Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 57 references

Lattice Chiral Fermion without Hermiticity

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 By abandoning Hermiticity and using one-sided lattice differences, a non-Hermitian lattice fermion can keep exact chiral symmetry and avoid fermion doubling, and paired flavors give a positive partition function that standard Monte Carlo…

desk verdict A competent review of lattice chiral fermions whose central non-Hermitian no-doubling claim is imported from a 1992 preprint and not actually established. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09886 v3 pith:JU5MLTFB submitted 2024-11-15 hep-lat

Chen-Te Ma , Hui Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lat PACS 11.15.Ha11.30.Rd
keywords latticechiralfermiondoublingNielsen-Ninomiyatheoremnon-Hermitianone-sideddifferenceGinsparg-WilsonrelationoverlapMonteCarlosignproblem
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

Lattice fermions face a no-go: a local, Hermitian, chirally symmetric Dirac operator necessarily brings spurious extra species, or doublers. This review argues that abandoning Hermiticity and discretizing with one-sided lattice differences sidesteps that no-go: the non-Hermitian Dirac operator stays local and exactly chiral, and in one dimension its propagator has half the poles of the naive fermion. In more dimensions, non-physical poles appear but are claimed to decouple in the continuum limit, leaving a single physical fermion. With an even number of flavors whose one-sided derivatives point in opposite directions, the fermion determinant equals $|\det(D+m_F)|^2$, making the partition function non-negative and the theory accessible to standard Hybrid Monte Carlo simulation. The price is the loss of hypercubic symmetry and standard renormalizability, with a quenched averaging over directions proposed to restore symmetry at the observable level.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-sided difference Dirac operator $D(n_1,n_2)=\gamma_1(\delta_{n_1+1,n_2}-\delta_{n_1,n_2})/a$, whose momentum-space inverse is $\bar D^{-1}(p)=-(i/2a)\sum_\mu\gamma_\mu e^{ip_\mu a/2}\sin(p_\mu a/2)$ divided by $a^{-2}\sum_\nu e^{ip_\nu a}\sin^2(p_\nu a/2)$. This exponential dispersion cuts the number of zeros of the denominator and therefore the number of fermion species. The second mechanism is the even-flavor pairing $S_{FD}=\bar\psi_1(D+m_F)\psi_1+\bar\psi_2(-D^\dagger+m_F)\psi_2$, whose determinant becomes $|\det(D+m_F)|^2$ using $\gamma_5D+D\gamma_5=0$, giving the positive weight required for Monte Carlo. For the overlap and index-theorem parts, the Ginsparg-Wilson relation $D\gamma_5+\gamma_5D=aD\gamma_5D$ is the central identity: it defines a modified lattice chiral symmetry and encodes the index theorem as $\mathrm{Tr}[\gamma_5(1-aD/2)]=n_+-n_-$.

What would settle it

Compute the interacting one-loop or two-loop self-energy in the 2D non-Hermitian formulation and track the spurious poles $p_1 a=-p_2 a=\pm\pi/2$ as $a\to0$; if such a pole moves to a finite physical momentum or keeps an order-one residue, the decoupling claim fails and the continuum limit would contain doublers, while if all spurious poles stay at lattice-scale momenta with vanishing residue, the no-doubling claim survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Nielsen-Ninomiya obstacle can be bypassed by replacing the symmetric lattice derivative $i\sin(pa)$ with the one-sided exponential $e^{ipa}-1$. In 1D this halves the number of propagator poles, so the continuum limit returns the free Dirac propagator without doublers. In $d>1$ the inverse Dirac matrix in Eqs. (194) and (195) has non-physical poles such as $p_1 a=-p_2 a=\pm\pi/2$, but the expansion of the denominator around them has no quadratic term, and the authors argue, following Ref. [17], that these poles do not shift the physical mass pole and decouple as $a\to0$. The two-flavor action $S_{FD}$ with forward and backward differences yields $\det(D+m_F)\det(-D^\dagger+m_F)=|\det(D+m_F)|^2$, a non-negative determinant, so the non-Hermitian theory can in principle be simulated with HMC even though Hermiticity is lost. The review also argues that in the (1+1)D Hamiltonian formulation the Wilson fermion with $s=0$ coincides with the overlap fermion, and it surveys how Ginsparg-Wilson fermions realize or fail to realize the index theorem on finite lattices, including cases where the chiral anomaly appears while the topological charge is zero.

Load-bearing premise

The no-doubling conclusion in more than one dimension rests on the assertion taken from Ref. [17] and not proved in this review that the spurious poles at $p_1 a=-p_2 a=\pm\pi/2$ never shift the physical mass pole because the expansion around them has no quadratic term; if that decoupling fails, the continuum limit would contain extra fermion species.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A local, exactly chiral lattice fermion exists without the nonlocal operator of the overlap construction, at least as far as the free propagation is concerned.
  • Even-flavor non-Hermitian fermions admit standard Hybrid Monte Carlo simulation, because opposite one-sided differences produce a non-negative determinant.
  • Observables become hypercubic-symmetric after quenched averaging over the $2^d$ choices of one-sided direction; without this averaging, lattice-spacing artifacts persist.
  • Since the non-Hermitian action is exactly chiral, its Dirac operator has no topological zero modes on a finite lattice; the index theorem and nonzero topological charge must be recovered only through a subtle infinite-volume limit.
  • In $1+1$ dimensions the Wilson and overlap fermions coincide at $s=0$, showing that modified chiral symmetry is not exclusive to the overlap construction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the pole-decoupling argument is perturbative in spirit; a two-loop calculation of the fermion self-energy in 4D non-Hermitian QED would directly test whether radiative corrections drag the non-physical poles toward the continuum.
  • Editorial inference: the positive-definite even-flavor pairing is structurally similar to simulations of QCD with opposite isospin chemical potentials, so a natural extension is to check whether a real baryon chemical potential can be handled sign-free in this formulation.
  • Editorial inference: the 1+1D Wilson-overlap equivalence suggests searching for Ginsparg-Wilson-type modified symmetries in other local discretizations, potentially giving a four-dimensional route to exact chirality without nonlocality.
  • Editorial inference: a clean numerical test would be a continuum extrapolation of the chiral condensate in the 2D Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model simulated with this fermion; the review reports initial results [35] but does not claim that extrapolation.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper is a review of lattice chiral fermion formulations organized around the proposal that abandoning Hermiticity, specifically through one-sided lattice differences, evades the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem while preserving exact chiral symmetry. It reviews path-integral and RG background material, compares Wilson and overlap fermions, discusses the claimed equivalence of the Wilson and overlap formulations in the (1+1)D Hamiltonian setting, and explains how an even number of flavors with opposite one-sided differences yields a non-negative partition function suitable for Monte Carlo simulation. The final sections address the chiral anomaly and the lattice index theorem, with emphasis on subtleties in finite-volume topological charge. The central positive claims are the absence of fermion doubling in d>1 for the non-Hermitian one-sided action and the applicability of HMC through the positive-definite two-flavor determinant; both are presented largely by citation to earlier work.

Significance. If correct, the non-Hermitian construction would provide a local, exactly chiral lattice fermion, bypassing the Nielsen-Ninomiya assumptions at the price of hypercubic symmetry and standard renormalizability, and it would open a practical simulation route when Hermiticity is unavailable. The review is useful as a concise compendium of path-integral, RG, Wilson/overlap, pseudofermion, and index-theorem material, and the two-flavor positivity argument in Sec. 5.5 is explicit and checkable. However, the manuscript contains no new derivation of its two most load-bearing assertions: the d>1 no-doubling claim in Sec. 4.5 and the Wilson-overlap equivalence in Sec. 4.4 are both quoted from Refs. [17] and [20]. The no-doubling argument as written is incomplete and contains a dimension typo in Eq. (194), so the central claim of the review is not established within the manuscript itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.5, Eqs. (194)-(196)] The d>1 no-doubling claim is the central physical assertion of the non-Hermitian program, but it is not demonstrated in this manuscript. The text states that the non-physical poles at p1a = -p2a = ±π/2 do not contribute in the continuum limit because the expansion around them 'has no quadratic term', citing Ref. [17]. This is not a proof: the absence of a quadratic term in the denominator expansion does not by itself imply that the pole residue vanishes or that the pole decouples once a mass term is included. One needs an explicit computation of the massive propagator's pole structure and residues. In addition, Eq. (194) writes a sum over μ=1,...,4 in what is announced as a 2D calculation and then equates it to a sum over μ=1,2; if the first sum is taken literally, Eq. (195) is not its inverse. The manuscript should either provide a self-contained derivation of the pole decoupling or clearly state that this is an unproved conjecture inherited from Ref. [17].
  2. [Sec. 4.4, Eq. (189)] The claim A†(s=0)A(s=0)=1, and hence Dov(s=0)=DW, is presented as the key connection between Wilson and overlap fermions in the (1+1)D Hamiltonian formulation. Yet Eq. (189) is simply quoted from Ref. [20]; no derivation or even a sketch of the ingredients (the definition of A, the role of the Hamiltonian lattice, and the boundary conditions) is provided. Since this equivalence is one of the paper's advertised insights, the review should either give a compact proof or explicitly frame the statement as a summary of a published result and explain why it is nontrivial.
  3. [Sec. 4.5 and Eq. (197)] The paper asserts that the loss of hypercubic symmetry implies non-renormalizability in the standard sense and that quenched averaging over lattice directions restores hypercubic symmetry at the level of observables. The averaging prescription in Eq. (197) is written with notation ⟨O(ϵμ)⟩ϵμ that is ambiguous, and no argument is given that the average restores the symmetry in an interacting theory or that it removes the lattice-spacing dependence of physical observables. Because this is the proposed remedy for the continuum-limit problem, a citation to a 4D QED calculation is not sufficient; the manuscript should at least formulate the averaging prescription precisely and explain the conditions under which it is expected to work.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (24)] There is a typo in the exponent: 'xn+1 - xx' should read 'xn+1 - xn'.
  2. [Sec. 1, paragraph on topological charge] The text contains a duplicated word: 'because because Tr(γ5) = 0' should be 'because Tr(γ5) = 0'.
  3. [Sec. 6.3, Eq. (319)] The Ginsparg-Wilson relation is written as γ5D + γ5 = aDγ5D; the second term should be Dγ5, giving γ5D + Dγ5 = aDγ5D as in Eq. (167).
  4. [Sec. 4.5, after Eq. (193)] The phrase 'continuum limit (ma, a/x→0)' is confusing; the intended limit is ma→0 with x fixed, or a/x→0 with m fixed, but the two should not be combined this way.
  5. [Sec. 5.5, Eq. (304)] The mass parameter is written as mF in the action and then as m in the determinant identity; the notation should be harmonized, and the step using γ5-Hermiticity should be written in one line to avoid ambiguity.
  6. [Sec. 6.3, Eq. (321)] The text says eigenvectors with real eigenvalues 0 and 2/a have non-vanishing chirality, but in Eq. (321) the factor (2-aλ) removes the λ=2/a contribution; the wording should be adjusted to say that only the zero modes contribute to the index.
  7. [References] Ref. [17] is a CERN preprint from 1992 with no journal reference or DOI; the authors should provide a more accessible reference or, failing that, state clearly that the no-doubling claim in d>1 is based on an unpublished preprint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 1D pole count and two-flavor positive determinant are re-derived; the d>1 decoupling step is imported from Ref. [17] as an unproved citation, posing a correctness risk rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper is a review, and its central derivations are either reproduced in the text or attributed to external, checkable sources. Sec. 4.5 displays the one-sided lattice action and the resulting 1D propagator (Eqs. (191)-(193)); the continuum limit immediately gives the free-Dirac propagator with one pole, so the no-doubling claim in 1D is self-contained. Sec. 5.5 re-derives the two-flavor positive-definite partition function algebraically: det(D+mF)det(-D†+mF)=det(D+mF)det(g5(-D†+mF)g5)=|det(D+mF)|² using g5D+Dg5=0, so the Monte Carlo applicability is not circular. Sec. 4.4's Wilson-overlap equivalence is a short algebraic check from the cited construction. The flagged caveat is Sec. 4.5, Eq. (196): the assertion that the non-physical poles at p1a=-p2a=±π/2 'do not shift the mass pole because there is no quadratic term' is cited to Ref. [17] and not demonstrated in this text; this is an omitted proof and leaves the d>1 no-doubling conclusion dependent on an external 1992 preprint, but it is not a self-citation loop or a definitional reduction. Self-citations to Refs. [34,35] (sharing authors with this review) are used for the free-fermion propagator and the 2D GNY simulation; the load-bearing determinant positivity is re-derived, and those published results carry independent resummation comparisons, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. Overall circularity burden is low: score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no new entities and fits no data. It relies on one hand-chosen parameter (the overlap parameter s in the 1+1D equivalence) and on several unproved (in this paper) results from the cited literature. The non-Hermitian claim itself is not circular: it is a restatement of Refs. [17, 34], but the review does not add independent evidence.

free parameters (1)
  • overlap parameter s = s = 0
    In Sec. 4.4 the overlap operator is written with A = aD_W - (1+s), |s| < 1, and the Wilson-overlap equivalence uses the special value s=0. This is a hand-tuned parameter, not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem: locality, Hermiticity, chiral symmetry imply fermion doubling (Sec. 4.1)
    This is the established no-go theorem the paper uses to motivate both the standard solutions and the non-Hermitian route.
  • domain assumption The Wilson-overlap equivalence in (1+1)D uses the identity A-dagger(s=0)A(s=0)=1 (Eq. 189)
    The identity is quoted from Ref. [20] and is not proved in the review; it is the load-bearing step for concluding D_ov(s=0)=D_W and hence that the Wilson fermion inherits a modified chiral symmetry.
  • domain assumption Non-physical poles of the one-sided propagator decouple in the continuum limit (Sec. 4.5, after Eq. (196))
    The no-doubling claim for d>1 relies on this unproved assertion from Ref. [17] that the poles at p1a=-p2a=pm pi/2 do not shift the mass pole.
  • standard math The Ginsparg-Wilson relation defines a consistent modified chiral symmetry on the lattice (Eqs. 163-167)
    Used in Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 6.3 to define lattice chiral symmetry and the lattice index theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lattice Chiral Fermion without Hermiticity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JU5MLTFB

@misc{pith2026241109886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lattice Chiral Fermion without Hermiticity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JU5MLTFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09886}
}
read the original abstract

Our review of the lattice chiral fermion delves into some critical areas of lattice field theory. By abandoning Hermiticity, the non-Hermitian formulation circumvents the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem while maintaining chiral symmetry, a novel approach. Comparing the Wilson and overlap fermions gives insight into how lattice formulations handle chiral symmetry. The Wilson fermion explicitly breaks chiral symmetry to eliminate doublers. In contrast, the overlap fermion restores a modified form of chiral symmetry using the Ginsparg-Wilson relation. We investigate how the (1+1)D Wilson fermion relates to the (1+1)D overlap fermion in the Hamiltonian formulation. This connection could provide a clearer physical understanding of how chiral symmetry manifests at the lattice level. Depending on Hermiticity for efficiency, Monte Carlo methods face unique challenges in a non-Hermitian setting. We investigate how to correctly apply this method to non-Hermitian lattice fermions, which is essential for practical simulations. Finally, the review of topological charge is crucial, as topological features in lattice formulations are strongly connected to chiral symmetry, anomalies, and the index theorem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The real and imaginary parts of the eigenvalues lie on a circle centered at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    A New formulation of lattice gauge theory with fermions,

    I. O. Stamatescu and T. T. Wu, “A New formulation of lattice gauge theory with fermions,” CERN-TH-6631-92

    work page

  2. [20]

    Chiral fermion in the Hamil- tonian lattice gauge theory,

    T. Hayata, K. Nakayama and A. Yamamoto, “Chiral fermion in the Hamil- tonian lattice gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D 108, no.3, 034511 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.034511 [arXiv:2305.18934 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    Confinement of Quarks,

    K. G. Wilson, “Confinement of Quarks,” Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445-2459 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2445

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.10.2445 1974

  4. [2]

    On the Green’s functions of quantized fields. 1.,

    J. S. Schwinger, “On the Green’s functions of quantized fields. 1.,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 37, 452-455 (1951) doi:10.1073/pnas.37.7.452

    doi:10.1073/pnas.37.7.452 1951

  5. [3]

    Quantum electrodynamics at small distances,

    M. Gell-Mann and F. E. Low, “Quantum electrodynamics at small distances,” Phys. Rev. 95, 1300-1312 (1954) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.95.1300

    doi:10.1103/physrev.95.1300 1954

  6. [4]

    Absence of Neutrinos on a Lattice. 1. Proof by Homotopy Theory,

    H. B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, “Absence of Neutrinos on a Lattice. 1. Proof by Homotopy Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 185, 20 (1981) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 195, 541 (1982)] doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90011-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90011-6 1981

  7. [5]

    Absence of Neutrinos on a Lattice. 2. Intu- itive Topological Proof,

    H. B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, “Absence of Neutrinos on a Lattice. 2. Intu- itive Topological Proof,” Nucl. Phys. B 193, 173-194 (1981) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(81)90524-1

    doi:10.1016/0550- 1981

  8. [6]

    More about exactly massless quarks on the lattice,

    H. Neuberger, “More about exactly massless quarks on the lattice,” Phys. Lett. B 427, 353-355 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00355-4 [arXiv:hep-lat/9801031 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 1998

Show all 57 references
  1. [7]

    Lattice Fermions in Euclidean Space-time,

    L. H. Karsten, “Lattice Fermions in Euclidean Space-time,” Phys. Lett. B 104, 315-319 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90133-7

    1981 doi

  2. [8]

    A Remnant of Chiral Symmetry on the Lattice,

    P. H. Ginsparg and K. G. Wilson, “A Remnant of Chiral Symmetry on the Lattice,” Phys. Rev. D 25, 2649 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.2649 67

    1982 doi

  3. [9]

    Exact chiral symmetry on the lattice and the Ginsparg-Wilson re- lation,

    M. Luscher, “Exact chiral symmetry on the lattice and the Ginsparg-Wilson re- lation,” Phys. Lett. B 428, 342-345 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00423-7 [arXiv:hep-lat/9802011 [hep-lat]]

    1998 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Locality properties of Neuberger’s lattice Dirac operator,

    P. Hernandez, K. Jansen and M. Luscher, “Locality properties of Neuberger’s lattice Dirac operator,” Nucl. Phys. B 552, 363-378 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(99)00213-8 [arXiv:hep-lat/9808010 [hep-lat]]

    1999 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Tangent Fermions: Dirac or Majorana Fermions on a Lattice Without Fermion Doubling,

    C. W. J. Beenakker, A. D. Vela, G. Lemut, M. J. Pacholski and J. Tworzydlo, “Tangent Fermions: Dirac or Majorana Fermions on a Lattice Without Fermion Doubling,” Annalen Phys. 535, no.7, 2300081 (2023) doi:10.1002/andp.202300081 [arXiv:2302.12793 [cond-mat.mes-hall]]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Interacting chiral fermions on the lattice with matrix product operator norms,

    J. Haegeman, L. Lootens, Q. Mortier, A. Stottmeister, A. Ueda and F. Verstraete, “Interacting chiral fermions on the lattice with matrix product operator norms,” [arXiv:2405.10285 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    Luttinger liquid tensor network: Sine versus tangent dispersion of massless Dirac fermions,

    V. A. Zakharov, S. Polla, A. D. Vela, P. Emonts, M. J. Pacholski, J. Tworzyd lo and C. W. J. Beenakker, “Luttinger liquid tensor network: Sine versus tangent dispersion of massless Dirac fermions,” Phys. Rev. Res. 6, no.4, 043059 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.043059 [ar...

    2024 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Relating c < 0 and c > 0 conformal field theories,

    S. Guruswamy and A. W. W. Ludwig, “Relating c < 0 and c > 0 conformal field theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 519, 661-681 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00059-5 [arXiv:hep-th/9612172 [hep-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Level/rank Duality and Chern-Simons-Matter Theo- ries,

    P. S. Hsin and N. Seiberg, “Level/rank Duality and Chern-Simons-Matter Theo- ries,” JHEP 09, 095 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)095 [arXiv:1607.07457 [hep- th]]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Relating non-Hermitian and Hermi- tian quantum systems at criticality,

    C. T. Hsieh and P. Y. Chang, “Relating non-Hermitian and Hermi- tian quantum systems at criticality,” SciPost Phys. Core 6, 062 (2023) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.6.3.062 [arXiv:2211.12525 [cond-mat.str-el]]. 68

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories,

    J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, “Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 11, 395-408 (1975) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11.395

    1975 doi

  12. [19]

    A New fermion Hamiltonian for lattice gauge theory,

    M. Creutz, I. Horvath and H. Neuberger, “A New fermion Hamiltonian for lattice gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 106, 760-762 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0920- 5632(01)01836-9 [arXiv:hep-lat/0110009 [hep-lat]]

    2002 arXiv

  13. [21]

    The Index of elliptic operators. 1,

    M. F. Atiyah and I. M. Singer, “The Index of elliptic operators. 1,” Annals Math. 87, 484-530 (1968) doi:10.2307/1970715

    1968 doi

  14. [22]

    The Index of elliptic operators. 4,

    M. F. Atiyah and I. M. Singer, “The Index of elliptic operators. 4,” Annals Math. 93, 119-138 (1971) doi:10.2307/1970756

    1971 doi

  15. [23]

    The Index of elliptic operators. 5.,

    M. F. Atiyah and I. M. Singer, “The Index of elliptic operators. 5.,” Annals Math. 93, 139-149 (1971) doi:10.2307/1970757

    1971 doi

  16. [24]

    The Index theorem in QCD with a finite cutoff,

    P. Hasenfratz, V. Laliena and F. Niedermayer, “The Index theorem in QCD with a finite cutoff,” Phys. Lett. B 427, 125-131 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00315- 3 [arXiv:hep-lat/9801021 [hep-lat]]

    1998 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Path Integral Measure for Gauge Invariant Fermion Theories,

    K. Fujikawa, “Path Integral Measure for Gauge Invariant Fermion Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1195-1198 (1979) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.1195

    1979 doi

  18. [26]

    A Continuum limit of the chiral Jacobian in lattice gauge theory,

    K. Fujikawa, “A Continuum limit of the chiral Jacobian in lattice gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 546, 480-494 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00042-5 [arXiv:hep- th/9811235 [hep-th]]. 69

    1999

  19. [27]

    Axial anomaly and topological charge in lattice gauge theory with overlap Dirac operator,

    D. H. Adams, “Axial anomaly and topological charge in lattice gauge theory with overlap Dirac operator,” Annals Phys. 296, 131-151 (2002) doi:10.1006/aphy.2001.6209 [arXiv:hep-lat/9812003 [hep-lat]]

    2002

  20. [28]

    Simple evaluation of chiral Jacobian with overlap Dirac operator,

    H. Suzuki, “Simple evaluation of chiral Jacobian with overlap Dirac operator,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 102, 141-147 (1999) doi:10.1143/PTP.102.141 [arXiv:hep- th/9812019 [hep-th]]

    1999

  21. [29]

    The Spectrum and topological charge of exactly massless fermions on the lattice,

    T. W. Chiu, “The Spectrum and topological charge of exactly massless fermions on the lattice,” Phys. Rev. D 58, 074511 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.074511 [arXiv:hep-lat/9804016 [hep-lat]]

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The Index of a Ginsparg-Wilson Dirac operator,

    T. W. Chiu, “The Index of a Ginsparg-Wilson Dirac operator,” Phys. Lett. B 521, 429-433 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01222-9 [arXiv:hep-lat/0106012 [hep- lat]]

    2001 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A Perturbative calculation of the axial anomaly of a Ginsparg-Wilson Dirac operator,

    T. W. Chiu and T. H. Hsieh, “A Perturbative calculation of the axial anomaly of a Ginsparg-Wilson Dirac operator,” Phys. Rev. D 65, 054508 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.054508 [arXiv:hep-lat/0109016 [hep-lat]]

    2002 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Relation Tr gamma(5) = 0 and the index theorem in lattice gauge theory,

    K. Fujikawa, “Relation Tr gamma(5) = 0 and the index theorem in lattice gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D 60, 074505 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.074505 [arXiv:hep-lat/9904007 [hep-lat]]

    1999 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Continuum behavior of lattice QED, discretized with one sided lattice differences, in one loop order,

    N. Sadooghi and H. J. Rothe, “Continuum behavior of lattice QED, discretized with one sided lattice differences, in one loop order,” Phys. Rev. D 55, 6749-6759 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.6749 [arXiv:hep-lat/9610001 [hep-lat]]

    1997 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Naive lattice fermion without dou- blers,

    X. Guo, C. T. Ma and H. Zhang, “Naive lattice fermion without dou- blers,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.9, 094505 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.094505 [arXiv:2105.10977 [hep-lat]]. 70

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Non-Hermitian lattice fermions in the 2D Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model,

    X. Guo, C. T. Ma and H. Zhang, “Non-Hermitian lattice fermions in the 2D Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 034502 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.034502 [arXiv:2404.18441 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    QCD phase diagram for nonzero isospin-asymmetry,

    B. B. Brandt, G. Endrodi and S. Schmalzbauer, “QCD phase diagram for nonzero isospin-asymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no.5, 054514 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.054514 [arXiv:1712.08190 [hep-lat]]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Fate of Quantum Anomalies for 1d lattice chiral fermion with a simple non-Hermitian Hamiltonian,

    W. Q. Chen, Y. S. Wu, W. Xi, W. Z. Yi and G. Yue, “Fate of Quantum Anomalies for 1d lattice chiral fermion with a simple non-Hermitian Hamiltonian,” JHEP 05, 090 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2023)090 [arXiv:2010.09375 [cond-mat.other]]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Nielsen-Ninomiya Theorem with Bulk Topology: Duality in Floquet and Non-Hermitian Systems,

    T. Bessho and M. Sato, “Nielsen-Ninomiya Theorem with Bulk Topology: Duality in Floquet and Non-Hermitian Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, no.19, 196404 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.196404 [arXiv:2006.04204 [cond-mat.mes- hall]]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Making sense of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians,

    C. M. Bender, “Making sense of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 70, 947 (2007) doi:10.1088/0034-4885/70/6/R03 [arXiv:hep-th/0703096 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  32. [40]

    The Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem, PT -invariant non-Hermiticity and single 8-shaped Dirac cone,

    M. N. Chernodub, “The Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem, PT -invariant non-Hermiticity and single 8-shaped Dirac cone,” J. Phys. A 50, no.38, 385001 (2017) doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aa809a [arXiv:1701.07426 [cond-mat.mes-hall]]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Non-Hermitian physics,

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong and M. Ueda, “Non-Hermitian physics,” Adv. Phys. 69, no.3, 249-435 (2021) doi:10.1080/00018732.2021.1876991 [arXiv:2006.01837 [cond- mat.mes-hall]]

    2021

  34. [42]

    Non-Hermitian Topological Phenomena: A Review,

    N. Okuma and M. Sato, “Non-Hermitian Topological Phenomena: A Review,” Ann. Rev. Condensed Matter Phys. 14, 83-107 (2023) doi:10.1146/annurev- conmatphys-040521-033133 [arXiv:2205.10379 [cond-mat.mes-hall]]. 71

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Proof of the Triviality of phi**4 in D-Dimensions Field Theory and Some Mean Field Features of Ising Models for D >4,

    M. Aizenman, “Proof of the Triviality of phi**4 in D-Dimensions Field Theory and Some Mean Field Features of Ising Models for D >4,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 1-4 (1981) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.1

    1981 doi

  36. [44]

    Scaling Laws and Triviality Bounds in the Lattice phi**4 Theory. 1. One Component Model in the Symmetric Phase,

    M. Luscher and P. Weisz, “Scaling Laws and Triviality Bounds in the Lattice phi**4 Theory. 1. One Component Model in the Symmetric Phase,” Nucl. Phys. B 290, 25-60 (1987) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90177-5

    1987 doi

  37. [45]

    Ultraviolet Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theories,

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, “Ultraviolet Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343-1346 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1343

    1973 doi

  38. [46]

    Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions?,

    H. D. Politzer, “Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346-1349 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1346

    1973 doi

  39. [47]

    A Soluble relativistic field theory?,

    W. E. Thirring, “A Soluble relativistic field theory?,” Annals Phys. 3, 91-112 (1958) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(58)90015-0

    1958 doi

  40. [48]

    A Nonlinear theory of strong interactions,

    T. H. R. Skyrme, “A Nonlinear theory of strong interactions,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 247, 260-278 (1958) doi:10.1098/rspa.1958.0183

    1958

  41. [49]

    Particle states of a quantized meson field,

    T. H. R. Skyrme, “Particle states of a quantized meson field,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 262, 237-245 (1961) doi:10.1098/rspa.1961.0115

    1961

  42. [50]

    The Quantum Sine-Gordon Equation as the Massive Thirring Model,

    S. R. Coleman, “The Quantum Sine-Gordon Equation as the Massive Thirring Model,” Phys. Rev. D 11, 2088 (1975) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11.2088

    1975 doi

  43. [51]

    Soliton Operators for the Quantized Sine-Gordon Equation,

    S. Mandelstam, “Soliton Operators for the Quantized Sine-Gordon Equation,” Phys. Rev. D 11, 3026 (1975) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11.3026

    1975 doi

  44. [52]

    A Symmetry of the String Background Field Equations,

    T. H. Buscher, “A Symmetry of the String Background Field Equations,” Phys. Lett. B 194, 59-62 (1987) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90769-6

    1987 doi

  45. [53]

    Path Integral Derivation of Quantum Duality in Nonlinear Sigma Models,

    T. H. Buscher, “Path Integral Derivation of Quantum Duality in Nonlinear Sigma Models,” Phys. Lett. B 201, 466-472 (1988) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)90602-8 72

    1988 doi

  46. [54]

    Bosonization as duality,

    C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo, “Bosonization as duality,” Nucl. Phys. B 421, 373- 390 (1994) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90332-8 [arXiv:hep-th/9401105 [hep-th]]

    1994 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Asymptotic safety in the sine-Gordon model,

    J. Kovacs, S. Nagy and K. Sailer, “Asymptotic safety in the sine-Gordon model,” Phys. Rev. D 91, no.4, 045029 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.045029 [arXiv:1408.2680 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Explore the Origin of Spontaneous Symme- try Breaking from Adaptive Perturbation Method,

    C. T. Ma, Y. Pan and H. Zhang, “Explore the Origin of Spontaneous Symme- try Breaking from Adaptive Perturbation Method,” JHAP 4, no.1, 51-64 (2024) doi:10.22128/JHAP.2024.754.1066 [arXiv:2205.00414 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Study of asymptotic free scalar field theo- ries from adaptive perturbation method,

    C. T. Ma and H. Zhuang, “Study of asymptotic free scalar field theo- ries from adaptive perturbation method,” Annals Phys. 472, 169856 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2024.169856 [arXiv:2305.05266 [hep-th]]. 73

    2025

Pith tools

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