Hamiltonian Truncation of Large $N_f$ QED and Large $N$ Vector-like Theories in $d=2+1$

A. Liam Fitzpatrick; Anastasiia Novikova; Noah Ring

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Hamiltonian Truncation of Large $N_f$ QED and Large $N$ Vector-like Theories in $d=2+1$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the large-N limit of QED3 and related vector-like theories in d=2+1, the lightcone Hamiltonian interaction is exactly finite-rank, reducing the Schrodinger integral equation to a finite linear system whose solution gives the…

desk verdict A clean and mostly credible exact Hamiltonian solution for large-N vector-like theories in 2+1 dimensions, but the all-orders equivalence to the covariant result is asserted rather than proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22103 v1 pith:P24TKGUR submitted 2025-07-29 hep-th

A. Liam Fitzpatrick , Anastasiia Novikova , Noah Ring This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords HamiltoniantruncationlightconequantizationlargeNlimitQEDin2+1dimensionsfinite-rankpotentialspectraldensityS-matrixvector-liketheories

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

Large-N vector-like quantum field theories in 2+1 dimensions, such as QED3 with many fermion flavors, can be solved exactly in a Hamiltonian framework. In lightcone quantization and the $N\to\infty$ limit, every interaction term factorizes into an overlap with an out-state and an overlap with an in-state, so the potential is exactly finite-rank. The Schrodinger integral equation then reduces to a finite linear system, giving closed-form eigenstates, spectral density, S-matrix, and form factors without any momentum discretization. A single photon-mass counterterm, fixed by matching to the covariant bubble resummation through $O(e^2)$, removes the gauge-breaking divergences of the hard cutoff. This matters because Hamiltonian truncation is normally an approximation; here the large-$N$ limit supplies an exact solvable benchmark and a controlled starting point for finite-$N$ calculations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the finite-rank separable interaction $V_{ij}|\alpha_i\rangle\langle\alpha_j|$: a constant $k\times k$ matrix $V$ sandwiched between a small set of operator-created states, for QED3 the photon and the two large-$N_f$ currents. In the $N\to\infty$ limit every interaction term factorizes into a bra-overlap and a ket-overlap, so the potential is of this form exactly, with no additional approximation. Because the free Hamiltonian has a continuum of two-fermion states, eigenstates above threshold carry a homogeneous delta-function piece alongside a principal-value piece; that split is what converts the integral equation into a finite linear system. The S-matrix and form factors come from the same structure through a distributional identity for products of lightcone resolvents, which isolates the on-shell delta function and keeps the scattering states directly accessible.

What would settle it

Recompute the two-particle eigenstate norm (3.18) and spectral density (4.10) using a smooth momentum cutoff instead of the sharp one, keeping the same single photon-mass counterterm (4.18): if any cutoff dependence remains, the claim that one counterterm restores gauge invariance is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the lightcone Hamiltonian of QED3 at large $N_f$, restricted to the singlet sector, is exactly $H = H_{\rm free} + V_{ij}|\alpha_i\rangle\langle\alpha_j|$ with three states: the photon $|A_\perp\rangle$ and the large-$N_f$ currents $|j_-\rangle$, $|j_\perp\rangle$. Because $V$ is a finite matrix, every eigenstate is a linear combination of these states plus a free homogeneous piece; no truncation of momentum space is needed. Solving the resulting linear system yields the two-particle eigenstates (3.15)--(3.16), a spectral density that reproduces the covariant bubble resummation once the photon mass counterterm is $m_A^2 = -e^2/(16\pi)\big(\Lambda/2 + (2+4\log 2)m\big)$, and a single-photon eigenstate below the two-fermion threshold with mass $q = e^2/(4\pi)$ at weak coupling. The same scattering-state construction gives the S-matrix $M(s) = -2\langle \psi_{\rm free}|\alpha\rangle (V^{-1}+2iG_0)^{-1}\langle \alpha|\psi_{\rm free}\rangle$ and the form factors of local operators. The paper extends the derivation to any large-$N$ vector-like theory with a finite set of singlet operators and checks the general S-matrix formula against the O(N) model.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that a single photon-mass counterterm, fixed by matching the hard-cutoff spectral density to the covariant bubble resummation through $O(e^2)$, is enough to restore gauge invariance and make every physical quantity finite at infinite $N$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The large-$N$ eigenstates and spectral density of QED3 are given by closed-form matrix expressions, including a physical photon pole at $q=e^2/(4\pi)$ at weak coupling.
The photon mass counterterm is fixed uniquely by matching to the covariant bubble resummation through $O(e^2)$, and no state-dependent counterterms are needed at infinite $N$.
The singlet-channel S-matrix is $M(s) = -2\langle \psi_{\rm free}|\alpha\rangle (V^{-1}+2iG_0)^{-1}\langle \alpha|\psi_{\rm free}\rangle$, reproducing the known O(N) result as a check.
Form factors of local operators follow directly from the same scattering-state construction, with renormalized operator mixing encoded in the matrix $X$.
The same formulas hold for any large-$N$ vector-like theory with a finite set of singlet operators, with $G_0$ and $V$ replaced by the appropriate matrices.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the same finite-rank basis is a natural variational family at finite $N$, with the exact large-$N$ eigenstates serving as the zero-order input for a systematic $1/N$ expansion.
Beyond the paper: adding a Chern-Simons term shifts $\kappa_0$ and turns the paper's bound-state condition (5.8) into a concrete prediction of a weakly bound state for sufficiently negative $k$, which a finite-$N$ calculation could test.
Beyond the paper: keeping momenta continuous rather than discretizing them appears to be what makes the S-matrix and form factors directly computable, suggesting the approach may extend to other 2+1-dimensional theories with a finite set of singlet operators.

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

The core of the paper is the reduction of the large-N Hamiltonian problem to a finite-rank potential, which turns the Schrödinger integral equation into a finite linear system. That reduction is real: the factorized form of V in (2.17) is a direct consequence of the large-N limit in lightcone quantization, and the eigenstates (3.15)-(3.16) and spectral density (4.10) follow from it. The O(N) check in Appendix A reproduces the known S-matrix, which is a good sanity check. This is a solid contribution to the Hamiltonian truncation program; the QED3 application is new relative to [8], and the general vector-like formulation is a useful generalization.

The soft spot, and it is the load-bearing one, is the claim that the Hamiltonian spectral density equals the covariant bubble-resummed result exactly. The paper fixes the photon mass counterterm m_A^2 and the operator renormalization b by matching at first and second order in e, and then states that (4.14) "agree[s] completely" without showing the all-orders algebra. That is not a proof. To be fair, the identity may well hold given the specific 3x3 structure, and the matching conditions are plausible. But the reader cannot check the cancellation of the divergent piece div or the finite parts beyond O(e^2) from the text. The free-theory correlator G0 and its divergent term are quoted, not derived, so the cancellation is opaque. The distribution identity (1.5) is also used informally, though it is likely correct.

There is also a subtle but important point: the equality of the physical spectral density is weaker than the full matrix identity (4.14), because G_H0 has a zero row/column for A_⊥ above the two-fermion threshold. So even if the spectral check passes, residual gauge-noninvariant contact terms in the A_⊥ direction could in principle affect the S-matrix or form factors. The O(N) appendix is only a 1x1 test and does not exercise the 3x3 structure or the photon mass counterterm.

These are gaps in proof, not observed contradictions. The central construction is coherent, and the paper is honest that the spectral comparison is a renormalization condition rather than an independent prediction. That framing is correct.

Who should read this? People working in Hamiltonian truncation, lightcone quantization, or large-N gauge theories will find it genuinely useful. It offers an explicit exact solution in a nontrivial theory and a path toward finite-N calculations. I would send it to peer review rather than desk reject. The referee should ask the authors to prove (4.14) or demonstrate it explicitly to all orders, and to either compute the QED S-matrix from covariant resummation or clearly state that the S-matrix is a prediction of the Hamiltonian framework. With that added, the exactness claim would be on solid ground.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a lightcone Hamiltonian framework for large-N vector-like theories in d=2+1, with large-N_f QED_3 as the primary example. Its central observation is that in the N→∞ limit the interaction Hamiltonian is a finite-rank potential V_ij|α_i><α_j|, so the Schrödinger integral equation reduces to a finite linear algebraic system. The authors derive explicit two-particle eigenstates, the spectral density of currents and of the gauge field, one-particle (massive photon) states below the two-fermion threshold, S-matrix elements from the Lippmann-Schwinger equation, and form factors. Two renormalization parameters, the bare photon mass m_A^2 and an operator renormalization constant b for j_⊥, are fixed by matching the Hamiltonian spectral density to the covariant bubble resummation through second order in the gauge coupling. The paper also presents a general large-N vector-like Lagrangian and checks the S-matrix formula in the O(N) model against a known result.

Significance. If the derivations are correct, this is a substantial contribution: it provides an exact large-N solution of QED_3 and related vector-like theories within a Hamiltonian truncation framework, with explicit and checkable formulas for eigenstates, spectral densities, S-matrix, and form factors. The reduction of the continuous Schrödinger equation to a finite linear system is elegant and does not discretize momenta, which is a genuinely useful step for future finite-N Hamiltonian truncation. The O(N) check in Appendix A against a known result is a concrete validation of the S-matrix machinery. The main caveat is that the exactness claim depends on the completeness and verification of the renormalization procedure, which is asserted more than demonstrated in places.

major comments (3)

[§4, Eq. (4.14)] The claim that the matrix identity (4.14) holds exactly after matching only first- and second-order conditions (4.15) and (4.17) is asserted rather than demonstrated. This is load-bearing because the exactness of the entire construction rests on it. The issue is subtle because G_H0 has a vanishing first row/column for q^+>2m^2, so equality of the physical spectral densities is not automatically equivalent to the full 3×3 matrix identity; moreover, the derivation in (4.9) formally uses (G_H0)^{-1}, which is not invertible on the full space. A direct algebraic check shows that with m_A^2=i e^2 div and b=-i div the identity (4.14) does hold, so the result appears correct; nevertheless, the authors should include this verification explicitly and state how the zero-mode direction of G_H0 is projected out.
[§3, Eqs. (3.19)–(3.21)] The free-theory correlator G_0 and its cutoff-dependent piece div are quoted without derivation. The finite part (2+4 log 2)m in div enters both counterterms b and m_A^2 in (4.16) and (4.18), so the renormalization procedure depends on this exact expression. The computation should either be included in the body or appendix or be supported by a precise reference; as written, this is an unproven input to the central matching step.
[§1 and §6, Eq. (1.5) and Eq. (6.16)] The S-matrix derivation relies on the distribution identity (1.5), which is stated with unspecified '...' terms and no derivation or reference. The norm calculation (6.14) and the final amplitude (6.16) both depend on this identity, so it is load-bearing for the S-matrix claim. The authors should supply a derivation or a standard reference, and should state the precise conditions under which the omitted terms do not contribute.

minor comments (5)

[§5, after Eq. (5.4)] The symbol q is used both for the total lightcone momentum variable in Sections 3 and 4 and for the mass-shell invariant √(2p^+) in Section 5; please define q once in a single place and use distinct notation where the two meanings could be confused.
[§4, Eq. (4.4)] The statement 'b ∝ ψ^*ψ' is confusing because b was just introduced as a c-number parameter; please clarify that b is the coefficient multiplying the regulated operator and explain the sense in which it is proportional to ψ^*ψ.
[§3, Eq. (3.20)] Please specify the branch of tanh^{-1} and the iε prescription used for q^2 above and below 4m^2, since κ_0 and τ_0 are used both above and below the two-particle threshold.
[§2, Eq. (2.18)] A short remark on the mass dimensions of the states |α_i⟩ and of the matrix elements V_ij would help readers verify the powers of coupling in the later matching conditions.
[§7, Eq. (7.3)] The generalization to a general vector-like theory assumes that no additional counterterms beyond δm_ϕ and the couplings in (7.6) are needed; this is plausible but should be stated as an assumption rather than implied as an automatic consequence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: exact large-N solution is a finite-rank reduction, and counterterm matching is standard renormalization.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation reduces the Schrödinger integral equation to a finite linear system because the large-N interaction is a finite-rank potential V = V_{ij}|α_i⟩⟨α_j|; as the paper states, 'we will see that in the infinite N case, the potential has the form (1.2) without additional approximations' and 'any solution of (1.3) can be written in this form.' This is an exact algebraic reduction, not a circular one. The counterterms m_A^2 and b are fixed in Section 4 by matching the Hamiltonian spectral density (4.10) to the covariant bubble-resummed result (4.13); equations (4.15)–(4.18) explicitly solve for b and m_A^2 from that equality, so the subsequent statement that the spectral density 'agrees with Feynman diagrams' is true by construction at the matched orders. That is a standard renormalization condition rather than an independent prediction. What keeps the paper non-circular is that the quantities presented as checks are not used to set those parameters: the one-particle photon mass is computed in Section 5 from the Hamiltonian Schrödinger equation, and the pole condition (5.5) is shown to coincide with the covariant denominator; the S-matrix in Section 6 is written purely in terms of the renormalized V_r and G0,r, and the O(N) S-matrix in Appendix A is compared with the independent external result [26]. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work; the citations to [8] and [25] are contextual. The genuine caveats are proof gaps rather than circularity: the all-orders identity (4.14) is asserted after matching only through O(e^2), and the QED3 S-matrix is not directly compared to a covariant resummation. These affect confidence in the exactness claim but do not make the derivation reduce to its own inputs.

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

The central derivation rests on standard lightcone and large-N assumptions, plus two renormalization-dependent inputs: m_A^2 and b. The photon mass and S-matrix results are derived from the Hamiltonian and free correlators, not from fitting those target values. The quoted hard-cutoff G0 computation is a load-bearing unshown input.

free parameters (2)

photon mass counterterm m_A^2 = -e^2/16pi (Lambda/2 + (2 + 4 log 2) m)
Chosen in Section 4 so that the Hamiltonian spectral density equals the covariant Feynman-resummed result through second order in e. It is a renormalization input, not a prediction.
operator renormalization b for j_perp = 1/16pi (Lambda/2 + (2 + 4 log 2) m)
Fixed in equation (4.16) to make the j_perp two-point function finite and match the covariant current correlator. It is an input to the spectral-density calculation.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Lightcone quantization makes the vacuum trivial and forbids particle production from the vacuum by P+ positivity, so the large-N Hilbert space splits into particle-number sectors.
Invoked in Section 2 after equation (2.10) to restrict to two-fermion and single-photon sectors. Standard in lightcone QFT but not proved in this paper.
domain assumption At infinite N_f the non-factorizing interactions in (2.10) are suppressed and the surviving Hamiltonian factorizes as V_ij |alpha_i><alpha_j|.
Used to obtain equation (2.14). This is the central reason the integral equation reduces to a finite linear system; the paper gives contraction counting but no exhaustive 1/N expansion.
domain assumption A single local photon mass counterterm is sufficient to cancel all gauge-symmetry-violating divergences from the hard cutoff.
Assumed in Section 2 and fixed in Section 4 by matching to the covariant spectral density. Super-renormalizability makes this plausible, but it is not derived from first principles.
domain assumption The free-theory two-point function G0 with the hard cutoff, including the divergent piece div in equations (3.19)-(3.21), is correct.
All counterterm conditions and the Gram matrix depend on this input. The computation is called well-known and not shown in the paper.
standard math The principal-value and delta-function identities (3.11) and (1.5) are valid for the operator insertions used.
These distribution identities underlie the eigenstate, norm, and S-matrix derivations. They are standard in scattering theory but are used informally.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hamiltonian Truncation of Large $N_f$ QED and Large $N$ Vector-like Theories in $d=2+1$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P24TKGUR

@misc{pith2026250722103,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hamiltonian Truncation of Large $N_f$ QED and Large $N$ Vector-like Theories in $d=2+1$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P24TKGUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22103}
}

abstract

We consider a general class of large $N$ vector-like theories in $d=2+1$ in a Hamiltonian approach. We show that by using lightcone quantization and the $N\to\infty$ limit, we can diagonalize the Hamiltonian exactly and construct the eigenstates, spectral density, S-matrix, and form factors for the theory. For concreteness, we mainly focus on QED$_3$ at large $N_f$ as an explicit example. We comment on extending the approach to finite $N$ calculations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[8]

Delacr´ etaz, A.L

L.V. Delacr´ etaz, A.L. Fitzpatrick, E. Katz and L.G. Vitale, Conformal truncation of chern-simons theory at large nf , Journal of High Energy Physics 2019 (2019)

work page 2019
[1]

Yurov and A.B

V.P. Yurov and A.B. Zamolodchikov, Truncated Conformal Space Approach to Scaling Lee-Yang Model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 5 (1990) 3221

work page 1990
[2]

Yurov and A.B

V.P. Yurov and A.B. Zamolodchikov, Truncated fermionic space approach to the critical 2-D Ising model with magnetic field , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 6 (1991) 4557

work page 1991
[3]

Lassig, G

M. Lassig, G. Mussardo and J.L. Cardy, The scaling region of the tricritical Ising model in two-dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B 348 (1991) 591

work page 1991
[4]

Hogervorst, S

M. Hogervorst, S. Rychkov and B.C. van Rees, Truncated conformal space approach in d dimensions: A cheap alternative to lattice field theory? , Physical Review D 91 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

Brodsky, H.-C

S.J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli and S.S. Pinsky, Quantum chromodynamics and other field theories on the light cone , Phys. Rept. 301 (1998) 299 [ hep-ph/9705477]

arXiv 1998
[6]

Fitzpatrick and E

A.L. Fitzpatrick and E. Katz, Snowmass White Paper: Hamiltonian Truncation , 2201.11696

arXiv
[7]

Anand, A.L

N. Anand, A.L. Fitzpatrick, E. Katz, Z.U. Khandker, M.T. Walters and Y. Xin, Introduction to Lightcone Conformal Truncation: QFT Dynamics from CFT Data , 2005.13544

arXiv 2005

Show all 26 references

[9]

Anand, E

N. Anand, E. Katz, Z.U. Khandker and M.T. Walters, Nonperturbative dynamics of (2+1)d ϕ4-theory from hamiltonian truncation , Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (2021)

2021
[10]

Katz, Z.U

E. Katz, Z.U. Khandker and M.T. Walters, A conformal truncation framework for infinite-volume dynamics , Journal of High Energy Physics 2016 (2016)

2016
[11]

E. Katz, G. Marques Tavares and Y. Xu, A solution of 2D QCD at Finite N using a conformal basis, 1405.6727

arXiv
[12]

Anand, V.X

N. Anand, V.X. Genest, E. Katz, Z.U. Khandker and M.T. Walters, Rg flow from ϕ 4 theory to the 2d ising model , Journal of High Energy Physics 2017 (2017)

2017
[13]

Fitzpatrick, J

A.L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, E. Katz, L.G. Vitale and M.T. Walters, Lightcone effective hamiltonians and rg flows , Journal of High Energy Physics 2018 (2018)

2018
[14]

Fitzpatrick, E

A.L. Fitzpatrick, E. Katz and M.T. Walters, Nonperturbative matching between equal-time and lightcone quantization , Journal of High Energy Physics 2020 (2020)

2020
[15]

Anand, Z.U

N. Anand, Z.U. Khandker and M.T. Walters, Momentum space cft correlators for hamiltonian truncation, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020 (2020)

2020
[16]

Fitzpatrick, E

A.L. Fitzpatrick, E. Katz, M.T. Walters and Y. Xin, Solving the 2D SUSY Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model with conformal truncation , JHEP 01 (2021) 182 [ 1911.10220]

2021 arXiv
[17]

Appelquist, D

T. Appelquist, D. Nash and L.C.R. Wijewardhana, Critical Behavior in (2+1)-Dimensional QED, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (1988) 2575

1988
[18]

Appelquist, J

T. Appelquist, J. Terning and L.C.R. Wijewardhana, (2 + 1) -dimensional qed and a novel phase transition, Physical Review Letters 75 (1995) 2081–2084

1995
[19]

Mir´ o and J

J.E. Mir´ o and J. Ingoldby,Effective hamiltonians and counterterms for hamiltonian truncation, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023 (2023)

2023
[20]

Delouche, J

O. Delouche, J. Elias Miro and J. Ingoldby, Hamiltonian truncation crafted for UV-divergent QFTs, SciPost Phys. 16 (2024) 105 [ 2312.09221]. – 22 –

2024 arXiv
[21]

Delouche, J

O. Delouche, J. Elias Miro and J. Ingoldby, Testing the RG-flow M(3, 10) + ϕ1,7 → M(3, 8) with Hamiltonian Truncation, JHEP 04 (2025) 144 [ 2412.09295]

2025 arXiv
[22]

Rychkov and L.G

S. Rychkov and L.G. Vitale, Hamiltonian truncation study of the ϕ4 theory in two dimensions, Physical Review D 91 (2015)

2015
[23]

Elias-Mir´ o, S

J. Elias-Mir´ o, S. Rychkov and L.G. Vitale, Nlo renormalization in the hamiltonian truncation, Physical Review D 96 (2017)

2017
[24]

Appelquist, M

T.W. Appelquist, M. Bowick, D. Karabali and L.C.R. Wijewardhana, Spontaneous chiral-symmetry breaking in three-dimensional qed , Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986) 3704

1986
[25]

Gabai, J

B. Gabai, J. Sandor and X. Yin, Anyon scattering from lightcone Hamiltonian: the singlet channel, JHEP 09 (2022) 145 [ 2205.09144]

2022 arXiv
[26]

Henning, H

B. Henning, H. Murayama, F. Riva, J.O. Thompson and M.T. Walters, Towards a nonperturbative construction of the s-matrix , Journal of High Energy Physics 2023 (2023) . – 23 –

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

Delacr´ etaz, A.L

L.V. Delacr´ etaz, A.L. Fitzpatrick, E. Katz and L.G. Vitale, Conformal truncation of chern-simons theory at large nf , Journal of High Energy Physics 2019 (2019)

work page 2019

[2] [1]

Yurov and A.B

V.P. Yurov and A.B. Zamolodchikov, Truncated Conformal Space Approach to Scaling Lee-Yang Model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 5 (1990) 3221

work page 1990

[3] [2]

Yurov and A.B

V.P. Yurov and A.B. Zamolodchikov, Truncated fermionic space approach to the critical 2-D Ising model with magnetic field , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 6 (1991) 4557

work page 1991

[4] [3]

Lassig, G

M. Lassig, G. Mussardo and J.L. Cardy, The scaling region of the tricritical Ising model in two-dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B 348 (1991) 591

work page 1991

[5] [4]

Hogervorst, S

M. Hogervorst, S. Rychkov and B.C. van Rees, Truncated conformal space approach in d dimensions: A cheap alternative to lattice field theory? , Physical Review D 91 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [5]

Brodsky, H.-C

S.J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli and S.S. Pinsky, Quantum chromodynamics and other field theories on the light cone , Phys. Rept. 301 (1998) 299 [ hep-ph/9705477]

arXiv 1998

[7] [6]

Fitzpatrick and E

A.L. Fitzpatrick and E. Katz, Snowmass White Paper: Hamiltonian Truncation , 2201.11696

arXiv

[8] [7]

Anand, A.L

N. Anand, A.L. Fitzpatrick, E. Katz, Z.U. Khandker, M.T. Walters and Y. Xin, Introduction to Lightcone Conformal Truncation: QFT Dynamics from CFT Data , 2005.13544

arXiv 2005