Confinement Versus Screening in the Schwinger Model on AdS$_2$ from Bosonization and Tensor Networks

Jack Isen; Sriram Bharadwaj; Zhong-Bo Kang

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Confinement Versus Screening in the Schwinger Model on AdS$_2$ from Bosonization and Tensor Networks

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Massless quantum electrodynamics on anti-de Sitter space screens rather than confines, once the position-dependent self-energies of the probe charges are subtracted from the static potential.

desk verdict The self-energy subtraction is a real advance, but the paper's central claim that the screened potential is independent of how the geodesic separation is taken to infinity is false on its own formula. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19468 v1 pith:3X7PJAKK submitted 2026-07-21 hep-th hep-lathep-phquant-ph

Sriram Bharadwaj , Jack Isen , Zhong-Bo Kang This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thhep-lathep-phquant-ph

keywords SchwingermodelQED2AdS2confinementscreeningbosonizationstaticpotentialtensornetworks

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 takes up a long-standing puzzle: the massless Schwinger model on AdS2 had been reported as both confining and screening, depending on how the charge-anticharge separation was sent to infinity. It argues that the earlier readings were artifacts of identifying the full ground-state energy with the binding potential, because in curved space the one-body self-energy of each probe is position dependent. After subtracting those self-energies, the remaining binding potential is obtained in closed form and decays exponentially with geodesic separation, in both the Schwarzschild and global frames and at finite temperature. Tensor-network simulations of the same lattice Hamiltonian reproduce the screened potential, the electric-field profile, and real-time string breaking.

What carries the argument

The analytic argument runs on bosonization: the massless Schwinger model is mapped to a massive dual scalar, and the static potential is carried by the Green's function of the operator -∂_r(f ∂_r φ) + (e²/π)φ with f = r²/L², whose homogeneous solutions are the powers r^ν and r^{-ν-1}. The conceptual move that resolves the puzzle is subtracting the position-dependent one-body self-energies before reading off the binding energy. For the numerical half, the paper packages the kinetic term together with the spin and gauge connections into a single Hermitian generalized covariant derivative, i∇ = i[a(r)(∂_r + iA_r) + a'(r)/2], before discretizing; this guarantees Hermiticity at finite lattice spa

What would settle it

Compute the same subtracted binding potential while allowing the probe energies to backreact on the geometry (for instance by solving the dilaton-gravity constraints); if it grows with separation rather than following the predicted exponential decay e^{-νd/L}, the screening claim fails. Alternatively, run a lattice simulation at much smaller fermion mass and much larger separation, taking the continuum limit, and check that the subtracted potential continues to decay rather than plateauing at a nonzero value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that single-flavor massless QED2 on AdS2, with or without an AdS2 black hole, is screened rather than confined. The static potential between an opposite-charge probe pair, after subtracting each probe's position-dependent self-energy, is V = -(e²q²/(2ν+1)) r1 (r1/r2)^ν in Schwarzschild coordinates, with ν = -1/2 + sqrt(1/4 + e²L²/π). As the geodesic separation d = L log(r2/r1) goes to infinity this tends to zero exponentially, no matter which charge is sent to infinity. The same conclusion is reached in global AdS2 coordinates and, at finite temperature, from the free energy after subtracting one-body shifts. This agrees with the explicit breaking of the U(1) ele

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the AdS2 geometry is fixed and does not react to the probe charges or quantum fields, and that the standard flat-space rule expressing fermion currents as derivatives of a scalar field remains valid on curved AdS2; if either assumption fails, the Green's function and the resulting screening verdict change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The earlier frame- and limit-dependent claims of confinement in curved-space QED2 are resolved: after self-energy subtraction, the binding potential saturates regardless of how the geodesic separation is taken to infinity.
No linear string tension appears between the probes; the electric field inside the pair decays exponentially with the coupling, and exterior screening-cloud tails decay with geodesic distance.
Finite temperature does not restore confinement: the subtracted q-qbar potential, built from a Hartle-Hawking Green's function, remains finite and decays with separation.
The flat-space Schwinger model is recovered as the AdS2 radius goes to infinity in both frames, giving the familiar Yukawa-screened potential as a limit of the curved-space result.
Real-time tensor-network evolution shows an initially confined e+e- pair connected by a Wilson line breaking through pair production, confirming the screened phase nonperturbatively.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper notes that it treats the AdS2 geometry as fixed; if gravitational backreaction of the probes and fields were included, the horizon and effective potential would shift, and the screening verdict could in principle change.
The same self-energy-subtraction prescription could be applied to other curved backgrounds, such as dS2 or near-horizon geometries, where past work reported region-dependent confinement; if the bosonized scalar's Green's function has normalizable modes, a similar screened phase would be expected.
A curvature-expanded check of the bosonization dictionary, testing corrections to the flat-space current-to-scalar map on AdS2, would show whether the exponential decay formula is exact or only leading order.
The covariant discretization recipe may transfer to lattice gauge theories in higher dimensions on curved slices, where separate discretization of kinetic and spin-connection terms breaks Hermiticity.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this paper has a genuine insight and a useful technical contribution, but the advertised resolution of the screening-versus-confinement ambiguity does not survive contact with its own Eq. (3.22).

What is good: the observation that probe self-energies in curved space are position-dependent and must be subtracted before reading off a binding potential is correct and explains why earlier work [31–33] found contradictory, limit-dependent behavior. The bosonized calculation is exact for the massless theory because the action is quadratic; the Green's function, on-shell energy, and flat-space limit all check out. The covariant discretization, packaging spin and gauge connections into one Hermitian difference operator, is a genuine fix to the separate non-Hermiticity problem in [37], and the DMRG electric field profile matches the continuum curve with no free normalization. Those parts deserve credit.

Where it falls down: the paper claims the subtracted potential remains finite as d→∞ 'independently of how the geodesic separation is taken to infinity.' That is not what Eq. (3.22) says. With d = L log(r2/r1), choose r1 = A e^{s d/L}, r2 = A e^{(s+1)d/L}. This is a perfectly good path with geodesic separation d, and then V = -C A e^{(s-ν)d/L}, which diverges to -∞ for any s > ν. The global-frame expression (3.48) shows the same behavior. So the screening conclusion is established only for the two specific limits the authors plot (r1 fixed or r2 fixed), not for all limits. Since the paper's entire resolution of the prior ambiguity is about eliminating limit-dependence, this is a load-bearing soft spot, not a cosmetic one.

Two more caveats, in proportion. The flat-space bosonization dictionary is assumed on AdS2 without a derivation; curvature corrections would change the Green's function and the potential. And the background is treated as fixed, which the authors acknowledge. Neither is fatal, but both limit how strongly the result can be stated. No code or data is released, so the numerics are hard to reproduce independently.

Who this is for: people working on the Schwinger model in curved space, lattice gauge theory with fermions in curved backgrounds, and tensor-network simulations of gauge theories. It deserves a serious referee: the technical core is substantial and the discretization alone is worth engaging with. But the referee should push hard on the path-dependence of the screening claim. As written, I would not accept the central conclusion without a clear physical definition of which limiting procedure counts, or a proof that the self-energy-subtracted potential depends only on d after a well-motivated regulator.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies massless single-flavor QED_2 on AdS_2, in both Schwarzschild and global frames, and claims to resolve a longstanding ambiguity about confinement versus screening. The main analytic tool is exact bosonization of the massless theory in a fixed AdS_2 background. After computing the ground-state energy in the presence of two external probe charges, the authors subtract position-dependent single-probe self-energies and obtain the qar q potential in closed form, e.g. Eq. (3.22). They conclude that the subtracted potential remains finite as the geodesic separation diverges, so the theory is screened, in agreement with the explicit breaking of the electric one-form symmetry. The same conclusion is extended to the global frame and to finite temperature. The paper also proposes a covariant lattice discretization of curved-space fermions and uses DMRG/tensor-network simulations to support the analytic prediction.

Significance. If the central screening claim is correct under a well-defined prescription, the paper would resolve an apparent contradiction in earlier treatments [31-33] and provide an exactly solvable example of screening in curved spacetime. The covariant discretization of the spin and gauge connections is a useful technical contribution, and the tensor-network validation is a strength: the simulations follow the continuum profile without free normalization. However, the paper's advertised conclusion that the theory screens 'independently of how d is taken to infinity' is not established by the presented calculation, because the subtracted potential (3.22) is path-dependent and can diverge along other equally natural limiting procedures.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.22)-(3.24)] The screening claim is not a function of the geodesic separation alone. Equation (3.22) gives V = -C r_1 (r_1/r_2)^ν with d = L log(r_2/r_1). The paper only examines the limits with r_1 fixed or r_2 fixed. But take r_1 = A e^{s d/L}, r_2 = A e^{(s+1)d/L} with s > ν. Then d = L log(r_2/r_1) is exactly the stated geodesic separation, and V = -C A e^{(s-ν)d/L}, which diverges to -∞ as d → ∞. Thus Eq. (3.22) does not remain finite for all ways of sending d to infinity. This directly contradicts the abstract's claim that the potential 'remains finite as the geodesic separation is taken to infinity' and the conclusion in Sec. 5 that screening holds 'independently of how d→∞ is taken.' At minimum, the paper must either prove boundedness along all sequences with d→∞, or explicitly adopt and justify a restricted definition of 'static potential' in curved space. As written, the resolution of the e
[Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3.48)] The same path-dependence problem appears in the global frame. Using the asymptotics of u_L, u_R at the two boundaries, the global subtracted potential V(ρ_1,ρ_2) = - (π q^2/W) a(ρ_1)a(ρ_2) u'_L(ρ_1)u'_R(ρ_2) contains factors that grow exponentially with ρ_1 + ρ_2. For a sequence with ρ_1 = α d/L and ρ_2 = (α+1)d/L, the potential behaves like -C exp[(2α - ν)d/L] (up to the explicit asymptotic factors in (3.52)), which diverges for sufficiently large α. Hence the claimed frame-independent, procedure-independent screening conclusion is not supported by the analytic result. A revised paper should either restrict to a physically motivated convention for separating the charges and state it as part of the definition of screening, or accept that the static potential in curved space is not a function of d alone and the notion of 'screening' needs refinement.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 1.2] Typo: 'continuuum' should be 'continuum'.
[Sec. 3.4] The heading 'F ree energy' has an unintended space; also 'q¯qpotential' appears with inconsistent spacing throughout.
[Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.17)] For the single-charge self-energy (q,0), the boundary condition E(∞)=0 is compatible with nonzero total charge only because the dynamical fermions carry a compensating vacuum polarization. This is physically clear but deserves a sentence, since the compact-support formula in Eq. (3.18) is used outside its strict domain in deriving Eq. (3.21).
[Sec. 4] The numerical section would be strengthened by reporting truncation errors, bond-dimension convergence, and finite-size extrapolation for the DMRG data. The qualitative agreement is convincing, but quantitative claims would benefit from controlled error estimates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central derivation is an exact, parameter-free computation of the bosonized Hamiltonian, and the self-energy subtraction is the standard definition of interaction energy.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that massless QED2 on AdS2 is screened after subtracting probe self-energies—follows from an explicit, closed-form solution of the bosonized quadratic Hamiltonian. No parameter is fitted to produce the screening result: the coupling enters only through ν=−1/2+sqrt(1/4+e^2L^2/π), and the potential (Eq. 3.22) is obtained by solving the linear equation of motion (3.11) with an exact Green's function (3.13), then evaluating the on-shell energy. The subtraction of single-probe self-energies is the standard definition of the interaction potential, exactly as in flat-space Schwinger model analyses (Ref. [34]), where the self-energies are constants; here they are position-dependent, so retaining them would obscure the binding energy. The one-form symmetry discussion is explicitly presented only as a consistency check, with the paper itself stating the broken symmetry 'does not by itself prove screening' (Sec. 3.1). The lattice/DMRG simulations are an independent numerical validation, and the continuum electric-field profile is matched without free normalization. There are no load-bearing self-citations: references to earlier curved-space treatments are used to contrast their identification of the unsubtracted energy with the potential. The skeptic's path-dependence concern—that Eq. (3.22) depends on absolute positions, not merely the geodesic separation d, so different large-separation limiting procedures give different limits—is a correctness/interpretation issue about how 'd→∞' is defined, not a circularity. Eq. (3.22) is an honest computed expression, not an input disguised as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is identified, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its free parameters (e, L, m, q, T) are all inputs of the theory, not adjusted to make the screening result appear. The load-bearing axioms are standard assumptions in QFT in curved spacetime: validity of bosonization, fixed background, chosen boundary conditions, and external probes. No evidence of hidden fitted parameters.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The standard flat-space bosonization dictionary j^μ = (1/√π) ε^{μν} ∂_ν φ (Eq. 3.6) remains valid on AdS2 with no additional curvature couplings.
The bosonized action in Eq. (3.7) and the subsequent Hamiltonian (3.9) are the flat-space forms transplanted to curved coordinates. Any curvature-dependent term (e.g., R φ^2) would change the Green's function and the screening result. The paper does not derive the bosonization on curved space from first principles.
domain assumption The background AdS2 metric is non-dynamical; gravitational backreaction from probes and matter is neglected.
Explicitly stated in Sec. 3.4: 'In the absence of gravitational backreaction, none of this gravitational data changes the conclusions about the absence of confinement.' If backreaction were included, the geometry and the effective potential would change.
domain assumption Boundary conditions enforcing a vanishing electric field at the AdS boundary and at r=0 (or regularity at the horizon) select the physical vacuum.
Used to fix the Green's functions in Eqs. (3.15), (3.34), and (3.79). Different boundary conditions (e.g., non-normalizable modes) would alter the potential.
domain assumption Probe charges are external, infinitely heavy, classical sources that do not backreact on the gauge field beyond sourcing it.
The static potential is computed with fixed charges qδ(r−r_i); the charges are not dynamical and their recoil is ignored. This is standard but load-bearing.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Confinement Versus Screening in the Schwinger Model on AdS$_2$ from Bosonization and Tensor Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3X7PJAKK

@misc{pith2026260719468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Confinement Versus Screening in the Schwinger Model on AdS$_2$ from Bosonization and Tensor Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3X7PJAKK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19468}
}

abstract

We analyze confinement and screening in single-flavor quantum electrodynamics (QED$_2$) on two-dimensional anti-de Sitter space (AdS$_2$), with and without a Schwarzschild black hole, both in the continuum and on the lattice. The theory is formulated in two frames adapted to distinct choices of a preferred time coordinate: the Schwarzschild frame, associated with the Boulware vacuum, and the global AdS$_2$ frame, associated with the $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$-invariant vacuum. In the massless limit, the static potential between an external charge-anticharge pair is obtained in closed form by bosonization, at both zero and finite temperature. After subtraction of the position-dependent probe self-energies, which, unlike in flat space, are not constant, the potential remains finite as the geodesic separation is taken to infinity, establishing that the theory is screened. This is consistent with the explicit breaking of the $\mathrm{U}(1)$ electric one-form symmetry by the dynamical fermions, and resolves a confining/screening ambiguity in earlier treatments that identify the static potential with the unsubtracted ground-state energy. To validate the continuum analysis, we propose a covariant discretization scheme for placing fermions in curved spacetime on the lattice while ensuring that the continuum properties of the spin and gauge connections are restored in the continuum limit. This construction resolves ambiguities in the existing literature on lattice fermions in curved backgrounds and provides the foundation for our tensor-network simulations. Using a matrix product state ansatz, we confirm our analytical predictions for the phase diagram in AdS$_2$. We perform extensive numerical simulations of the static potential and the electric flux-tube profile for varying fermion masses, which we match to the continuum prediction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[37]

Ikeda and Y

K. Ikeda and Y. Oz,Quantum simulation of fermions inAdS 2 black hole: Chirality, entanglement, and spectral crossovers, 2025. 10.48550/arXiv.2509.21410

doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.21410 2025
[1]

Shifman,Advanced topics in quantum field theory.: A lecture course

M. Shifman,Advanced topics in quantum field theory.: A lecture course. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2, 2012, 10.1017/9781108885911

doi:10.1017/9781108885911 2012
[2]

Greensite,An Introduction to the Confinement Problem, vol

J. Greensite,An Introduction to the Confinement Problem, vol. 972 ofLecture Notes in Physics. Springer, Cham, 2 ed., 2020, 10.1007/978-3-030-51563-8

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51563-8 2020
[3]

K. G. Wilson,Confinement of quarks,Physical Review D10(1974) 2445–2459

1974
[4]

Creutz,Monte carlo study of quantizedSU(2)gauge theory,Physical Review D21(1980) 2308–2315

M. Creutz,Monte carlo study of quantizedSU(2)gauge theory,Physical Review D21(1980) 2308–2315

1980
[5]

A. M. Polyakov,Thermal properties of gauge fields and quark liberation,Physics Letters B72 (1978) 477–480

1978
[6]

Troyer and U.-J

M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese,Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum monte carlo simulations,Physical Review Letters94(2005) 170201, [cond-mat/0408370]

arXiv 2005
[7]

de Forcrand,Simulating QCD at finite density,Proceedings of ScienceLA T2009(2009) 010, [1005.0539]

P. de Forcrand,Simulating QCD at finite density,Proceedings of ScienceLA T2009(2009) 010, [1005.0539]

arXiv 2009

Show all 54 references

[8]

Kogut and L

J. Kogut and L. Susskind,Hamiltonian formulation of wilson ’s lattice gauge theories,Physical Review D11(1975) 395–408

1975
[9]

Zohar, J

E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac and B. Reznik,Quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories using ultracold atoms in optical lattices,Reports on Progress in Physics79(2016) 014401, [1503.02312]

2016 arXiv
[10]

M. C. Ba˜ nuls, R. Blatt, J. Catani, A. Celi, J. I. Cirac, M. Dalmonte et al.,Simulating lattice gauge theories within quantum technologies,The European Physical Journal D74(2020) 165, [1911.00003]

2020 arXiv
[11]

S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee and J. Preskill,Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories, Science336(2012) 1130–1133, [1111.3633]

2012 arXiv
[12]

E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl et al.,Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,Nature534(2016) 516–519, [1605.04570]

2016 arXiv
[13]

N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Morris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz et al., Quantum-classical computation of schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers, Physical Review A98(2018) 032331, [1803.03326]

2018 arXiv
[14]

Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, M

D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, M. Hamdan, T. V. Zache, B. Braverman, M. Kornjaˇ ca, A. Lukin et al., Observation of string breaking on a(2 + 1)D Rydberg quantum simulator,Nature642(2025) 321–326, [2410.16558]

2025 arXiv
[15]

M. John, K. Pareek, P. Tirler, T. Gollerthan, M. Meth, L. Gerster et al.,Non-Abelian String-Breaking Dynamics on a Qudit Quantum Computer,2605.05841

arXiv
[16]

R. P. Feynman,Simulating physics with computers,International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21(1982) 467–488

1982
[17]

J. S. Schwinger,Gauge invariance and mass. ii,Phys. Rev.128(1962) 2425. – 37 –

1962
[18]

J. H. Lowenstein and J. A. Swieca,Quantum electrodynamics in two dimensions,Annals of Physics68(1971) 172–195

1971
[19]

S. R. Coleman, R. Jackiw and L. Susskind,Charge shielding and quark confinement in the massive schwinger model,Annals Phys.93(1975) 267

1975
[20]

S. R. Coleman,More about the massive schwinger model,Annals Phys.101(1976) 239

1976
[22]

T. M. R. Byrnes, P. Sriganesh, R. J. Bursill and C. J. Hamer,Density matrix renormalization group approach to the massive schwinger model,Physical Review D66(2002) 013002

2002
[23]

M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac and K. Jansen,The mass spectrum of the schwinger model with matrix product states,Journal of High Energy Physics2013(2013) 158, [1305.3765]

2013 arXiv
[24]

Buyens, J

B. Buyens, J. Haegeman, K. Van Acoleyen, H. Verschelde and F. Verstraete,Matrix product states for gauge field theories,Physical Review Letters113(2014) 091601, [1312.6654]

2014 arXiv
[25]

Spradlin and A

M. Spradlin and A. Strominger,Vacuum states for AdS 2 black holes,JHEP11(1999) 021, [hep-th/9904143]

1999 arXiv
[26]

S. W. Hawking,Particle Creation by Black Holes,Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199–220

1975
[27]

W. G. Unruh,Notes on black hole evaporation,Phys. Rev. D14(1976) 870

1976
[28]

Fuentes-Schuller and R

I. Fuentes-Schuller and R. B. Mann,Alice falls into a black hole: Entanglement in non-inertial frames,Phys. Rev. Lett.95(2005) 120404, [quant-ph/0410172]

2005 arXiv
[29]

S. A. Fulling,Nonuniqueness of canonical field quantization in Riemannian space-time,Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 2850–2862

1973
[30]

Callan, Curtis G

J. Callan, Curtis G. and F. Wilczek,Infrared behavior at negative curvature,Nuclear Physics B 340(1990) 366–386

1990
[31]

Alimohammadi and H

M. Alimohammadi and H. Mohseni Sadjadi,Massive Schwinger model and its confining aspects on curved space-time,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 105018, [hep-th/0011232]

2001 arXiv
[32]

Mohseni Sadjadi and M

H. Mohseni Sadjadi and M. Alimohammadi,Confinement and screening of the Schwinger model on the Poincare half plane,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16(2001) 1631–1644, [hep-th/0003001]

2001 arXiv
[33]

Mohseni Sadjadi and K

H. Mohseni Sadjadi and K. Saaidi,Q ¯Qpotential in the Schwinger model on curved space-time, Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 065009, [hep-th/0011134]

2001 arXiv
[34]

D. J. Gross, I. R. Klebanov, A. V. Matytsin and A. V. Smilga,Screening versus confinement in (1+1)-dimensions,Nucl. Phys. B461(1996) 109–130, [hep-th/9511104]

1996 arXiv
[35]

S. R. White,Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups,Phys. Rev. Lett. 69(1992) 2863–2866

1992
[36]

Schollw¨ ock,The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals Phys.326(2011) 96–192, [1008.3477]

U. Schollw¨ ock,The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals Phys.326(2011) 96–192, [1008.3477]

2011 arXiv
[38]

Ikeda and Y

K. Ikeda and Y. Oz,Geometry induced chiral transport and entanglement inAdS 2 background, Journal of High Energy Physics2026(2026) 177, [2511.09714]. – 38 –

2026 arXiv
[39]

R. G. Gass,Schwinger model in curved space-time,Phys. Rev. D27(1983) 2893

1983
[40]

Ghosh,QED 2 in curved backgrounds,hep-th/9604056

A. Ghosh,QED 2 in curved backgrounds,hep-th/9604056

arXiv
[41]

Boada, A

O. Boada, A. Celi, J. I. Latorre and M. Lewenstein,Dirac Equation For Cold Atoms In Artificial Curved Spacetimes,New J. Phys.13(2011) 035002, [1010.1716]

2011 arXiv
[42]

K. H. Villegas and J. P. Esguerra,Lattice gauge theory and gluon color-confinement in curved spacetime,Mod. Phys. Lett. A30(2015) 1550020, [1407.1371]

2015 arXiv
[43]

R.-Q. Yang, H. Liu, S. Zhu, L. Luo and R.-G. Cai,Simulating quantum field theory in curved spacetime with quantum many-body systems,Phys. Rev. Res.2(2020) 023107, [1906.01927]

2020 arXiv
[44]

A. G. M. Lewis and G. Vidal,Classical Simulations of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime I: Fermionic Hawking-Hartle Vacua from a Staggered Lattice Scheme,Quantum4 (2020) 351, [1911.12978]

2020 arXiv
[45]

Gaiotto, A

D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg and B. Willett,Generalized Global Symmetries,JHEP02 (2015) 172, [1412.5148]

2015 arXiv
[46]

Gauge theory

D. Tong, “Gauge theory.” Lecture notes, 2018

2018
[47]

Jackiw,Lower Dimensional Gravity,Nucl

R. Jackiw,Lower Dimensional Gravity,Nucl. Phys. B252(1985) 343–356

1985
[48]

Teitelboim,Gravitation and Hamiltonian Structure in Two Space-Time Dimensions,Phys

C. Teitelboim,Gravitation and Hamiltonian Structure in Two Space-Time Dimensions,Phys. Lett. B126(1983) 41–45

1983
[49]

Almheiri and J

A. Almheiri and J. Polchinski,Models of AdS 2 backreaction and holography,JHEP11(2015) 014, [1402.6334]

2015 arXiv
[50]

Maldacena, D

J. Maldacena, D. Stanford and Z. Yang,Conformal symmetry and its breaking in two dimensional Nearly Anti-de-Sitter space,PTEP2016(2016) 12C104, [1606.01857]

2016 arXiv
[51]

Kraus,Hamiltonian approach to near-extremal black hole evaporation and backreaction, 2509.04293

P. Kraus,Hamiltonian approach to near-extremal black hole evaporation and backreaction, 2509.04293
[52]

J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking,Path-integral derivation of black-hole radiance,Physical Review D13(1976) 2188–2203

1976
[53]

G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking,Action integrals and partition functions in quantum gravity,Physical Review D15(1977) 2752–2756

1977
[54]

Haegeman, J

J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Piˇ zorn, H. Verschelde and F. Verstraete, Time-dependent variational principle for quantum lattices,Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011) 070601, [1103.0936]

2011 arXiv
[55]

Haegeman, C

J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken and F. Verstraete,Unifying time evolution and optimization with matrix product states,Phys. Rev. B94(2016) 165116, [1408.5056]. – 39 –

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [37]

Ikeda and Y

K. Ikeda and Y. Oz,Quantum simulation of fermions inAdS 2 black hole: Chirality, entanglement, and spectral crossovers, 2025. 10.48550/arXiv.2509.21410

doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.21410 2025

[2] [1]

Shifman,Advanced topics in quantum field theory.: A lecture course

M. Shifman,Advanced topics in quantum field theory.: A lecture course. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2, 2012, 10.1017/9781108885911

doi:10.1017/9781108885911 2012

[3] [2]

Greensite,An Introduction to the Confinement Problem, vol

J. Greensite,An Introduction to the Confinement Problem, vol. 972 ofLecture Notes in Physics. Springer, Cham, 2 ed., 2020, 10.1007/978-3-030-51563-8

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51563-8 2020

[4] [3]

K. G. Wilson,Confinement of quarks,Physical Review D10(1974) 2445–2459

1974

[5] [4]

Creutz,Monte carlo study of quantizedSU(2)gauge theory,Physical Review D21(1980) 2308–2315

M. Creutz,Monte carlo study of quantizedSU(2)gauge theory,Physical Review D21(1980) 2308–2315

1980

[6] [5]

A. M. Polyakov,Thermal properties of gauge fields and quark liberation,Physics Letters B72 (1978) 477–480

1978

[7] [6]

Troyer and U.-J

M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese,Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum monte carlo simulations,Physical Review Letters94(2005) 170201, [cond-mat/0408370]

arXiv 2005

[8] [7]

de Forcrand,Simulating QCD at finite density,Proceedings of ScienceLA T2009(2009) 010, [1005.0539]

P. de Forcrand,Simulating QCD at finite density,Proceedings of ScienceLA T2009(2009) 010, [1005.0539]

arXiv 2009