Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

Positivity, O(D) symmetry, and loop equations shrink the allowed region for the large-N bosonic Yang-Mills matrix integral to small islands that reach Monte-Carlo-level precision.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 11:07 UTC pith:Q5HFB5FZ

load-bearing objection Solid positivity bootstrap for bosonic Yang-Mills matrix integrals, but the Lmax=12 'rigorous' claim outruns what is actually computed. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.06704 v2 pith:Q5HFB5FZ submitted 2025-10-08 hep-th hep-lat

Bootstrapping Yang-Mills matrix integrals

Wenliang Li , Xinran Su This is my paper
classification hep-th hep-lat PACS 11.15.-q11.15.Pg
keywords Yang-Mills matrix integrallarge Npositivity bootstrapO(D) representation theoryloop equationsanalytic trajectory bootstrap1/D expansioneigenvalue distribution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper shows that the large-N bosonic Yang-Mills matrix integral can be sharply constrained without any Monte Carlo input, using only positivity of the path-integral measure, Schwinger-Dyson loop equations, and O(D) representation theory. For D≥4, the allowed region for the two lowest moments ⟨trXX⟩ and ⟨trXXXX⟩ becomes an isolated island at length cutoff Lmax=8 and shrinks rapidly as the cutoff grows to 12, with several islands reaching the precision of numerical simulations. The D=3 case resists isolation until Lmax=12. A complementary, positivity-free analytic trajectory bootstrap, built from explicit large-D formulas, also produces accurate finite-D moments and eigenvalue distributions. If the convergence is genuine, these are rigorous nonperturbative bounds on the model's large-N observables.

Core claim

The central claim is that positivity of the measure, combined with loop equations and an O(D) singlet decomposition, is enough to localize the large-N expectation values ⟨trXX⟩ and ⟨trXXXX⟩ to small allowed islands. The key technical step is block-diagonalizing the positivity matrix by O(D) irreducible representations and factorizing each block as a tensor product of a small reduced matrix and a fixed positive index tensor, so that positivity reduces to constraints on much smaller matrices. At Lmax=12, the resulting islands for D≥4 have sizes comparable to Monte Carlo error bars, and in the large-D limit they converge to the leading and subleading predictions of the 1/D expansion. The paper

What carries the argument

The central objects are the O(D) singlet coefficients A that encode all covariant moments via products of Kronecker deltas, together with the loop equations that constrain them. Positivity is imposed on matrices built from operators of length ≤ Lmax/2. The computational enabler is O(D) representation theory: the positivity matrix block-diagonalizes by irreducible representations, and each block factorizes as cM(k,r) ⊗ U(k,r), with U(k,r) positive definite, so the condition reduces to positive semi-definiteness of the much smaller matrices cM(k,r). For the analytic trajectory bootstrap, the machinery is an ansatz expressing multi-length moments as sums of products of a Gaussian building block

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the O(D) rotational symmetry of the action is unbroken in the large-N ground state; if the matrices spontaneously develop a preferred direction, the singlet decomposition and every bound built on it would not describe the true vacuum.

What would settle it

Run high-statistics Monte Carlo simulations at large N for, say, D=10 and check whether the measured (⟨trXX⟩, ⟨trXXXX⟩) lies inside the Lmax=12 positivity island; if the measured point falls outside the island, or if the island moves away from it as Lmax grows, the convergence claim is falsified. A direct measurement of ⟨trX1X1⟩ − ⟨trX2X2⟩ ≠ 0 would also signal O(D) breaking and invalidate the singlet decomposition.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the large-N moments of the bosonic Yang-Mills matrix integral are determined rigorously, with uncertainty that decreases systematically as the length cutoff increases, independent of Monte Carlo sampling.
  • The D=3 case requires a much higher cutoff (Lmax=12) before an island appears, quantitatively confirming that small D makes the bootstrap harder, consistent with the proximity of the D=2 divergence.
  • The positivity bounds at Lmax≥8 reproduce the leading and subleading terms of the 1/D expansion, independently confirming the large-D saddle point and suggesting that higher-order 1/D coefficients can be extracted from larger cutoffs.
  • The analytic trajectory bootstrap, which makes no positivity assumption, yields accurate moments and eigenvalue distributions for finite D, demonstrated concretely for D=10, offering a route toward supersymmetric matrix integrals where the measure is not positive definite.
  • The O(D) representation-theoretic reduction shrinks the positivity matrices from roughly a million entries to a few hundred at Lmax=12, making large D and high cutoffs computationally tractable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One natural extension is to supersymmetric matrix integrals: wherever the fermionic Pfaffian is real and positive, the same positivity machinery may apply directly, and elsewhere the analytic trajectory bootstrap could be adapted to eigenvalue distributions with power-law tails rather than Wigner semicircles.
  • The saturation point at Lmax=6 coincides with the leading large-D and leading-ansatz solutions, hinting that exact null states exist at special moment values; locating them analytically might bootstrap the model without numerical scanning.
  • The explicit formulas for singlet moments involve Catalan and Schröder numbers, suggesting that the large-D limit is governed by non-crossing combinatorial structures; a combinatorial interpretation could yield exact finite-D expressions for certain correlation functions.
  • Because the islands shrink with both Lmax and D, the subtracted bounds in the large-D plots could be used as a series-extraction tool, effectively converting the bootstrap into a way to generate higher-order terms in the 1/D expansion.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the large-N limit of the bosonic D-matrix Yang-Mills matrix integral using two complementary methods. The first is a positivity bootstrap: using loop equations and an O(D) singlet decomposition, the authors derive analytic bounds on the moments <tr XX> and <tr XXXX> at length cutoffs Lmax=4,6, and numerical bounds at Lmax=8,10,12. For D>=4 they find isolated allowed regions ('islands') at Lmax=8 that shrink with increasing cutoff, while for D=3 an island appears only at Lmax=12; these are compared with Monte Carlo data and with the large-D expansion. The second method is an 'analytic trajectory bootstrap' in which large-D expressions for moment trajectories and eigenvalue densities are used to motivate ansatze whose coefficients are fixed by imposing loop equations, yielding approximate results for finite D. The paper emphasizes the usefulness of O(D) representation theory in reducing the size of the positivity matrices.

Significance. If the positivity bounds are taken at face value, the paper provides a nontrivial nonperturbative constraint on a matrix integral that is relevant to reduced Yang-Mills models and to bootstrap methodology more generally. The analytic bounds at Lmax=4 and Lmax=6 are explicit and clean, and the O(D) block-diagonalization procedure is a useful technical contribution that goes beyond the direct approach. The comparison with Monte Carlo and with 1/D results strengthens confidence in the numerical parts. The analytic trajectory bootstrap, while heuristic, yields predictions for eigenvalue densities that match Monte Carlo histograms well for D=10. The paper is also commendably transparent about many of its technical limitations. These strengths make the paper potentially valuable to the matrix-model and bootstrap communities, provided the rigor of the claims is calibrated to what was actually computed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.3, Eq. (3.60), Fig. 3, Table 4] The Lmax=12 'positivity bounds' are not full-cutoff positivity bounds. The authors explicitly state that positivity is not imposed on the rank-5 and rank-6 sectors, and that for D=3,4 a navigator tolerance is used, accepting points with N > -epsilon. Omitting PSD blocks can only enlarge the allowed set, and the tolerance means that the reported boundary is not certified. Consequently, the abstract's and Table 4's presentation of these islands as rigorous bounds with precision comparable to Monte Carlo is not supported. I recommend either recomputing the Lmax=12 islands with the full positivity blocks and a tolerance-free navigator, or explicitly qualifying these results as outer bounds with an additional, unquantified uncertainty.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (2.10)] The entire singlet decomposition and all subsequent bootstrap formulations rely on the assumption that O(D) symmetry is unbroken. This is a load-bearing physical input, not a theorem. If the large-N ground state spontaneously breaks rotational symmetry, non-singlet expectation values can appear and the bounds derived from the singlet decomposition would not describe the true vacuum. The paper should either provide evidence or a concrete test for unbroken O(D) (for example, Monte Carlo checks of non-singlet correlations) or clearly state this as an assumption that limits the applicability of the bounds.
  3. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.54)-(4.75)] The analytic trajectory bootstrap is an ansatz fit rather than a rigorous bootstrap. The functional form of the ansatz is borrowed from the large-D expansion of the same model, and the free coefficients are determined by minimizing the sum of squared loop equations. There is no control parameter that guarantees convergence as the ansatz is enlarged, and the paper itself acknowledges that the D=3 case is not under control. The text should describe this method as an approximate/heuristic scheme, and the word 'bootstrap' should not be taken to imply the same level of rigor as the positivity bounds.
  4. [§3.3.3, Table 4] The claim that the islands 'converge' to the true large-N moments is a numerical observation, not a proven statement. No analytic argument is given that the Lmax -> infinity limit of the allowed regions exists and equals the matrix-integral expectation values. The rapid shrinkage is encouraging, but the paper would be more precise if it stated that these are finite-cutoff outer bounds with numerical evidence of convergence, rather than asserting convergence as a result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, after Eq. (3.14)] The phrase 'total number of positive semi-definite matrices' should probably read 'positive semi-definite blocks' or 'matrices to be checked', since the blocks are submatrices of the original moment matrix.
  2. [§4.1.1, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.8)] The notation f_n, g_n, C_n is introduced but the reader must infer the domain of n (non-negative integers?) and the fact that odd powers vanish. A short sentence clarifying that these formulas hold for even n (or that odd moments vanish by the X -> -X symmetry) would improve readability.
  3. [§3.3.3, footnote 14] The footnote says the rank-5 sector is the same as that of Lmax=10 and that it is omitted at Lmax=12; this is useful but slightly confusing because at Lmax=10 the rank-5 sector is the top-rank sector, while at Lmax=12 it is not. The reason for omitting it at Lmax=12 should be stated more directly in the main text.
  4. [Throughout] There are several places where 'compatible to' should be 'compatible with' (e.g., Section 5, Discussion). Also, 'the maximum of the total length is increased by 4' in Section 4.2.2 is unclear; please rephrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the positivity bounds are self-contained and the analytic trajectory bootstrap is an explicit, loop-equation-constrained ansatz, not a disguised fit.

full rationale

The paper's central positivity bootstrap is not circular. The inputs are the exact Schwinger-Dyson loop equations (2.3)-(2.4), the O(D)-singlet decomposition (2.10), and the positive-semidefinite Gram matrix built from ⟨tr O†O⟩ ≥0 (3.1)-(3.3). The target moments ⟨trXX⟩ and ⟨trXXXX⟩ are scanned as unknowns, and the allowed regions are determined by feasibility of those constraints; no Monte Carlo values are fed into the calculation. The large-D expansion in §2.3 is derived from the same action by an independent Hubbard-Stratonovich/Wick-contraction procedure and is used as a benchmark and for basis normalization, not as an input to the bounds. The analytic trajectory bootstrap in §4.2 is explicitly an ansatz: its functional form is inspired by the large-D formulas, but the coefficients are fixed by symmetry, contraction-limit consistency, and the loop equations (2.16)-(2.18) via η minimization (4.75). The paper acknowledges this in saying 'we propose some ansatz for the analytic trajectory bootstrap and obtain accurate results for finite D' (Abstract), so the results are not presented as derived predictions that reduce to their inputs by construction. Self-citations such as [17], [35], [41], and [42] provide background or motivation and are not load-bearing: no step depends on an unverified self-cited uniqueness theorem or on a fitted value being renamed as a prediction. The self-reported limitations are real caveats but not circularity: §3.3.3 explicitly says 'for Lmax=12, we do not impose positivity conditions on the rank-5 and rank-6 sectors' and 'A negative point is also accepted if N>−ε', and §2.2 states 'We assume that the O(D) symmetry of the action (2.1) is unbroken'. These weaken the rigor and physical scope of the advertised Lmax=12 islands, but the derived regions are still outer bounds obtained from first-principles constraints, not from the Monte Carlo estimates they are later compared with. Overall score 1: minor self-citations exist, but the central derivation is self-contained and independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The positivity bootstrap itself introduces no fitted physical parameters: its inputs are exact loop equations and PSD constraints. The analytic trajectory bootstrap introduces an ansatz form borrowed from the large-D expansion and fixes its coefficients by minimizing loop-equation residuals; those coefficients and the numerical tolerance are the main fit parameters. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Navigator tolerance epsilon = 1e-8 for D=3, 1e-10 for D=4
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.3.3 to accept points with N > -epsilon; directly enlarges the reported Lmax=12 allowed regions and is needed because the unrelaxed navigator is negative for D=3,4.
  • Subleading ansatz coefficients C^(...) = Not reported; determined by eta minimization of loop equations (4.75)
    The coefficients in (4.70)-(4.72) and appendix B parameterize the analytic trajectory bootstrap; fixing them by minimizing squared loop-equation residuals is a fitting step, and individual values are not tabulated in the paper.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Large-N factorization of double-trace moments in the loop equations
    The paper targets the large N limit and uses the factorized large-N Schwinger-Dyson equations (2.4); invoked in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption O(D) rotation symmetry of the action is unbroken
    Section 2.2: 'We assume that the O(D) symmetry of the action (2.1) is unbroken.' Required for the singlet decomposition (2.10) and all subsequent bounds.
  • domain assumption The X^mu -> (X^mu)^T symmetry is unbroken, so all moments are real
    Footnote 2 in Section 2.2 states this assumption, used to treat moments as real variables.
  • domain assumption The N->infinity and D->infinity limits commute
    Section 2.3: 'We further assume that the D->infinity limit commutes with the N->infinity limit.' Needed to use the large-D expansion as a benchmark.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite-D moments have the large-D Gaussian-saddle ansatz form built from P(n) with polynomial corrections
    Section 4.2 assumes the functional form (4.59) and its multi-length generalizations; not derived from first principles and not proven to contain the true solution.
  • domain assumption The path-integral measure is positive, so the correlation matrix M in (3.3) is positive semidefinite
    Section 3.1; standard for the bosonic integral with a real bounded-below action.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 3795 in / 4261 out tokens · 156085 ms · 2026-08-04T11:07:34.371772+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We revisit the large $N$ limit of bosonic $D$-matrix Yang-Mills integrals using two complementary bootstrap methods. In the positivity bootstrap, we obtain bounds for $\langle \text{tr} XX \rangle$ and $\langle \text{tr} XXXX \rangle$ at various length cutoffs $L_{\max}$. For $D=3$, we do not find an isolated region until $L_{\max}=12$. For larger $D$, the allowed regions become islands at $L_{\max}=8$ and shrink rapidly as $L_{\max}$ increases. The precision of some $L_{\max}=12$ islands is comparable to that of Monte Carlo estimates. For a fixed $L_{\max}$, the allowed region also shrinks with $D$ and converges to the large $D$ expansion results. We further deduce the analytic expressions of various types of trajectories and eigenvalue distributions at large $D$. Based on these explicit formulas, we propose some ansatz for the analytic trajectory bootstrap and obtain accurate results for finite $D$.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. An effective field theory approach to the sign problem in BFSS

    hep-th 2026-06 conditional novelty 8.0

    In BFSS matrix theory, the sign problem is nonzero at large N but first appears at 10-loop order, giving ⟨cosθ⟩ ≈ exp(−9×10⁻⁹ N²(λβ³)⁵).

  2. An effective field theory approach to the sign problem in BFSS

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The Pfaffian phase in BFSS becomes an O(9) pseudoscalar operator in a bosonic matrix integral, requiring 10-loop order in the high-T expansion before the sign problem is detectable in the 't Hooft regime.

  3. Finite-$N$ Bootstrap Constraints in Matrix and Tensor Models

    hep-th 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Finite-N bootstrap yields N-independent bounds for matrix models but N-dependent novel bounds on the two-point function versus quartic coupling for tensor models.

  4. Additional constraints for the tensor bootstrap

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    New positivity constraints from open bubbles and color matrices provide sharp bounds on unitary tensor integrals at finite N and probe deviations from Gaussian universality.

  5. Ambiguity problem of the Bootstrap Method in Quantum Mechanics

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bootstrap method in quantum mechanics has an ambiguity problem for mixed potential and operator types, with three proposed resolutions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions,

    G. ’t Hooft, “A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions,” Nucl. Phys. B72, 461 (1974) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90154-0

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90154-0 1974

  2. [2]

    Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity,” Conf. Proc. C930308, 284-296 (1993) [arXiv:gr-qc/9310026 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  3. [3]

    The World as a hologram,

    L. Susskind, “The World as a hologram,” J. Math. Phys.36, 6377-6396 (1995) doi:10.1063/1.531249 [arXiv:hep-th/9409089 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  4. [4]

    The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 231-252 (1998) doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1 [arXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]]. – 47 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B428, 105-114 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00377-3 [arXiv:hep-th/9802109 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Anti de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 253-291 (1998) doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a2 [arXiv:hep-th/9802150 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    M theory as a matrix model: A conjecture,

    T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker and L. Susskind, “M theory as a matrix model: A conjecture,” Phys. Rev. D55, 5112-5128 (1997) doi:10.1201/9781482268737-37 [arXiv:hep-th/9610043 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    A Large N reduced model as superstring,

    N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and A. Tsuchiya, “A Large N reduced model as superstring,” Nucl. Phys. B498, 467-491 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00290-3 [arXiv:hep-th/9612115 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  9. [9]

    Strings in flat space and pp waves from N=4 superYang-Mills,

    D. E. Berenstein, J. M. Maldacena and H. S. Nastase, “Strings in flat space and pp waves from N=4 superYang-Mills,” JHEP04, 013 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/04/013 [arXiv:hep-th/0202021 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  10. [10]

    Matrix strings in pp wave backgrounds from deformed superYang-Mills theory,

    G. Bonelli, “Matrix strings in pp wave backgrounds from deformed superYang-Mills theory,” JHEP08, 022 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/08/022 [arXiv:hep-th/0205213 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  11. [11]

    The polarised IKKT matrix model,

    S. A. Hartnoll and J. Liu, “The polarised IKKT matrix model,” JHEP03, 060 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2025)060 [arXiv:2409.18706 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Einstein gravity from a matrix integral – Part I,

    S. Komatsu, A. Martina, J. Penedones, A. Vuignier and X. Zhao, “Einstein gravity from a matrix integral – Part I,” [arXiv:2410.18173 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Einstein gravity from a matrix integral – Part II,

    S. Komatsu, A. Martina, J. Penedones, A. Vuignier and X. Zhao, “Einstein gravity from a matrix integral – Part II,” [arXiv:2411.18678 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Progress in the numerical studies of the type IIB matrix model,

    K. N. Anagnostopoulos, T. Azuma, K. Hatakeyama, M. Hirasawa, Y. Ito, J. Nishimura, S. K. Papadoudis and A. Tsuchiya, “Progress in the numerical studies of the type IIB matrix model,” Eur. Phys. J. ST232, no.23-24, 3681-3695 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-023-00849-x [arXiv:2210.17537 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Bounding scalar operator dimensions in 4D CFT,

    R. Rattazzi, V. S. Rychkov, E. Tonni and A. Vichi, “Bounding scalar operator dimensions in 4D CFT,” JHEP12, 031 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/031 [arXiv:0807.0004 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  16. [16]

    The Conformal Bootstrap: Theory, Numerical Techniques, and Applications,

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov and A. Vichi, “The Conformal Bootstrap: Theory, Numerical Techniques, and Applications,” Rev. Mod. Phys.91(2019), 015002 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.91.015002 [arXiv:1805.04405 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    New developments in the numerical conformal bootstrap,

    S. Rychkov and N. Su, “New developments in the numerical conformal bootstrap,” Rev. Mod. Phys.96(2024) no.4, 045004 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.96.045004 [arXiv:2311.15844 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Bootstraps to strings: solving random matrix models with positivity,

    H. W. Lin, “Bootstraps to strings: solving random matrix models with positivity,” JHEP06, 090 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2020)090 [arXiv:2002.08387 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Analytic and numerical bootstrap for one-matrix model and “unsolvable

    V. Kazakov and Z. Zheng, “Analytic and numerical bootstrap for one-matrix model and “unsolvable” two-matrix model,” JHEP06, 030 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2022)030 [arXiv:2108.04830 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Bootstrapping the critical behavior of multi-matrix models,

    M. Khalkhali, N. Pagliaroli, A. Parfeni and B. Smith, “Bootstrapping the critical behavior of multi-matrix models,” JHEP25, 158 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2025)158 [arXiv:2409.07565 [math-ph]]. – 48 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Bootstrapping Matrix Quantum Mechanics,

    X. Han, S. A. Hartnoll and J. Kruthoff, “Bootstrapping Matrix Quantum Mechanics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125, no.4, 041601 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.041601 [arXiv:2004.10212 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Bootstrap bounds on D0-brane quantum mechanics,

    H. W. Lin, “Bootstrap bounds on D0-brane quantum mechanics,” JHEP06, 038 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2023)038 [arXiv:2302.04416 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Bootstrapping ground state correlators in matrix theory. Part I,

    H. W. Lin and Z. Zheng, “Bootstrapping ground state correlators in matrix theory. Part I,” JHEP01, 190 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)190 [arXiv:2410.14647 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Thermal bootstrap of matrix quantum mechanics,

    M. Cho, B. Gabai, J. Sandor and X. Yin, “Thermal bootstrap of matrix quantum mechanics,” JHEP04, 186 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2025)186 [arXiv:2410.04262 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    High-precision bootstrap of multi-matrix quantum mechanics,

    H. W. Lin and Z. Zheng, “High-precision bootstrap of multi-matrix quantum mechanics,” [arXiv:2507.21007 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Bootstrapping supersymmetric (matrix) quantum mechanics,

    S. Laliberte and B. McPeak, “Bootstrapping supersymmetric (matrix) quantum mechanics,” [arXiv:2510.01356 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  27. [27]

    Loop Space Hamiltonians and Numerical Methods for LargeNGauge Theories,

    A. Jevicki, O. Karim, J. P. Rodrigues and H. Levine, “Loop Space Hamiltonians and Numerical Methods for LargeNGauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B213, 169-188 (1983) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90180-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90180-3 1983

  28. [28]

    Loop Space Hamiltonians and Numerical Methods for LargeNGauge Theories. 2.,

    A. Jevicki, O. Karim, J. P. Rodrigues and H. Levine, “Loop Space Hamiltonians and Numerical Methods for LargeNGauge Theories. 2.,” Nucl. Phys. B230, 299-316 (1984) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90215-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90215-3 1984

  29. [29]

    Large N optimization for multi-matrix systems,

    R. d. Koch, A. Jevicki, X. Liu, K. Mathaba and J. P. Rodrigues, “Large N optimization for multi-matrix systems,” JHEP01, 168 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2022)168 [arXiv:2108.08803 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Large N master field optimization: the quantum mechanics of two Yang-Mills coupled matrices,

    K. Mathaba, M. Mulokwe and J. P. Rodrigues, “Large N master field optimization: the quantum mechanics of two Yang-Mills coupled matrices,” JHEP02, 054 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)054 [arXiv:2306.00935 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Finite Yang-Mills integrals,

    W. Krauth and M. Staudacher, “Finite Yang-Mills integrals,” Phys. Lett. B435, 350-355 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00814-4 [arXiv:hep-th/9804199 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  32. [32]

    The Convergence of Yang-Mills integrals,

    P. Austing and J. F. Wheater, “The Convergence of Yang-Mills integrals,” JHEP02, 028 (2001) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/02/028 [arXiv:hep-th/0101071 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  33. [33]

    Convergent Yang-Mills matrix theories,

    P. Austing and J. F. Wheater, “Convergent Yang-Mills matrix theories,” JHEP04, 019 (2001) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/04/019 [arXiv:hep-th/0103159 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  34. [34]

    Dynamical aspects of large N reduced models,

    T. Hotta, J. Nishimura and A. Tsuchiya, “Dynamical aspects of large N reduced models,” Nucl. Phys. B545, 543-575 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00056-5 [arXiv:hep-th/9811220 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  35. [35]

    Analytic trajectory bootstrap for matrix models,

    W. Li, “Analytic trajectory bootstrap for matrix models,” JHEP02, 098 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2025)098 [arXiv:2407.08593 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Invariant semi-definite Programs,

    C. Bachoc, D. C. Gijswijt, A. Schrijver, and F. Vallentin, “Invariant semi-definite Programs,” Handbook on semi-definite, conic and polynomial optimization (Springer, 2012) pp. 219–269 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-0769-0

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0769-0 2012

  37. [37]

    Bootstrap for lattice Yang-Mills theory,

    V. Kazakov and Z. Zheng, “Bootstrap for lattice Yang-Mills theory,” Phys. Rev. D107, no.5, L051501 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.L051501 [arXiv:2203.11360 [hep-th]]. – 49 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Null bootstrap for non-Hermitian Hamiltonians,

    W. Li, “Null bootstrap for non-Hermitian Hamiltonians,” Phys. Rev. D106, no.12, 125021 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.125021 [arXiv:2202.04334 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Taming Dyson-Schwinger Equations with Null States,

    W. Li, “Taming Dyson-Schwinger Equations with Null States,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.3, 031603 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.031603 [arXiv:2303.10978 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Solving anharmonic oscillator with null states: Hamiltonian bootstrap and Dyson-Schwinger equations,

    Y. Guo and W. Li, “Solving anharmonic oscillator with null states: Hamiltonian bootstrap and Dyson-Schwinger equations,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.12, 125002 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.125002 [arXiv:2305.15992 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Principle of minimal singularity for Green’s functions,

    W. Li, “Principle of minimal singularity for Green’s functions,” Phys. Rev. D109, no.4, 045012 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.045012 [arXiv:2309.02201 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    ϕn trajectory bootstrap,

    W. Li, “ϕn trajectory bootstrap,” Phys. Rev. D111, no.4, 045013 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.045013 [arXiv:2402.05778 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Navigator Function for the Conformal Bootstrap,

    M. Reehorst, S. Rychkov, D. Simmons-Duffin, B. Sirois, N. Su and B. van Rees, “Navigator Function for the Conformal Bootstrap,” SciPost Phys.11, 072 (2021) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.11.3.072 [arXiv:2104.09518 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Introduction to Monte Carlo for matrix models,

    R. G. Jha, “Introduction to Monte Carlo for matrix models,” SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes46, 1 (2022) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.46 [arXiv:2111.02410 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Generalized Catalan Numbers Associated with a Family of Pascal-like Triangles

    Barry, Paul. "Generalized Catalan Numbers Associated with a Family of Pascal-like Triangles." J. Integer Seq. 22.5 (2019): 19-5

    2019

  46. [46]

    Bootstrapping periodic quantum systems,

    Z. Huang and W. Li, “Bootstrapping periodic quantum systems,” [arXiv:2507.02386 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Monte Carlo approach to M theory,

    W. Krauth, H. Nicolai and M. Staudacher, “Monte Carlo approach to M theory,” Phys. Lett. B431, 31-41 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00557-7 [arXiv:hep-th/9803117 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  48. [48]

    Large N dynamics of dimensionally reduced 4-D SU(N) superYang-Mills theory,

    J. Ambjorn, K. N. Anagnostopoulos, W. Bietenholz, T. Hotta and J. Nishimura, “Large N dynamics of dimensionally reduced 4-D SU(N) superYang-Mills theory,” JHEP07, 013 (2000) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/07/013 [arXiv:hep-th/0003208 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  49. [49]

    Massive deformations of supersymmetric Yang-Mills matrix models,

    A. Martina, “Massive deformations of supersymmetric Yang-Mills matrix models,” [arXiv:2507.17813 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  50. [50]

    Eigenvalue distributions in Yang-Mills integrals,

    W. Krauth and M. Staudacher, “Eigenvalue distributions in Yang-Mills integrals,” Physics Letters B, 453, 253-257 [arXiv:hep-th/9902113 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Monte Carlo studies of the IIB matrix model at large N,

    J. Ambjorn, K. N. Anagnostopoulos, W. Bietenholz, T. Hotta and J. Nishimura, “Monte Carlo studies of the IIB matrix model at large N,” JHEP07, 011 (2000) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/07/011 [arXiv:hep-th/0005147 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  52. [52]

    Loop Equations and bootstrap methods in the lattice,

    P. D. Anderson and M. Kruczenski, “Loop Equations and bootstrap methods in the lattice,” Nucl. Phys. B921, 702-726 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.06.009 [arXiv:1612.08140 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    Bootstrap for finite N lattice Yang-Mills theory,

    V. Kazakov and Z. Zheng, “Bootstrap for finite N lattice Yang-Mills theory,” JHEP03, 099 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2025)099 [arXiv:2404.16925 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Bootstrapping the Abelian lattice gauge theories,

    Z. Li and S. Zhou, “Bootstrapping the Abelian lattice gauge theories,” JHEP08, 154 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)154 [arXiv:2404.17071 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Bootstrapping SU(3) Lattice Yang-Mills Theory,

    Y. Guo, Z. Li, G. Yang and G. Zhu, “Bootstrapping SU(3) Lattice Yang-Mills Theory,” [arXiv:2502.14421 [hep-th]]. – 50 –

    arXiv

  56. [56]

    Dyson-Schwinger equations and their application to hadronic physics,

    C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams, “Dyson-Schwinger equations and their application to hadronic physics,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.33, 477-575 (1994) doi:10.1016/0146-6410(94)90049-3 [arXiv:hep-ph/9403224 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  57. [57]

    Young tableaux

    W. Fulton. "Young tableaux", Vol. 35. London Mathematical Society Student Texts. With applications to representation theory and geometry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997, pp. x+260, ISBN 0-521-56724-6, doi:10.1112/S0024609398214779

    work page doi:10.1112/s0024609398214779 1997

  58. [58]

    Group Theory: Birdtracks, Lie’s, and Exceptional Groups,

    P. Cvitanovic, “Group Theory: Birdtracks, Lie’s, and Exceptional Groups,” Princeton University Press, 2020, ISBN 978-0-691-20298-3 – 51 –

    2020