Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Nonperturbative Stabilization of D-Instantons in the Bosonic IIB Matrix Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 In the bosonic IKKT matrix model, the exact two-body interaction keeps D-instantons from collapsing, making the one-loop collapse an artifact.

desk verdict Solid exact N=2 computation, but the non-collapse claim rests on a gauge-choice assumption the authors themselves flag as interpretive. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09598 v1 pith:TDXSMZFL submitted 2026-08-10 hep-th

Yu-An Chen , Hikaru Kawai , Henry Liao , Cheng-Tsung Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords IKKTmatrixmodelD-instantoncollapsemaximaldiagonalgaugeGribovambiguitytwo-bodyeffectivepotentialmany-bodydecompositionBRSTquantizationnonperturbativestabilization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper challenges the long-standing claim that the bosonic IKKT matrix model cannot produce a non-collapsed spacetime because its one-loop effective potential pulls all D-instanton positions $p^{(i)}_\mu$ to a single point. It argues that this collapse is an artifact of stopping at one loop, and that the exact, all-loop two-body interaction already prevents two D-instantons from collapsing onto each other. Since the two-body sector of the $N\times N$ model factorizes into independent pairs, the exact $\mathrm{U}(2)$ computation gives the complete two-body answer, and it develops a stable minimum at finite separation. The key step is the maximal diagonal gauge, which selects the Gribov copy containing the perturbative vacuum and turns the short-distance force repulsive. If correct, the result removes one of the standard motivations for adding supersymmetry to the bosonic model and points to a nonperturbative mechanism for spacetime stability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the maximal diagonal gauge: the Gribov copy of the $\mathrm{U}(N)$ gauge group that maximizes the height function $f_A=\mathrm{tr}\,P_\mu P_\mu$, meaning it packs the largest possible share of the matrix inertia into the diagonal block. In this gauge the off-diagonal fluctuation of every pair is bounded by that pair's separation, so the short-distance integration domain is compact and the Boltzmann weight becomes nearly constant, producing a finite repulsive force instead of the divergent collapse seen in the naive Lorenz gauge. The computation also relies on the exact $\mathrm{U}(2)$ partition function, obtained after a BRST gauge fixing that introduces a new four-leg ghost vertex and organizes the Faddeev-Popov determinant into a many-body expansion whose two-body sector factorizes into copies of the $N=2$ model. At $N=2$ the Gribov-copy structure is exhibited explicitly through the singular-value decomposition of the $3\times d$ matrix $A^a_\mu$, where the three ordered singular values correspond to the maximal, saddle, and minimal copies.

What would settle it

Run a direct numerical evaluation of the bosonic $\mathrm{U}(2)$ model with the maximal diagonal gauge imposed and measure the distribution of the eigenvalue separation $p$. If the effective potential $-\log I_{\mathrm{max}}(p)$ is monotonically decreasing as $p\to 0$, or if the separation distribution peaks at $p=0$, the non-collapse claim fails; the paper predicts a distribution suppressed at $p=0$ with a peak at $p$ of order one, and at $d=10$ the explicit closed form of $I_{\mathrm{max}}(p)$ can be compared against the numerics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the apparent collapse of the D-instanton positions in the bosonic IIB matrix model is a one-loop artifact. The one-loop logarithmic potential is only the leading large-distance term of the exact Faddeev-Popov determinant expansion, and the full two-body interaction, computed exactly in the $\mathrm{U}(2)$ model because the $N\times N$ two-body sector factorizes into independent pairs, is finite and repulsive at short distance in the maximal diagonal gauge. In that gauge the two-body effective potential $V(\Delta)=-\log Z(\Delta)$ rises both as $\Delta\to\infty$, reproducing the attractive one-loop logarithm, and as $\Delta\to 0$, from a logarithmic repulsion generated by the finite volume inside the Gribov horizon, so it has a stable minimum at a separation of order one. The paper therefore claims that two D-instantons do not collapse onto each other, and that the negative region of the naive Lorenz-gauge $\mathrm{U}(2)$ partition function is a Gribov artifact coming from summing over copies with negative Faddeev-Popov determinant.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the maximal diagonal gauge, the choice that packs the largest possible amount of the matrix weight into the diagonal entries, is the physically correct frame for reading off D-instanton positions; the non-collapse conclusion is derived inside that gauge and would not follow from the gauge-invariant path integral alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The one-loop collapse potential used to motivate supersymmetry in the IKKT model is only the leading term of a large-separation expansion, so the exact two-body force must be used to decide the fate of the D-instanton positions.
  • In the maximal diagonal gauge the two-body potential has a stable minimum at finite separation, so the bosonic model alone can support non-collapsed configurations of two D-instantons.
  • Because the two-body sector of the $N\times N$ model factorizes into independent $\mathrm{U}(2)$ pairs, the non-collapse mechanism extends pairwise to any $N$, although the detailed distribution still requires the higher-body potentials.
  • The negativity of the naive Lorenz-gauge $N=2$ partition function is a Gribov artifact rather than a physical instability; at $d=10$ the identity $I_{\mathrm{max}}-I_{\mathrm{saddle}}+I_{\mathrm{min}}=Z_{\mathrm{Lorenz}}$ holds in closed form.
  • The maximal diagonal gauge agrees with the perturbative one-loop result at large separation, so ordinary perturbation theory is safe there; only the short-distance regime requires the Gribov-corrected frame.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same Gribov-horizon mechanism could protect the eigenvalue distribution of other bosonic matrix models, such as the BFSS-type models, from collapse even without supersymmetry.
  • Editorial inference: a direct Monte Carlo simulation of the bosonic $\mathrm{U}(2)$ model in the maximal diagonal gauge should find a separation distribution peaked at $p\sim O(1)$ and suppressed at $p=0$, a concrete testable prediction of the paper.
  • Editorial inference: if the conjectured general-$N$ scaling $Z\sim\prod_{i<j}(p^{(i)}-p^{(j)})^{2d}$ holds, the effective repulsion among D-instantons resembles a Vandermonde factor with doubled exponent, suggesting a new effective matrix model for the diagonal positions alone.
  • Editorial inference: the Lorentzian-signature model is left open, but the same maximal-diagonal-gauge construction formally applies with $e^{iS}$, so the non-collapse mechanism could be probed there with sign-problem-free numerical methods; the paper makes no claim about this case.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the bosonic IIB (IKKT) matrix model and the effective potential for the diagonal components p^{(i)}_μ, interpreted as D-instanton positions. The authors argue that the well-known one-loop collapse of these positions is an artifact of the leading perturbative truncation, and that the exact all-loop two-body interaction prevents collapse. The technical core is a U(2) (N=2) computation: the authors gauge-fix U(N) in a Lorenz-type condition while separating diagonal and off-diagonal sectors, handle the residual U(1)^N symmetry with an auxiliary-ghost BRST construction that generates a new four-leg ghost vertex, and then integrate out off-diagonal modes and ghosts exactly at N=2. The resulting partition function Z(p) is finite at finite separation but develops a negative region at p~O(1); this is attributed to the Gribov ambiguity of the Lorenz gauge. The paper resolves the ambiguity by selecting the maximal diagonal gauge, i.e. the Gribov copy maximizing f_A=tr(P_μP_μ), in which the short-distance behavior is Z~p^{2d} and repulsive, while the large-distance behavior reproduces the one-loop attractive logarithm. The conclusion is that two D-instantons do not collapse and the two-body potential has a stable minimum at finite separation. Full N-body stabilization and the detailed eigenvalue distribution are explicitly left to future work and framed as conjectural in Sec. 6.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the paper provides a nonperturbative mechanism that stabilizes D-instanton positions in the purely bosonic IKKT model, potentially reopening a question usually settled by adding supersymmetry. The N=2 computation is a genuine strength: it is performed without fitted parameters, the closed form (4.12) is cross-checked numerically, the Gribov decomposition identity (5.16) is verified in closed form at d=10, and the paper is unusually honest in labeling the general-N extensions as conjectures. The main weakness is that the physical conclusion is tied to a specific gauge choice: the D-instanton positions are not gauge-invariant, and the maximal diagonal gauge is selected by the 'classical frame' principle of Sec. 5.4 rather than derived from the gauge-invariant path integral. The result is therefore best read as a well-defined and suggestive statement about one particular frame, not yet as a gauge-invariant proof of non-collapse. This distinction is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.4 and Eq. (5.8)] The non-collapse conclusion is conditional on the choice of the maximal Gribov copy. Equation (5.8) decomposes the Lorenz-gauge partition function as Z_Lorenz = I_max - I_saddle + I_min, and the short-distance hierarchy in Sec. 5.5 shows that I_saddle and I_min diverge as p^{-4}, while only I_max ~ p^{2d} is finite and repulsive. Since the p^{(i)}_μ are not gauge-invariant, the statement 'the two D-instantons do not collapse' is not an invariant observable statement: if one of the other Gribov copies were used to define the diagonal positions, the short-distance force would be attractive and divergent. The 'classical frame' justification in Sec. 5.4 is a physical modeling assumption, not a theorem derived from the gauge-invariant path integral. The paper should either provide an independent, gauge-invariant diagnostic of non-collapse (for example an expectation value or spectral quantity that does not require a choice of frame) or explicitly restate the abstract and conclusions so that non-collapse is presented as a property of the maximal diagonal gauge, i.e. as a proposal rather than an established result.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (4.3), and Sec. 5.3] The normalization of the separation variable relative to the singular values needs clarification and checking. In Eq. (4.3) the diagonal part of A_μ is written as (1/2)Δ_μ σ_3, so the singular value associated with the diagonal block in the SVD of the coefficient matrix A^a_μ is |Δ|/2, whereas Sec. 5.3 identifies the diagonal singular value with p ≡ sqrt(Δ^2). This factor of two rescales the action S(a,b,c) in Eq. (5.12), the closed forms in Appendix C, and the location of the minimum Δ*. Please state the precise relation between p and the SVD variables and verify that Eq. (5.16) and the asymptotics of Appendix C are consistent with the action normalization in Eq. (2.1).
  3. [Sec. 6, Eq. (6.2)] The conjectured general-N scaling Z ~ ∏_{i<j} |p^{(i)}-p^{(j)}|^{2d} is presented as the natural extrapolation of the N=2 result, but the paper itself notes that the exact Gribov horizon and the copy structure are unknown for N≥3 because the SU(2)≃SO(3) shortcut is unavailable. This conjecture is not used in the two-body proof, so it does not undermine the N=2 calculation, but the concluding sentence that the results 'are consistent with a stable, non-collapsed distribution' should be more carefully separated from what has actually been established. The distinction between the derived pairwise bound (6.3) and the conjectured measure factor is already drawn in Sec. 6; the conclusion should carry the same caution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4.12)] The prefactor of the closed form is rendered as 'π2 1−2d'; this should be a single well-defined expression such as π^{3-2d} or the equivalent, and the normalization of Z(p) relative to Eq. (4.9) should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Fig. 3] The caption refers to coordinates (u,v,x) and a horizon equation, but these variables are not defined in the main text before the figure; please define them or refer to the appendix equation from which the horizon condition is taken.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.31)] The claim that ∂(δ_BRST c^c)/∂c^c = 0 is only sketched; since c is Grassmann, the derivative evaluation should be shown explicitly, as the sign of this term is important for the supertrace argument.
  4. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (A.22)-(A.28)] The notation {i,j,k,...}_Diff. and the symbol (↔) are introduced informally; a short definition before Eq. (A.22) in the main text would make the many-body decomposition substantially easier to verify.
  5. [References] Several references are dated 2025 or 2026 and appear to be unpublished preprints; if the journal requires published or arXiv-available sources, these should be updated or supplemented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the U(2) two-body computation is self-contained, and the non-collapse conclusion is a derived consequence of the maximal-diagonal-gauge calculation, not an input.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The two-body sector is isolated by the large-distance expansion of the Faddeev–Popov determinant (Sec. 3), the N=2 partition function is evaluated exactly from the gauge-fixed action (Eq. 4.12), and the short-distance behavior of the maximal Gribov copy is computed in closed form from the singular-value decomposition (Eqs. 5.17 and C.1–C.3), with the decomposition Z_Lorenz = I_max − I_saddle + I_min verified explicitly at d=10 (Eq. 5.16). The non-collapse conclusion is not obtained by fitting or by renaming an input: it follows from the p^{2d} vanishing of I_max(p) combined with the p^{-2d+4} one-loop tail, which gives V(Δ) a minimum at finite Δ. The paper's only hand-selected element is the physical identification of D-instanton positions with the maximal diagonal gauge; this is an interpretive assumption and a correctness risk, since the saddle and minimal copies would give divergent, attractive short-distance forces, but it is not a fitted parameter, the paper does not hide the conditionality, and the exact computation does not presuppose the non-collapse it derives. Author self-citations appear only in motivation, historical context, and future directions, and none is load-bearing for the two-body computation. No step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

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

The computation is parameter-free. The only inputs are the action, the standard interpretation of diagonal components, the BRST framework, and the choice of the maximal diagonal gauge. The latter is the sole non-derived physical assumption.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The bosonic IIB (IKKT) matrix model action S = -1/4 tr[A_mu, A_nu]^2 is the correct starting point for studying D-instanton dynamics.
    The paper takes the model as given and does not derive it from string theory; it is the standard IKKT conjecture.
  • domain assumption The diagonal components p^{(i)}_mu of the matrices represent D-instanton positions.
    This identification is standard in the matrix-model literature and is used to define the physical question.
  • domain assumption The BRST quantization with auxiliary ghost zero modes correctly handles the residual U(1)^N gauge symmetry and yields the gauge-fixed partition function (2.53).
    The construction is derived in Sec. 2 but relies on the standard BRST framework; a gap in the algebra would propagate into the effective potential.
  • ad hoc to paper The maximal diagonal gauge, selecting the global maximum of f_A = tr P_mu P_mu, is the physically correct frame for the D-instantons.
    The paper argues this is the classical frame containing the perturbative vacuum, but this is a modeling choice specific to this paper's interpretation. The non-collapse conclusion depends on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonperturbative Stabilization of D-Instantons in the Bosonic IIB Matrix Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDXSMZFL

@misc{pith2026260809598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonperturbative Stabilization of D-Instantons in the Bosonic IIB Matrix Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDXSMZFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09598}
}
abstract

We study the bosonic type IIB (IKKT) matrix model and the fate of the D-instanton positions $p^{(i)}_\mu$, the diagonal components of the $d$ Hermitian matrices, whose one-loop effective potential infamously drives them to a single point. We argue that this collapse is an artifact of the leading (one-loop) truncation, while the actual non-collapse of the $p^{(i)}_\mu$ is a nonperturbative effect: it is invisible at one loop but already present in the exact (all-loop) two-body interaction. Since the two-body sector of the $N\times N$ model factorizes into copies of $N=2$, this interaction is captured exactly by the $\mathrm{U}(2)$ model, and we find that the two D-instantons do not collapse onto each other. To set up the computation, we gauge-fix the $\text{U}(N)$ symmetry in a way that keeps the diagonal and off-diagonal sectors distinct, and we handle the residual $\mathrm{U}(1)^N$ symmetry with an auxiliary-ghost BRST construction. This construction generates a new ghost four-leg vertex; the resulting Faddeev-Popov determinant admits a systematic large-separation expansion that organizes the effective potential into a many-body decomposition, separating the interaction into two-body, three-body, and higher-body contributions. The exact $N=2$ partition function is finite at finite separation; its naive Lorenz-gauge form develops a negative region at separations of order one, which we trace to a Gribov ambiguity of the Lorenz gauge and resolve with the maximal diagonal gauge--the classical frame containing the perturbative vacuum--where the short-distance force is finite and repulsive, so that the two-body potential develops a stable minimum at finite separation. These results are consistent with a stable, non-collapsed distribution of the $p^{(i)}_\mu$; establishing the detailed distribution and full $N$-body non-collapse requires the higher-body potentials and is left to future work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09598 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Feynman rules for the gauge-fixed model collected in one place: the ghost propagator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The integrand p d−1Z(p) for d = 10 computed from the closed form (4.12). Left: zoomed view highlighting the negative region associated with the Gribov ambiguity. Right: wider momentum range showing the asymptotic perturbative behavior. There is a region around p ∼ O(1) where Z(p) becomes negative; for example, at d = 10 it is clearly shown in Figs. 2a–2b. Although the integrated partition function ZU(2) remains fini… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Lorenz-gauge Gribov horizon for N = 2, shown as a two-dimensional surface in (u, v, x) together with various fixed-x sections in the (u, v) plane. The horizon satisfies (1 − 4x 2 )(1 − 4v 2 ) − 4u 2 = 0. In (a) the half x ≥ 0 is drawn with x vertical, so that the sections are horizontal cuts, each in the colour it carries in (b); the half x < 0 is the mirror image. For x < 1/2 the horizon is the bounded componen… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The exact N = 2 partition function in different gauges (left) and the corresponding effective potential (right) as functions of the D-instanton separation (the d = 10 closed forms of Appendix C). Only the maximal copy is finite at short distance while carrying the one-…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ishibashi, H

    N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, and A. Tsuchiya. A Large N reduced model as superstring.Nucl. Phys. B, 498:467–491, 1997

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Dynamical aspects of large N re- duced models.Nucl

    Tomohiro Hotta, Jun Nishimura, and Asato Tsuchiya. Dynamical aspects of large N re- duced models.Nucl. Phys. B, 545:543–575, 1999

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Expanding (3+1)-dimensional uni- verse from a Lorentzian matrix model for superstring theory in (9+1)-dimensions.Phys

    Sang-Woo Kim, Jun Nishimura, and Asato Tsuchiya. Expanding (3+1)-dimensional uni- verse from a Lorentzian matrix model for superstring theory in (9+1)-dimensions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:011601, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Anagnostopoulos, Takehiro Azuma, Yuta Ito, Jun Nishimura, Toshiyuki Okubo, and Stratos Kovalkov Papadoudis

    Konstantinos N. Anagnostopoulos, Takehiro Azuma, Yuta Ito, Jun Nishimura, Toshiyuki Okubo, and Stratos Kovalkov Papadoudis. Complex Langevin analysis of the spontaneous breaking of 10D rotational symmetry in the Euclidean IKKT matrix model.JHEP, 06:069, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    The emergence of expanding space-time and intersecting D-branes from clas- sical solutions in the Lorentzian type IIB matrix model.PTEP, 2020(4):043B10, 2020

    Kohta Hatakeyama, Akira Matsumoto, Jun Nishimura, Asato Tsuchiya, and Atis Yosprakob. The emergence of expanding space-time and intersecting D-branes from clas- sical solutions in the Lorentzian type IIB matrix model.PTEP, 2020(4):043B10, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Eigenvalue distributions in Yang-Mills integrals

    Werner Krauth and Matthias Staudacher. Eigenvalue distributions in Yang-Mills integrals. Phys. Lett. B, 453:253–257, 1999

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    H. Aoki, S. Iso, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, and T. Tada. Space-Time Structures from IIB Matrix Model.Prog. Theor. Phys., 99:713–746, 1998

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982

    Jens Hoppe.Quantum Theory of a Massless Relativistic Surface and a Two-Dimensional Bound State Problem. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982

    work page 1982

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    On the quantum mechanics of super- membranes.Nucl

    Bernard de Wit, Jens Hoppe, and Hermann Nicolai. On the quantum mechanics of super- membranes.Nucl. Phys. B, 305:545–581, 1988

    1988

  2. [10]

    Monte Carlo approach to M theory.Phys

    Werner Krauth, Hermann Nicolai, and Matthias Staudacher. Monte Carlo approach to M theory.Phys. Lett. B, 431:31–41, 1998

    1998

  3. [11]

    Finite Yang-Mills integrals.Phys

    Werner Krauth and Matthias Staudacher. Finite Yang-Mills integrals.Phys. Lett. B, 435:350–355, 1998

    1998

  4. [12]

    Spontaneous breakdown of Lorentz invariance in IIB matrix model.JHEP, 04:015, 2000

    Jun Nishimura and Graziano Vernizzi. Spontaneous breakdown of Lorentz invariance in IIB matrix model.JHEP, 04:015, 2000

    2000

  5. [13]

    Peter Austing and John F. Wheater. The Convergence of Yang-Mills Integrals.JHEP, 02:028, 2001

    2001

  6. [14]

    Peter Austing and John F. Wheater. Convergent Yang-Mills Matrix Theories.JHEP, 04:019, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    A New Type of Saddle in the Euclidean IKKT Matrix Model and Its Emergent Geometry

    Henry Liao and Reishi Maeta. A New Type of Saddle in the Euclidean IKKT Matrix Model and Its Emergent Geometry. 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Steinacker

    Pei-Ming Ho, Hikaru Kawai, and Harold C. Steinacker. General Relativity in IIB matrix model.JHEP, 02:070, 2026

    2026

  9. [17]

    Makeenko.Methods of contemporary gauge theory

    Yu. Makeenko.Methods of contemporary gauge theory. Cambridge Monographs on Math- ematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 11 2005. 38

    2005

  10. [18]

    Reduction of Dynamical Degrees of Freedom in the Large N Gauge Theory.Phys

    Tohru Eguchi and Hikaru Kawai. Reduction of Dynamical Degrees of Freedom in the Large N Gauge Theory.Phys. Rev. Lett., 48:1063, 1982

    1982

  11. [19]

    A Simple Expression for Planar Field Theories.Phys

    Giorgio Parisi. A Simple Expression for Planar Field Theories.Phys. Lett. B, 112:463–464, 1982

    1982

  12. [20]

    Gross and Yoshihisa Kitazawa

    David J. Gross and Yoshihisa Kitazawa. A Quenched Momentum Prescription for Large N Theories.Nucl. Phys. B, 206:440–472, 1982

    1982

  13. [21]

    On the Ground State Wave Function of Matrix Theory

    Ying-Hsuan Lin and Xi Yin. On the Ground State Wave Function of Matrix Theory. JHEP, 11:027, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992

    Marc Henneaux and Claudio Teitelboim.Quantization of Gauge Systems. Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992

    1992

  15. [23]

    I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky. Gauge Algebra and Quantization.Phys. Lett. B, 102:27–31, 1981

    1981

  16. [24]

    I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky. Quantization of Gauge Theories with Linearly De- pendent Generators.Phys. Rev. D, 28:2567–2582, 1983. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 30, 508 (1984)]

    1984

  17. [25]

    Localization of gauge theory on a four-sphere and supersymmetric Wilson loops.Commun

    Vasily Pestun. Localization of gauge theory on a four-sphere and supersymmetric Wilson loops.Commun. Math. Phys., 313:71–129, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    V. N. Gribov. Quantization of Nonabelian Gauge Theories.Nucl. Phys. B, 139:1, 1978

    1978

  19. [27]

    Vandersickel and Daniel Zwanziger

    N. Vandersickel and Daniel Zwanziger. The Gribov problem and QCD dynamics.Phys. Rept., 520:175–251, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    I. M. Singer. Some Remarks on the Gribov Ambiguity.Commun. Math. Phys., 60:7–12, 1978

    1978

  21. [29]

    Steinacker.Quantum Geometry, Matrix Theory, and Gravity

    Harold C. Steinacker.Quantum Geometry, Matrix Theory, and Gravity. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 4 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Nonperturbative BRS Invariance and the Gribov Problem.Phys

    Herbert Neuberger. Nonperturbative BRS Invariance and the Gribov Problem.Phys. Lett. B, 183:337–340, 1987

    1987

  23. [31]

    Nonperturbative BRS Invariance.Phys

    Herbert Neuberger. Nonperturbative BRS Invariance.Phys. Lett. B, 175:69–72, 1986

    1986

  24. [32]

    Andrei V. Smilga. Witten index calculation in supersymmetric gauge theory.Nucl. Phys. B, 266:45–57, 1986. Russian original: Yad. Fiz. 42 (1985) 728–731

    1985

  25. [33]

    Kronfeld, M

    Andreas S. Kronfeld, M. L. Laursen, G. Schierholz, and U. J. Wiese. Monopole Conden- sation and Color Confinement.Phys. Lett. B, 198:516–520, 1987

    1987

  26. [34]

    Absil, R

    P.-A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre.Optimization Algorithms on Matrix Manifolds. Princeton University Press, 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    Describing curved spaces by ma- trices.Prog

    Masanori Hanada, Hikaru Kawai, and Yusuke Kimura. Describing curved spaces by ma- trices.Prog. Theor. Phys., 114:1295–1316, 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Regularization of Matrices in the Covariant Derivative Interpretation of Matrix Models.PTEP, 2024(12):123B06, 2024

    Keiichiro Hattori, Yuki Mizuno, and Asato Tsuchiya. Regularization of Matrices in the Covariant Derivative Interpretation of Matrix Models.PTEP, 2024(12):123B06, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Description of curved spacetimes by finite-size matrices in the type IIB matrix model

    Keiichiro Hattori, Tatsuya Seko, and Asato Tsuchiya. Description of curved spacetimes by finite-size matrices in the type IIB matrix model. 6 2026. 39

    2026

  30. [38]

    Green and Michael Gutperle

    Michael B. Green and Michael Gutperle. Configurations of two D instantons.Phys. Lett. B, 398:69–78, 1997

    1997

  31. [39]

    Green and Michael Gutperle

    Michael B. Green and Michael Gutperle. Effects of D instantons.Nucl. Phys. B, 498:195– 227, 1997

    1997

  32. [40]

    Itoyama, Hikaru Kawai, and Shoichi Kawamoto

    H. Itoyama, Hikaru Kawai, and Shoichi Kawamoto. Fermionic modes of D-instanton worm- holes from broken local supersymmetry. 4 2026

    2026

  33. [41]

    Hartnoll and Jun Liu

    Sean A. Hartnoll and Jun Liu. The polarised IKKT matrix model.JHEP, 03:060, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Einstein gravity from a matrix integral

    Shota Komatsu, Adrien Martina, Jo˜ ao Penedones, Antoine Vuignier, and Xiang Zhao. Einstein gravity from a matrix integral. Part I.JHEP, 12:029, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Einstein gravity from a matrix integral

    Shota Komatsu, Adrien Martina, Jo˜ ao Penedones, Antoine Vuignier, and Xiang Zhao. Einstein gravity from a matrix integral. Part II.JHEP, 12:030, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Monte Carlo Studies of the Emergent Spacetime in the Polarized Type IIB Matrix Model.Phys

    Chien-Yu Chou, Jun Nishimura, and Cheng-Tsung Wang. Monte Carlo Studies of the Emergent Spacetime in the Polarized Type IIB Matrix Model.Phys. Rev. Lett., 135(22):221601, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Anagnostopoulos, Takehiro Azuma, Kohta Hatakeyama, Jun Nishimura, Stratos Papadoudis, and Asato Tsuchiya

    Mitsuaki Hirasawa, Konstantinos N. Anagnostopoulos, Takehiro Azuma, Kohta Hatakeyama, Jun Nishimura, Stratos Papadoudis, and Asato Tsuchiya. The effects of SUSY on the emergent spacetime in the Lorentzian type IIB matrix model.PoS, CORFU2023:257, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Path integral for the closed superstring and the matrix model

    Yuhma Asano. Path integral for the closed superstring and the matrix model. In25th Hellenic School and Workshops on Elementary Particle Physics and Gravity, 4 2026

    2026

  39. [47]

    Defining the Type IIB Matrix Model without Breaking Lorentz Symmetry.Phys

    Yuhma Asano, Jun Nishimura, Worapat Piensuk, and Naoyuki Yamamori. Defining the Type IIB Matrix Model without Breaking Lorentz Symmetry.Phys. Rev. Lett., 134(4):041603, 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Inequivalence between the Eu- clidean and Lorentzian Versions of the Type IIB Matrix Model from Lefschetz Thimble Calculations.Phys

    Chien-Yu Chou, Jun Nishimura, and Ashutosh Tripathi. Inequivalence between the Eu- clidean and Lorentzian Versions of the Type IIB Matrix Model from Lefschetz Thimble Calculations.Phys. Rev. Lett., 134(21):211601, 2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    Anagnostopoulos, Takehiro Azuma, Mitsuaki Hirasawa, Jun Nishimura, Stratos Papadoudis, and Asato Tsuchiya

    Konstantinos N. Anagnostopoulos, Takehiro Azuma, Mitsuaki Hirasawa, Jun Nishimura, Stratos Papadoudis, and Asato Tsuchiya. The emergence of (3+1)-dimensional expanding spacetime from complex Langevin simulations of the Lorentzian type IIB matrix model with deformations. 4 2026

    2026

  42. [50]

    Anagnostopoulos, Takehiro Azuma, Mitsuaki Hirasawa, Jun Nishimura, Asato Tsuchiya, and Naoyuki Yamamori

    Konstantinos N. Anagnostopoulos, Takehiro Azuma, Mitsuaki Hirasawa, Jun Nishimura, Asato Tsuchiya, and Naoyuki Yamamori. Impact of supersymmetry on the dynamical emergence of the spacetime in the type IIB matrix model with the Lorentz symmetry ”gauge fixed”. In42th Internation...

    2026

  43. [51]

    Regularized Master-Field Approximation for Large-NReduced Matrix Mod- els

    Reishi Maeta. Regularized Master-Field Approximation for Large-NReduced Matrix Mod- els. 5 2026

    2026

  44. [52]

    Matrix bootstrap approximation without positivity constraint.JHEP, 05:283, 2026

    Reishi Maeta. Matrix bootstrap approximation without positivity constraint.JHEP, 05:283, 2026

    2026

  45. [53]

    Anderson and Martin Kruczenski

    Peter D. Anderson and Martin Kruczenski. Loop Equations and bootstrap methods in the lattice.Nucl. Phys. B, 921:702–726, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    Henry W. Lin. Bootstraps to strings: solving random matrix models with positivity.JHEP, 06:090, 2020. 40

    2020

  47. [55]

    unsolvable

    Vladimir Kazakov and Zechuan Zheng. Analytic and numerical bootstrap for one-matrix model and “unsolvable” two-matrix model.JHEP, 06:030, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Release 1.2.4 of 2025-03-15; F

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions.https://dlmf.nist.gov/. Release 1.2.4 of 2025-03-15; F. W. J. Olver et al., eds

    2025

  49. [57]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik.Table of Integrals, Series, and Products. Academic Press, 8th edition, 2014. 41

    2014

Pith tools

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