Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 136 references

Monte Carlo simulations estimate that at least nine scalar components are needed for continuous phase transitions in three-dimensional compact lattice Abelian Higgs models.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-29 00:40 UTC pith:MBHGRJKY

load-bearing objection The paper's new result is a Monte Carlo estimate N_cL=9(1) for the threshold where continuous DC-OD transitions appear in 3D doubly-charged lattice Abelian Higgs models. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.29884 v1 pith:MBHGRJKY submitted 2026-05-28 cond-mat.stat-mech hep-lat

Charged Abelian Higgs phase transitions in three-dimensional compact lattice U(1) gauge models with multicharge scalar matter

Claudio Bonati , Filippo Mariani , Ettore Vicari This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech hep-lat
keywords Abelian Higgs modelphase transitionlattice gauge theoryMonte Carlofinite size scalinguniversality classcharged fixed point
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates phase transitions in three-dimensional lattice models coupling compact U(1) gauge fields to an N-component complex scalar field with double charge. It seeks the smallest N for which the transition between the disordered-confined and ordered-deconfined phases becomes continuous rather than first-order. Finite-size scaling analyses of simulations up to lattice sizes of about 100 provide evidence that transitions are continuous for N=10 but first-order for N at most 7, with inconclusive results at N=8 and 9. This leads to an estimate of nine as the critical number of components. A sympathetic reader would care because this pins down the threshold for the existence of a charged fixed point in the corresponding three-dimensional field theory.

Core claim

Simulations of three-dimensional compact lattice Abelian Higgs models with doubly-charged N-component scalars show continuous DC-OD transitions for N=10 and weak first-order transitions for N≤7. Results for N=8 and N=9 are inconclusive. The minimum number of components for continuous transitions is therefore estimated as N_cL=9(1).

What carries the argument

Finite-size scaling analyses of Monte Carlo data for the DC-OD transition line in doubly-charged CLAH models with N from 4 to 10.

Load-bearing premise

Finite-size scaling on lattices no larger than about 100 sites can distinguish weak first-order transitions from continuous ones in the borderline cases around N=8 and N=9.

What would settle it

A clear signature of first-order behavior, such as double-peaked energy histograms, on lattices much larger than L=100 for N=10 would indicate that the transition remains first-order and falsify the continuous-transition claim.

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

If this is right

  • Continuous transitions at N=10 belong to the 3D Abelian Higgs universality class associated with the charged fixed point.
  • The charged fixed point of the 3D AH field theory exists only for N greater than or equal to approximately 9.
  • Weak first-order transitions occur for smaller N.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the estimate holds, it implies that the renormalization-group flow in three-dimensional scalar electrodynamics has a stable charged fixed point starting around nine complex scalar fields.
  • Larger lattice simulations could resolve whether N=8 or 9 actually support continuous transitions.
  • This lattice result provides a nonperturbative anchor for analytic approximations to the critical N in three dimensions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines three-dimensional compact lattice U(1) gauge models coupled to an N-component doubly-charged complex scalar field. It performs Monte Carlo simulations with finite-size scaling analyses up to L≈100 for N=4 to 10 to classify the DC-OD phase transitions, reporting continuous transitions in the 3D Abelian Higgs universality class for N=10, weak first-order transitions for N≤7, inconclusive results for N=8 and 9, and an interpolated estimate N_cL=9(1) for the minimum N yielding continuous DC-OD transitions.

Significance. If the numerical classification holds, the work supplies a concrete lattice estimate for the lower bound N_3* on the number of components required for the charged fixed point to exist in the 3D Abelian Higgs renormalization-group flow. This bound is relevant to the phase diagram of scalar electrodynamics in three dimensions. The study employs large lattices (L≈100) and standard FSS observables, which is a positive feature for attempting to resolve weak transitions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central estimate N_cL=9(1) is obtained by interpolation across N=8 and N=9, yet the text explicitly states that the data for these values remain inconclusive. No quantitative interpolation procedure, weighting, or systematic-error quantification is provided to justify the quoted central value and uncertainty (1).
  2. [Finite-size scaling analyses] Finite-size scaling section (implied by the description of MC analyses for N=4..10): The classification of transitions for the borderline cases N=8,9 rests on the assumption that FSS observables (energy distributions, Binder cumulants, effective exponents) on L≤100 can reliably separate continuous AH scaling from weak first-order behavior; the manuscript itself notes the data are inconclusive, and no additional diagnostics or larger-L checks are reported to address possible mimicry of continuous scaling by weak first-order transitions with large but finite correlation lengths.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Introduction] The notation N_cL versus N_d* could be clarified in the introduction to avoid potential confusion between the lattice-specific estimate and the field-theoretic threshold.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central estimate N_cL=9(1) is obtained by interpolation across N=8 and N=9, yet the text explicitly states that the data for these values remain inconclusive. No quantitative interpolation procedure, weighting, or systematic-error quantification is provided to justify the quoted central value and uncertainty (1).

    Authors: We agree that the estimate N_cL=9(1) is qualitative rather than the result of a formal quantitative interpolation with explicit weighting or systematic-error analysis. It is intended as a rough central value reflecting continuous transitions at N=10, weak first-order behavior for N≤7, and inconclusive data at N=8 and 9. In a revised version we will clarify the basis of this estimate in the abstract and adjust the presentation to emphasize its qualitative character. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Finite-size scaling analyses] Finite-size scaling section (implied by the description of MC analyses for N=4..10): The classification of transitions for the borderline cases N=8,9 rests on the assumption that FSS observables (energy distributions, Binder cumulants, effective exponents) on L≤100 can reliably separate continuous AH scaling from weak first-order behavior; the manuscript itself notes the data are inconclusive, and no additional diagnostics or larger-L checks are reported to address possible mimicry of continuous scaling by weak first-order transitions with large but finite correlation lengths.

    Authors: We acknowledge the inherent difficulty of distinguishing weak first-order transitions from continuous ones on finite lattices. The analyses for N=8 and 9 are reported as inconclusive precisely because the standard FSS observables do not permit a definitive classification. No larger-lattice runs or supplementary diagnostics were performed. The estimate N_cL=9(1) already incorporates the resulting uncertainty, and we do not believe additional checks are required to support the stated conclusions. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely numerical estimation from direct Monte Carlo data

full rationale

The paper estimates N_cL=9(1) solely by classifying DC-OD transition order via finite-size scaling of Monte Carlo observables on lattices up to L≈100 for N=4..10. Continuous behavior is reported for N=10 and weak first-order for N≤7 (inconclusive for 8,9), with no equations, ansatze, or self-citations that reduce the central result to a fit or prior author work by construction. The derivation chain consists of standard simulation outputs and is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that standard Monte Carlo sampling and finite-size scaling correctly classify transition order in compact U(1) lattice gauge theories; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond those standard in statistical mechanics.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Monte Carlo Markov chains reach equilibrium and sample the correct Boltzmann distribution for the lattice action.
    Invoked implicitly when performing finite-size scaling analyses of simulation data.
  • domain assumption Finite-size scaling forms derived for continuous and first-order transitions remain valid up to L≈100 in these models.
    Used to interpret Binder cumulants and susceptibilities as diagnostic of transition order.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5828 in / 1355 out tokens · 32942 ms · 2026-06-29T00:40:13.542875+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We consider three-dimensional (3D) lattice Abelian Higgs models, with compact U(1) gauge variables coupled to a doubly-charged $N$-component complex scalar field (CLAH). We focus on their phase transitions between the disordered-confined (DC) and ordered-deconfined (OD) phases. When they are continuous they belong to the 3D Abelian Higgs (AH) universality class associated with the stable charged fixed point (CFP) of the renormalization-group flow of the 3D AH field theory, or scalar electrodynamics, describing $N$-component complex scalar fields minimally coupled to a U(1) gauge field. This CFP exists only for a sufficiently large number of components, i.e., $N \ge N_d^*$, where the integer $N_d^*$ depends on the spatial dimension $d$ (for example $N_4^*=183$). To estimate $N_3^*$, we look for the minimum number $N_{\rm cL}$ of scalar components of 3D doubly-charged CLAH models developing continuous transitions along their DC-OD transition line. For this purpose, we present finite-size scaling analyses of Monte Carlo simulations for $N\in[4,10]$, up to lattice sizes $L\approx 100$. The results provide evidence of continuous DC-OD transitions for $N=10$, and weak first-order transitions for $N\le 7$. They are not conclusive for $N=8,\,9$. Therefore, we estimate $N_{\rm cL}=9(1)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29884 by Claudio Bonati, Ettore Vicari, Filippo Mariani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Sketch of the phase diagram of the 3D CLAH models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Scaling of the cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The Binder cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Scaling of the susceptibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the corresponding data of U vs. Rξ. The comparison with the critical data for κ = 1, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Data of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Dependence of the maximum value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: The effective critical exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: The Binder cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Comparison of the data of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Finite size scaling of the Binder cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Finite size scaling of the Binder cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_16.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

136 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P. W. Anderson,Basic Notions of Condensed Matter Physics, (The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Com- pany, Menlo Park, California, 1984)

    1984

  2. [2]

    Zinn-Justin,Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phe- nomena(Clarendon Press, 2002)

    J. Zinn-Justin,Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phe- nomena(Clarendon Press, 2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    Wen,Quantum field theory of many-body systems: from the origin of sound to an origin of light and elec- trons, (Oxford University Press, 2004)

    X.-G. Wen,Quantum field theory of many-body systems: from the origin of sound to an origin of light and elec- trons, (Oxford University Press, 2004)

    2004

  4. [4]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Three- dimensional Abelian and non-Abelian gauge Higgs the- ories, Phys. Rept.1133, 1 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    B. I. Halperin, T. C. Lubensky, and S. K. Ma, First-Order Phase Transitions in Superconductors and Smectic-A Liquid Crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett.32, 292 11 (1974)

    1974

  6. [6]

    Herbut,A Modern Approach to Critical Phenomena (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    I. Herbut,A Modern Approach to Critical Phenomena (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    Read and S

    N. Read and S. Sachdev, Spin-Peierls, valence-bond solid, and N´ eel ground states of low-dimensional quan- tum antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B42, 4568 (1990)

    1990

  8. [8]

    Takashima, I

    S. Takashima, I. Ichinose, and T. Matsui, CP 1+U(1) lattice gauge theory in three dimensions: Phase struc- ture, spins, gauge bosons, and instantons, Phys. Rev. B 72, 075112 (2005)

    2005

  9. [9]

    Takashima, I

    S. Takashima, I. Ichinose, and T. Matsui, Decon- finement of spinons on critical points: Multiflavor CP1+U(1) lattice gauge theory in three dimension, Phys. Rev. B73, 075119 (2006)

    2006

  10. [10]

    R. K. Kaul, Quantum phase transitions in bilayer SU(N) antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B85, 180411(R) (2012)

    2012

  11. [11]

    R. K. Kaul and A. W. Sandvik, Lattice Model for the SU(N) N´ eel to Valence-Bond Solid Quantum Phase Transition at LargeN, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 137201 (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    M. S. Block, R. G. Melko, and R. K. Kaul, Fate of CPN−1 fixed point withqmonopoles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 137202 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. T. Chalker, P. Serna, M. Ortu` no, and A. M. Somoza, Deconfined Quantum Criticality, Scaling Violations, and Classical Loop Models, Phys. Rev. X5, 041048 (2015)

    2015

  14. [14]

    C. Wang, A. Nahum, M. A. Metliski, C. Xu, and T. Senthil, Deconfined Quantum Critical Points: Symme- tries and Dualities, Phys. Rev. X7, 031051 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    Sachdev, Topological order, emergent gauge fields, and Fermi surface reconstruction, Rep

    S. Sachdev, Topological order, emergent gauge fields, and Fermi surface reconstruction, Rep. Prog. Phys.82, 014001 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    A. W. Sandvik, Evidence for Deconfined Quantum Crit- icality in a Two-Dimensional Heisenberg Model with Four-Spin Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 227202 (2007)

    2007

  17. [17]

    R. G. Melko and R. K. Kaul, Scaling in the Fan of an Unconventional Quantum Critical Point, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 017203 (2008)

    2008

  18. [18]

    F. J. Jiang, M. Nyfeler, S. Chandrasekharan, and U. J. Wiese, From an Antiferromagnet to a Valence Bond Solid: Evidence for a First-Order Phase Transition, J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P02009

    2008

  19. [19]

    A. W. Sandvik, Continuous Quantum Phase Transition between an Antiferromagnet and a Valence-Bond Solid in Two Dimensions: Evidence for Logarithmic Correc- tions to Scaling, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 177201 (2010)

    2010

  20. [20]

    Harada, T

    K. Harada, T. Suzuki, T. Okubo, H. Matsuo, J. Lou, H. Watanabe, S. Todo, and N. Kawashima, Possibility of Deconfined Criticality inSU(N) Heisenberg Models at SmallN, Phys. Rev. B88, 220408 (2013)

    2013

  21. [21]

    K. Chen, Y. Huang, Y. Deng, A. B. Kuklov, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B.V. Svistunov, Deconfined Criticality Flow in the Heisenberg Model with Ring-Exchange In- teractions, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 185701 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    Pujari, K

    S. Pujari, K. Damle, and F. Alet, N` eel-State to Valence- Bond-Solid Transition on the Honeycomb Lattice: Evi- dence for Deconfined Criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 087203 (2013)

    2013

  23. [23]

    H. Shao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, Quantum criti- cality with two length scales, Science352, 213 (2016)

    2016

  24. [24]

    Senthil, L

    T. Senthil, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. A. Fisher, Quantum Criticality beyond the Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson Paradigm, Phys. Rev. B70, 144407 (2004)

    2004

  25. [25]

    Fradkin and S

    E. Fradkin and S. Shenker, Phase diagrams of lattice gauge theories with Higgs fields, Phys. Rev. D19, 3682 (1979)

    1979

  26. [26]

    Dasgupta and B

    C. Dasgupta and B. I. Halperin, Phase Transitions in a Lattice Model of Superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett 47, 1556 (1981)

    1981

  27. [27]

    Frohlich, G

    J. Frohlich, G. Morchio, and F. Strocchi, Higgs phe- nomenon without symmetry breaking order parameter, Nucl. Phys.B190, 553 (1981)

    1981

  28. [28]

    Di Vecchia, A

    P. Di Vecchia, A. Holtkamp, R. Musto, F. Nicodemi, and R. Pettorino, Lattice CP N−1 models and their large-Nbehaviour, Nucl. Phys. B190, 719 (1981)

    1981

  29. [29]

    D. J. E. Callaway and L. J. Carson, Abelian Higgs model: A Monte Carlo study, Phys. Rev. D25, 531 (1982)

    1982

  30. [30]

    Bricmont and J

    J. Bricmont and J. Frohlich, An order parameter distin- guishing between different phases of lattice gauge theo- ries with matter fields, Phys. Lett.122, 73 (1983)

    1983

  31. [31]

    Fredenhagen and M

    K. Fredenhagen and M. Marcu, Charged states inZ 2 gauge theories, Commun. Math. Phys.92, 81 (1983)

    1983

  32. [32]

    Kennedy and C

    T. Kennedy and C. King, Symmetry Breaking in the Lattice Abelian Higgs Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 776 (1985)

    1985

  33. [33]

    Kennedy and C

    T. Kennedy and C. King, Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown in the Abelian Higgs Model, Commun. Math. Phys.104, 327 (1986)

    1986

  34. [34]

    Borgs and F

    C. Borgs and F. Nill, Symmetry Breaking in Landau Gauge A comment to a paper by T. Kennedy and C. King, Commun. Math. Phys.104, 349 (1986)

    1986

  35. [35]

    Borgs and F

    C. Borgs and F. Nill, No Higgs mechanism in scalar lat- tice QED with strong electromagnetic coupling, Phys. Lett. B171, 289 (1986)

    1986

  36. [36]

    Borgs and F

    C. Borgs and F. Nill, The Phase Diagram of the Abelian Lattice Higgs Model. A Review of Rigorous Results, J. Stat. Phys.47, 877 (1987)

    1987

  37. [37]

    Murthy and S

    G. Murthy and S. Sachdev, Actions of hedgehogs instan- tons in the disordered phase of 2+1 dimensional CPN−1 model, Nucl. Phys. B344, 557 (1990)

    1990

  38. [38]

    Kiometzis, H

    M. Kiometzis, H. Kleinert, and A. M. J. Schakel, Criti- cal Exponents of the Superconducting Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 1975 (1994)

    1975

  39. [39]

    Bergerhoff, F

    B. Bergerhoff, F. Freire, D.F. Litim, S. Lola, and C. Wetterich, Phase diagram of superconductors from non- perturbative flow equations, Phys. Rev. B53, 5734 (1996)

    1996

  40. [40]

    Herbut and Z

    F. Herbut and Z. Tesanovic, Critical Fluctuations in Superconductors and the Magnetic Field Penetration Depth, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 4588 (1996)

    1996

  41. [41]

    Folk and Y

    R. Folk and Y. Holovatch, On the critical fluctuations in superconductors, J. Phys. A29, 3409 (1996)

    1996

  42. [42]

    V. Yu. Irkhin, A. A. Katanin, and M. I. Katsnelson, 1/Nexpansion for critical exponents of magnetic phase transitions in theCP N−1 model for 2< d <4, Phys. Rev. B54, 11953 (1996)

    1996

  43. [43]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Karjalainen, M. Laine, and J. Peisa, Masses and phase structure in the Ginzburg-Landau model, Phys. Rev. B57, 3011 (1998)

    1998

  44. [44]

    Olsson and S

    P. Olsson and S. Teitel, Critical Behavior of the Meiss- ner Transition in the Lattice London Superconductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1964 (1998)

    1964

  45. [45]

    de Calan and F.S

    C. de Calan and F.S. Nogueira, Scaling critical behavior 12 of superconductors at zero magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 60, 4255 (1999)

    1999

  46. [46]

    Hove and A

    J. Hove and A. Sudbo, Anomalous Scaling Dimensions and Stable Charged Fixed Point of Type-II Supercon- ductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 3426 (2000)

    2000

  47. [47]

    Kleinert, F

    H. Kleinert, F. S. Nogueira, and A. Sudbø, Deconfine- ment Transition in Three-Dimensional Compact U(1) Gauge Theories Coupled to Matter Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 232001 (2002)

    2002

  48. [48]

    S. Mo, J. Hove, and A. Sudbø, Order of the metal- to-superconductor transition, Phys. Rev. B65, 104501 (2002)

    2002

  49. [49]

    Sudbø, E

    A. Sudbø, E. Smørgrav, J. Smiseth, F. S. Nogueira, and J. Hove, Criticality in the (2+1)-Dimensional Compact Higgs Model and Fractionalized Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 226403 (2002)

    2002

  50. [50]

    Smiseth, E

    J. Smiseth, E. Smørgrav, F. S. Nogueira, J. Hove, and A. Sudbø, Phase Structure ofd= 2+1 Compact Lattice Gauge Theories and the Transition from Mott Insulator to Fractionalized Insulator, Phys. Rev. B67, 205104 (2003)

    2003

  51. [51]

    Moshe and J

    M. Moshe and J. Zinn-Justin, Quantum field theory in the largeNlimit: A review, Phys. Rep.385, 69 (2003)

    2003

  52. [52]

    Neuhaus, A

    T. Neuhaus, A. Rajantie, and K. Rummukainen, Nu- merical study of duality and universality in a frozen su- perconductor, Phys. Rev. B67, 014525 (2003)

    2003

  53. [53]

    O. I. Motrunich and A. Vishwanath, Emergent photons and transitions in the O(3)σ-model with hedgehog sup- pression, Phys. Rev. B70, 075104 (2004)

    2004

  54. [54]

    F. S. Nogueira, J. Smiseth, E. Smørgrav, and A. Sudbø, Compact U(1) gauge theories in 2 + 1 dimensions and the physics of low dimensional insulating materials, Eur. Phys. J. C33, 885 (2004)

    2004

  55. [55]

    Smiseth, E

    J. Smiseth, E. Smorgrav, and A. Sudbø, Critical prop- erties of theN-color London model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 077002 (2004)

    2004

  56. [56]

    Wenzel, E

    S. Wenzel, E. Bittner, W. Janke, A. M. J. Schakel, and A. Schiller, Kertesz Line in the Three-Dimensional Compact U(1) Lattice Higgs Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 051601 (2005)

    2005

  57. [57]

    M. N. Chernodub, R. Feldmann, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, and A. Schiller, The compactQ= 2 Abelian Higgs model in the London limit: vortex-monopole chains and the photon propagator, Phys. Rev. D71, 074502 (2005)

    2005

  58. [58]

    M. B. Hastings and X.-G. Wen, Quasi-adiabatic Contin- uation of Quantum States: The Stability of Topological Ground State Degeneracy and Emergent Gauge Invari- ance, Phys. Rev. B72, 045141 (2005)

    2005

  59. [59]

    M. N. Chernodub, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, and A. Schiller, Phase structure of an Abelian two-Higgs model and high temperature superconductors, Phys. Rev. B73, 100506 (2006)

    2006

  60. [60]

    A. B. Kuklov, N. V. Prokof’ev, B. V. Svistunov, and M. Troyer, Deconfined criticality, runaway flow in the two-component scalar electrodynamics and weak first- order superfluid-solid transitions, Ann. Phys.321, 1602 (2006)

    2006

  61. [61]

    Wenzel, E

    S. Wenzel, E. Bittner, W. Janke, and A. M. J. Schakel, Percolation of Vortices in the 3D Abelian Lattice Higgs Model, Nucl. Phys. B793, 344 (2008)

    2008

  62. [62]

    O. I. Motrunich and A. Vishwanath, Compara- tive study of Higgs transition in one-component and two-component lattice superconductor models, arXiv:0805.1494 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    A. B. Kuklov, M. Matsumoto, N. V. Prokof’ev, B. V. Svistunov, and M. Troyer, Deconfined Criticality: Generic First-Order Transition in the SU(2) Symmetry Case, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 050405 (2008)

    2008

  64. [64]

    Charrier, F

    D. Charrier, F. Alet, and P. Pujol, Gauge Theory Pic- ture of an Ordering Transition in a Dimer Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 167205 (2008)

    2008

  65. [65]

    R. K. Kaul and S. Sachdev, Quantum criticality of U(1) gauge theories with fermionic and bosonic matter in two spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. B77, 155105 (2008)

    2008

  66. [66]

    T. Ono, S. Doi, Y. Hori, I. Ichinose, and T. Matsui, Phase Structure and Critical Behavior of Multi-Higgs U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory in Three Dimensions, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)324, 2453 (2009)

    2009

  67. [67]

    J. Lou, A. W. Sandvik, and N. Kawashima, Antifer- romagnetic to valence-bond-solid transitions in two- dimensional SU(N) Heisenberg models with multispin interactions, Phys. Rev. B80, 180414 (2009)

    2009

  68. [68]

    G. Chen, J. Gukelberger, S. Trebst, F. Alet, and L. Balents, Coulomb gas transitions in three-dimensional classical dimer models, Phys. Rev. B80, 045112 (2009)

    2009

  69. [69]

    Charrier and F

    D. Charrier and F. Alet, Phase diagram of an extended classical dimer model, Phys. Rev. B82, 014429 (2010)

    2010

  70. [70]

    Banerjee, K

    A. Banerjee, K. Damle, and F. Alet, Impurity spin tex- ture at a deconfined quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B82, 155139 (2010)

    2010

  71. [71]

    E. V. Herland, T. A. Bojesen, E. Babaev, and A. Sudbø, Phase structure and phase transitions in a three- dimensional SU(2) superconductor, Phys. Rev. B87, 134503 (2013)

    2013

  72. [72]

    Bartosch, Corrections to scaling in the critical the- ory of deconfined criticality, Phys

    L. Bartosch, Corrections to scaling in the critical the- ory of deconfined criticality, Phys. Rev. B88, 195140 (2013)

    2013

  73. [73]

    T. A. Bojesen and A. Sudbø, Berry phases, current lat- tices, and suppression of phase transitions in a lattice gauge theory of quantum antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B88, 094412 (2013)

    2013

  74. [74]

    Nahum, P

    A. Nahum, P. Serna, J. T. Chalker, M. Ortu` no, and A. M. Somoza, Emergent SO(5) Symmetry at the N´ eel to Valence-Bond-Solid Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 267203 (2015)

    2015

  75. [75]

    G. J. Sreejith and S. Powell, Scaling dimensions of higher-charge monopoles at deconfined critical points, Phys. Rev. B92, 184413 (2015)

    2015

  76. [76]

    Fejos and T

    G. Fejos and T. Hatsuda, Renormalization group flows of theN-component Abelian Higgs model, Phys. Rev. D96, 056018 (2017)

    2017

  77. [77]

    Ihrig, N

    B. Ihrig, N. Zerf, P. Marquard, I. F. Herbut, and M. M. Scherer, Abelian Higgs model at four loops, fixed-point collision and deconfined criticality, Phys. Rev. B100, 134507 (2019)

    2019

  78. [78]

    Serna and A

    P. Serna and A. Nahum, Emergence and spontaneous breaking of approximate O(4) symmetry at a weakly first-order deconfined phase transition, Phys. Rev. B99, 195110 (2019)

    2019

  79. [79]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Three-dimensional ferro- magnetic CP N−1 models, Phys. Rev. E100, 022122 (2019)

    2019

  80. [80]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Multicomponent compact Abelian-Higgs lattice models, Phys. Rev. E100, 042134 (2019)

    2019

Showing first 80 references.