Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

A first look at Structured-Multiscale Algebraic Multigrid for Lattice Field Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A multigrid method from oil-reservoir simulation matches a tuned QCD solver in cost.

desk verdict A solid first application of SM-AMG to lattice Dirac, honest about its limits; the FLOP-count proxy is the main thing to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03515 v1 pith:UPCNULVC submitted 2026-08-04 hep-lat

Pauline Schauerte , Jaime Fabián Nieto Castellanos , Arnold Krechel , Marc Alexander Schweitzer , Stefan Krieg This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lat MSC 65F1065N5581T25
keywords algebraicmultigridlatticefieldtheorySchwingermodelWilson-DiracoperatorcriticalslowingdownadaptivepreconditioningQCDsolvers
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

This paper argues that a multigrid method originally built for oil-reservoir simulations can be transplanted to lattice field theory with surprisingly little tuning. Using the two-flavor Schwinger model with Wilson fermions, it compares SM-AMG (implemented algebraically as AM-AMG) against DDalphaAMG, an established adaptive multigrid for the Dirac equation. On fine lattices, near the critical bare mass and at large volumes, the two solvers need comparable numbers of floating-point operations and both beat conjugate gradient, while AM-AMG has a much cheaper setup and essentially one tunable parameter. On coarse lattices close to criticality, however, the purely algebraic method struggles to remove low modes and loses to DDalphaAMG. The practical stake is that, if the result carries over to QCD, multilevel preconditioning could become far easier to deploy than today's parameter-heavy adaptive multigrid.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the wirebasket: a compact aggregate of lattice variables classified as vertices, edges, and interior points, with overlapping borders shared between neighboring aggregates. AM-AMG builds these aggregates purely from the matrix adjacency graph, then derives a local interpolation operator by solving block-Schur equations so that interior and edge variables are expressed in terms of vertex variables; vertices transfer to the coarse grid. The normalized interpolation is assembled into a global prolongator used in a V-cycle, with wirebasket size as the primary tunable parameter. Because the implementation is real-valued, the complex Wilson-Dirac matrix is first rewritte

What would settle it

Run both solvers on the same machine at beta = 4, V = 1024^2, |m0 - mc| = 0.001 and measure wall-clock time per solve including setup. If AM-AMG's time is materially larger than DDalphaAMG's despite equal FLOP counts, the claimed cost parity is an artifact of the FLOP metric. A second test: at beta = 2, if increasing volume drives AM-AMG's fine-grid iterations upward nearly as fast as conjugate gradient's, the claimed alleviation of critical slowing down fails on coarse lattices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an algebraic, aggregation-based multiscale method, AM-AMG, can act as a robust preconditioner for the Wilson-Dirac operator without test vectors or physical input. In the Schwinger-model benchmarks at beta = 4 and 6, the AM-AMG-preconditioned solver achieves FLOP counts comparable to DDalphaAMG on large volumes near the critical mass (e.g. roughly 1900 vs 1510 GFLOP at V = 1024^2, beta = 4, |m0 - mc| = 0.001), while its setup phase costs about an order of magnitude less. Both multigrid preconditioners remove critical slowing down far more effectively than conjugate gradient. At beta = 2, however, AM-AMG's fine-grid iterations and FLOP counts grow and fluctuate near

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that FLOP counts from a real-valued, general-purpose implementation of the Dirac operator predict practical solver cost, even though that formulation doubles the matrix size and changes memory-bandwidth demands.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the FLOP parity with DDalphaAMG holds on fine lattices, multigrid preconditioning for Wilson fermions could work without per-problem tuning of test-vector counts, simplifying production runs.
  • The low setup cost means rebuilding the preconditioner for each gauge configuration, as required inside Hybrid Monte Carlo, becomes affordable for AM-AMG.
  • The weak volume dependence of AM-AMG's iteration count at fixed mass near criticality indicates that the method alleviates critical slowing down on fine lattices at large volumes, at least in this test model.
  • The failure at beta = 2 defines a concrete boundary: on coarse lattices near the chiral limit, purely algebraic coarsening is insufficient and needs geometric information or additional near-kernel information.
  • A direct corollary is that the current FLOP counts do not include the memory and bandwidth penalty of the doubled real formulation, so the reported costs are a lower bound on practical effort.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if wall-clock time rather than FLOPs were measured, AM-AMG's apparent parity could shrink or reverse, because the K-formulation doubles the matrix and changes memory traffic; a fair test requires a complex-native implementation.
  • Beyond the paper: restoring the geometric, structured coarsening of SM-AMG, instead of the algebraic adjacency-based coarsening used here, is a natural fix for the coarse-lattice low-mode problem and could be tested by comparing wirebasket shapes against lattice geometry.
  • Beyond the paper: adding a small number of test vectors to AM-AMG's interpolation would likely cure the coarse-lattice failure but would sacrifice the method's main advantage of a cheap, one-parameter setup.
  • Beyond the paper: the same one-parameter multigrid could be tried directly on 4D Wilson or clover operators; if parity persists in four dimensions, the tuning bottleneck of adaptive multigrid in lattice QCD would be substantially eased.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Structured-Multiscale Algebraic Multigrid (SM-AMG), in its algebraic variant AM-AMG, as a preconditioner for the Wilson Dirac operator in the two-flavor Schwinger model. It benchmarks AM-AMG inside the proprietary SAMG library against a purpose-built DDαAMG implementation and against CG, for β = 2, 4, 6 and volumes 128² to 1024², using FLOP counts and FGMRES iteration counts averaged over 10 configurations and 10 right-hand sides. The headline claim is that on fine lattices (β = 4, 6) near the critical mass, AM-AMG and DDαAMG have comparable operation counts, both outperform CG, AM-AMG alleviates critical slowing down, and its setup phase is much cheaper and requires essentially one tunable parameter, while on coarse lattices (β = 2) AM-AMG struggles to remove low modes near the critical mass.

Significance. If the central comparison is accepted, this is a useful proof of concept: it introduces a multilevel method from reservoir simulation to lattice field theory, with an honest assessment of its current limitations and a substantively cheaper setup phase. The paper is not circular: the benchmark is an external comparison, and the results are averaged over 100 solves with reported deviations. The authors also provide open code for the HMC and DDαAMG implementations and explicitly identify the proprietary SAMG/K-formulation as a limitation. However, the central inference from FLOP counts to 'comparable computational cost' is not established, and the β = 2 data need a robustness check. The fine-lattice operation-count claim itself is supported by Tables 4b and 4c, e.g. at β = 4, V = 1024², |m0−mc| = 0.001 the totals are 1510 GFLOP (DDαAMG) versus 1900 GFLOP (AM-AMG).

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §4.2; §6] The central claim of 'comparable computational cost' is based entirely on FLOP counts. Section 4.2 states that SAMG uses a real K-formulation that doubles the matrix size, that memory bandwidth differs considerably from DDαAMG, and explicitly says 'when comparing both methods we only look at the FLOP count and not time to solution.' For sparse lattice operators, performance is typically memory-bandwidth-bound, and the two implementations use different arithmetic, data layouts, and optimization levels. Tables 4b/4c therefore support 'comparable operation counts,' not 'comparable computational cost.' The abstract and conclusion should be reworded to reflect this, or wall-clock measurements (or a comparable native-complex implementation of AM-AMG) should be supplied.
  2. [§5, Tables 3a and 4a] At β = 2 near criticality, AM-AMG shows exceptionally large fluctuations, e.g. V = 1024², |m0−mc| = 0.01: 559 ± 536 iterations and 11046.7 ± 10129.7 GFLOPs; V = 512², 0.01: 607 ± 847 iterations and 2803.3 ± 3909.7 GFLOPs. The paper does not state whether all 100 solves reached the 10⁻¹⁰ tolerance or whether some right-hand sides required pathologically many iterations. Reporting only means with such large deviations can be misleading. Please report the fraction of converged solves, medians, and/or trimmed means. This does not invalidate the fine-lattice conclusions, but it is needed to quantify the β = 2 robustness failure.
  3. [§6] The conclusion states that AM-AMG 'offers greater flexibility across varying scenarios' and can be applied across different volumes and β values without further adjustment. The β = 2 data in Tables 3a and 4a show high variability and order-of-magnitude FLOP increases near the critical mass, which is not 'flexibility' in the same sense as the β = 4 and β = 6 cases. The flexibility claim should be restricted to fine lattices, or the β = 2 limitation should be incorporated into the conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Tables 4a–4c] The table headers 'CG Setup DDαAMG Setup AM-AMG' are ambiguous. It appears that the columns are CG total, DDαAMG setup, DDαAMG total, AM-AMG setup, AM-AMG total, but the header does not make this clear. Please relabel the columns explicitly and adjust the caption accordingly.
  2. [Figure 4] The label 'Aggregates size' should be 'aggregate size' or 'aggregate block size.' Also, the figure shows results for a single configuration and a single right-hand side; the text notes this, but the figure caption should state it explicitly.
  3. [§1.1, Eq. (7)] The boundary condition is written for a field 'ψ_μ(n)', but μ has been used for the direction index and α,β for spin. This notation is confusing; the field should carry a spin index (e.g. ψ_α(n)) rather than μ.
  4. [§4.1, Eq. (16)] The normalization operator N and the permutation operator G are introduced verbally but not defined precisely. A short algebraic definition or a reference to the construction in Ref. [27] would help readers who want to implement or audit the interpolation formula.
  5. [§5, Table 2] The fixed DDαAMG parameter set is a deliberate and understandable choice, but because the paper emphasizes DDαAMG's sensitivity to tuning, it would be useful to state explicitly how much the DDαAMG FLOP counts could improve if its parameters were optimized per (β, V, m0). The current text leaves this implicit.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor same-group citations in outlook; central AM-AMG vs DDαAMG benchmark is external and not circular.

  1. other [Section 6 (Conclusion), final paragraph]
    "In Refs. [9, 27] one can see that the SM-AMG approach tends to have better convergence than AM-AMG."

    This sentence supports the expectation that structured SM-AMG will outperform the algebraic AM-AMG tested here by citing Ref. [9] (Ehrmann, Gries, Schweitzer) and Ref. [27] (Gries PhD thesis), which share authors/affiliation with the present paper (Schweitzer is a co-author; Gries is the same research line). It is the only place where a 'better convergence' claim is imported from the same group rather than demonstrated. However, the sentence is confined to the outlook paragraph and is not used to derive any measured iteration count, FLOP count, or the central benchmark. It is therefore a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a direct numerical comparison: AM-AMG (via SAMG/K-formulation) versus DDαAMG on the two-flavor Wilson Schwinger model, benchmarked by FGMRES iteration counts and GFLOP counts in Tables 3 and 4. These quantities are measured from independent implementations and an external CG baseline; none is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only same-group citations occur in the outlook paragraph (Refs. [9,27] for future structured SM-AMG convergence) and are not load-bearing for the benchmark. The explicit limitation in Section 4.2 — 'when comparing both methods we only look at the FLOP count and not time to solution' — is a validity/proxy concern (memory-bandwidth, doubled K-form matrix size, SAMG not QCD-tuned), not circularity: it weakens the inference from GFLOP counts to 'comparable computational cost' but does not make any equation reduce to its own input. Accordingly, no step exhibits self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, imported uniqueness, or ansatz-by-citation. Score 2 reflects only the minor non-load-bearing self-citation in the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or algorithmic entities are postulated. SM-AMG and AM-AMG are prior methods (refs 8, 9, 27); the paper's contribution is the adaptation and benchmark. The free parameters are hand-chosen solver settings, not fitted to the target results, and the axioms are standard numerical or domain assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • AM-AMG wirebasket size = 9 grid points
    Primary tunable parameter of SM-AMG, fixed at 9 for all tests. Figure 4 shows the solver is insensitive to this choice, so it is not fitted to the reported results, but it is a hand-chosen parameter the benchmark depends on.
  • DD alphaAMG lattice block size = 8^2
    Domain decomposition block size for the SAP smoother; fixed at 8x8 for all cases. DD alphaAMG performance is known to be sensitive to this parameter, so it is a tuned choice that shapes the baseline.
  • DD alphaAMG number of test vectors = 10
    Number of near-kernel vectors used to build the interpolation. Fixed at 10 for all cases; Figure 4 shows that varying Nv changes cost, so this hand-picked value affects the comparison.
  • Coarsest-level GMRES relative residual tolerance = 0.1
    Set for both solvers as the coarsest-level solve tolerance. It affects iteration counts and FLOPs on the coarse grid and is a hand-chosen parameter of the test setup.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ideal per-aggregate pre-smoothing zeroes the interior and edge residuals in the SM-AMG interpolation derivation.
    Section 4.1 states: We assume ideal per aggregate pre-smoothing of the solution of equation (14), which leads to a zero residual for the interior and edge variables. The interpolation formula (16) follows from this block elimination, but in practice smoothing is approximate.
  • standard math The K-formulation rewrites the complex Dirac matrix as an equivalent real 2x2 block matrix without changing the solution.
    Section 4.2 uses the standard real-valued formulation of Day and Heroux [28] to run the real-valued SAMG library. The algebra is standard, but the doubled matrix size is a material consequence for the FLOP comparison.
  • domain assumption The two-flavor Schwinger model is a representative testbed for lattice QCD solver behavior, including critical slowing down.
    Section 1.1 justifies the Schwinger model via confinement, topology, and anomalies, but the extrapolation of benchmark conclusions to full QCD assumes the Wilson-Dirac spectral properties are similar enough.
  • domain assumption The algebraic coarsening in SAMG (AM-AMG) is a faithful stand-in for the geometric SM-AMG wirebasket construction that motivated the work.
    Section 4.2 explains that the implementation uses matrix adjacency based coarsening, not the lattice geometry. The paper notes this loses information and that AM-AMG and SM-AMG converge differently, so the benchmark tests only the algebraic variant.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A first look at Structured-Multiscale Algebraic Multigrid for Lattice Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UPCNULVC

@misc{pith2026260803515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A first look at Structured-Multiscale Algebraic Multigrid for Lattice Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UPCNULVC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03515}
}
abstract

State-of-the-art solvers for the Dirac equation in Lattice QCD are based on adaptive multigrid methods. These require fine-tuning of many algorithmic parameters to achieve optimal performance. We apply a new multigrid approach to Lattice Field Theory adapted from oil-reservoir simulations: Structured-Multiscale Algebraic Multigrid (SM-AMG). This method builds compact aggregates with overlapping borders to coarsen the grid and yields accurate interpolation. A key advantage is that aggregate size is the primary tunable parameter. For our results, we used SM-AMG in an algebraic approach, called Aggregative-Multiscale AMG (AM-AMG). We benchmark the efficiency of AM-AMG against that of DD$\alpha$AMG, a successful adaptive multigrid solver which alleviates critical slowing down. The two solvers are compared within the framework of the two-flavor Schwinger model using the Wilson discretization. On fine lattices, the operation count of both methods is similar near the critical point and for large volumes, reflecting a comparable computational cost. However, the number of fine-grid iterations is larger for AM-AMG. On coarse lattices, AM-AMG encounters difficulties to remove the low modes close to the critical mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03515 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We partition the lattice into equally sized groups of sites, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of wirebaskets (purple and yellow) with four vertices (red), four edges (green) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of wirebaskets for the Schwinger model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We show the variation of the fine-grid iterations (left) and the FLOP count (right) when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison of the floating-point operations it takes to achieve convergence for both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Eigenvalue spectra for the Dirac matrix associated with configurations generated at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Eigenvalue spectra for the coarse-grid matrices associated with configurations generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Ehrmann, S

    S. Ehrmann, S. Gries, and M. A. Schweitzer. Generalization of algebraic multiscale to algebraic multigrid.Comput. Geosci.24, 683–696, (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [27]

    S. Gries. Algebraic Multigrid for Eigenproblems in Industrial Applications of Big Data and Engineering. PhD thesis. Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universit¨ at Bonn, (2023).url: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/11197

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Brezina, R

    M. Brezina, R. Falgout, S. MacLachlan, T. Manteuffel, S. McCormick, and J. Ruge. Adaptive Smoothed Aggregation (αSA).SIAM J. Sci. Comput.25, 1896–1920, (2004)

    work page 1920

  4. [2]

    Brezina, R

    M. Brezina, R. Falgout, S. MacLachlan, T. Manteuffel, S. McCormick, and J. Ruge. Adaptive Algebraic Multigrid.SIAM J. Sci. Comput.27, 1261–1286, (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [3]

    Brannick, R

    J. Brannick, R. C. Brower, M. A. Clark, J. C. Osborn, and C. Rebbi. Adaptive Multigrid Algorithm for Lattice QCD.Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 041601, (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [4]

    Babich et al

    R. Babich et al. Adaptive Multigrid Algorithm for the Lattice Wilson-Dirac Operator.Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 201602, (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [5]

    Whyte, A

    T. Whyte, A. Stathopoulos, and E. Romero. Accelerating multigrid with streaming chiral SVD for Wilson fermions in lattice QCD.Comput. Phys. Comm.323, 110089, (2026)

    work page 2026

  8. [6]

    Espinoza-Valverde, A

    J. Espinoza-Valverde, A. Frommer, G. Ramirez-Hidalgo, and M. Rottmann. Coarsest-level improvements in multigrid for lattice QCD on large-scale computers.Comput. Phys. Commun. 292, 108869, (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [7]

    Lehner, and T

    C. Lehner, and T. Wettig. Gauge-equivariant neural networks as preconditioners in lattice QCD.Phys. Rev. D,108, 034503, (2023)

    2023

  2. [8]

    H. Zhou. Algebraic multiscale finite-volume methods for reservoir simulation. PhD thesis. Stanford University, (2010)

    2010

  3. [10]

    Frommer, K

    A. Frommer, K. Kahl, S. Krieg, B. Leder, and M. Rottmann. Adaptive Aggregation-Based Domain Decomposition Multigrid for the Lattice Wilson–Dirac Operator.SIAM J. Sci. Comput.36, A1581–A1608, (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    Frommer, K

    A. Frommer, K. Kahl, S. Krieg, B. Leder, and M. Rottmann. An adaptive aggregation based domain decomposition multilevel method for the lattice wilson dirac operator: multilevel results. arXiv:arXiv:1307.6101(hep-lat) (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Schwinger

    J. Schwinger. Gauge Invariance and Mass.Phys. Rev.125, 397–398, (1962)

    1962

  6. [13]

    Schwinger

    J. Schwinger. Gauge Invariance and Mass II.Phys. Rev.128, 2425–2429, (1962)

    1962

  7. [14]

    S. R. Coleman, R. Jackiw, and L. Susskind. Charge Shielding and Quark Confinement in the Massive Schwinger Model.Ann. Phys.93, 267, (1975)

    1975

  8. [15]

    Trottenberg, C

    U. Trottenberg, C. W. Oosterlee, and A. Schuller. Multigrid.Elsevier, (2000)

    2000

  9. [16]

    St¨ uben

    K. St¨ uben. Algebraic multigrid (AMG). An introduction with applications.GMD Forschungszen- trum Informationstechnik, (1999)

    1999

  10. [17]

    L¨ uscher

    M. L¨ uscher. Local coherence and deflation of the low quark modes in lattice QCD.J. High Energy Phys.2007, 081, (2007)

    2007

  11. [18]

    L¨ uscher

    M. L¨ uscher. Solution of the Dirac equation in lattice QCD using a domain decomposition method.Comput. Phys. Commun.156, 209–220, (2004)

    2004

  12. [19]

    Møyner, and K

    O. Møyner, and K. -A. Lie. A multiscale restriction-smoothed basis method for high contrast porous media represented on unstructured grids.J. Comput. Phys.304, 46–71, (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    Vanˇ ek, J

    P. Vanˇ ek, J. Mandel, and M. Brezina. Algebraic multigrid by smoothed aggregation for second and fourth order elliptic problems.Computing,56, 179–196, (1996)

    1996

  14. [21]

    Lie et al

    K.-A. Lie et al. Successful Application of Multiscale Methods in a Real Reservoir Simulator Environment.ECMOR XV-15th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, cp–494–00153, (2016)

    2016

  15. [22]

    A. M. Manea, H. Hajibeygi, P. Vassilevski, and H. A. Tchelepi. Parallel Enriched Algebraic Multiscale Solver.SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference, D011S003R001, (2017)

    2017

  16. [23]

    Møyner, and K.-A

    O. Møyner, and K.-A. Lie. A multiscale method based on restriction-smoothed basis functions suitable for general grids in high contrast media.SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference, D021S008R002, (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    T ¸ene, Y

    M. T ¸ene, Y. Wang, and H. Hajibeygi. Adaptive algebraic multiscale solver for compressible flow in heterogeneous porous media.J. Comput. Phys.300, 679–694, (2015). 15

    2015

  18. [25]

    T ¸ene, M

    M. T ¸ene, M. S. Al Kobaisi, and H. Hajibeygi. Algebraic multiscale method for flow in heterogeneous porous media with embedded discrete fractures (F-AMS).J. Comput. Phys. 321, 819–845, (2016)

    2016

  19. [26]

    Y. Wang, H. Hajibeygi, and H. A. Tchelepi. Algebraic multiscale solver for flow in heteroge- neous porous media.J. Comput. Phys.259, 284–303, (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Day, and M

    D. Day, and M. A. Heroux. Solving complex-valued linear systems via equivalent real formu- lations.SIAM J. Sci. Comput.23, 480–498, (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    C. Nils, K. Jansen, K. Nagai, and B. Pollakowski. Scaling test of fermion actions in the Schwinger model.Nucl. Phys. B,739, 60–84, (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    J. F. Nieto Castellanos. HMC for simulating the Schwinger model. (2026).url: https : //github.com/Fabian2598/SchwingerModel

    2026

  23. [31]

    J. F. Nieto Castellanos. DDαAMG for the Schwinger model. (2026).url: https://github. com/JFNCastellanos/DDalphaAMG-SM

    2026

  24. [32]

    SAMG User’s Manual., (2023)

    Fraunhofer Institute SCAI. SAMG User’s Manual., (2023). 16

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.