Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

AI for Pattern Hunter: Application in Wilson Loop of 2D Lattice Yang-Mills Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Transformer trained on tokenized Wilson-loop shapes predicts expectation values in 2D lattice Yang-Mills theory to over 99 percent accuracy for loops up to length 16.

desk verdict A modest, honest ML proof-of-concept: the Transformer fits Wilson loop expectation values within the training distribution, but the test split and the abstract's wording overstate geometry-to-value generalization. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.24494 v2 pith:U4F6SDJG submitted 2025-10-28 hep-th

Zeyu Li , Guorui Zhu , Wenjie He , Bo Feng , Jiaqi Chen , Ming-xing Luo , Gang Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords WilsonloopslatticeYang-MillstheoryTransformermachinelearningpatterndiscoverytwo-dimensionalgaugetokenizationloopexpectationvalueslarge-Nlimit
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 asks whether the shape of a Wilson loop in two-dimensional lattice Yang-Mills theory fixes its vacuum expectation value, and whether a machine can learn that map directly from the shape. It tokenizes each loop as a string over four letters and the target polynomial as a sorted sequence of coefficient quadruples, then trains a Transformer on thousands of loops of length up to 16. The model reaches accuracy above 99 percent on held-out samples drawn from the same equivalence classes that appear in training. The authors interpret this as evidence of a learnable shape-to-value relationship, while explicitly noting that the model fails on length-18 loops and thus captures the analytical structure of the training data rather than an underlying general law.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a tokenization of both sides of the map. A lattice link $U_{\mu_0}$ is encoded as `a`, $U_{\mu_1}$ as `b`, with Hermitian conjugates `-a` and `-b`, so a Wilson loop becomes an ordered string over four letters. The target polynomial is flattened into quadruples $\{S,A,B,C\}$ of sign, coefficient, and powers of $\lambda$ and $u$, sorted by descending $B$ then $C$, giving a unique output sequence. The second ingredient is the factorization of 2D lattice Yang-Mills: a Wilson loop's expectation value reduces to products of single-plaquette expectation values $w(n)$, which Dyson-Schwinger equations express as polynomials in $u$ and $\lambda$, so every target is a polynomial of bounded form. The Transformer's self-attention maps input letter sequences to output token sequences, and the paper measures accuracy on held-out representatives of the same equivalence classes used in training.

What would settle it

Hold out one or more entire equivalence classes from training and test on them: if accuracy drops to chance, the reported near-perfect accuracy is accounted for by recognizing class membership rather than by learning a shape-to-value function. The authors' own length-18 experiment is a second falsifier: training only on loops of length 16 or less and testing on length 18 fails, so any claim of a general geometry-to-value law stands or falls on whether unseen-length or unseen-class performance can be made to succeed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In two-dimensional lattice Yang-Mills theory at large $N$, the vacuum expectation value of any Wilson loop factorizes into products of plaquette expectation values, so it is a polynomial in the plaquette value $u$ and the coupling $\lambda$. The paper claims that this polynomial can be predicted from the purely geometric token sequence of the loop: a Transformer trained on shapes and their polynomials learns the map with near-perfect accuracy for loops of length up to 16, with several configurations reaching 100.00 percent on validation sets. Adding length-14 samples to a length-16 training set pushes accuracy above 95 percent even when the length-16 data alone is below its learning threshold, which the paper takes as evidence of transferable structure from shorter loops. The paper also reports that all expectation-value polynomials in the dataset are built from ten factors and collapse to only 46 distinct polynomial forms, and that the model cannot predict length-18 loops, which the authors read as mastery of the training data's specific analytical structures rather than abstraction of general physical principles.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that high accuracy on test samples drawn from the same equivalence classes as training samples proves a meaningful geometry-to-value relationship; if the model merely maps each symmetric variant into its known class and looks up the class's polynomial, the result collapses, as the authors' own length-18 failure indicates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the shape of a Wilson loop of length at most 16 is enough to determine its expectation value in 2D lattice Yang-Mills without carrying out the gauge-invariant integral step by step.
  • Mixed-length training improving length-16 prediction indicates that shorter loops share structural features with longer loops, so the learned map is not purely per-length but draws on transferable sub-structures such as plaquette factors.
  • The observation that all outputs are built from ten factors and only 46 polynomial forms gives a concrete target for a closed-form or combinatorial description of expectation values in this range.
  • The failure on length-18 loops implies the model's success is interpolation within the trained distribution; any claim of physical pattern discovery must be scoped to the lengths and equivalence classes present in training.
  • The threshold behaviour in training-set proportion, around 30 to 40 percent for short loops and near 4 percent for length-16 loops, suggests the task is learnable with relatively few examples once the underlying polynomial catalogue is small.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension would split the dataset by entire equivalence classes rather than proportionally within each class; if accuracy then collapses, the model is recognizing class membership and looking up the class polynomial rather than learning a genuine geometry-to-value function.
  • The 46-polynomial catalogue suggests that the map may be effectively a classification into one of a small set of factor forms: a much simpler model, or even a decision tree, could replace the Transformer once the relevant geometric class is identified.
  • The tokenization fixes a starting point and orientation for each loop; testing the same loop under random lattice rotations, reflections, and cyclic shifts would probe whether the model has learned the intended symmetry-invariant structure or relies on the particular canonical encoding.
  • The authors' guess that area, number of crossing lines, and crossing pattern fix the expression could be tested directly by probing attention heads to see which tokens correlate with the choice of factors from the ten-factor list.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper trains a Transformer to map tokenized descriptions of Wilson loop shapes in 2D lattice Yang-Mills theory to their analytic expectation values, expressed as polynomials in the plaquette expectation value u and the 't Hooft coupling λ. The target labels are generated from the established factorization and Dyson-Schwinger equations rather than from Monte Carlo simulation, which the authors emphasize as a distinguishing feature. The model is reported to achieve over 99% accuracy for Wilson loops of length up to 16, and the paper studies the influence of hyperparameters, training set proportion, and mixed-length training. The central claim in the abstract is that high-accuracy prediction 'indicates a meaningful connection between loop geometry and physical results.' Section 8, however, concedes that the model cannot predict length-18 loops and 'master[s] the specific analytical structures within the training data, rather than abstracting the underlying physical principles required for extrapolation.'

Significance. If the result is interpreted narrowly, the paper provides a clean demonstration that a Transformer can fit a deterministic, symmetry-rich mapping from tokenized loop encodings to polynomial outputs within the training distribution, and the authors are commendably explicit about this limitation in Section 8. The dataset construction and tokenization scheme are potentially reusable for future studies. However, the broader significance as a physics 'pattern hunter' is limited, because the target polynomials are computed analytically from known factorization results, and because the test protocol does not test generalization to unseen loop geometries. The strength of the paper is therefore in the honest negative result and the infrastructure, not in the abstract's suggestion of a newly discovered geometry-physics connection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, first paragraph] The data-splitting protocol states that 'we will choose the training set, test set, and validation set from each equivalence class with the same proportion.' Consequently, every equivalence class is represented in the training set, including all 3,217 length-16 classes listed in Table 1, and the test set contains only unseen representatives of already-seen classes. The reported >99% accuracy therefore demonstrates recognition of symmetric encodings of seen classes, not generalization to unseen loop geometries. The abstract's claim that the results indicate 'a meaningful connection between loop geometry and physical results' is not established by this protocol. I request either a supplementary experiment that trains on a subset of equivalence classes and tests on held-out classes, or a substantial rewording of the claims to describe a within-distribution fit.
  2. [Section 8, fourth paragraph] The authors state that models trained with length-16 loops cannot predict length-18 Wilson loops and that the model 'master[s] the specific analytical structures within the training data, rather than abstracting the underlying physical principles required for extrapolation.' This sentence directly contradicts the abstract's 'meaningful connection' claim and should be used to temper the introduction and abstract. As written, the paper's own discussion reduces the central claim to a statement about interpolation within the training distribution, which is not the same as uncovering a relationship between loop geometry and physical results.
  3. [Section 7, Figure 11 and surrounding text] The conclusion that the model 'can generalize from sequences of length 14 to those of length 16' is not supported by the presented experiment. The length-16 training portion is sampled from every equivalence class by the protocol of Section 3.1, so the model is not asked to handle new length-16 geometries; the added length-14 data can improve performance by reinforcing the shared polynomial vocabulary (Section 8 lists only 46 distinct polynomial forms) without requiring any generalization to unseen shapes. The authors should either rephrase this conclusion or test on length-16 classes that are entirely absent from the length-16 training set.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 2-14] As typeset, the figures contain only placeholder glyph tokens such as '/uni00000013/uni00000015/...' and no legible axes, curves, legends, or labels. The learning curves cannot be inspected in the current typeset version; please regenerate all figures.
  2. [Section 3.2] The example sequence '{a,a,b,-a,-b,a,b,-a,-a,-b}' contains ten tokens, but the text appears to associate it with the length-8 loop of Figure 1. Please clarify which loop is being used as the example.
  3. [References] References [14] and [15] are identical to references [9] and [10]; these duplicated entries should be consolidated.
  4. [Section 6] The discussion describes a 'threshold' training proportion between 30% and 40%, but the learning curves for the intermediate proportions (32.5%-37.5%) are still rising after 100 epochs. The text acknowledges this, but the threshold language should be consistently framed as a finite-horizon observation rather than an asymptotic property.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic Wilson-loop targets are fixed inputs from established factorization/Dyson-Schwinger results, not outputs of or inputs to the Transformer's fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The Wilson-loop expectation values used as training labels are computed from the established 2D lattice Yang-Mills factorization and Dyson-Schwinger equations (Sections 2.2 and 3.1), and the Transformer contributes no physics parameters and no quantity that is fed back into those analytical results. The model is a function approximator, so the reported accuracy is a statement about the learnability of the shape-to-polynomial map within the generated dataset, not a derivation of the expectation values from the model. The Section 3.1 protocol of drawing training, validation, and test sets from each equivalence class with the same proportion does mean the test set contains only unseen representatives of classes already present in training; this limits the generalization claim, and the paper itself acknowledges this in Section 8, where it states that length-18 loops cannot be predicted and that the model 'master[s] the specific analytical structures within the training data, rather than abstracting the underlying physical principles required for extrapolation.' That is a scoping limitation, not a circularity: the target labels are not defined in terms of the model, no test prediction is used to set any constant, and the symmetry-based equivalence classes are standard lattice-gauge facts supported by external references. The only self-citation, reference [27] for lattice symmetry invariance, is not load-bearing because the same property is also supported by external references [26] and [28]. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. Accordingly, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central claim rests on known exact results of large-N 2D lattice Yang-Mills: factorization of Wilson loops into per-plaquette factors and the polynomial structure of w(n). These are cited to the literature (Gross-Witten, Makeenko-Migdal) and sketched in Section 2.2; the paper does not derive the general factorization for all loops. No new entities or fitted physical parameters are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The expectation value of any Wilson loop in 2D lattice Yang-Mills factorizes into a product of per-plaquette expectation values w(n) (Eq. 2.22), so the target polynomial is a function only of the multiset of plaquette winding numbers.
    The dataset labels are generated from this factorization; if it failed for non-rectangular loops, the training targets would be wrong. The paper sketches the proof for rectangles in Section 2.2 and states the general case without proof.
  • domain assumption All per-plaquette expectations w(n) for n≥2 are polynomials in u=w(1) and λ (Section 2.2), via Dyson-Schwinger or loop equations [24,41].
    This makes every Wilson loop expectation expressible as a polynomial in two symbols, which is the target representation used for training.
  • domain assumption The theory is taken in the large-N (t'Hooft) limit with N→∞; the plaquette expectation u obeys the Gross-Witten expression (Eq. 2.27).
    The polynomial expressions are only valid at large N; the paper does not discuss finite-N corrections.
  • standard math Haar measure invariance (Eq. 2.13) and the identity ∫ dV V_ij V†_kl = (1/N) δ_il δ_jk (Eq. 2.21).
    Used in the factorization derivation in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption The lattice symmetry group, conjugation, and cyclic permutation define equivalence classes of Wilson loops; the paper assumes its enumeration of these classes is complete up to length 16.
    If the enumeration is incomplete, the reported class counts (Table 1) and training coverage would be wrong; no code is provided to verify this algorithmic claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI for Pattern Hunter: Application in Wilson Loop of 2D Lattice Yang-Mills Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U4F6SDJG

@misc{pith2026251024494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI for Pattern Hunter: Application in Wilson Loop of 2D Lattice Yang-Mills Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U4F6SDJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.24494}
}
read the original abstract

We employ the Transformer to learn patterns in two-dimensional lattice Yang-Mills theory. Specifically, we represent both Wilson loops and their expectation values as tokenized sequences. Taking the shape of Wilson loops as input, the model successfully predicts expectation values with high accuracy, indicating a meaningful connection between loop geometry and physical results. Our study differs from prior machine learning applications in lattice QCD by emphasizing analytical structures rather than numerical computations. We explore model performance under varying hyperparameters, training data sizes, and sequence lengths. This work serves as a first step toward extending such methods to higher dimensions and inspiring rigorous analytical derivations.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Machine learning and LHC event generation.SciPost Phys., 14(4):079, 2023

    Simon Badger et al. Machine learning and LHC event generation.SciPost Phys., 14(4):079, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Learning Feynman integrals from differential equations with neural networks.JHEP, 07:124, 2024

    Francesco Calisto, Ryan Moodie, and Simone Zoia. Learning Feynman integrals from differential equations with neural networks.JHEP, 07:124, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Feynman Diagrams as Computational Graphs

    Pengcheng Hou, Tao Wang, Daniel Cerkoney, Xiansheng Cai, Zhiyi Li, Youjin Deng, Lei Wang, and Kun Chen. Feynman Diagrams as Computational Graphs. 2 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Learning Feynman Diagrams using Graph Neural Networks

    Harrison Mitchell, Alexander Norcliffe, and Pietro Li` o. Learning Feynman Diagrams using Graph Neural Networks. 11 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Refining Integration-by-Parts Reduction of Feynman Integrals with Machine Learning.JHEP, 05:185, 2025

    Matt von Hippel and Matthias Wilhelm. Refining Integration-by-Parts Reduction of Feynman Integrals with Machine Learning.JHEP, 05:185, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Explainable AI-assisted Optimization for Feynman Integral Reduction

    Zhuo-Yang Song, Tong-Zhi Yang, Qing-Hong Cao, Ming-xing Luo, and Hua Xing Zhu. Explainable AI-assisted Optimization for Feynman Integral Reduction. 2 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    M¨ uller, and Daniel Schuh

    Matteo Favoni, Andreas Ipp, David I. M¨ uller, and Daniel Schuh. Lattice gauge equivariant convolutional neural networks.Physical Review Letters, 128(3):032003, January 2022. arXiv:2012.12901 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Hackett, Gurtej Kanwar, S´ ebastien Racani` ere, Danilo J

    Ryan Abbott, Aleksandar Botev, Denis Boyda, Daniel C. Hackett, Gurtej Kanwar, S´ ebastien Racani` ere, Danilo J. Rezende, Fernando Romero-L´ opez, Phiala E. Shanahan, and Julian M. Urban. Applications of flow models to the generation of correlated lattice qcd ensembles. Phys. Rev. D, 109(9):094514, May 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [11]

    Machine learning invariants of arithmetic curves.Journal of Symbolic Computation, 115:478–491, March 2023

    Yang-Hui He, Kyu-Hwan Lee, and Thomas Oliver. Machine learning invariants of arithmetic curves.Journal of Symbolic Computation, 115:478–491, March 2023

    2023

  2. [12]

    Murmurations of elliptic curves.Experimental Mathematics, page 1–13, August 2024

    Yang-Hui He, Kyu-Hwan Lee, Thomas Oliver, and Alexey Pozdnyakov. Murmurations of elliptic curves.Experimental Mathematics, page 1–13, August 2024. – 21 –

    2024

  3. [13]

    Murmurations, 2023

    Nina Zubrilina. Murmurations, 2023

    2023

  4. [14]

    Machine-learning the sato–tate conjecture.Journal of Symbolic Computation, 111:61–72, July 2022

    Yang-Hui He, Kyu-Hwan Lee, and Thomas Oliver. Machine-learning the sato–tate conjecture.Journal of Symbolic Computation, 111:61–72, July 2022

    2022

  5. [15]

    Machine-learning number fields

    Yang-Hui He, Kyu-Hwan Lee, and Thomas Oliver. Machine-learning number fields. Mathematics, Computation and Geometry of Data, 2(1):49–66, 2022

    2022

  6. [16]

    Murmurations of elliptic curves

    Yang-Hui He, Kyu-Hwan Lee, Thomas Oliver, and Alexey Pozdnyakov. Murmurations of elliptic curves. 4 2022

    2022

  7. [17]

    Glozman, Christian Hagen, Dieter Hierl, C

    Tommy Burch, Christof Gattringer, Leonid Ya. Glozman, Christian Hagen, Dieter Hierl, C. B. Lang, and Andreas Sch¨ afer. Excited hadrons on the lattice: Baryons.Phys. Rev. D, 74:014504, Jul 2006

    2006

  8. [18]

    Christof Gattringer, Christian Hagen, C. B. Lang, Markus Limmer, Daniel Mohler, and Andreas Sch¨ afer. Hadron spectroscopy with dynamical chirally improved fermions.Phys. Rev. D, 79:054501, Mar 2009

    2009

  9. [19]

    Light Hadron Masses from Lattice QCD.Rev

    Zoltan Fodor and Christian Hoelbling. Light Hadron Masses from Lattice QCD.Rev. Mod. Phys., 84:449, 2012

    2012

  10. [20]

    Hadronic contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment.PoS, 336:186, 2019

    Massimiliano Procura, Gilberto Colangelo, Martin Hoferichter, and Peter Stoffer. Hadronic contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment.PoS, 336:186, 2019

    2019

  11. [21]

    Borsanyi, Z

    Sz. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, L. Lellouch, T. Lippert, K. Miura, L. Parato, K. K. Szabo, F. Stokes, B. C. Toth, Cs. Torok, and L. Varnhorst. Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice qcd.Nature, 593(7857):51–55, ...

    2021

  12. [22]

    Gross and Edward Witten

    David J. Gross and Edward Witten. Possible third-order phase transition in the large-n lattice gauge theory.Phys. Rev. D, 21:446–453, Jan 1980

    1980

  13. [23]

    D. Friedan. Some Nonabelian Toy Models in the LargeNLimit.Commun. Math. Phys., 78:353, 1981

    1981

  14. [24]

    Anderson and Martin Kruczenski

    Peter D. Anderson and Martin Kruczenski. Loop equations and bootstrap methods in the lattice.Nuclear Physics B, 921:702–726, August 2017

    2017

  15. [25]

    Bootstrap for lattice Yang-Mills theory.Phys

    Vladimir Kazakov and Zechuan Zheng. Bootstrap for lattice Yang-Mills theory.Phys. Rev. D, 107(5):L051501, 2023

    2023

  16. [26]

    Bootstrap for finite N lattice Yang-Mills theory

    Vladimir Kazakov and Zechuan Zheng. Bootstrap for finite N lattice Yang-Mills theory. JHEP, 03:099, 2025

    2025

  17. [27]

    Bootstrapping SU(3) Lattice Yang-Mills Theory

    Yuanhong Guo, Zeyu Li, Gang Yang, and Guorui Zhu. Bootstrapping SU(3) Lattice Yang-Mills Theory. 2 2025

    2025

  18. [28]

    Bootstrapping the Abelian lattice gauge theories.JHEP, 08:154, 2024

    Zhijin Li and Shutong Zhou. Bootstrapping the Abelian lattice gauge theories.JHEP, 08:154, 2024

    2024

  19. [29]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need, 2023

    2023

  20. [30]

    Symba: symbolic computation of squared amplitudes in high energy physics with machine learning.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 4(1):015007, January 2023

    Abdulhakim Alnuqaydan, Sergei Gleyzer, and Harrison Prosper. Symba: symbolic computation of squared amplitudes in high energy physics with machine learning.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 4(1):015007, January 2023

    2023

  21. [31]

    Schwartz, and Xiaoyuan Zhang

    Aur´ elien Dersy, Matthew D. Schwartz, and Xiaoyuan Zhang. Simplifying polylogarithms with machine learning, 2022. – 22 –

    2022

  22. [32]

    Merz, Fran¸ cois Charton, Niklas Nolte, Matthias Wilhelm, Kyle Cranmer, and Lance J

    Tianji Cai, Garrett W. Merz, Fran¸ cois Charton, Niklas Nolte, Matthias Wilhelm, Kyle Cranmer, and Lance J. Dixon. Transforming the bootstrap: using transformers to compute scattering amplitudes in planarN= 4 super Yang–Mills theory.Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech., 5(3):035073, 2024

    2024

  23. [33]

    Learning the simplicity of scattering amplitudes.SciPost Physics, 18(2), February 2025

    Clifford Cheung, Aur´ elien Dersy, and Matthew Schwartz. Learning the simplicity of scattering amplitudes.SciPost Physics, 18(2), February 2025

    2025

  24. [34]

    Albergo, Denis Boyda, Daniel C

    Michael S. Albergo, Denis Boyda, Daniel C. Hackett, Gurtej Kanwar, Kyle Cranmer, S´ ebastien Racani` ere, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, and Phiala E. Shanahan. Introduction to normalizing flows for lattice field theory, 2021

    2021

  25. [35]

    Diffusion models for lattice gauge field simulations

    Qianteng Zhu, Gert Aarts, Wei Wang, Kai Zhou, and Lingxiao Wang. Diffusion models for lattice gauge field simulations. In38th conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 10 2024

    2024

  26. [36]

    Diffusion models and stochastic quantisation in lattice field theory.PoS, LATTICE2024:037, 2025

    Gert Aarts, Lingxiao Wang, and Kai Zhou. Diffusion models and stochastic quantisation in lattice field theory.PoS, LATTICE2024:037, 2025

    2025

  27. [37]

    Physics-Conditioned Diffusion Models for Lattice Gauge Theory

    Qianteng Zhu, Gert Aarts, Wei Wang, Kai Zhou, and Lingxiao Wang. Physics-Conditioned Diffusion Models for Lattice Gauge Theory. 2 2025

    2025

  28. [38]

    Diffusion models as stochastic quantization in lattice field theory.JHEP, 05:060, 2024

    Lingxiao Wang, Gert Aarts, and Kai Zhou. Diffusion models as stochastic quantization in lattice field theory.JHEP, 05:060, 2024

    2024

  29. [39]

    Kenneth G. Wilson. Confinement of Quarks.Phys. Rev. D, 10:2445–2459, 1974

    1974

  30. [40]

    Lang.Quantum chromodynamics on the lattice, volume

    Christof Gattringer and Christian B. Lang.Quantum chromodynamics on the lattice, volume

  31. [41]

    Yu. M. Makeenko and Alexander A. Migdal. Exact Equation for the Loop Average in Multicolor QCD.Phys. Lett. B, 88:135, 1979. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 89, 437 (1980)]

    1980

  32. [42]

    Spenta R. Wadia. A Study of U(N) Lattice Gauge Theory in 2-dimensions. 12 2012. – 23 –

    2012

  33. [788]

    Springer, Berlin, 2010

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.