Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 2 cited by

Conjecture on the lower bound of the length-scale critical exponent $\nu$ at continuous phase transitions

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper conjectures a universal lower bound on the length-scale critical exponent ν—namely ν ≥ (2−η)⁻¹, and hence ν ≥ 1/2 for unitary theories—across all single-quadratic-term LGW Φ⁴ theories and their fermionic and gauge extensions.

desk verdict A clear, honest conjecture paper with exact support in 2D minimal models and epsilon expansion; the lattice argument is a disclosed weakness, but the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.17637 v3 pith:WDRPFZQP submitted 2025-10-20 cond-mat.stat-mech hep-lathep-th

Andrea Pelissetto , Ettore Vicari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechhep-lathep-th MSC 82B2782B2081T1781T40 PACS 64.60.Fr05.70.Jk
keywords criticalexponentslowerboundonνLandau-Ginzburg-Wilsontheoryrenormalizationgroupoperatorproductexpansionconformalfieldε-expansionsusceptibilityinequality
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

The paper proposes that at any continuous phase transition described by a Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson Φ⁴ theory with a single φ·φ quadratic term, the scaling dimension of the energy operator always exceeds twice that of the order parameter. This inequality, written Σ ≡ Δ_ε − 2Δ_φ ≥ 0, is equivalent to ν ≥ (2−η)⁻¹ and γ ≥ 1. If true, it explains why no continuous transition with ν below 1/2 has ever been observed, and it sharpens the standard criterion for distinguishing continuous from first-order transitions. The authors support the conjecture with general lattice arguments, ε-expansion results near four dimensions, exact 2D minimal-model relations, and consistency with all known numerical, perturbative, and exact exponents. The entire edifice rests on an unproven lattice susceptibility inequality that the authors themselves flag as lacking a conclusive proof.

What carries the argument

The central object is the difference Σ = Δ_ε − 2Δ_φ, built from the RG dimensions of the order parameter φ and the energy operator ε ≡ [φ²]. The argument runs on two pillars: a conjectured lattice inequality ∂χ/∂β ≤ cχ² for the susceptibility (a generalization of a rigorous Ising/Ashkin-Teller result) that would force γ ≥ 1, and the one-loop ε-expansion identity Σ = (c/2)ε with c ∈ [0,2] at any fixed point, which makes the inequality automatic near four dimensions. In 2D, a null-vector differential equation for the three-point function yields the exact relation Σ = 3Δ_ε²/[2(1+Δ_ε)] ≥ 0 for minimal models.

What would settle it

A direct falsifying observation would be a high-precision determination of Σ = 2−η−1/ν < 0 in any unitary continuous transition with an LGW Φ⁴ description—for instance, a conformal-bootstrap or Monte Carlo result in a 3D O(N) or cubic-anisotropy model yielding ν < (2−η)⁻¹. Alternatively, an explicit finite-temperature calculation in a generic multicomponent ferromagnetic lattice model showing ∂χ/∂β > cχ² for some β < β_c would destroy the lattice pillar of the conjecture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is the inequality Σ ≡ Δ_ε − 2Δ_φ ≥ 0 for all d-dimensional LGW Φ⁴ theories with a single quadratic invariant (plus GNY and Abelian-Higgs extensions). Because Δ_φ = (d−2+η)/2 and Δ_ε = d−1/ν, the inequality is equivalent to ν ≥ (2−η)⁻¹ and γ = (2−η)ν ≥ 1. For unitary theories η ≥ 0, so the bound implies ν ≥ 1/2—stronger than the known first-order bound ν > 1/d. A direct corollary is that the OPE coefficient F_ε(x₁₂) ∝ |x₁₂|^Σ for φ·φ → [φ²] is nondiverging, and the three-point function ⟨φφ[φ²]⟩ does not diverge in the short-distance limit. The paper proves the inequality exactly for a class of 2D unitary minimal models, where it derives Σ = 3Δ_ε²/[2(1+Δ_ε)] ≥ 0, and shows it

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the unproven lattice inequality ∂χ/∂β ≤ cχ², which the authors verify only for small β and in the magnetized phase; if some generic ferromagnetic LGW lattice model violates it, the lattice-based case for γ ≥ 1 collapses (the ε-expansion and 2D CFT evidence would remain intact).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the conjecture holds, any numerical or experimental estimate of ν below (2−η)⁻¹—in particular below 1/2—at a supposedly continuous transition can be reinterpreted as a crossover toward a first-order transition, without needing to see the asymptotic ν = 1/d scaling.
  • The inequality imposes a new consistency check on conformal-bootstrap searches in three dimensions: any putative unitary CFT arising from an LGW Φ⁴ theory must satisfy Δ_ε ≥ 2Δ_φ.
  • For quantum phase transitions related to classical LGW theories by the quantum-to-classical mapping, the bound ν ≥ 1/2 would transfer directly to the quantum length-scale exponent.
  • The nondivergence of the φ·φ → [φ²] OPE coefficient would constrain the short-distance behavior of correlation functions in all LGW universality classes.
  • The bound would rule out a whole family of hypothetical unitary critical behaviors with ν < 1/2, sharpening the classification of possible continuous transitions in three dimensions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the exact 2D minimal-model relation Σ = 3Δ_ε²/[2(1+Δ_ε)] suggests that a fully general CFT proof of Δ_ε ≥ 2Δ_φ may exist beyond minimal models, perhaps following from unitarity and convergence of the OPE; testing this in non-rational 2D CFTs would be a natural next step.
  • Editorial inference: the conjecture's scope is explicitly LGW-like transitions; a high-precision bootstrap or Monte Carlo check on a non-LGW transition (e.g., deconfined quantum critical points) could either extend the bound to a broader class or reveal precisely where LGW descriptions break down.
  • Editorial inference: the unproven lattice inequality (A8) can itself be tested by direct numerical measurement of W(β,c) = ∂_β χ − cχ² in, say, 3D O(N) models; a definitive verification there would upgrade γ ≥ 1 from conjecture to theorem for those models.
  • Editorial inference: if a counterexample is ever found, the paper's framework predicts the fault line will lie in the lattice argument rather than in the ε-expansion or CFT evidence, since those two are structurally independent supports.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper conjectures a universal inequality for continuous phase transitions described by d-dimensional Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson (LGW) Φ^4 theories with a single φ·φ quadratic term: the renormalization-group dimensions of the order parameter and the energy operator satisfy Σ ≡ Δ_ε − 2Δ_φ ≥ 0 (Eq. 2). Equivalently, ν ≥ (2−η)^{-1} and γ = (2−η)ν ≥ 1 (Eqs. 3–4). The authors support the conjecture with several independent lines of evidence: a lattice argument for γ ≥ 1 (rigorous for Ising and Ashkin-Teller, conjectured for generic ferromagnetic lattice models through Eq. A8), a one-loop ε-expansion proof close to four dimensions (Eq. A26 with the fixed-point constraint 0 ≤ c ≤ 2 from Eq. A16), large-N results for O(N) and O(M)⊗O(N) models, an exact derivation for a class of 2D minimal-model CFTs (Eq. A55), and a broad survey of 2D and 3D universality classes (Tables I and II). The same inequality is argued to hold in Gross-Neveu-Yukawa and Abelian-Higgs extensions with an appropriate identification of the order parameter. The paper concludes that no known LGW-type continuous transition violates the bound and discusses the practical use of ν ≥ (2−η)^{-1} as a diagnostic for first-order versus continuous behavior.

Significance. If correct, the conjecture provides a nontrivial and very general lower bound that is stronger than the standard ν > 1/d criterion for d > 2, and it would explain the empirically noted absence of continuous transitions with ν < 1/2. The strongest parts of the paper are the exact 2D minimal-model derivation (Eq. A55), which is self-contained and verified by the Ising, q=3 Potts, tricritical Ising, and q=4 Potts values in Table II, and the ε-expansion result (Eq. A26), which follows directly from the fixed-point equation (Eq. A16). The large-N formulas and the numerical consistency checks in Tables I and II are also valuable; I spot-checked the arithmetic and found it consistent. The weakest element is the generic lattice argument in App. A.1, where the key inequality (Eq. A8) is explicitly unproven and, as the authors note, equivalent to the desired bound near criticality. This is a disclosed limitation rather than a hidden flaw, and the central claim is explicitly presented as a conjecture, so I do not regard it as fatal. The paper is a well-posed, honest conjecture paper with substantial multi-pronged evidence and should be published after minor corrections.

minor comments (4)
  1. [App. A.1, Eq. (A8)] The text proves γ ≥ 1 from Eq. (A8) and then notes that the reverse statement also holds close to the critical point. This means that, for generic lattice models, Eq. (A8) near β_c is essentially a reformulation of the desired bound rather than an independent derivation. I recommend stating this equivalence explicitly and softening the abstract's phrase 'supported by general arguments for ferromagnetic lattice models' so that readers do not take the lattice argument as a proof for generic LGW systems.
  2. [App. A.2, Eq. (A31)] There is a factor-of-4 error in the relation between η(g*) and Q(g*). From Q(g*) = −(ε/6) g*_{ijkl} g*_{ijkl} (Eq. A30) and η(g*) = (1/24N) g*_{ijkl} g*_{ijkl} (Eq. A24), one obtains η(g*) = −Q(g*)/(4Nε), not −Q(g*)/(Nε). The qualitative conclusion that the stable FP has the largest η is unaffected, but the displayed equation should be corrected.
  3. [App. A.7, after Eq. (A75)] The statement that Σ is positive 'for any value of the gauge-fixing parameter ζ' appears too broad. Adding the ζ-dependent term to the one-loop expression gives an extra 6ζ(N+4) in the numerator of Eq. (A75); for sufficiently negative ζ this term can overcome the positive base contribution. If only ζ=0 (Lorenz gauge) is physically relevant for the nonlocal order parameter, the claim should be restricted accordingly, or the positivity statement should be qualified.
  4. [Various] There are several typographical errors that should be cleaned up: 'Ccorrespondingly' in Sec. A5b, 'Tere' in the caption of Fig. 1, 'formaly' in Sec. A5, 'Lagrangan' in Sec. A7, and 'relevent' in Sec. A7. These do not affect the technical content.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

No full circularity; the lattice-system pillar for γ≥1 is an openly disclosed assumption equivalent to the target inequality.

  1. self definitional [Appendix A.1 (Eqs. A8-A9); main text section 'The bound γ≥1 in d-dimensional lattice systems']
    "We conjecture the existence of positive constants c such that ∂χ/∂β ≤ c χ². (A8) ... Eq. (A8) allows one to prove γ≥1 ... Note that also the reverse statement holds: if γ≥1, close to the critical point the inequality (A8) holds. ... We have no proof for generic values of β < β_c."

    The lattice argument derives γ≥1 from (A8), but the paper itself shows the asymptotic content of (A8) is equivalent to γ≥1: (A8) implies γ≥1 and the paper notes the converse near criticality. Hence the general-lattice 'argument' supplies no independent evidence beyond assuming the same bound in equivalent form; the full (A8) for all β is merely a stronger, unproved conjecture. The disclosure is explicit, so this is a flagged circular support rather than a hidden derivation.

full rationale

The central conjecture Σ≥0 is not derived from the lattice inequality. Independent lines support it: (i) the 2D minimal-model calculation (Eqs. A52-A55) derives Σ=3Δε²/[2(1+Δε)]≥0 from standard BPZ differential equations; (ii) the 4−ε analysis (Eqs. A16-A26) obtains Σ=cϵ/2+O(ϵ²) with 0≤c≤2 solely from FP equations; (iii) large-N and GNY/AH expansions are standard perturbative/large-N computations; and (iv) the 3D consistency table uses independent bootstrap, Monte Carlo and high-temperature exponents, none fitted to the conjecture. The only step that reduces to its own input by the paper's own equations is Appendix A.1, where inequality (A8) is used to argue γ≥1, and the reverse statement is stated immediately afterward. Because the paper labels (A8) a conjecture and explicitly says a conclusive proof is missing, this is a disclosed equivalence/limitation, not an attempt to hide circularity. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [7, 45, 46, 75, 76, 80-83]) supply numerical and conventional RG results but do not bake in Σ≥0 as a premise. Overall, one supporting pillar is circular-by-equivalence and load-bearing only for the 'generic lattice' generality; the conjecture's core evidence remains independent, so a score of 4 (partial circularity in one line) is proportionate.

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

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no parameters. It rests on standard RG/CFT machinery plus one genuinely conjectural bridge inequality (A8) for generic lattice models; rigorous support is restricted to Ising/Ashkin-Teller (cited), 2D minimal models (derived), one-loop ε-expansion (derived), and large-N expansions (cited).

assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper For generic ferromagnetic LGW lattice models, there exists c > 0 such that ∂χ/∂β ≤ cχ² (Eq. A8).
    This is the paper's own conjectured bridge inequality undergirding γ ≥ 1 in generic lattice systems; proven only at small β (Eq. A11, requiring ¯c ≥ 2d) and in the magnetized phase, and explicitly not proved for intermediate β ('a conclusive proof is still missing', App. A.1).
  • domain assumption The energy operator ε is [φ²] with identity mixing subtracted, with RG dimension Δ_ε = d − 1/ν.
    Standard LGW identification used in the abstract and Eqs. (2)-(3); needed to translate Δ_ε ≥ 2Δ_φ into ν ≥ (2−η)^{-1}.
  • domain assumption Unitarity (reflection positivity) implies η ≥ 0 for the order parameter.
    Cited standard result (Refs. 5, 28, 29); required to conclude ν ≥ 1/2 from ν ≥ (2−η)^{-1}.
  • standard math The one-loop MS β-function (A13) with the trace condition (A14); the FP equation (A16) then forces 0 ≤ c ≤ 2 at every fixed point.
    Background from Refs. 6 and 8; the derivation of Σ = cε/2 + O(ε²) ≥ 0 (Eq. A26) is the ε-expansion evidence.
  • standard math For 2D minimal models, ε is identified with the primary of weight h_{2,1} or h_{1,2}, and the ⟨εφφ⟩ correlator satisfies the BPZ differential equation (A53).
    Standard CFT machinery (Refs. 28, 91); from these the paper derives Σ = 3Δ_ε²/[2(1+Δ_ε)] ≥ 0 (Eq. A55).
  • domain assumption In Abelian-Higgs models, the order-parameter dimension Δ_φ is that of the scalar field in the Lorentz gauge ζ = 0 (a nonlocal gauge-invariant operator).
    Necessary to apply the conjecture to gauge theories; justified by the authors' earlier work Refs. 46, 119-121.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conjecture on the lower bound of the length-scale critical exponent $\nu$ at continuous phase transitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDRPFZQP

@misc{pith2026251017637,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conjecture on the lower bound of the length-scale critical exponent $\nu$ at continuous phase transitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDRPFZQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.17637}
}
abstract

A fundamental issue in the renormalization-group (RG) theory of critical phenomena concerns the allowed values of critical exponents that are consistent with the continuous nature of a phase transition. Here we conjecture a lower bound for the length-scale exponent $\nu$, which should hold for the large class of continuous transitions associated with $d$-dimensional Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson (LGW) $\Phi^4$ theories with a multicomponent scalar field ${\varphi}$ and a unique ${\varphi}\cdot {\varphi}$ quadratic term (including some extensions with fermionic and gauge fields), describing many universality classes of critical phenomena. If $\Delta_\varphi=(d-2+\eta)/2$ is the dimension of the order-parameter field ${\varphi}$, and $\Delta_\varepsilon=d-1/\nu$ is the RG dimension of the energy operator $\varepsilon$, which can be identified with $[{\varphi}\cdot {\varphi}]$ (the squared field with a proper subtraction of the mixing with the identity), we conjecture the inequality $\Delta_\varepsilon \ge 2 \Delta_\varphi$, which implies $\nu \ge (2-\eta)^{-1}$ and $\gamma = (2-\eta)\nu\ge 1$. These inequalities are supported by general arguments for ferromagnetic lattice models, by $\epsilon$-expansion results for generic LGW $\Phi^4$ theories close to four dimensions, exact relations for two-dimensional minimal conformal field theories, and are consistent with all further known (numerical, perturbative, and exact) results for LGW $\Phi^4$ theories. In particular, since unitarity requires $\eta\ge 0$, the above inequality implies $\nu\ge 1/2$ for unitary theories. This lower bound is more restrictive than $\nu > 1/d$, derived by noting that $\nu=1/d$ characterizes the singular finite-size behavior at first-order transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.17637 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: RG flow and FPs of the O( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The three-dimensional RG flow of the cubic model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Phase transitions on the dark side of the Gross-Neveu model: Spontaneous $\textrm{O}(4N)$ symmetry breaking at repulsive coupling

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Spontaneous O(4N) symmetry breaking is confirmed in the repulsive Gross-Neveu model via sign-problem-free quantum Monte Carlo, with a weakly first-order transition at N=2.

  2. Charged Abelian Higgs phase transitions in three-dimensional compact lattice U(1) gauge models with multicharge scalar matter

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Finite-size scaling analyses of Monte Carlo data for 3D compact lattice U(1) models with doubly-charged N-component scalars show continuous DC-OD transitions for N=10, weak first-order for N≤7, and inconclusive result...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Using the relationγ= (2−η)ν, this result implies the conjectured bound onν

    The boundγ≥1in lattice systems We argue thatγ≥1 for generic ferromagnetic systems at their continuous transitions. Using the relationγ= (2−η)ν, this result implies the conjectured bound onν. The relationγ≥1 has been proved for Ising systems in any dimension using a simple inequality for the magnetic susceptibility [35]. Here, we conjecture that an analogo...

  2. [2]

    In this ap- proach, one considers dimensional regularization and the minimal-subtraction (MS) renormalization scheme

    LGW theories close to four dimensions The RG flow of LGW Φ 4 theories, H= X i (∂µφi)2 +r X i φ2 i + X ijkl uijkl φiφjφkφl,(A12) close to four dimensions can be investigated in the frame- work of theϵ= 4−dexpansion [1, 2, 40]. In this ap- proach, one considers dimensional regularization and the minimal-subtraction (MS) renormalization scheme. The correspon...

  3. [3]

    LGW theories in the large-Nlimit In this section, we present some analytic results ob- tained for large values ofN, which confirm again the validity of the conjectured inequality (A1). a. O(N)-vector models We first consider LGW theories withN-component fieldsφ(x) and O(N) global symmetry, which are ob- tained by taking uijkl = u 3 (δijδkl +δ ikδjl +δ ilδ...

  4. [4]

    3D continuous transitions We now verify that the conjecture (A1) holds at all known transitions that are described by LGW theories. a. 3D O(N)-vector models Accurate estimates of the critical exponentsνandη for the 3D O(N) vector models are reported in Table I. 3 In all cases, Σ = 2−η−y r is positive as a consequence of the smallness ofηand of the fact th...

  5. [5]

    In Table II we report the critical exponentsν, η,γ, and the difference Σ = 2−η−y r, for several 2D models

    2D continuous transitions We now consider continuous transitions in two dimen- sions. In Table II we report the critical exponentsν, η,γ, and the difference Σ = 2−η−y r, for several 2D models. We consider the Ising model, theq= 3 andq= 4 Potts model, the XY model, which undergoes a Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition [93– 96], the self-avoidi...

  6. [6]

    Models with fermionic fields We now consider models with scalar fields coupled with fermionic, showing that the conjecture (A1) extend to these more complex field theories. We focus on the Gross- Neveu-Yukawa (GNY) model defined by the Hamiltonian density [6] HGNY = (∂ µφ)2 +r φ2 +u φ4 − NfX f=1 ¯ψf ( /∂+m+φ)ψ f .(A61) 11 whereφis a real scalar field andψ...

  7. [7]

    Model with gauge fields The SU(N)-symmetric Abelian Higgs (AH) gauge field theory is obtained by minimally coupling anN- component complex scalar fieldϕ(x) with an electromag- netic U(1) gauge fieldA µ(x). The Lagrangian density reads [6, 118] LAH =L AH(ϕ,A) +L gf (A),(A73) LAH = 1 4g2 F 2 µν +|D µϕ|2 +r ¯ϕ·ϕ+u( ¯ϕ·ϕ) 2, Lgf (A) = 1 2ζ (∂µAµ)2, where the ...

  8. [8]

    [6, 10, 132–134]

    Uniaxial systems with strong dipolar forces Another class of interestingd-dimensional spin systems are those in whichd-component spinss x interact both through short range and dipolar forces, see for exam- ple Refs. [6, 10, 132–134]. Assuming that the lattice is strongly anisotropic in such a way that only one compo- nent of the spins x is critical, the c...

Show all 142 references
  1. [9]

    K. G. Wilson, The renormalization group and critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys. ‘55, 483 (1983)

    1983

  2. [10]

    K. G. Wilson and J. B. Kogut, The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion, Phys. Rept.12, 75 (1974)

    1974

  3. [11]

    , M. E. Fisher, The renormalization group in the theory of critical behavior, Rev. Mod. Phys.46, 597 (1974); Erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys.47, 543 (1975)

    1974

  4. [12]

    F. J. Wegner, The Critical State, General Aspects, C. Domb, C. and M. S. Green editors,Phase transitions and critical phenomena, vol. 6, (Academic Press, Lon- don, 1976)

    1976

  5. [13]

    Patashinskii and V.L

    A.Z. Patashinskii and V.L. Pokrovskii, Fluctuation The- ory of Phase Transitions, Pergamon Press, New York, 1979

    1979

  6. [14]

    Zinn-Justin, Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phe- nomena, (Clarendon Press, 2002)

    J. Zinn-Justin, Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phe- nomena, (Clarendon Press, 2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Critical phenomena and renormalization group theory, Phys. Rept.368, 549 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Br´ ezin, J

    E. Br´ ezin, J. C. Le Guillou, and J. Zinn-Justin, Discus- sion of critical phenomena for general n-vector models, Phys. Rev. B10, 892 (1974)

    1974

  9. [17]

    Br´ ezin, J

    E. Br´ ezin, J. C. Le Guillou, and J. Zinn-Justin, in 13 Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, C. Domb and J. Lebowitz eds. (Academic Press, New York, 1976), Vol. 6, p. 125

    1976

  10. [18]

    Aharony, inPhase Transitions and Critical Phenom- ena, C

    A. Aharony, inPhase Transitions and Critical Phenom- ena, C. Domb and J. Lebowitz eds. (Academic Press, New York, 1976), Vol. 6, p. 357

    1976

  11. [19]

    Vicari, Critical phenomena and renormalization- group flow of multi-parameter Φ 4 field theories, PoS (LAT2007) 023 (2008) [arXiv:0709.1014]

    E. Vicari, Critical phenomena and renormalization- group flow of multi-parameter Φ 4 field theories, PoS (LAT2007) 023 (2008) [arXiv:0709.1014]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Nienhuis and M

    B. Nienhuis and M. Nauenberg, First-Order Phase Transitions in Renormalization-Group Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.35, 477 (1975)

    1975

  13. [21]

    M. E. Fisher and A. N. Berker, Scaling for first-order phase transitions in thermodynamic and finite systems, Phys. Rev. B26, 2507 (1982)

    1982

  14. [22]

    Privman and M

    V. Privman and M. E. Fisher, Finite-size effects at first- order transitions, J. Stat. Phys.33, 385 (1983)

    1983

  15. [23]

    M. E. Fisher and V. Privman, First-order transitions breaking O(n) symmetry: Finite-size scaling, Phys. Rev. B32, 447 (1985)

    1985

  16. [24]

    M. S. S. Challa, D. P. Landau, and K. Binder, Finite- size effects at temperature-driven first-order transitions, Phys. Rev. B34, 1841 (1986)

    1986

  17. [25]

    Binder, Theory of first-order phase transitions, Rep

    K. Binder, Theory of first-order phase transitions, Rep. Prog. Phys.50, 783 (1987)

    1987

  18. [26]

    Borgs and R

    C. Borgs and R. Kotecky, A rigorous theory of finite-size scaling at first-order phase transitions, J. Stat. Phys.61, 79 (1990)

    1990

  19. [27]

    Lee and J

    J. Lee and J. M. Kosterlitz, Finite-size scaling and Monte Carlo simulations of first-order phase transitions. Phys. Rev. B43, 3265 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Borgs and R

    C. Borgs and R. Kotecky, Finite-Size Effects at Asym- metric First-Order Phase Transitions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1734 (1992)

    1992

  21. [29]

    Vollmayr, J

    K. Vollmayr, J. D. Reger, M. Scheucher, and K. Binder, Finite size effects at thermally-driven first order phase transitions: A phenomenological theory of the order pa- rameter distribution, Z. Phys. B91, 113 (1993)

    1993

  22. [30]

    Calabrese, P

    P. Calabrese, P. Parruccini, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vi- cari, Critical behavior of O(2)⊗O(N)-symmetric mod- els, Phys. Rev. B70, 174439 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    Campostrini, J

    M. Campostrini, J. Nespolo, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vi- cari, Finite-size scaling at first-order quantum transi- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 070402 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Scaling behaviors at quan- tum and classical first-order transitions, in50 years of the renormalization group, chapter 27, dedicated to the memory of Michael E. Fisher, edited by A. Aharony, O. Entin-Wohlman, D. Huse, and L. Radzihovsky, World Scie...

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. E. Fisher, D. R. Nelson, Spin flop, supersolids, and bicritical and tetracritical points, Phys. Rev. Lett.32, 1350 (1974) 1350

    1974

  26. [34]

    D. R. Nelson, J. M. Kosterlitz, M. E. Fisher, Renormalization-Group analysis of bicritical and tetra- critical points, Phys. Rev. Lett.33, 813 (1974)

    1974

  27. [35]

    Calabrese, A

    P. Calabrese, A. Pelissetto, E. Vicari, Multicritical be- havior ofO(n 1)⊕O(n 2)-symmetric systems, Phys. Rev. B67, 054505 (2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    Itzykson and J.M

    C. Itzykson and J.M. Drouffe, Statistical Field Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989

    1989

  29. [37]

    Poland, S

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, The conformal bootstrap: Theory, numerical techniques, and applica- tions, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015002 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    A. M. Polyakov, Conformal symmetry of critical fluctu- ations, JETP Lett.12, 381 (1970)

    1970

  31. [39]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. S´ en´ echal,Confor- mal Field Theory, Springer-Verlag New York, 1996

    1996

  32. [40]

    S. L. Sondhi, S. M. Girvin, J. P. Carini, and D. Sha- har, Continuous quantum phase transitions, Rev. Mod. Phys.69, 315 (1997)

    1997

  33. [41]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge University, Cambridge, England, 1999)

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge University, Cambridge, England, 1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    Rossini and E

    D. Rossini and E. Vicari, Coherent and dissipative dy- namics at quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rep.936, 1 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    G. A. Baker Jr., Critical Exponent Inequalities and the Continuity of the Inverse Range of Correlation, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 268 (1975)

    1975

  36. [44]

    Glimm and A

    J. Glimm and A. Jaffe, Critical exponents and elemen- tary particles, Commun. Math. Phys.52, 203 (1977)

    1977

  37. [45]

    J. L. Lebowitz, GHS and other inequalities, Comm. Math. Phys.35, 87 (1974)

    1974

  38. [46]

    Shtengel, Lebowitz inequalities for Ashkin-Teller systems, Physica A279, 312 (2000)

    L Chayes and K. Shtengel, Lebowitz inequalities for Ashkin-Teller systems, Physica A279, 312 (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    Wu, The Potts model, Rev

    F.Y. Wu, The Potts model, Rev. Mod. Phys.64, 235 (1982)

    1982

  40. [48]

    K. G. Wilson and M. E. Fisher, Critical exponents in 3.99 dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 240 (1972)

    1972

  41. [49]

    D. J. Wallace and R. P. K. Zia, Phys. Lett. A48, 325 (1974)

    1974

  42. [50]

    Vicari and J

    E. Vicari and J. Zinn-Justin, Fixed point stability and decay of correlations, New Journal of Physics8, 321 (2006)

    2006

  43. [51]

    Moshe and J

    M. Moshe and J. Zinn-Justin, Quantum field theory in the largeNlimit: a review, Phys. Rept.385, 69 (2003)

    2003

  44. [52]

    Kawamura, Chiral criticality near two dimensions, J

    H. Kawamura, Chiral criticality near two dimensions, J. Phys. Soc. Japan60, 1839 (1991)

    1991

  45. [53]

    Pelissetto, P

    A. Pelissetto, P. Rossi, and E. Vicari, Large-Ncritical behavior of O(M)×O(N) spin models, Nucl. Phys. B 607, 605 (2001)

    2001

  46. [54]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Three- dimensional Abelian and non-Abelian gauge Higgs the- ories, Phys. Rept.1133, 1 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Guida and J

    R. Guida and J. Zinn-Justin, Critical exponents of the N-vector model, J. Phys. A31, 8103 (1998)

    1998

  48. [56]

    Campostrini, A

    M. Campostrini, A. Pelissetto, P. Rossi, and E. Vi- cari, 25th-order high-temperature expansion results for three-dimensional Ising-like systems on the simple-cubic lattice Phys. Rev. E65, 066127 (2002)

    2002

  49. [57]

    Hasenbusch, A finite size scaling study of lattice models in the three-dimensional Ising universality class, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, A finite size scaling study of lattice models in the three-dimensional Ising universality class, Phys. Rev. B82, 174433 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Precision islands in the Ising and O(N) models, JHEP 08, 036 (2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    M. V. Kompaniets and E. Panzer, Minimally subtracted six-loop renormalization of O(n)-symmetricφ 4 theory and critical exponents, Phys. Rev. D96, 036016 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    A. M. Ferrenberg, J. Xu, and D. P. Landau, Pushing the limits of Monte Carlo simulations for the three- dimensional Ising model, Phys. Rev. E97, 043301 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Hasenbusch, Restoring isotropy in a three- dimensional lattice model: The Ising universality class, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, Restoring isotropy in a three- dimensional lattice model: The Ising universality class, Phys. Rev. B104, 014426 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Campostrini, M

    M. Campostrini, M. Hasenbusch, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Theoretical estimates of the critical exponents 14 of the superfluid transition in 4He by lattice methods, Phys. Rev. B74, 144506 (2006)

    2006

  55. [63]

    Hasenbusch, Monte Carlo study of an improved clock model in three dimensions, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, Monte Carlo study of an improved clock model in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. B100, 224517 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi, Carving out OPE space and precise O(2) model critical exponents, J. High Energy Phys.06, 142 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Hasenbusch, Eliminating leading and subleading cor- rections to scaling in the three-dimensional XY univer- sality class, arXiv:2507.19265

    M. Hasenbusch, Eliminating leading and subleading cor- rections to scaling in the three-dimensional XY univer- sality class, arXiv:2507.19265

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Campostrini, M

    M. Campostrini, M. Hasenbusch, A. Pelissetto, P. Rossi, and E. Vicari, Critical exponents and equation of state of the three-dimensional Heisenberg universality class, Phys. Rev. B65, 144520 (2002)

    2002

  59. [67]

    Hasenbusch and E

    M. Hasenbusch and E. Vicari, Anisotropic perturbations in 3D O(N) vector models, Phys. Rev. B84, 125136 (2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    Hasenbusch, Monte Carlo study of a generalized icosahedral model on the simple cubic lattice, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, Monte Carlo study of a generalized icosahedral model on the simple cubic lattice, Phys. Rev. B102, 024406 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi, Bootstrapping Heisenberg magnets and their cubic instability, Phys. Rev. D104, 105013 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Clisby, Accurate estimate of the critical exponent for self-avoiding walks via a fast implementation of the pivot algorithm, Phys

    N. Clisby, Accurate estimate of the critical exponent for self-avoiding walks via a fast implementation of the pivot algorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 055702 (2010)

    2010

  63. [71]

    Clisby, Scale-free Monte Carlo method for calculating the critical exponentγof self-avoiding walks, J

    N. Clisby, Scale-free Monte Carlo method for calculating the critical exponentγof self-avoiding walks, J. Phys. A50, 264003 (2017)

    2017

  64. [72]

    Hasenbusch, Three-dimensional O(N)-invariant models at criticality forN≥4, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, Three-dimensional O(N)-invariant models at criticality forN≥4, Phys. Rev. B105, 054428 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    Carmona, A

    J. Carmona, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, TheN- component Ginzburg-Landau Hamiltonian with cubic symmetry: a six-loop study, Phys. Rev. B61, 15136 (2000)

    2000

  66. [74]

    Hasenbusch, Cubic fixed point in three dimensions: Monte Carlo simulations of the model on the lattice, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, Cubic fixed point in three dimensions: Monte Carlo simulations of the model on the lattice, Phys. Rev. B107, 024409 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    Hasenbusch,φ 4 lattice model with cubic symmetry in three dimensions: Renormalization group flow and first-order phase transitions, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch,φ 4 lattice model with cubic symmetry in three dimensions: Renormalization group flow and first-order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B109, 054420 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    M. E. Fisher, Renormalization of Critical Exponents by Hidden Variables, Phys. Rev.176, 257 (1968)

    1968

  69. [77]

    Aharony, Critical Behavior of Anisotropic Cubic Sys- tems in the Limit of Infinite Spin Dimensionality, Phys

    A. Aharony, Critical Behavior of Anisotropic Cubic Sys- tems in the Limit of Infinite Spin Dimensionality, Phys. Rev. Lett.31, 1494 (1973)

    1973

  70. [78]

    V. J. Emery, Critical properties of many-component sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B11, 239 (1975)

    1975

  71. [79]

    Grinstein and A

    G. Grinstein and A. Luther, Application of the renor- malization group to phase transitions in disordered sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B13, 1329 (1976)

    1976

  72. [80]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Randomly dilute spin mod- els: a six-loop field-theoretic study, Phys Rev. B6, 63932 (2000)

    2000

  73. [81]

    Hasenbusch, F

    M. Hasenbusch, F. Parisen Toldin, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Universality class of 3D site-diluted and bond- diluted Ising systems, J. Stat. Mech. P02016 (2007); The critical behavior of the 3D±JIsing model at the ferromagnetic transition line, Phys. Rev. B76, 094402 (2007)

    2007

  74. [82]

    Kawamura, Universality of phase transitions of frus- trated antiferromagnets, J

    H. Kawamura, Universality of phase transitions of frus- trated antiferromagnets, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter10, 4707 (1998)

    1998

  75. [83]

    Pelissetto, P

    A. Pelissetto, P. Rossi, and E. Vicari, The critical be- havior of frustrated spin models with noncollinear order, Phys. Rev. B63, 140414(R) (2001)

    2001

  76. [84]

    De Prato, A

    M. De Prato, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, The normal- to-planar superfluid transition in 3He, Phys. Rev. B70, 214519 (2004)

    2004

  77. [85]

    Delamotte, D

    B. Delamotte, D. Mouhanna, and M. Tissier, Nonper- turbative renormalization-group approach to frustrated magnets, Phys. Rev. B69, 134413 (2004)

    2004

  78. [86]

    Nakayama and O

    Y. Nakayama and O. Tomoki, Approaching the con- formal window ofO(n)×O(m) symmetric Landau- Ginzburg models using the conformal bootstrap, Phys. Rev. D89, 126009 (2014)

    2014

  79. [87]

    Reehorst, S

    M. Reehorst, S. Rychkov, B. Sirois, and B. C. van Rees Bootstrapping frustrated magnets: the fate of the chiral O(N)⊗O(2) universality class, SciPost Phys.18, 060 (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    De Prato, A

    M. De Prato, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Spin-density- wave order in cuprates, Phys. Rev. B74, 144507 (2006)

    2006

  81. [89]

    Pelissetto, S

    A. Pelissetto, S. Sachdev, and E. Vicari, Nodal quasi- particles and the onset of spin-density-wave order in cuprate superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 027005 (2008)

    2008

  82. [90]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Relevance of the axial anomaly at the finite-temperature chiral transition in QCD, Phys. Rev. D88, 105018 (2013)

    2013

  83. [91]

    Basile, A

    F. Basile, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, The finite- temperature chiral transition in QCD with adjoint fermions, JHEP02(2005) 044; Finite-temperature chi- ral transition in QCD with quarks in the fundamental and adjoint representation, PoS (LAT2005) 199 (2005), hep-lat/0509018

    2005 arXiv

  84. [92]

    H. G. Ballesteros, L. A. Fern´ andez, V. Mart ´ ın-Mayor, A. Mu˜ noz Sudupe, G. Parisi, and J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, Scaling corrections: site percolation and Ising model in three dimensions, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.32, 1 (1999)

    1999

  85. [93]

    X. Xu, J. Wang, J.-P. Lv, and Y. Deng, Simultaneous analysis of three-dimensional percolation models, Front. Phys.9, 113 (2014)

    2014

  86. [94]

    Adler, Y

    J. Adler, Y. Meir, A. Aharony, A. B. Harris, Series study of percolation moments in general dimensions, Phys. Rev. B41, 9183 (1990)

    1990

  87. [95]

    J. A. Gracey, Four loop renormalization ofϕ 3 theory in six dimensions, Phys. Rev. D92, 025012 (2015)

    2015

  88. [96]

    Li and Y

    S. Li and Y. Wang, Percolation Phase Transition from Ionic Liquids to Ionic Liquid Crystals, Scientific Reports 9, 13169 (2019)

    2019

  89. [97]

    R. M. Ziff, Universal correlations in percolation, Front. Phys.15, 41502 (2020)

    2020

  90. [98]

    Safari, G

    M. Safari, G. P. Vacca, and O. Zanusso, Crossover exponents, fractal dimensions and logarithms in Lan- dau–Potts field theories, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1127 (2020)

    2020

  91. [99]

    A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, and A. B. Zamolod- chikov, Infinite conformal symmetry in two-dimensional quantum field theory, Nucl. Phys. B241, 333 (1984)

    1984

  92. [100]

    Friedan, Z

    D. Friedan, Z. Qiu, and S. Shenker. Conformal Invari- ance, Unitarity, and Critical Exponents in Two Dimen- sions. Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 1575 (1984)

    1984

  93. [101]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Ordering, metasta- 15 bility and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems, J. Phys. C: Solid State6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  94. [102]

    V. L. Berezinskii, Destruction of Long-range Order in One-dimensional and Two-dimensional Systems having a Continuous Symmetry Group I. Classical Systems, Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz.59, 907 (1970) [Sov. Phys. JETP32, 493 (1971)]

    1970

  95. [103]

    J. M. Kosterlitz, The critical properties of the two- di- mensional xy model, J. Phys. C7, 1046 (1974)

    1974

  96. [104]

    J. V. Jos´ e, L. P. Kadanoff, S. Kirkpatrick, and D. R. Nelson, Renormalization, vortices, and symmetry- breaking perturbations in the two-dimensional planar model, Phys. Rev. B16, 1217 (1977)

    1977

  97. [105]

    Cardy and H

    J. Cardy and H. Hamber, O(n) Heisenberg Model Close ton=d= 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 499 (1980)

    1980

  98. [106]

    Nienhuis, Exact Critical Point and Critical Ex- ponents of O(n) Models in Two Dimensions, Phys

    B. Nienhuis, Exact Critical Point and Critical Ex- ponents of O(n) Models in Two Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1062 (1982); Critical behavior of two- dimensional spin models and charge asymmetry in the Coulomb gas, J. Stat. Phys.34, 731 (1984)

    1982

  99. [107]

    V. S. Dotsenko and V. A. Fateev, Conformal algebra and multipoint correlation functions in 2D statistical models, Nucl. Phys. B240, 312 (1984)

    1984

  100. [108]

    Campostrini, A

    M. Campostrini, A. Pelissetto, P. Rossi, and E. Vicari, Strong coupling analysis of the O(N)σmodels withN≤ 2 on square, triangular, and honeycomb lattices, Phys. Rev. B54, 7301 (1996)

    1996

  101. [109]

    R. J. Baxter, Exactly Solved Model in Statistical Me- chanics, Academic Press, London, 1982

    1982

  102. [110]

    R. J. Baxter, Eight-Vertex Model in Lattice Statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 832 (1971)

    1971

  103. [111]

    R. J. Baxter, One-dimensional anisotropic Heisenberg chain, Ann. Phys. (NY)70, 323 (1972)

    1972

  104. [112]

    F. Y. Wu and K.Y. Lin, Two phase transitions in the Ashkin-Teller model, J. Phys. C7, L181 (1974)

    1974

  105. [113]

    Domany and E

    E. Domany and E. K. Riedel, Two-dimensional anisotropicN-vector models, Phys. Rev. B19, 5817 (1979)

    1979

  106. [114]

    Burden and A

    C. Burden and A. N. Burkitt, Lattice Fermions in Odd Dimensions, Europhys. Lett.3, 545 (1987)

    1987

  107. [115]

    Gracey, Computation ofβ ′(gc) atO(1/N 2) in the O(N) Gross Neveu model in arbitrary dimensions, Int

    J. Gracey, Computation ofβ ′(gc) atO(1/N 2) in the O(N) Gross Neveu model in arbitrary dimensions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9, 567 (1994)

    1994

  108. [116]

    Gracey, Theβ-function of the chiral Gross Neveu model atO(1/N 2), Phys

    J. Gracey, Theβ-function of the chiral Gross Neveu model atO(1/N 2), Phys. Rev. D50, 2840 (1994); (E) D59, 109904 (1999)

    1994

  109. [117]

    R. S. Erramilli, L. V. Iliesiu, P. Kravchuk, A. Liu, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, The Gross-Neveu- Yukawa archipelago, JHEP02, 036 (2023)

    2023

  110. [118]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Franchi, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Chi- ral critical behavior of 3D lattice Gross-Neveu fermionic models with quartic interactions, Phys. Rev. D107, 034507 (2023)

    2023

  111. [119]

    Chandrasekharan and A

    S. Chandrasekharan and A. Li, Critical region of the finite temperature chiral transition, Phys. Rev. D88, 021701(R) (2013)

    2013

  112. [120]

    Christofi and C

    S. Christofi and C. G. Strouthos, Three dimensional four-fermion models—-A Monte Carlo study, JHEP05, 088 (2007)

    2007

  113. [121]

    J. B. Kogut, M. A. Spephanov, and C. G. Strouthos, Critical region of the finite temperature chiral transi- tion, Phys. Rev. D58, 096001 (1998)

    1998

  114. [122]

    J. A. Gracey, Critical exponentηatO(1/N 3) in the chiral XY model using the largeNconformal bootstrap, Phys. Rev. D103, 065018 (2021)

    2021

  115. [123]

    J. A. Gracey, LargeNcritical exponents for the chiral Heisenberg Gross-Neveu universality class, Phys. Rev. D97, 105009 (2018)

    2018

  116. [124]

    N. Zerf, L. N. Mihaila, P. Marquard, I. F. Herbut, and M. M. Scherer, Four-loop critical exponents for the Gross-Neveu-Yukawa models, Phys. Rev. D96, 096010 (2017)

    2017

  117. [125]

    Ihrig, L

    B. Ihrig, L. N. Mihaila, and M. M. Scherer, Critical behavior of Dirac fermions from perturbative renormal- ization, Phys. Rev. B98, 125109 (2018)

    2018

  118. [126]

    Halperin, T.C

    B.I. Halperin, T.C. Lubensky, and S.-k. Ma, First-order phase transitions in superconductors and smectic-A liq- uid crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett.32, 292 (1974)

    1974

  119. [127]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Gauge fixing and gauge correlations in noncompact lattice U(1) gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D108, 014517 (2023)

    2023

  120. [128]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Coulomb-Higgs phase transition of three-dimensional lattice Abelian Higgs gauge models with noncompact gauge variables and gauge fixing, Phys. Rev. E108, 044125 (2023)

    2023

  121. [129]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Diverse univer- sality classes of the topological deconfinement transi- tions of three-dimensional noncompact lattice Abelian- Higgs models, Phys. Rev. D109, 034517 (2024)

    2024

  122. [130]

    Ihrig, N

    B. Ihrig, N. Zerf, P. Marquard, I. F. Herbut, and M. M. Scherer, Abelian Higgs model at four loops, fixed-point collision and deconfined criticality, Phys. Rev. B100, 134507 (2019)

    2019

  123. [131]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Critical behav- iors of lattice U(1) gauge models and three-dimensional Abelian-Higgs gauge field theory, Phys. Rev. B105, 085112 (2022)

    2022

  124. [132]

    M. Song, J. Zhao, M. Cheng, C. Xu, M. M. Scherer, L. Janssen, and Z. Yang Meng, Evolution of entanglement entropy at SU(N) deconfined quantum critical points, Sci. Adv. 11 (6) (2025)

    2025

  125. [133]

    V. Y. Irkhin, A. A. Katanin, and M. I. Katsnelson, 1/N expansion for critical exponents of magnetic phase tran- sitions in theCP N−1 model for 2< d <4, Phys. Rev. B5411953 (1996)

    1996

  126. [134]

    R. K. Kaul and S. Sachdev, Quantum criticality of U(1) gauge theories with fermionic and bosonic matter in two spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. B77, 155105 (2008)

    2008

  127. [135]

    Dasgupta and B

    C. Dasgupta and B. I. Halperin, Phase Transitions in a Lattice Model of Superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett 47, 1556 (1981)

    1981

  128. [136]

    Herbut and Z

    F. Herbut and Z. Tesanovic, Critical Fluctuations in Superconductors and the Magnetic Field Penetration Depth, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 4588 (1996)

    1996

  129. [137]

    Herbut,A Modern Approach to Critical Phenomena (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    I. Herbut,A Modern Approach to Critical Phenomena (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  130. [138]

    Neuhaus, A

    T. Neuhaus, A. Rajantie, and K. Rummukainen, Nu- merical study of duality and universality in a frozen su- perconductor, Phys. Rev. B67, 014525 (2003)

    2003

  131. [139]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Deconfinement transitions in three-dimensional compact lattice Abelian Higgs models with multiple-charge scalar fields, Phys. Rev. E109, 044146 (2024)

    2024

  132. [140]

    F. J. Wegner and E. K. Riedel, Logarithmic Corrections to the Molecular-Field Behavior of Critical and Tricrit- ical Systems, Phys. Rev. B7, 248 (1973)

    1973

  133. [141]

    Aharony, Critical Behavior of Magnets with Dipo- lar Interactions

    A. Aharony, Critical Behavior of Magnets with Dipo- lar Interactions. V. Uniaxial Magnets indDimensions, 16 Phys. Rev. B8, 3363 (1973)

    1973

  134. [142]

    Br´ ezin and J

    E. Br´ ezin and J. Zinn-Justin, Critical behavior of uniax- ial systems with strong dipolar interactions, Phys. Rev. B13, 251 (1976)

    1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.