Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 47 references

Mass-deformed Yang-Mills matrix models become effectively commuting at strong coupling precisely when the number of fermionic degrees of freedom reaches the critical value N_c = 2(D−2), realized by the supersymmetric models, and the same cr

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

2026-08-01 06:58 UTC pith:KLPPJY6C

load-bearing objection A clean Vandermonde-power result with an honest, load-bearing gap: the critical commuting phase is derived only beyond the 't Hooft window, not in it. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21593 v1 pith:KLPPJY6C submitted 2026-07-23 hep-th

On the strong coupling limit of Yang-Mills matrix models

Adrien Martina , Harish Murali This is my paper
classification hep-th MSC 81T1381T6081T30 PACS 11.15.-q11.30.Pb02.70.Uu
keywords Yang-Mills matrix modelsstrong couplingcommuting matricesemergent geometryfermion numbersupersymmetryhuge operatorslarge N
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.

Mass-deformed Yang-Mills matrix models have two competing tendencies: the commutator-squared interaction drives the matrices toward mutually commuting configurations, which are candidates for coordinates of an emergent space, while the integration measure entropically suppresses such configurations. This paper establishes that the number of fermionic degrees of freedom decides the winner. Below a critical value N_c = 2(D−2), the strong-coupling limit is non-commuting, as in bosonic models with D≥3; at and above N_c the matrices become effectively commuting at strong coupling. The critical value is exactly the fermion content of the supersymmetric Yang-Mills matrix models in D=3,4,6,10, and at that point the theory also shows universality under O(N²) 'huge' deformations: the normalized eigenvalue density depends only on coarse-grained parameters of the deformation, not its microscopic details. Above the critical value commutativity survives but universality is lost, so commutativity and universality are distinct properties that coincide at the supersymmetric boundary.

Core claim

Integrating out the off-diagonal modes at strong coupling yields an effective theory for the N diagonal eigenvalue vectors whose measure contains a generalized Vandermonde factor ∏_{a<b}|r_a−r_b|^{N−N_c}, with N_c=2(D−2). The sign of the exponent N−N_c organizes the phases: subcritical (N<N_c) has singular measure, entropy dominates, and the model stays non-commuting; critical (N=N_c) has no induced Vandermonde repulsion, so at fixed N the theory reduces to free diagonal modes and the leading correlators become commutative; supercritical (N>N_c) has genuine logarithmic eigenvalue repulsion, making the diagonal approximation self-consistent even in the 't Hooft limit, with commutativity ratio

What carries the argument

The central object is the diagonal effective theory obtained by integrating out off-diagonal fluctuations at strong coupling. Its measure contains a generalized Vandermonde factor with power N−N_c; this exponent controls the whole phase structure. Negative exponent (subcritical) leaves the diagonal measure singular and entropy-dominated, so the model remains non-commuting; zero exponent (critical) removes induced eigenvalue repulsion, giving a free diagonal theory with commutativity; positive exponent produces logarithmic repulsion that keeps off-diagonals heavy, making the diagonal approximation self-consistent even in the 't Hooft limit.

Load-bearing premise

The expansion around well-separated diagonal configurations is controlled for the critical models in the simultaneous N, λ→∞ limit; if the dominant eigenvalue configurations are not well separated in the 't Hooft regime, the commuting phase need not persist.

What would settle it

Simulate the 4D Type I model at larger N with λ kept in the 't Hooft scaling and measure the commutativity ratio R; if R saturates to an O(1) constant instead of continuing to decay as a power law in λ, the critical commuting phase does not extend to the 't Hooft limit.

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

If this is right

  • At the critical fermion number, leading single-trace correlators at strong coupling become ordering-independent: adjacent matrices in any fixed word can be exchanged up to corrections of order λ^{−α/2}.
  • Huge operators of size O(N²) do not change the normalized eigenvalue density until a critical source amplitude; the density is then fixed by a few coarse-grained parameters, in analogy with black-hole no-hair behavior.
  • Above the critical fermion number, models are commuting with R∼λ^{-1}, and the large-N eigenvalue cloud is computable from the diagonal effective theory (ball-supported for D<4, spherical-shell for D≥4), but huge-operator universality is absent.
  • Bosonic models with D≥3 remain non-commuting at strong coupling; the D=2 Hoppe model is the exceptional commuting bosonic case.
  • The critical value N_c=2(D−2) coincides with supersymmetric field content in D=3,4,6,10, but supersymmetry itself is not the essential ingredient; explicitly breaking it by changing the fermion mass still preserves commutativity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the critical commuting phase extends to the 't Hooft limit, these zero-dimensional matrix integrals give a controlled laboratory where eigenvalue space becomes a genuinely commutative emergent geometry; studying connected correlators could reveal whether geodesic distances emerge.
  • Beyond the paper: the sign of the effective Vandermonde exponent after integrating out non-diagonal modes provides a sharp, testable criterion for strong-coupling commutativity in other multi-matrix models, including models with different gauge groups or non-minimal kinetic terms.
  • Beyond the paper: the observed monotone decrease of the critical exponent in R∼λ^{-α} with dimension (1/3, 0.25, 0.16, 0.11) suggests a possible dimension-dependent formula; extending the numerics to D=6 and D=10 supersymmetric models would test the extrapolation.
  • Beyond the paper: the coincidence of commutativity and huge-operator universality at the critical point may be a matrix-model counterpart of eigenstate thermalization and black-hole no-hair ideas; testing the same mechanism in BMN matrix quantum mechanics would probe whether it survives in a genuine holographic setting.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies mass-deformed Yang–Mills matrix models with various numbers of fermionic degrees of freedom, aiming to determine when the strong-coupling limit is effectively commuting. The central analytic step is the Gaussian integration over off-diagonal bosonic and fermionic modes, which yields a generalized Vandermonde factor with power N − N_c, where N is the fermion number and N_c = 2(D−2). The paper argues that supersymmetric models in D=3,4,6,10 sit exactly at this critical value and therefore become commuting at strong coupling, while subcritical models remain non-commuting and supercritical models commute with a simpler R∼λ^{-1} behavior described by a diagonal effective theory. The same critical models are further claimed to exhibit universality under O(N^2) 'huge' operator deformations. These claims are supported by HMC simulations for the 4D Type I model, the phase-quenched 3D SUSY model, subcritical f=1/2 and supercritical f=2 versions of the 4D model, and 4D/5D adjoint QCD models.

Significance. If the critical commuting phase is genuine in the 't Hooft limit, the paper provides a clean organizing principle: fermion number, rather than supersymmetry per se, controls the competition between the Yang–Mills attraction to commuting valleys and the entropic suppression of those valleys. The derivation of the Vandermonde power in Eq. (5.5) is elegant and parameter-free, and the supercritical predictions agree well with independent HMC results (Tables 2 and 3). The release of a public, GPU-accelerated HMC package is a practical asset. However, the evidence for the critical commuting phase in the simultaneous large-N, large-λ limit is incomplete: the diagonal approximation is controlled only at fixed N for λ→∞, and the numerical crossover requires λ∼19000 at N=50, far outside the 't Hooft window. The central claim as framed in the abstract and introduction therefore goes beyond what is currently established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Eq. (5.5), Table 1] The critical case N=N_c removes the Vandermonde repulsion. With the rescaling r_I = √λ x_I used in §5, typical separations are |x_ab|∼N^{-1/2}; the off-diagonal mass term (N/2)|x_ab|^2|q_ab|^2 in Eq. (5.4) is then O(1), and the terms collected in S_higher are not uniformly suppressed. The manuscript acknowledges this in §5, where it states that when N and λ go to infinity simultaneously 'the validity of the approximation depends on how rapidly λ grows relative to N.' The numerical crossover at λ≈19000 for N=50 (Table 1) is far beyond the 't Hooft window, and the HMC data at N=50, λ∈[60,450] (Fig. 4) show only R∼λ^{-0.16}; they do not establish that R→0 at fixed λ/N as N→∞. Since the introduction motivates the 't Hooft strong-coupling regime, the central claim that critical SUSY models commute in that limit is not supported. Please provide either a controlled argument for the simultaneous
  2. [§2.2, Fig. 5] The 3D SUSY result is obtained only for the phase-quenched model, i.e. with |Pf[M3D(X)]| in place of Pf[M3D(X)]. Fig. 5 shows that the Pfaffian phase fluctuates rapidly, so the actual supersymmetric 3D model is not simulated. The abstract and §6 present the D=3 model as part of the class of critical SUSY models that become commuting at strong coupling, but the numerical evidence applies only to its phase-quenched version. The text should state this limitation explicitly in the abstract and conclusions, or provide an argument that the phase is irrelevant for commutativity and universality observables.
  3. [Table 4 and §5.1] The exponents α_D listed in Table 4 are extracted from power-law fits over finite coupling ranges at fixed N (e.g. λ∈[60,450], N=50 for D=4; λ∈[60,300], N=40 for D=3). They are not derived from the diagonal effective theory. Indeed, the fixed-N diagonal prediction for the critical case is R∼N^2λ^{-1} (see Eq. (D.29)), not R∼λ^{-0.16} or λ^{-0.25}. The table therefore describes crossover-regime effective exponents, not an established asymptotic power law. The interpretation should be adjusted, or the crossover to the diagonal regime should be mapped explicitly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§5, Eqs. (5.4)–(5.7)] The symbol N is used both for the matrix size and for the number of real fermionic degrees of freedom. In §5, where both appear in the same equations, this is confusing. Please introduce a distinct notation (e.g. N_f or script N) for the fermion number.
  2. [Appendix A] The code listing contains formatting artifacts, including 'm e a s u r e _ o b s e r v a b l e s' and 'T ype'. Please ensure the typeset code matches the actual source code.
  3. [Introduction, Eq. (1.4)] The toy-model fermion determinant is written as Q_{i<j}(1+λ^2(x_i−x_j)^2); the product symbol and parentheses render awkwardly. A cleaner display would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No construction-level circularity: the N−N_c Vandermonde exponent is computed by Gaussian integration, and supercritical predictions are checked against HMC; the admitted lack of control at N=N_c in the 't Hooft limit is a limitation, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is Appendix D / Section 5: after rescaling r = sqrt(λ) x, the off-diagonal modes are integrated at Gaussian order with the Faddeev–Popov gauge-fixing constraint. The resulting measure is ∏_{a<b} |x_ab|^{N−2(D−2)} (Eq. (5.5) and (D.23)). The threshold N_c = 2(D−2) is not inserted as the commutativity condition; it is the value at which the calculated exponent vanishes. The assignment of fermion counts (N=4 for the 4D Type I model, N=8 for f=2 / adjoint QCD, etc.) comes from the explicit Pfaffian/determinant sizes in Eqs. (2.5), (2.9) and (4.4), not from fitting. Supercritical predictions such as R ∼ λ^{-1} and the commutator magnitudes in Tables 2–3 are compared with HMC fits that were not forced to those values; the numerical exponents −0.98/−1.03 are close to but independently fitted. Critical exponents in Table 4 are empirical fits used as evidence, not inputs that determine the phase diagram. The main caveat—that at N=N_c the diagonal expansion is controlled only at fixed N as λ→∞, while the simultaneous N,λ→∞ limit depends on how fast λ grows—is stated in Section 5 and reiterated as an open resummation problem in Section 6. This is a limitation on the holographic strong-coupling claim, not a circular reduction. Self-citations such as [13] for the SUSY classification, [18] for Hoppe-model universality, and [35] for BMN results are used for conventions, explicit actions and analogies; the load-bearing calculations in this paper are either self-contained or checked against independent HMC data. No step was found where a prediction is equal to an input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The only dimensionless inputs are the matrix dimension D and the number of real fermionic components N; the N − N_c Vandermonde exponent in Eq. (5.5) follows from Gaussian integration plus gauge fixing. No new particles, forces, or background entities are introduced. The fitted critical exponents are observational outputs, not load-bearing inputs. The main unproved premise is diagonal dominance in the critical 't Hooft regime.

free parameters (1)
  • Critical commutativity exponents α_D = D=3: 0.249; D=4: 0.160; D=5: 0.11
    Best-fit exponents in R ∼ λ^{-α} (Table 4). They are the quantitative evidence for the commuting phase but are not derived from the effective theory and are not used as inputs to the central derivation.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Well-separated diagonal eigenvalue configurations dominate at strong coupling, so off-diagonal modes can be integrated out perturbatively.
    Needed for the core Eq. (5.5). The paper admits it can break down when |x_ab| is parametrically small, especially in the critical 't Hooft limit; Section 5 marks this as an open problem.
  • domain assumption Massless critical models have power-law eigenvalue tails and divergent positive moments as described in [22].
    Used in Section 4 to characterize the difference between subcritical and critical massless limits, e.g. ρ(x) ∼ |x|^{-2D+5}.
  • ad hoc to paper For the 3D SUSY model, the phase-quenched Pfaffian is representative of the unquenched model for commutativity and universality observables.
    The paper only simulates |Pf| (Eq. 2.10); the Pfaffian phase oscillates across [−π, π] (Fig. 5) and the paper states the phase-quenched model is very different from the unquenched case, so this identification is unsupported.
  • domain assumption The fermionic Pfaffian can be analytically continued to non-integer powers f.
    Used in Eq. (4.1) to vary the fermion number continuously. This is a standard analytic continuation but is not independently proven in the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30156 in / 15769 out tokens · 149925 ms · 2026-08-01T06:58:10.254101+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the strong coupling limit of mass deformed Yang--Mills matrix models, with the aim of understanding when the matrices become effectively commuting. The Yang--Mills interaction classically drives the matrices toward mutually commuting valleys, where the matrices can potentially be interpreted as coordinates of an emergent space. However, taking into consideration the integration measure, commutativity is not automatic since the commuting locus is entropically suppressed, and in the bosonic models with $D\geq3$ the strong coupling limit remains non-commuting. We find that fermions change this competition in a sharp way. As the number of fermionic degrees of freedom is increased, there is a critical value $\mathcal N_c=2(D-2)$, realized by the supersymmetric Yang--Mills matrix models, at which the matrices commute at strong coupling. The same critical models also exhibit universality under deformations by $O(N^2)$, or huge, operators: the normalized eigenvalue densities are insensitive to the microscopic details of the huge operators. Increasing the number of fermions beyond the critical point still gives commuting matrices, but the huge-operator universality is lost. Thus commutativity and universality are related but distinct: the matrix models with supersymmetric field content sit at the critical boundary where we have both.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231–252,arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    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(1998) 105–114,arXiv:hep-th/9802109

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Anti de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti de Sitter space and holography,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 253–291,arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, “Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,”Phys. Rept.323(2000) 183–386,arXiv:hep-th/9905111

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    A large-n reduced model as superstring,

    N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, and A. Tsuchiya, “A large-n reduced model as superstring,”Nuclear Physics B498no. 1–2, (Aug., 1997) 467–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00290-3

    doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(97)00290-3 1997

  6. [6]

    The Polarised IKKT Matrix Model,

    S. A. Hartnoll and J. Liu, “The Polarised IKKT Matrix Model,”arXiv:2409.18706 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    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

  9. [9]

    Statistical physics of the polarised IKKT matrix model,

    S. A. Hartnoll and J. Liu, “Statistical physics of the polarised IKKT matrix model,”SciPost Phys.19no. 4, (2025) 099,arXiv:2504.06481 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    D particles, matrix integrals and KP hierarchy,

    V. A. Kazakov, I. K. Kostov, and N. A. Nekrasov, “D particles, matrix integrals and KP hierarchy,”Nucl. Phys. B557(1999) 413–442,arXiv:hep-th/9810035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  11. [11]

    Quantum theory of a massless relativistic surface and a two-dimensional bound state problem,

    J. Hoppe, “Quantum theory of a massless relativistic surface and a two-dimensional bound state problem,”Soryushiron Kenkyu Electronics80no. 3, (1989) 145–202

    1989

  12. [12]

    Multi-matrix models and emergent geometry,

    D. E. Berenstein, M. Hanada, and S. A. Hartnoll, “Multi-matrix models and emergent geometry,”JHEP02(2009) 010,arXiv:0805.4658 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  13. [13]

    Massive deformations of supersymmetric Yang-Mills matrix models,

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

    arXiv

  14. [14]

    Stability of fuzzy sphere saddles in matrix models

    H. Murali and A. Martina, “Stability of fuzzy sphere saddles in matrix models.” In preparation

  15. [15]

    Protected multiplets of M theory on a plane wave,

    K. Dasgupta, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and M. Van Raamsdonk, “Protected multiplets of M theory on a plane wave,”JHEP09(2002) 021,arXiv:hep-th/0207050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  16. [16]

    Matrix perturbation theory for M theory on a PP wave,

    K. Dasgupta, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and M. Van Raamsdonk, “Matrix perturbation theory for M theory on a PP wave,”JHEP05(2002) 056,arXiv:hep-th/0205185

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  17. [17]

    On the spectrum of PP wave matrix theory,

    N. Kim and J. Plefka, “On the spectrum of PP wave matrix theory,”Nucl. Phys. B643 (2002) 31–48,arXiv:hep-th/0207034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  18. [18]

    Universality of Heavy Operators in Matrix Models,

    A. Guerrieri, H. Murali, and P. Vieira, “Universality of Heavy Operators in Matrix Models,” arXiv:2507.21207 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  19. [19]

    The Convergence of Yang-Mills integrals,

    P. Austing and J. F. Wheater, “The Convergence of Yang-Mills integrals,”JHEP02(2001) 028,arXiv:hep-th/0101071. – 39 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  20. [20]

    Yang-mills matrix theory,

    P. Austing, “Yang-mills matrix theory,” Master’s thesis, University of Oxford, 2001. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0108128

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  21. [21]

    Finite yang-mills integrals,

    W. Krauth and M. Staudacher, “Finite yang-mills integrals,”Physics Letters B435no. 3–4, (Sept., 1998) 350–355.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00814-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00814-4 1998

  22. [22]

    Eigenvalue distributions in Yang-Mills integrals,

    W. Krauth and M. Staudacher, “Eigenvalue distributions in Yang-Mills integrals,”Phys. Lett. B453(1999) 253–257,arXiv:hep-th/9902113

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  23. [23]

    Monte Carlo approach to M theory,

    W. Krauth, H. Nicolai, and M. Staudacher, “Monte Carlo approach to M theory,”Phys. Lett. B431(1998) 31–41,arXiv:hep-th/9803117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  24. [24]

    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(2000) 013,arXiv:hep-th/0003208

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  25. [25]

    Huge BPS operators and fluid dynamics inN= 4 SYM,

    V. Kazakov, H. Murali, and P. Vieira, “Huge BPS operators and fluid dynamics inN= 4 SYM,”JHEP09(2025) 142,arXiv:2406.01798 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    (Un)solvable matrix models for bps correlators,

    P. Anempodistov, A. Holguin, V. Kazakov, and H. Murali, “(Un)solvable matrix models for bps correlators,”JHEP04(2026) 069,arXiv:2508.20094 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Murali and P

    H. Murali and P. Vieira. In preparation

  28. [28]

    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(1997) 5112–5128,arXiv:hep-th/9610043

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  29. [29]

    Supergravity and the large N limit of theories with sixteen supercharges,

    N. Itzhaki, J. M. Maldacena, J. Sonnenschein, and S. Yankielowicz, “Supergravity and the large N limit of theories with sixteen supercharges,”Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 046004, arXiv:hep-th/9802042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  30. [30]

    M theory and the light cone,

    J. Polchinski, “M theory and the light cone,”Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.134(1999) 158–170, arXiv:hep-th/9903165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  31. [31]

    Approximations for strongly coupled supersymmetric quantum mechanics,

    D. N. Kabat and G. Lifschytz, “Approximations for strongly coupled supersymmetric quantum mechanics,”Nucl. Phys. B571(2000) 419–456,arXiv:hep-th/9910001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  32. [32]

    Black hole thermodynamics from calculations in strongly coupled gauge theory,

    D. N. Kabat, G. Lifschytz, and D. A. Lowe, “Black hole thermodynamics from calculations in strongly coupled gauge theory,”Phys. Rev. Lett.86(2001) 1426–1429, arXiv:hep-th/0007051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  33. [33]

    Towards lattice simulation of the gauge theory duals to black holes and hot strings,

    S. Catterall and T. Wiseman, “Towards lattice simulation of the gauge theory duals to black holes and hot strings,”JHEP12(2007) 104,arXiv:0706.3518 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  34. [34]

    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(2002) 013,arXiv:hep-th/0202021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  35. [35]

    Gravity from quantum mechanics of finite matrices,

    S. Komatsu, A. Martina, J. Penedones, N. Suchel, A. Vuignier, and X. Zhao, “Gravity from quantum mechanics of finite matrices,”arXiv:2401.16471 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Deep Quantum Geometry of Matrices,

    X. Han and S. A. Hartnoll, “Deep Quantum Geometry of Matrices,”Phys. Rev. X10no. 1, (2020) 011069,arXiv:1906.08781 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Variational Monte Carlo with Neural Network Quantum States for Yang-Mills Matrix Model,

    N. Bodendorfer, O. Oktay, V. Gautam, M. Hanada, and E. Rinaldi, “Variational Monte Carlo with Neural Network Quantum States for Yang-Mills Matrix Model,” arXiv:2409.00398 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    The non-perturbative phase diagram of the BMN matrix model,

    Y. Asano, V. G. Filev, S. Kovacik, and D. O’Connor, “The non-perturbative phase diagram of the BMN matrix model,”JHEP07(2018) 152,arXiv:1805.05314 [hep-th]. – 40 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Confinement/deconfinement transition in the D0-brane matrix model: A signature of M-theory?,

    G. Bergner, N. Bodendorfer, M. Hanada, S. Pateloudis, E. Rinaldi, A. Schafer, P. Vranas, and H. Watanabe, “Confinement/deconfinement transition in the D0-brane matrix model: A signature of M-theory?,”JHEP05(2022) 096,arXiv:2110.01312 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Precision test of gauge/gravity duality in D0-brane matrix model at low temperature,

    S. Pateloudis, G. Bergner, M. Hanada, E. Rinaldi, A. Schafer, P. Vranas, N. Bodendorfer, and H. Watanabe, “Precision test of gauge/gravity duality in D0-brane matrix model at low temperature,”JHEP03(2023) 071,arXiv:2210.04881 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Finite-temperature phase diagram of the BMN matrix model on the lattice,

    R. G. Jha, A. Joseph, and D. Schaich, “Finite-temperature phase diagram of the BMN matrix model on the lattice,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 9, (2025) 094516,arXiv:2412.13407 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Bootstrapping Matrix Quantum Mechanics,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Bootstrap bounds on D0-brane quantum mechanics,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Thermal bootstrap of matrix quantum mechanics,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Hybrid Monte Carlo,

    S. Duane, A. D. Kennedy, B. J. Pendleton, and D. Roweth, “Hybrid Monte Carlo,”Phys. Lett. B195(1987) 216–222

    1987

  46. [46]

    Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Dummies,

    M. Hanada, “Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Dummies,”arXiv:1808.08490 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Introduction to Monte Carlo for matrix models,

    R. G. Jha, “Introduction to Monte Carlo for matrix models,”SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes46 (2022) 1,arXiv:2111.02410 [hep-th]. – 41 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022