Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Makeenko-Migdal equations for 2D Yang-Mills: from lattice to continuum

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The discrete Makeenko–Migdal equations for 2D lattice Yang–Mills converge to their continuum counterparts as the lattice spacing goes to zero.

desk verdict Strong lattice-to-continuum convergence proof for the 2D Yang-Mills master loop equations, but the printed statement of Lemma 5.7 has a transposed sign that must be fixed before the central combination works as claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15422 v2 pith:ABJAAVPE submitted 2024-12-19 math-ph math.MPmath.PR

Hao Shen , Scott A. Smith , Rongchan Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MPmath.PR MSC 81T1381T2560B1558J65 PACS 11.15.Ha11.15.-q
keywords Yang-MillsMakeenko-MigdalequationsmasterlooplatticegaugetheoryWilsonloopscontinuumlimitDriver'sformulatwo-dimensional
topics Yang-Mills Mass Gap
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 establishes a rigorous bridge between the lattice and continuum formulations of the master loop equations (Makeenko–Migdal/Dyson–Schwinger equations) for two-dimensional Yang–Mills theory. The authors prove that, for a loop with a simple crossing, a specific linear combination of three discrete master loop equations on the lattice $(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z})^2$ converges as $\varepsilon\to 0$ to the continuum Makeenko–Migdal equation $(\partial_{t_1} - \partial_{t_2} + \partial_{t_3} - \partial_{t_4}) E W_l = E(W_{l_1}W_{l_2})$. The proof works by identifying the limit of each deformation term in the lattice equation as an area derivative of the Wilson-loop expectation, using a Gaussian approximation to the Wilson action together with Driver's heat-kernel formula. The result extends to strings of loops, where merger terms appear with a $1/N^2$ factor, and to the gauge groups $SU(N)$ and $SO(N)$, where twisting and expansion operations enter.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on four tools. The discrete Driver's formula writes lattice Wilson-loop expectations as integrals of products of Wilson actions $S_\varepsilon$, the transition kernel of a random walk on the gauge group, with the continuum analogue using the heat kernel $p_t$. A Gaussian approximation lemma (Lemma 3.1) shows that integrals of a smooth function against $S_\varepsilon$ reduce to $f(I) + \tfrac12\varepsilon^2\Delta f(I)$ with controlled error, turning deformation differences into Laplacians and hence into area derivatives. Peter–Weyl spectral decomposition of $S_\varepsilon$ and $p_t$ controls the uniform convergence through estimates on characters and Casimir constants. Finally, the 'compatible triple' of bonds $(\epsilon, \epsilon_1, \epsilon_3)$ or $(\epsilon, \epsilon_2, \epsilon_4)$—one bond on the inserted crossing edge and one on each of two adjacent edges—yields exactly the linear combination whose integration-by-parts corrections cancel, leaving the alternating area-derivative combination.

What would settle it

Compute, for a sequence of small $\varepsilon$, each side of the combination $(5.15) - \tfrac12(5.25) - \tfrac12(5.30)$ for a loop with one transverse self-crossing, using the prescribed lattice approximation $l_\varepsilon = e_\varepsilon e_\varepsilon^1 A_\varepsilon (e_\varepsilon^4)^{-1} e_\varepsilon e_\varepsilon^2 B_\varepsilon (e_\varepsilon^3)^{-1}$; if the difference from $E(W_{l_1}W_{l_2})$ does not shrink to zero, or if dropping any one of the three discrete equations leaves a correction term $I_1$ or $I_3$ that fails to cancel, the convergence claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5.8: for any lattice approximation $l_\varepsilon$ of a loop $l$ with a simple crossing at $v$ of the special form $l_\varepsilon = e_\varepsilon e_\varepsilon^1 A_\varepsilon (e_\varepsilon^4)^{-1} e_\varepsilon e_\varepsilon^2 B_\varepsilon (e_\varepsilon^3)^{-1}$, in which the crossing point is replaced by an extra edge $e_\varepsilon$ of length $O(\varepsilon)$, the linear combination of discrete master loop equations $(5.15) - \tfrac12(5.25) - \tfrac12(5.30)$ converges as $\varepsilon\to 0$ to the continuum Makeenko–Migdal equation $(\partial_{t_1} - \partial_{t_2} + \partial_{t_3} - \partial_{t_4}) E W_l = E(W_{l_1}W_{l_2})$. Each of the three individual lattice equations converges separately to a limit carrying specific correction terms, and those corrections cancel exactly in the indicated combination; the paper verifies this term-by-term rather than by appealing to the already-known continuum equation.

Load-bearing premise

The proof requires the lattice approximation to replace the crossing vertex by a single extra edge of length $O(\varepsilon)$ and to combine the discrete equations only along a 'compatible triple' of bonds; if the approximation or the bond selection departs from this structure, the individual deformation terms need not converge to the area-derivative form the argument uses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For simple loops, the discrete master loop equation converges to $\frac{d}{dt} E W_l = -\tfrac12 E W_l$, recovering the known continuum master loop equation for a non-self-intersecting loop.
  • For a collection of loops with a simple crossing between two of them, the limiting equation contains a merger term with coefficient $1/N^2$, matching the continuum string equation.
  • For the gauge groups $SU(N)$ and $SO(N)$, the same convergence holds, with additional twisting terms proportional to $(2-\beta)/(\beta N)$ and expansion terms that vanish in the limit.
  • The analysis identifies the limit of each individual deformation term as an area derivative, a statement stronger than convergence of the summed equation, and yields a new proof of the continuum master loop equation from lattice approximations.
  • Degenerate crossings with fewer than four adjacent faces or with an unbounded face are reduced to the main theorem by adding auxiliary edges, producing the corresponding reduced Makeenko–Migdal forms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cancellation pattern behind the compatible-triple combination suggests that any discretization scheme for the loop equation must balance the bonds surrounding a crossing; analogous local structures may be needed to derive continuum equations on compact surfaces, a problem the paper leaves open.
  • The term-by-term deformation limits, with the correction terms $I_m$, give quantitative control over how the lattice equation approaches the continuum one; tracking the $\varepsilon^2$ error in the Gaussian approximation could yield explicit convergence rates for Wilson-loop derivatives.
  • Because the proof leans on Driver's formula—exact solvability in two dimensions—the same argument is unlikely to extend directly to $d\geq 3$; a testable extension would be whether the Gaussian-approximation step alone already produces the correct leading-order behaviour without the heat-kernel exactness.
  • The vanishing of expansion terms for $SU(N)$ and $SO(N)$ rests on the tracelessness of their Lie algebras; for $U(N)$ such terms are absent from the loop equations, suggesting the structure of the loop algebra, not the dimension of the group, controls which corrections survive.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves that, for two-dimensional lattice Yang-Mills with gauge group U(N) on (εZ)^2 at inverse coupling β=ε^{-2}, suitable linear combinations of the single-bond lattice master loop equations converge to the continuum Makeenko-Migdal equation for a loop with a simple crossing. The proof works by analyzing each deformation term in the lattice equation via a Gaussian approximation lemma (Section 3), converting the Wilson action into heat-kernel gradients, and then identifying the limits as area derivatives. The main theorem is Theorem 5.8, which is proved from Proposition 5.5 and Lemmas 5.6 and 5.7; Corollary 5.9 extends it to general linear combinations. The paper also extends the result to strings of loops, where a merger term appears, and to the gauge groups SU(N) and SO(N), where twisting and expansion terms enter. The exposition is careful to avoid using the continuum Makeenko-Migdal equation as an input: the continuum equation is obtained as a limit of the lattice equations using Driver's formula and the known lattice master loop equation.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, this is an important bridge between two decades of rigorous work on continuum 2D Yang-Mills and the classical lattice loop equations: it gives the first direct lattice-to-continuum passage for the Makeenko-Migdal equations, and it identifies the limits of each individual deformation term rather than only the limit of the combined equation. The proof is detailed, with explicit hypotheses and a substantial Gaussian approximation lemma whose error terms are stated with explicit dependence on representation data. The paper also gives a new proof of the continuum Makeenko-Migdal equation and extends the result to strings and to SO(N) and SU(N), with the correct constants for twisting and expansion terms. These strengths are real: the argument is not circular, the main estimates are explicitly stated, and the key cancellation mechanism is transparent. However, the printed statement of Lemma 5.7 contains a sign error that is load-bearing for Theorem 5.8; the proof of the lemma contains the correct sign, so the intended argument is sound, but the manuscript as written must be corrected.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 5.2, Lemma 5.7 (Eq. (5.31))] The statement of Lemma 5.7 has the sign of the area derivatives transposed. The proof first shows, using (5.24), that the F2-deformation contribution has limit 2(∂t3 − ∂t2)EWl + I3, and then shows that the F3-deformation contribution has limit I3. The total limit is therefore 2(∂t3 − ∂t2)EWl + 2I3, but the displayed (5.31) reads 2(∂t2 − ∂t3)EWl + 2I3 = EWl. This is not a harmless typo: Theorem 5.8 is assembled by subtracting one half of (5.25) and one half of (5.30) from (5.15). If the printed statement of Lemma 5.7 is used, the combination gives (∂t1 − 3∂t2 + 3∂t3 − ∂t4)EWl = E(Wl1Wl2), not the claimed (∂t1 − ∂t2 + ∂t3 − ∂t4)EWl = E(Wl1Wl2). Since the proof of the lemma contains the correct sign, the intended argument is sound, but the statement of Lemma 5.7 must be corrected before the paper can be accepted; Corollary 5.9 and the extensions in Section 6 inherit this correction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, proof of Lemma 5.6 and Lemma 5.7] After the axial-gauge fixing, the symbols a1 and a3 are overloaded to mean the holonomy along the remaining part of the edge; the sentence announcing this is helpful, but the subsequent changes of variable, such as Q_{ǫ1}a1 → a1, are easy to miss. A short displayed line after each change of variable would improve readability.
  2. [Section 5.2, Corollary 5.9] In the proof of Corollary 5.9, two limiting quantities are both denoted Dǫ in the text, with only a subtle bar or prime to distinguish the deformation at the two occurrences of eε. Please use clearly distinct symbols, for instance D_{ǫ,L} and D_{ǫ,R}, to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section 6.2, display (6.16)] The footnote about the sign mismatch in [DL22, Proposition 7.3] is helpful, but the notation β is reused in (6.10) with a different normalization than in (1.2). A sentence explicitly saying that (6.10) supersedes (1.2) for Section 6.2 would prevent an unnecessary reading difficulty.
  4. [References] There are a few typographical errors in the references, such as 'Propostion' in the entry for [DL22]; these should be corrected during the final proofreading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lattice-to-continuum derivation is self-contained, using the lattice master loop equation and Driver's formula as independent inputs.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is self-contained. The paper explicitly does not assume the continuum Makeenko–Migdal equation: Section 1 states, “We prefer to avoid using the continuum result, as this forces us to carry out a more refined analysis of the deformation terms which we believe is insightful in its own right.” The target equation (5.32) is assembled from the lattice master loop equation (1.5), quoted from [CPS23, Theorem 5.7] with alternate derivations [Cha19a] and [AN23], and from Driver's formulas (2.12)–(2.13), which are external inputs. The convergence lemmas (3.1), (5.1), and (5.2) are proved inside the paper using Gaussian/Laplace-type estimates and spectral bounds quoted from [BS83]; they contain no fitted parameters and do not presuppose the continuum equation. The correction terms I1 and I3 are canceled by the explicit linear combination (5.15) − (1/2)(5.25) − (1/2)(5.30), and the alternating area derivatives arise from integration by parts together with the heat equation ∂t p_t = (1/2)Δ p_t, not from a pre-imposed answer. The only self-citation, [SSZ24], is listed as one of several derivations of the lattice master loop equation and is not the source of the single-location identity used; it is therefore not load-bearing. A sign inconsistency in the printed statement of Lemma 5.7 (the proof gives the opposite ordering of ∂t2 and ∂t3) is a correctness issue in the manuscript as written, but it is not a circular step and does not raise the circularity score.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data. The proof uses established results on heat kernels on Lie groups, Driver's formula, and the lattice loop equation; the only structural input is the scaling β=ε^{-2} and the chosen approximation class. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Wilson action Sε satisfies the spectral asymptotics aτ(ε) = exp((1/2)cτ ε^2)(1+O(cτ^2 ε^4)) and Sε^{t(ε)/ε^2} → p_t uniformly for t(ε) near t (Eqs. 2.10, 2.11).
    Quoted from Driver and Borgs-Siler; used to replace lattice Wilson actions by heat kernels in the continuum limit, e.g., in Lemma 5.2 and Proposition 5.5.
  • standard math Driver's formula (Theorem 2.12 and its lattice version 2.13) gives the expectation of gauge-invariant functions as integrals over edge variables with heat-kernel/Wilson-action weights.
    This is the main computational tool; the paper states it as an earlier result of Driver and uses it throughout Sections 4-6.
  • domain assumption The lattice master loop equation (1.5) and its string version (6.2) hold for the Wilson model with G=U(N) (and modifications for SU(N), SO(N) in Section 6.2).
    The paper takes these finite-volume loop equations as proven in [CPS23, Theorem 5.7] and [CPS23, Theorem 6.10(4)]; they are the discrete input to the convergence theorem.
  • domain assumption Smooth loops with simple crossings have lattice approximations {lε} satisfying the conditions of Definition 2.4 (area errors O(ε), edge injection) and, for crossing points, the special form (5.9).
    Existence of the approximation class is stated (the paper cites Driver Lemma 8.2) and is needed for the main theorem; it restricts the class of loops covered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Makeenko-Migdal equations for 2D Yang-Mills: from lattice to continuum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ABJAAVPE

@misc{pith2026241215422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Makeenko-Migdal equations for 2D Yang-Mills: from lattice to continuum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ABJAAVPE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15422}
}
abstract

In this paper, we prove the convergence of the discrete Makeenko-Migdal equations for the Yang-Mills model on $(\varepsilon \mathbf{Z})^{2}$ to their continuum counterparts on the plane, in an appropriate sense. The key step in the proof is identifying the limits of the contributions from deformations as the area derivatives of the Wilson loop expectations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15422 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of a loop and a neighborhood around a vertex v. Both the lattice and the continuum loop equations (1.5) and (1.7) carry significant conceptual and practical information about the lattice or continuum Yang–Mills measure. Most existing applications of (1.7) are in the limit N → ∞, known as large N problems, where the RHS of the equation factorizes into a product of expectations and the utility of (1.7) beco… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The left picture illustrates part of a loop l in a neighborhood of the crossing point v as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Loops obtained by deforming a bond ǫ of e ε . Here |e ε | = 2ε and |ǫ| = ε (e ε has two bonds where ǫ is the upper one). The number of arrows on an edge or bond indicates how many times it shows up in the loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Picture for l ǫ1 F4,− . The green part is the tree used in the axial gauge fixing. The dashed line is where ǫ1 was and it is replaced by ǫ ′ 1 (obviously a backtracking is formed but we just erase it as usual). The variable a1 is the holonomy along the black part of e …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrations for {l1, l2}, their merger l12 in Theorem 6.1, and the lattice approximations. Here the dashed lines A, B only mean generic sequences of edges and can allow arbitrary shapes. The map iε as in (2.15) takes (e1, e2, e3, e4, A, B) to (e ε 1 , eε 2 , eε 3 , e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two of the possible expansions: one positive and one negative. Next we apply the single location master loop equation at the bonds ǫ1, ǫ3 to find 1 2ε 2 X l ′∈D − ǫ1 (l) EWε l ′ − 1 2ε 2 X l ′∈D + ǫ1 (l) EWε l ′ = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Surface sums in two-dimensional large-$N$ lattice Yang--Mills: Cancellations and explicit computations for general loops

    math.PR 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A peeling algorithm exposes cancellations in 2D large-N lattice Yang-Mills surface sums, yielding new explicit Wilson loop formulas and spectral measure convergence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abdelghani and R

    O. Abdelghani and R. Nissim . Geometric derivation of the finite N master loop equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07399 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Borga , S

    J. Borga , S. Cao , and J. Shogren-Knaak . Surface sums for lattice Yang-Mills in the large- N limit. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11676 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Basu and S

    R. Basu and S. Ganguly . SO (N) lattice gauge theory, planar and beyond. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 71, no. 10, (2018), 2016--2064. doi:10.1002/cpa.21788 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpa.21788

    doi:10.1002/cpa.21788 2018

  4. [4]

    Borgs and E

    C. Borgs and E. Seiler . Lattice Y ang- M ills theory at nonzero temperature and the confinement problem. Comm. Math. Phys. 91, no. 3, (1983), 329--380

    work page 1983

  5. [5]

    Chandra , I

    A. Chandra , I. Chevyrev , M. Hairer , and H. Shen . Langevin dynamic for the 2D Yang--Mills measure . Publ. Math. IH \'E S (2022). arXiv:2006.04987 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04987 . doi:10.1007/s10240-022-00132-0 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10240-022-00132-0

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Chatterjee

    S. Chatterjee . Rigorous solution of strongly coupled SO(N) lattice gauge theory in the large N limit. Comm. Math. Phys. 366, no. 1, (2019), 203--268. doi:10.1007/s00220-019-03353-3 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03353-3

    doi:10.1007/s00220-019-03353-3 2019

  7. [7]

    Chatterjee

    S. Chatterjee . Yang- M ills for probabilists. In Probability and analysis in interacting physical systems, vol. 283 of Springer Proc. Math. Stat., 1--16. Springer, Cham, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Chevyrev

    I. Chevyrev . Yang- M ills measure on the two-dimensional torus as a random distribution. Comm. Math. Phys. 372, no. 3, (2019), 1027--1058. doi:10.1007/s00220-019-03567-5 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03567-5

    doi:10.1007/s00220-019-03567-5 2019

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Chatterjee and J

    S. Chatterjee and J. Jafarov . The 1/N expansion for SO (N) lattice gauge theory at strong coupling . arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.04777 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. Cao , M. Park , and S. Sheffield . Random surfaces and lattice Yang--Mills . arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06790 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Chevyrev and H

    I. Chevyrev and H. Shen . Invariant measure and universality of the 2D Yang--Mills Langevin dynamic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12160 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Dahlqvist

    A. Dahlqvist . Free energies and fluctuations for the unitary B rownian motion. Comm. Math. Phys. 348, no. 2, (2016), 395--444. doi:10.1007/s00220-016-2756-y https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-016-2756-y

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    B. K. Driver , F. Gabriel , B. C. Hall , and T. Kemp . The M akeenko- M igdal equation for Y ang- M ills theory on compact surfaces. Comm. Math. Phys. 352, no. 3, (2017), 967--978. doi:10.1007/s00220-017-2857-2 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-017-2857-2

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    B. K. Driver , B. C. Hall , and T. Kemp . Three proofs of the M akeenko- M igdal equation for Y ang- M ills theory on the plane. Comm. Math. Phys. 351, no. 2, (2017), 741--774. doi:10.1007/s00220-016-2793-6 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-016-2793-6

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Dahlqvist and T

    A. Dahlqvist and T. Lemoine . Large N limit of the Yang-Mills measure on compact surfaces II: Makeenko-Migdal equations and planar master field. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05886 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Dahlqvist and T

    A. Dahlqvist and T. Lemoine . Large N limit of Y ang- M ills partition function and W ilson loops on compact surfaces. Probab. Math. Phys. 4, no. 4, (2023), 849--890. doi:10.2140/pmp.2023.4.849 https://dx.doi.org/10.2140/pmp.2023.4.849

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Dahlqvist and J

    A. Dahlqvist and J. R. Norris . Yang- M ills measure and the master field on the sphere. Comm. Math. Phys. 377, no. 2, (2020), 1163--1226. doi:10.1007/s00220-020-03773-6 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-020-03773-6

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    B. K. Driver . Y M _2 : continuum expectations, lattice convergence, and lassos. Comm. Math. Phys. 123, no. 4, (1989), 575--616. doi:10.1007/BF01218586 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01218586

    1989 doi

  11. [19]

    B. K. Driver . A functional integral approaches to the M akeenko- M igdal equations. Comm. Math. Phys. 370, no. 1, (2019), 49--116. doi:10.1007/s00220-019-03492-7 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03492-7

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    G. B. Folland . A course in abstract harmonic analysis. Studies in Advanced Mathematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1995, x+276

    1995

  13. [21]

    Gaw e dzki

    K. Gaw e dzki . Yang-Mills theory as Schr \"o dinger quantum mechanics on the space of gauge-group orbits. Physical Review D 26, no. 12, (1982), 3593

    1982

  14. [22]

    Gross , C

    L. Gross , C. King , and A. Sengupta . Two-dimensional Y ang- M ills theory via stochastic differential equations. Ann. Physics 194, no. 1, (1989), 65--112. doi:10.1016/0003-4916(89)90032-8 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(89)90032-8

    1989 doi

  15. [23]

    B. Hall . Lie groups, L ie algebras, and representations: An elementary introduction , vol. 222 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, second ed., 2015, xiv+449. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13467-3 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13467-3

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    B. C. Hall . The large- N limit for two-dimensional Y ang- M ills theory. Comm. Math. Phys. 363, no. 3, (2018), 789--828. doi:10.1007/s00220-018-3262-1 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-018-3262-1

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    J. Jafarov . Wilson loop expectations in SU (N) lattice gauge theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03821 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    L \'e vy

    T. L \'e vy . Yang- M ills measure on compact surfaces. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 166, no. 790, (2003), xiv+122. arXiv:math/0101239 https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0101239 . doi:10.1090/memo/0790 https://dx.doi.org/10.1090/memo/0790

    2003 arXiv

  19. [27]

    L \'e vy

    T. L \'e vy . Two-dimensional M arkovian holonomy fields. Ast\'erisque , no. 329, (2010), 172

    2010

  20. [28]

    L \'e vy

    T. L \'e vy . The master field on the plane. Ast\' e risque , no. 388, (2017), ix+201

    2017

  21. [29]

    L \'e vy

    T. L \'e vy . Two-dimensional quantum Y ang- M ills theory and the M akeenko- M igdal equations. In Frontiers in analysis and probability---in the spirit of the S trasbourg- Z \" u rich meetings , 275--325. Springer, Cham, [2020] 2020. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56409-4\\_7 https:/...

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Y. M. Makeenko and A. A. Migdal . Exact equation for the loop average in multicolor QCD . Physics Letters B 88, no. 1-2, (1979), 135--137

    1979

  23. [31]

    Park , J

    M. Park , J. Pfeffer , S. Sheffield , and P. Yu . Wilson loop expectations as sums over surfaces on the plane. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02306 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Sengupta

    A. Sengupta . Gauge theory on compact surfaces. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 126, no. 600, (1997), viii+85. doi:10.1090/memo/0600 https://dx.doi.org/10.1090/memo/0600

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    Shen , S

    H. Shen , S. A. Smith , and R. Zhu . A new derivation of the finite N master loop equation for lattice Y ang- M ills. Electron. J. Probab. 29, (2024), Paper No. 29, 18. doi:10.1214/24-ejp1090 https://dx.doi.org/10.1214/24-ejp1090

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Shen , R

    H. Shen , R. Zhu , and X. Zhu . Large N limit and 1/N expansion of invariant observables in O(N) linear -model via SPDE . arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05166 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Shen , R

    H. Shen , R. Zhu , and X. Zhu . Langevin dynamics of lattice Yang-Mills-Higgs and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13299 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.