-l. Zhong, JHEP06, 110 (2024), arXiv:2404.07290 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[25]

Diatlyk, H

O. Diatlyk, H. Khanchandani, F. K. Popov, and Y. Wang, JHEP09, 006 (2024), arXiv:2404.05815 [hep-th]

2024
[26]

Kravchuk, A

P. Kravchuk, A. Radcliffe, and R. Sinha, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2406.04561 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[27]

Cuomo, Y.-C

G. Cuomo, Y.-C. He, and Z. Komargodski, JHEP11, 061 (2024), arXiv:2406.10186 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[28]

Vojta, C

M. Vojta, C. Buragohain, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B61, 15152 (2000)

2000
[29]

Sachdev and M

S. Sachdev and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B68, 064419 (2003)

2003
[30]

Florens, L

S. Florens, L. Fritz, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 036601 (2006)

2006
[31]

F. F. Assaad and I. F. Herbut, Phys. Rev. X3, 031010 (2013)

2013
[32]

Parisen Toldin, F

F. Parisen Toldin, F. F. Assaad, and S. Wessel, Phys. Rev. B95, 014401 (2017)

2017
[33]

Allais, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1412.3449 (2014), arXiv:1412.3449 [cond-mat.str-el]

A. Allais, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1412.3449 (2014), arXiv:1412.3449 [cond-mat.str-el]

2014 arXiv
[34]

Franchi, D

A. Franchi, D. Rossini, and E. Vicari, Phys. Rev. E105, 034139 (2022), arXiv:2201.00390 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2022 arXiv
[35]

Rodriguez-Gomez, JHEP06, 071 (2022), arXiv:2202.03471 [hep-th]

D. Rodriguez-Gomez, JHEP06, 071 (2022), arXiv:2202.03471 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[36]

F. K. Popov and Y. Wang, JHEP11, 057 (2022), arXiv:2206.14206 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[37]

Gimenez-Grau, E

A. Gimenez-Grau, E. Lauria, P. Liendo, and P. van Vliet, JHEP11, 018 (2022), arXiv:2208.11715 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[38]

W. H. Pannell and A. Stergiou, JHEP06, 186 (2023), arXiv:2302.14069 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[39]

Hu, Y.-C

L. Hu, Y.-C. He, and W. Zhu, Nature Commun.15, 3659 (2024), arXiv:2308.01903 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2024 arXiv
[40]

Z. Zhou, D. Gaiotto, Y.-C. He, and Y. Zou, SciPost Phys.17, 021 (2024), arXiv:2401.00039 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[41]

Dey and K

P. Dey and K. Ghosh, JHEP10, 129 (2024), arXiv:2404.06576 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[42]

Serone, G

M. Serone, G. Spada, and G. Villadoro, JHEP08, 148 (2018), arXiv:1805.05882 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[43]

Serone, G

M. Serone, G. Spada, and G. Villadoro, JHEP05, 047 (2019), arXiv:1901.05023 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[44]

Kruczenski, J

M. Kruczenski, J. Penedones, and B. C. van Rees, arXiv e-prints (2022), arXiv:2203.02421 [hep-th] . – 31 –

2022 arXiv
[45]

O. J. Rosten, Physics Reports511, 177 (2012), fundamentals of the exact renormalization group

2012
[46]

Balog, H

I. Balog, H. Chaté, B. Delamotte, M. Marohnić, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 240604 (2019)

2019
[47]

Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer,

J. Preskill, “Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer,” (2018), arXiv:1811.10085 [hep-lat]

2018 arXiv
[48]

G. K. Brennen, P. Rohde, B. C. Sanders, and S. Singh, Phys. Rev. A92, 032315 (2015)

2015
[49]

Optimized quantum simulation algorithms for scalar quantum field theories,

A. Hardy, P. Mukhopadhyay, M. S. Alam, R. Konik, L. Hormozi, E. Rieffel, S. Hadfield, J. Barata, R. Venugopalan, D. E. Kharzeev, and N. Wiebe, “Optimized quantum simulation algorithms for scalar quantum field theories,” (2024), arXiv:2407.13819 [quant-ph]

2024
[50]

Hogervorst, S

M. Hogervorst, S. Rychkov, and B. C. van Rees, Phys. Rev. D91, 025005 (2015), arXiv:1409.1581 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[51]

Rychkov and L

S. Rychkov and L. G. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D91, 085011 (2015)

2015
[52]

Elias-Miro, S

J. Elias-Miro, S. Rychkov, and L. G. Vitale, JHEP10, 213 (2017), arXiv:1706.06121 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[53]

Elias-Miró, S

J. Elias-Miró, S. Rychkov, and L. G. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D96, 065024 (2017)

2017
[54]

Tilloy, Phys

A. Tilloy, Phys. Rev. D104, 096007 (2021), arXiv:2102.07741 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[55]

Tilloy, Phys

A. Tilloy, Phys. Rev. D104, L091904 (2021), arXiv:2102.07733 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[56]

Tilloy, arXiv e-prints (2022), arXiv:2209.05341 [hep-th]

A. Tilloy, arXiv e-prints (2022), arXiv:2209.05341 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[57]

Haegeman, J

J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Pižorn, H. Verschelde, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 070601 (2011)

2011
[58]

Vanderstraeten, J

L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 7 (2019)

2019
[59]

Pollmann, S

F. Pollmann, S. Mukerjee, A. M. Turner, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 255701 (2009)

2009
[60]

Vanhecke, F

B. Vanhecke, F. Verstraete, and K. Van Acoleyen, Phys. Rev. D106, L071501 (2022)

2022
[61]

Glimm, Communications in Mathematical Physics8, 12 (1968)

J. Glimm, Communications in Mathematical Physics8, 12 (1968)

1968
[62]

Federbush, Journal of Mathematical Physics10, 50 (1969)

P. Federbush, Journal of Mathematical Physics10, 50 (1969)

1969
[63]

Schaich and W

D. Schaich and W. Loinaz, Phys. Rev. D79, 056008 (2009)

2009
[64]

Bronzin, B

S. Bronzin, B. De Palma, and M. Guagnelli, Phys. Rev. D99, 034508 (2019)

2019
[65]

Bosetti, B

P. Bosetti, B. De Palma, and M. Guagnelli, Phys. Rev. D92, 034509 (2015)

2015
[66]

Milsted, J

A. Milsted, J. Haegeman, and T. J. Osborne, Phys. Rev. D88, 085030 (2013)

2013
[67]

Vanhecke, J

B. Vanhecke, J. Haegeman, K. Van Acoleyen, L. Vanderstraeten, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 250604 (2019)

2019
[68]

Kadoh, Y

D. Kadoh, Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, R. Sakai, S. Takeda, and Y. Yoshimura, JHEP05, 184 (2019), arXiv:1811.12376 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[69]

Delcamp and A

C. Delcamp and A. Tilloy, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033278 (2020), arXiv:2003.12993 [cond-mat.str-el]

2020 arXiv
[70]

Haegeman, J

J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. B88, 085118 (2013). – 32 –

2013
[71]

J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell,Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, International Series In Pure and Applied Physics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965)

1965
[72]

M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to quantum field theory(Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995)

1995
[73]

G. P. Lepage, J. Comput. Phys.439, 110386 (2021), arXiv:2009.05112 [physics.comp-ph]

2021 arXiv
[74]

Oshikawa and I

M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck, Nucl. Phys. B495, 533 (1997), arXiv:cond-mat/9612187 . – 33 –

1997 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

K. G. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys.47, 773 (1975)

1975

[2] [2]

Kondo,Theory of Dilute Magnetic Alloys, edited by F

J. Kondo,Theory of Dilute Magnetic Alloys, edited by F. Seitz, D. Turnbull, and H. Ehrenreich, Solid State Physics, Vol. 23 (Academic Press, 1970) pp. 183–281

work page 1970

[3] [3]

Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

J. Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1996). – 29 – D = 10 D = 14 D = 18 D = 24 upto 0 1 2 3 4 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 g = 0.1 (a) D = 16 D = 24 D = 32 D = 40 D = 64 0.1 0.5 1 5 100.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 g = 2.771525 (b) Figure 12: In (a), up toO(g4) p...

work page 1996

[4] [4]

Di Francesco, P

P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. Senechal,Conformal Field Theory, Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997)

1997

[5] [5]

Gaiotto, A

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

arXiv 2015

[6] [6]

Cordova, T

C. Cordova, T. T. Dumitrescu, K. Intriligator, and S.-H. Shao, inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2205.09545 [hep-th]

arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

D. C. Lewellen, Nucl. Phys. B372, 654 (1992)

1992

[8] [8]

Runkel, Nucl

I. Runkel, Nucl. Phys. B549, 563 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9811178

arXiv 1999