Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Precision study of the massive Schwinger model near quantum criticality

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports a five-digit value of the critical mass of the massive Schwinger model at $\theta=\pi$, $m_c/e = 0.333561(4)$, which excludes the possibility that it is exactly $1/3$.

desk verdict A solid DMRG determination of mc/e=0.333561(4) with a genuinely new C5 criterion, but the quoted error is within-ansatz scatter and 'decisively excludes 1/3' is stronger than the extrapolation supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01902 v1 pith:C75NWRWP submitted 2024-12-02 hep-th cond-mat.str-elhep-lat

Erick Arguello Cruz , Grigory Tarnopolsky , Yuan Xin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thcond-mat.str-elhep-lat
keywords Schwingermodelquantumphasetransitioncriticalmassfinite-sizescaling2DIsinguniversalityclassconformalfieldtheorytensornetworksfour-fermiondeformation
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 attempts to pin down the critical mass of the massive Schwinger model at $\theta=\pi$, the value of the fermion mass where a second-order quantum phase transition takes place. Earlier numerical work left open the possibility that this critical mass is exactly $1/3$; the paper argues it is not, reporting $m_c/e = 0.333561(4)$ from four independent finite-size scaling criteria that agree to five digits. The result is significant because the same type of transition is believed to occur in one-flavor QCD in four dimensions, and a precise value sharpens tests of the model's 2D Ising universality class.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the staggered-lattice spin Hamiltonian of the Schwinger model, with the lattice mass shifted by $-e^2 a/8$ as suggested by earlier work, which makes the $1/x$ corrections small. To locate the critical point, the paper uses finite-size scaling: at criticality the gaps scale as $\Delta_n/N$ with coefficients fixed by the 2D Ising CFT, so pseudo-critical couplings are defined by matching dimensionless ratios (e.g., $\Delta_2/\Delta_1 = 3/2$ for open boundary conditions and $8$ for periodic ones) or by matching the entanglement entropy of a half-system to the universal formula. For periodic boundary conditions, conformal perturbation theory identifies the leading $O(1/N^2)$ corrections from irrelevant operators and allows a linear combination of gap ratios that cancels these corrections, yielding a criterion that converges as $O(1/N^4)$.

What would settle it

Compute the lattice critical mass for larger couplings ($x \gtrsim 100$) and larger system sizes, or use a different discretization, and check whether a fit that includes a logarithmic term (or a higher-order polynomial) shifts the extrapolated continuum value away from $0.333561(4)$ by more than about $10^{-5}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the continuum critical mass of the massive Schwinger model at $\theta=\pi$ is $m_c/e = 0.333561(4)$, a value about $228\times 10^{-6}$ above $1/3$ and therefore decisively excluding the exact rational value $1/3$. The number is obtained by computing lattice critical masses on staggered lattices with up to 3000 sites and two extrapolations: to infinite system size using polynomial fits in $1/N$, and to the continuum (infinite coupling $x$) using polynomial fits in $1/x$. Four distinct criticality criteria, two based on ratios of low-lying energy gaps and two on entanglement entropy, all extrapolate to the same intercept within roughly $10^{-5}$. In addition, the paper maps the critical mass of the Schwinger-Thirring model, the four-fermion deformation with coupling $\lambda$, to a quartic polynomial in $\lambda$ over the interval $[-0.2,0.2]$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire result rests on the assumption that all finite-size and finite-coupling corrections to the critical mass are smooth polynomials in $1/N$ and $1/x$ over the studied ranges, with no logarithmic or non-analytic terms, and that the chosen fit orders determine the intercept to better than $10^{-5}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central value holds, the critical mass is not the rational number $1/3$, so any analytic formula for $m_c/e$ would have to be more complicated.
  • The four criteria agreeing to five digits strengthens the assertion that the massive Schwinger model at $\theta=\pi$ is in the 2D Ising universality class and supports using Ising CFT data to locate the transition.
  • The open and periodic boundary condition computations agree to the fifth digit, providing a cross-check of boundary-condition handling in tensor-network calculations.
  • The critical mass curve $m_c(\lambda)/e$ for the Schwinger-Thirring deformation is a smooth quartic polynomial on the studied interval, giving a target for future analytic and numerical tests.
  • The conformal perturbation theory improved criterion, which cancels the leading finite-size correction, gives a way to accelerate convergence for periodic boundary conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One unstated consequence is that if $m_c/e$ is genuinely irrational, as the paper's wording suggests, the critical mass is unlikely to be expressible through a simple closed form in terms of $e$ and the $\theta$ angle; this could motivate a search for a series expansion in $e/m$ or a bootstrap bound.
  • The same four-criterion cross-check could be applied to other 1+1 dimensional lattice gauge theories with conjectured Ising transitions, such as the two-flavor Schwinger model, to test whether their critical masses deviate from simple rational guesses.
  • The polynomial dependence of the critical mass on $\lambda$ suggests that near $\lambda\approx 0$ the critical surface is smooth; a direct check would be to compute the same curve with an independent method, such as Monte Carlo, and compare coefficients.
  • The improved periodic-boundary criterion could be ported to other models where the leading irrelevant operators are known from the CFT, offering faster convergence in tensor-network studies.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a DMRG study of the massive Schwinger model at θ=π on a staggered lattice with up to 3000 sites. The authors locate the critical mass using four independent criticality criteria: a finite-size gap-ratio criterion (C1), a gap-ratio criterion anchored to Ising CFT scaling dimensions (C2), a central-charge entropy criterion (C3), and a ratio of entanglement entropies (C4). They extrapolate the pseudo-critical masses first in 1/N at fixed lattice coupling x and then in 1/x to the continuum limit, reporting mc/e = 0.333561(4). They further study a four-fermion deformation of the model and compute mc(λ)/e, and they perform a PBC calculation using a conformal-perturbation-theory-improved criterion C5. The central quantitative claim is that the result excludes the possibility that mc/e is exactly 1/3.

Significance. If the reported uncertainty is reliable, this is a valuable precision benchmark for a canonical 1+1D lattice gauge theory and constitutes a nontrivial test of the deviation of the critical mass from the simple value 1/3. The paper has several genuine strengths: C1 and C4 do not use the Ising universality class, the C5 combination coefficients are derived from OPE data rather than fitted, the OBC spectrum is checked against Ising CFT predictions for several boundary conditions, and the PBC result agrees with OBC to the fifth digit. I find no circularity in the procedure. The main weakness is that the quoted error is a standard deviation across four criteria that share the same DMRG data and similar polynomial extrapolation ansätze; it does not estimate the systematic error of the continuum extrapolation itself.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Table I and Eq. (38)] The quoted uncertainty σ = 4×10^-6 is the standard deviation of the four criticality-criterion intercepts. Because all four fits use the same DMRG data and similar polynomial ansätze (cubic in 1/x, quartic/cubic in 1/N), this statistic does not capture common systematic errors in the continuum extrapolation. The paper should provide a systematic-error estimate, for example by varying the polynomial order, including a log(x)/x term, or changing the extrapolation window. Without such an estimate, the statement in Eq. (4) that 1/3 is 'decisively excluded' is stronger than the extrapolation procedure currently supports.
  2. [Section V, fits after Fig. 5 and Fig. 6] The two-stage extrapolation assumes that finite-size and finite-coupling corrections are smooth polynomials with no logarithmic or non-polynomial terms. The paper offers no direct evidence for this assumption, and in 1+1D lattice theories with marginal operators such terms are generic. A concrete test would be to add a term proportional to log(x)/x to the 1/x fit or to compare fits over x∈[10,100] and x∈[20,100]; the stability of the intercept under such variations should be reported. At present, the extrapolation ansatz is the main unvalidated ingredient behind both the central value and the claimed 4×10^-6 error.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (48) and following discussion] The PBC cross-check does not close the extrapolation gap. The PBC data stop at x=24 and N≈80, and the paper itself states that the fit in Eq. (48) still depends significantly on high powers. The PBC intercept in Eq. (49), 0.333565, agrees with the OBC value to about 4×10^-6, but the PBC uncertainty is evidently larger than this, so the agreement is consistent with the OBC result rather than an independent validation of a 4×10^-6 error.
  4. [Section V, Table I and Eq. (17)] The finite-x intercepts already show a spread of up to about 3×10^-5 between criteria at x=50 (C3 gives 0.3336824 while C4 gives 0.3336540). The final 1/x fit reduces this spread to 7×10^-6 at x→∞, but that reduction is a property of the fitted polynomials and should not be mistaken for a measurement of the continuum-extrapolation error. The paper should discuss why the four criteria are expected to converge to the same continuum limit and quantify the sensitivity of the x→∞ intercept to the choice of fitting range and polynomial degree.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (5)] The word 'creationg' should be 'creation'.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (21)] The word 'Hamitlonian' should be 'Hamiltonian'.
  3. [Section V, footnote 3] The notation 'steps of 10' for x and 'steps of 4' for the C3 data is ambiguous; please specify the exact sets of x and N values used for each criterion.
  4. [Section VI and Appendix A] Equation (45) is numbered twice, once in Section VI and once in Appendix A; please renumber the equations to avoid confusion.
  5. [Section VI, Eq. (44) and Table III] The criterion C_PBC_2 is introduced but most of the PBC data are computed with C5; please clarify which criterion underlies Table III and whether C_PBC_2 is used only as a consistency check.
  6. [Section V, Eq. (39)] The fit for mc(λ)/e reports coefficients without error bars; providing uncertainties on the fit parameters and on the Newton tolerance would help the reader judge the significance of the λ dependence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the critical-mass result is a numerical extrapolation of independently defined pseudo-critical couplings, benchmarked against external Ising CFT data, not a refit of the target value.

full rationale

The central result mc/e = 0.333561(4) is obtained by a two-stage extrapolation: pseudo-critical masses m*(x,N)/e defined by finite-size scaling relations are extrapolated in 1/N to get mc(x)/e, and those are then extrapolated in 1/x to x=∞. No step sets the final intercept equal to an input by construction. In particular, the paper explicitly notes that criteria C1 and C4 do not use the universality class: "The criterion C1 doesn't rely on any information about the universality class of the critical point" and "We notice that the criticality criteria C1 and C4 do not rely on the knowledge of the critical point universality class." Criteria C2 and C3 use the Ising CFT gap ratio 3/2 and central charge 1/2, respectively, but these are external benchmarks used as locating devices; their agreement with C1 and C4 is independent support, not a tautology. The PBC criterion C5 uses conformal perturbation theory and OPE coefficients from Table II to cancel leading 1/N corrections; the combination coefficients in Eq. (46) are derived from those OPE data rather than fitted to the critical mass, and the criterion still targets an externally defined gap-ratio condition. The polynomial extrapolation ansatze in 1/N and 1/x are standard numerical procedures; the possibility of logarithmic or higher-order corrections is a systematic-error concern, not a circular reduction. The paper also honestly flags the PBC extrapolation limitation: "Since N is not large enough, we find that the fit still significantly depends on the high powers in the fit," which weakens the PBC cross-check but does not make the derivation circular. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the external results cited (e.g., Ising CFT spectrum, prior DMRG implementations, mass-shift prescription) are independent inputs. The exclusion of mc/e = 1/3 depends on the reliability of the extrapolation ansatze, not on any quantity being defined as the answer.

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

The central claim rests on standard finite-size scaling and CFT inputs, plus one prior lattice-mass-shift result from [12] and a conformal perturbation theory operator analysis in Appendix A. The only fitted quantities are polynomial coefficients used for extrapolation; there are no invented physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • 1/N polynomial coefficients, OBC (x=50) = C1: -41.70, -3100, 255730 (N^-2,N^-3,N^-4)
    Quartic fit of m*(x,N)/e for criterion C1 at x=50; analogous quartic fits for C2/C4 and cubic fit for C3 at each x, with values in Section V.
  • 1/x polynomial coefficients, OBC = C1 cubic: 0.00548, -0.0033, 0.025
    Cubic polynomial in 1/x used to extrapolate mc(x)/e to x=∞; coefficients for C2-C4 are given in Section V. The intercepts (not listed here) are the reported critical mass estimates.
  • 1/N polynomial coefficients, PBC (x=20) = -2043.55, 9.71e5, -3.46e7, 3.54e8 (N^-4..N^-7)
    High-order fit of PBC pseudo-critical mass for the C5 criterion; the high powers indicate sensitivity to fit order at small N (N≤80).
  • 1/x polynomial coefficients, PBC = 0.00527, -0.00093, 0.0157
    Cubic fit of PBC mc(x)/e from Eq. (49); final extrapolation agrees with OBC to 5th digit.
  • λ deformation polynomial coefficients = 0.787592, 1.1911, 1.66328, 1.82977
    Quartic fit of mc(λ)/e in Eq. (39), computed with C2 criterion for λ∈[-0.2,0.2].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The lattice Schwinger model at θ=π is in the 2D Ising universality class.
    Used to set the gap ratio Δ2/Δ1=3/2 in C2 and central charge c=1/2 in C3. Supported by prior work [7,10,12] and by the internal agreement of C1/C4 which do not require it.
  • domain assumption Finite-size scaling: at the critical point, gaps En0 scale as Δn/N (Eq. 18) and pseudo-critical coupling m*(N) approaches mc as N→∞.
    Standard finite-size scaling hypothesis [47,48] underlying all four criticality criteria.
  • domain assumption The staggered lattice mass shift mlat = m - e^2a/8 (Section II) is the correct mass parameter that makes the m=0 lattice Hamiltonian have the desired symmetry.
    This shift, from [12], is claimed to make 1/x corrections small; the continuum extrapolation relies on it.
  • standard math The Calabrese-Cardy entanglement entropy formula (24) applies to the OBC/PBC critical chain.
    Standard CFT result for the von Neumann entropy of an interval; used in criteria C3 and C4.
  • standard math The conformal perturbation theory operator analysis in Appendix A, specifically the list of surviving irrelevant operators (Tar{T}, (χ0,4+...)/2, etc.) and the leading O(N^-2) correction, is correct.
    The analysis follows the 3D Ising CFT approach of [58]; used to construct C5. If additional irrelevant operators contribute at the same order, C5's convergence assumption fails.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision study of the massive Schwinger model near quantum criticality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C75NWRWP

@misc{pith2026241201902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision study of the massive Schwinger model near quantum criticality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C75NWRWP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01902}
}
read the original abstract

We perform a numerical analysis of the massive Schwinger model in the presence of a background electric field. Using the Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG) approach, we efficiently compute the spectrum of the Schwinger model on a staggered lattice with up to 3000 qubits. As a result, we achieve a precise computation of the critical mass of the massive Schwinger model to five digits using four different 'criticality criteria', observing perfect agreement among them. Additionally, we discuss the effect of a four-fermion operator deformation of the Schwinger model and compute the critical mass for various values of the deformation parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01902 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schwinger model on a lattice with open ends (OBC). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schwinger model on a lattice with closed ends (PBC). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Energy gaps for 2D Ising CFT ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Critical masses as a function of 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. An example of a Schwinger lattice with the spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Numerical results for the critical mass of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Plot of the critical mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Rescaled energy spectrum of OBC Schwinger Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Fit of PBC pseudo critical mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Fit of PBC critical mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Left and Right MPS matrices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Deconfinement from Thermal Tensor Networks: Universal CFT signature in (2+1)-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_N$ lattice gauge theory

    hep-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Tensor-network contraction of finite-temperature Z_N gauge theory yields central charges and scaling dimensions consistent with Svetitsky–Yaffe universality for N=2,3,5, including a U(1)-symmetric BKT phase for N=5, a...

  2. Toolkit for General 2d Scalar Potential in LCT

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An efficient LCT toolkit confirms the sinh-Gordon self-duality and reproduces the sine-Gordon spectrum, c-function, and free fermion limit with high precision.

  3. Critical behavior of the Schwinger model via gauge-invariant VUMPS

    hep-lat 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The gauge-invariant VUMPS algorithm determines the continuum critical mass of the Schwinger model as (m/g)c = 0.333556(5) and produces data collapse consistent with Ising critical exponents.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Gauge Invariance and Mass. 2.,

    J. S. Schwinger, “Gauge Invariance and Mass. 2.,” Phys. Rev., vol. 128, pp. 2425–2429, 1962

    work page 1962

  2. [2]

    Quantum elec- trodynamics in two-dimensions,

    J. H. Lowenstein and J. A. Swieca, “Quantum elec- trodynamics in two-dimensions,” Annals Phys., vol. 68, pp. 172–195, 1971

    work page 1971

  3. [3]

    Despite its name, ϵ is parity odd

    A particular interesting feature in the OBC family is that F has two primaries, 1 and ϵ. Despite its name, ϵ is parity odd. Thus (++) and (+ −) can be obtained by projecting F to corresponding parity sector. In OBC Schwinger model, the Q = 0 and Q = −1 (Q = +1) are the two low-lying charge sectors for θ = π (θ = −π). The two different charge sectors do no...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Charge Shielding and Quark Confinement in the Massive Schwinger Model,

    S. R. Coleman, R. Jackiw, and L. Susskind, “Charge Shielding and Quark Confinement in the Massive Schwinger Model,” Annals Phys., vol. 93, p. 267, 1975

    work page 1975

  5. [5]

    Vacuum polar- ization and the absence of free quarks,

    A. Casher, J. Kogut, and L. Susskind, “Vacuum polar- ization and the absence of free quarks,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 10, pp. 732–745, Jul 1974

    work page 1974

  6. [6]

    One flavor QCD,

    M. Creutz, “One flavor QCD,” Annals Phys., vol. 322, pp. 1518–1540, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    More About the Massive Schwinger Model,

    S. R. Coleman, “More About the Massive Schwinger Model,” Annals Phys., vol. 101, p. 239, 1976

    work page 1976

  8. [8]

    Byrnes, Density Matrix Renormalization Group: A New Approach to Lattice Gauge Theory

    T. Byrnes, Density Matrix Renormalization Group: A New Approach to Lattice Gauge Theory. University of New South Wales, 2003

    work page 2003

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Density matrix renormalization group approach to the massive Schwinger model,

    T. Byrnes, P. Sriganesh, R. J. Bursill, and C. J. Hamer, “Density matrix renormalization group approach to the massive Schwinger model,” Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., vol. 109, pp. 202–206, 2002

    2002

  2. [10]

    Phase diagram near the quantum critical point in Schwinger model at θ = π: analogy with quan- tum Ising chain,

    H. Ohata, “Phase diagram near the quantum critical point in Schwinger model at θ = π: analogy with quan- tum Ising chain,” PTEP, vol. 2024, no. 1, p. 013B02, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Finite-representation approxima- tion of lattice gauge theories at the continuum limit with tensor networks,

    B. Buyens, S. Montangero, J. Haegeman, F. Verstraete, and K. Van Acoleyen, “Finite-representation approxima- tion of lattice gauge theories at the continuum limit with tensor networks,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 95, p. 094509, May 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    In the continuum limit (a → 0) mlat coincides with m

    that in order to endow the lattice Hamiltonian with a certain symmetry for m = 0 one has to introduce the lattice mass mlat = m − e2a/8. In the continuum limit (a → 0) mlat coincides with m. The Gauss’s law can be written in the form [38] Ln − Ln−1 = Qn, Q n = c† ncn − δn,odd ...

  5. [13]

    Phase Diagram of the Two-Flavor Schwinger Model at Zero Temperature,

    R. Dempsey, I. R. Klebanov, S. S. Pufu, B. T. Søgaard, and B. Zan, “Phase Diagram of the Two-Flavor Schwinger Model at Zero Temperature,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 132, no. 3, p. 031603, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Discrete chiral symmetry and mass shift in the lattice hamiltonian approach to the schwinger model,

    R. Dempsey, I. R. Klebanov, S. S. Pufu, and B. Zan, “Discrete chiral symmetry and mass shift in the lattice hamiltonian approach to the schwinger model,” Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 4, p. 043133, Nov 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Local Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Study of the Massive Schwinger Model in an Exter- nal Background Field,

    J. Ranft and A. Schiller, “Local Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Study of the Massive Schwinger Model in an Exter- nal Background Field,” Phys. Lett. B, vol. 122, pp. 403– 408, 1983

    1983

  8. [16]

    The Massive Schwinger Model on the Lattice Studied via a Local Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Method,

    A. Schiller and J. Ranft, “The Massive Schwinger Model on the Lattice Studied via a Local Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Method,” Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 225, p. 204, 1983

    1983

  9. [17]

    Monte Carlo study of Schwinger model with- out the sign problem,

    H. Ohata, “Monte Carlo study of Schwinger model with- out the sign problem,” JHEP, vol. 12, p. 007, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Density matrix formulation for quan- tum renormalization groups,

    S. R. White, “Density matrix formulation for quan- tum renormalization groups,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 69, pp. 2863–2866, Nov 1992

    1992

  11. [19]

    Density-matrix algorithms for quan- tum renormalization groups,

    S. R. White, “Density-matrix algorithms for quan- tum renormalization groups,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 48, pp. 10345–10356, Oct 1993

    1993

  12. [20]

    Thermodynamic limit of density matrix renormalization,

    S. ¨Ostlund and S. Rommer, “Thermodynamic limit of density matrix renormalization,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 75, pp. 3537–3540, Nov 1995

    1995

  13. [21]

    Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension,

    G. Vidal, “Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 98, p. 070201, 2007. 12

    2007

  14. [22]

    Infinite size density matrix renormal- ization group, revisited,

    I. P. McCulloch, “Infinite size density matrix renormal- ization group, revisited,” 4 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Conformal data and renormalization group flow in critical quantum spin chains using periodic uniform matrix product states,

    Y. Zou, A. Milsted, and G. Vidal, “Conformal data and renormalization group flow in critical quantum spin chains using periodic uniform matrix product states,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 121, no. 23, p. 230402, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Continuous matrix product states for quantum fields: An energy minimiza- tion algorithm,

    M. Ganahl, J. Rinc´ on, and G. Vidal, “Continuous matrix product states for quantum fields: An energy minimiza- tion algorithm,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 118, p. 220402, Jun 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    The mass spectrum of the Schwinger model with Matrix Prod- uct States,

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, K. Jansen, and J. I. Cirac, “The mass spectrum of the Schwinger model with Matrix Prod- uct States,” JHEP, vol. 11, p. 158, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Matrix Product States for Lattice Field The- ories,

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, K. Jansen, and H. Saito, “Matrix Product States for Lattice Field The- ories,” PoS, vol. LATTICE2013, p. 332, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Critical behavior of the lattice Schwinger model with a topological term at θ = π using the Grassmann tensor renormalization group,

    Y. Shimizu and Y. Kuramashi, “Critical behavior of the lattice Schwinger model with a topological term at θ = π using the Grassmann tensor renormalization group,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 90, no. 7, p. 074503, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Matrix product states for gauge field theories,

    B. Buyens, J. Haegeman, K. Van Acoleyen, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete, “Matrix product states for gauge field theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 113, p. 091601, Aug 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Chiral condensate in the Schwinger model with Matrix Product Operators,

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, K. Jansen, and H. Saito, “Chiral condensate in the Schwinger model with Matrix Product Operators,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 93, no. 9, p. 094512, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Confinement and string breaking for QED 2 in the Hamiltonian picture,

    B. Buyens, J. Haegeman, H. Verschelde, F. Verstraete, and K. Van Acoleyen, “Confinement and string breaking for QED 2 in the Hamiltonian picture,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 041040, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Hamil- tonian simulation of the Schwinger model at finite tem- perature,

    B. Buyens, F. Verstraete, and K. Van Acoleyen, “Hamil- tonian simulation of the Schwinger model at finite tem- perature,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 94, no. 8, p. 085018, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Berezinskii-Kosterlitz- Thouless transition in lattice Schwinger model with one flavor of Wilson fermion,

    Y. Shimizu and Y. Kuramashi, “Berezinskii-Kosterlitz- Thouless transition in lattice Schwinger model with one flavor of Wilson fermion,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 97, no. 3, p. 034502, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Topological vacuum structure of the schwinger model with matrix product states,

    L. Funcke, K. Jansen, and S. K¨ uhn, “Topological vacuum structure of the schwinger model with matrix product states,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 101, p. 054507, Mar 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Classically emulated digital quantum sim- ulation for screening and confinement in the Schwinger model with a topological term,

    M. Honda, E. Itou, Y. Kikuchi, L. Nagano, and T. Okuda, “Classically emulated digital quantum sim- ulation for screening and confinement in the Schwinger model with a topological term,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 105, no. 1, p. 014504, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    DMRG study of the theta-dependent mass spectrum in the 2-flavor Schwinger model,

    E. Itou, A. Matsumoto, and Y. Tanizaki, “DMRG study of the theta-dependent mass spectrum in the 2-flavor Schwinger model,” JHEP, vol. 09, p. 155, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calcula- tions,

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, “The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calcula- tions,” SciPost Phys. Codebases, p. 4, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Codebase release 0.3 for ITensor,

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, “Codebase release 0.3 for ITensor,” SciPost Phys. Code- bases, pp. 4–r0.3, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Hamiltonian Formula- tion of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories,

    J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, “Hamiltonian Formula- tion of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 11, pp. 395–408, 1975

    1975

  31. [39]

    Strong-coupling calculations of lattice gauge theories: (1 + 1)-dimensional exercises,

    T. Banks, L. Susskind, and J. Kogut, “Strong-coupling calculations of lattice gauge theories: (1 + 1)-dimensional exercises,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 13, pp. 1043–1053, Feb 1976

    1976

  32. [40]

    Series expan- sions for the massive Schwinger model in Hamiltonian lattice theory,

    C. J. Hamer, W.-h. Zheng, and J. Oitmaa, “Series expan- sions for the massive Schwinger model in Hamiltonian lattice theory,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 56, pp. 55–67, 1997

    1997

  33. [41]

    Symmetries and strings of adjoint QCD2,

    Z. Komargodski, K. Ohmori, K. Roumpedakis, and S. Seifnashri, “Symmetries and strings of adjoint QCD2,” JHEP, vol. 03, p. 103, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Four-fermion deformations of the mass- less Schwinger model and confinement,

    A. Cherman, T. Jacobson, M. Shifman, M. Unsal, and A. Vainshtein, “Four-fermion deformations of the mass- less Schwinger model and confinement,” JHEP, vol. 01, p. 087, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Metric and Central Charge in the Perturbative Approach to Two- dimensional Fermionic Models,

    A. Bondi, G. Curci, G. Paffuti, and P. Rossi, “Metric and Central Charge in the Perturbative Approach to Two- dimensional Fermionic Models,” Annals Phys., vol. 199, p. 268, 1990

    1990

  36. [44]

    Lattice fermions,

    L. Susskind, “Lattice fermions,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 16, pp. 3031–3039, Nov 1977

    1977

  37. [45]

    Investigation of the 1+1 dimen- sional Thirring model using the method of matrix prod- uct states,

    M. C. Banuls, K. Cichy, Y.-J. Kao, C. J. D. Lin, Y.-P. Lin, and D. T. L. Tan, “Investigation of the 1+1 dimen- sional Thirring model using the method of matrix prod- uct states,” PoS, vol. LATTICE2018, p. 229, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    The massive schwinger model on a lattice: Background field, chiral symmetry and the string tension,

    C. Hamer, J. Kogut, D. Crewther, and M. Mazzolini, “The massive schwinger model on a lattice: Background field, chiral symmetry and the string tension,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 208, no. 3, pp. 413–438, 1982

    1982

  39. [47]

    Flux unwinding in the lattice schwinger model,

    C. Nagele, J. E. Cejudo, T. Byrnes, and M. Kleban, “Flux unwinding in the lattice schwinger model,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 99, p. 094501, May 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Order and disorder in gauge systems and magnets,

    E. Fradkin and L. Susskind, “Order and disorder in gauge systems and magnets,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 17, pp. 2637– 2658, May 1978

    1978

  41. [49]

    Scaling theory for finite-size effects in the critical region,

    M. E. Fisher and M. N. Barber, “Scaling theory for finite-size effects in the critical region,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 28, pp. 1516–1519, Jun 1972

    1972

  42. [50]

    Finite Lattice Meth- ods in Quantum Hamiltonian Field Theory. 1. The Ising Model,

    C. J. Hamer and M. N. Barber, “Finite Lattice Meth- ods in Quantum Hamiltonian Field Theory. 1. The Ising Model,” J. Phys. A, vol. 14, pp. 241–257, 1981

    1981

  43. [51]

    Conformal invariance and universality in finite-size scaling,

    J. L. Cardy, “Conformal invariance and universality in finite-size scaling,” J. Phys. A, vol. 17, no. 7, p. L385, 1984

    1984

  44. [52]

    Infinite Conformal Symmetry in Two-Dimensional Quantum Field Theory,

    A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, and A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Infinite Conformal Symmetry in Two-Dimensional Quantum Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B , vol. 241, pp. 333–380, 1984

    1984

  45. [53]

    Effect of Boundary Conditions on the Oper- ator Content of Two-Dimensional Conformally Invariant Theories,

    J. L. Cardy, “Effect of Boundary Conditions on the Oper- ator Content of Two-Dimensional Conformally Invariant Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 275, pp. 200–218, 1986

    1986

  46. [54]

    Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory,

    P. Calabrese and J. L. Cardy, “Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory,” J. Stat. Mech., vol. 0406, p. P06002, 2004

    2004

  47. [55]

    Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory,

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, “Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory,”Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical, vol. 42, p. 504005, Dec. 2009

    2009

  48. [56]

    Universal noninteger “ground-state degeneracy

    I. Affleck and A. W. W. Ludwig, “Universal noninteger “ground-state degeneracy” in critical quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 67, pp. 161–164, Jul 1991

    1991

  49. [57]

    Finite- size scaling at quantum transitions,

    M. Campostrini, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, “Finite- size scaling at quantum transitions,” Physical Review B, vol. 89, Mar. 2014

    2014

  50. [58]

    Schwinger model on an interval: Analytic results and dmrg,

    T. Okuda, “Schwinger model on an interval: Analytic results and dmrg,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 107, p. 054506, Mar 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    DMRG study of the higher-charge Schwinger model and its ’t Hooft anomaly,

    M. Honda, E. Itou, and Y. Tanizaki, “DMRG study of the higher-charge Schwinger model and its ’t Hooft anomaly,” JHEP, vol. 11, p. 141, 2022

    2022

  52. [60]

    3D Ising CFT and exact diagonalization on icosahedron: The power of confor- 13 mal perturbation theory,

    B.-X. Lao and S. Rychkov, “3D Ising CFT and exact diagonalization on icosahedron: The power of confor- 13 mal perturbation theory,” SciPost Phys., vol. 15, no. 6, p. 243, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    From density-matrix renormalization group to matrix product states,

    I. P. McCulloch, “From density-matrix renormalization group to matrix product states,” Journal of Statis- tical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment , vol. 2007, p. P10014–P10014, Oct. 2007

    2007

  54. [62]

    Finite automata for caching in matrix product algorithms,

    G. M. Crosswhite and D. Bacon, “Finite automata for caching in matrix product algorithms,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 78, p. 012356, Jul 2008

    2008

  55. [63]

    Ap- plying matrix product operators to model systems with long-range interactions,

    G. M. Crosswhite, A. C. Doherty, and G. Vidal, “Ap- plying matrix product operators to model systems with long-range interactions,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 78, p. 035116, Jul 2008

    2008

  56. [64]

    The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,

    U. Schollw¨ ock, “The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,” Annals of Physics, vol. 326, no. 1, pp. 96–192, 2011. January 2011 Special Issue

    2011

  57. [65]

    Spin gaps in a frustrated heisenberg model for cav4O9,

    S. R. White, “Spin gaps in a frustrated heisenberg model for cav4O9,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 77, pp. 3633–3636, Oct 1996

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.