Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Updates on the density of states method in finite temperature symplectic gauge theories

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper claims that double-Gaussian fits miss a physical mixed-phase plateau in the Sp(4) deconfinement transition, so the standard thermodynamic-limit relation between specific heat and plaquette jump fails unless this plateau is…

desk verdict An honest, well-caveated proceedings update that frames an interesting possible breakdown of double-Gaussian scaling in Sp(4), but the quantitative weight is in the companion paper and the plateau evidence is not yet quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13101 v1 pith:TPJM7QRQ submitted 2024-11-20 hep-lat astro-ph.COhep-ph

David Mason , Ed Bennett , Biagio Lucini , Maurizio Piai , Enrico Rinaldi , Davide Vadacchino , Fabian Zierler This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-latastro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords Sp(4)gaugetheorydeconfinementtransitiondensityofstatesLLRmethodmixed-phaseconfigurationsfinite-sizescalingdouble-Gaussianapproximationlatticefield
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper is trying to establish that the double-Gaussian description of the first-order deconfinement transition in Sp(4) pure gauge theory is incomplete. Using the linear logarithmic relaxation (LLR) density-of-states method, the authors reconstruct the plaquette distribution at the critical point for five lattice volumes with $N_t = 4$, and find a flat plateau between the two coexisting-phase peaks rather than a vanishing probability. They attribute this plateau to mixed-phase configurations, such as bubbles of one phase inside the other. Extrapolating to the thermodynamic limit, the peak of the specific heat and the square of the plaquette discontinuity, which a standard relation (8) requires to coincide, come out as $(4a^4/6\tilde{V})C_V^{\rm(max)} = 5.85(2)\times10^{-6}$ and $(\Delta\langle u_p\rangle_{\beta_{C_V}})^2 = 6.09(7)\times10^{-6}$, disagreeing beyond errors. If correct, the result says that mixed-phase physics must be included in infinite-volume extrapolations, which matters for predicting gravitational-wave signals from strongly coupled dark sectors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the plaquette probability distribution $P_\beta(u_p)$, reconstructed from the density of states via the LLR method, in which $\ln\rho(E)$ is approximated piecewise linearly with coefficients $a_n$ on small energy intervals of width $\Delta u_p$ in plaquette units. From this distribution the paper computes the specific heat $C_V(\beta)$ and the plaquette jump $\Delta\langle u_p\rangle_{\beta_{C_V}}$; the double-Gaussian approximation of $P_\beta$ and the finite-size-scaling relation (8) between $C_V^{\rm(max)}$ and $(\Delta\langle u_p\rangle)^2$ are the standard benchmark against which the plateau is detected. The plateau itself is the mechanism that breaks the relation, because a flat inter-peak contribution is exactly what the double-Gaussian benchmark cannot represent.

What would settle it

Repeat the LLR analysis on the $4\times80^3$ lattice and at $N_t=5,6$ while monitoring convergence of the $a_n$ coefficients; if the plateau height decreases with volume or the extrapolated values of $(4a^4/6\tilde{V})C_V^{\rm(max)}$ and $(\Delta\langle u_p\rangle_{\beta_{C_V}})^2$ come into agreement once interval-size and correlation systematics are controlled, the claim of a physical mixed-phase contribution collapses. A cleaner test is the volume scaling of the plateau: an interface contribution should scale with surface area, while a numerical artifact would scale differently or vanish as $\Delta u_p$ shrinks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that at the critical point of the Sp(4) deconfinement transition the LLR-reconstructed plaquette distribution deviates systematically from a double Gaussian: between the two pure-phase peaks the probability does not vanish but forms a plateau, most visible on the largest lattice $4\times48^3$. Fitting a double Gaussian to this distribution leaves a residual difference in the inter-peak region that the authors interpret as the thermodynamic contribution of mixed-phase configurations. The same conclusion is supported by the thermodynamic-limit extrapolations: using a quadratic fit in $N_t^3/N_s^3$, the normalised specific-heat peak extrapolates to $5.85(2)\times10^{-6}$ while the square of the plaquette jump extrapolates to $6.09(7)\times10^{-6}$, violating relation (8) beyond the quoted errors. The authors conclude that double-Gaussian-based extrapolation is insufficient and that mixed-phase configurations must be included in future analyses.

Load-bearing premise

The plateau seen between the two peaks of the LLR-reconstructed plaquette distribution is a genuine physical mixed-phase signal, rather than an artifact of incomplete convergence of the $a_n$ coefficients, of the finite interval size $\Delta u_p$, of underestimated correlations, or of an incorrect placement of the critical coupling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standard double-Gaussian finite-size extrapolations are insufficient for accurate transition parameters in Sp(4), and the same caution applies to any theory near a first-order confinement transition.
  • Future analyses of the latent heat, the interface tension, and the gravitational-wave source parameters of the transition must model the mixed-phase contribution to the plaquette distribution.
  • The reported reduced chi-square of 5.5 for the specific-heat fit indicates that the very small statistical errors may be underestimating correlations in the LLR data, so the extrapolated central values are not yet final.
  • Larger volumes and temporal extents ($N_t=5,6$) are required to test the plateau's volume scaling and to take the first continuum limit of this transition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the plateau is a genuine interface contribution, its height should scale with the interface area $\propto V^{2/3}$ times an interface tension, which gives a direct volume-scaling test to separate physics from LLR reconstruction artifacts.
  • The same flat-plateau effect is likely to appear in other $Sp(2N)$ and $SU(N)$ pure gauge theories once density-of-states data reach comparable precision, and would show up as a failure of the specific-heat/plaquette-jump relation (8).
  • A bias in the latent heat from the double-Gaussian approximation propagates into predictions for the gravitational-wave background from composite dark sectors, most directly into the transition strength and inverse-duration parameters.
  • A practical extension would be to fit the distribution with a double Gaussian plus a constant plateau term and show that the thermodynamic-limit values of $C_V^{\rm(max)}$ and $(\Delta\langle u_p\rangle)^2$ then satisfy relation (8); this is a direct test the authors have not yet reported.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This proceedings contribution applies the LLR density-of-states method to the finite-temperature deconfinement transition in Sp(4) pure gauge theory. On lattices with N_t=4 and N_s=20, 24, 28, 40, 48, the authors reconstruct the plaquette distribution and specific heat near the transition. They report that the plaquette distribution at the critical point deviates from a double-Gaussian form, with a plateau between the two peaks that they attribute to mixed-phase configurations. They also extrapolate the normalized specific-heat peak and the squared plaquette jump to the thermodynamic limit using a quadratic fit in N_t^3/N_s^3; the two extrapolations disagree, and the C_V fit has chi^2/dof=5.5. The paper concludes that mixed-phase contributions must be included in future extrapolations and outlines ongoing work on larger volumes and N_t=5,6.

Significance. Should these findings hold, they would challenge the standard double-Gaussian finite-size-scaling analysis for first-order transitions in a theory of interest for dark-sector gravitational-wave phenomenology, and they would demonstrate that LLR can access physics in the exponentially suppressed region between coexisting-phase peaks. The paper is transparent about its limitations, and it provides data and analysis code in Refs. [66] and [67]. The evidence as presented is, however, preliminary: the central claims rest on a roughly 3-sigma intercept difference that is sensitive to error estimates, and on a between-peak plateau whose statistical significance and method-induced systematics are not yet quantified. The conclusion of Section 3 is correspondingly stronger than the current numerical support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Fig. 2 and Eq. (8)] The claim of a statistically significant discrepancy between (4a^4/6V) C_V^(max) = 5.85(2)x10^-6 and (Delta <u_p>_{beta_CV})^2 = 6.09(7)x10^-6 in the thermodynamic limit is not yet robust. The specific-heat fit has chi^2/dof=5.5, and the authors themselves note that the small statistical errors may reflect underestimated correlations. If the quoted C_V intercept error is inflated by sqrt(chi^2/dof) ~ 2.3, the difference drops from about 3.3 sigma to about 2.9 sigma; a more complete treatment of correlated errors and fit quality is needed before this discrepancy can be presented as evidence against the double-Gaussian relation, Eq. (8). The two extrapolations also derive from the same LLR density of states, so combining their errors in quadrature may overstate the significance.
  2. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3 (right)] The between-peak plateau is the direct evidence for mixed-phase configurations, but its significance is not quantified. The figure shows a magenta difference area, but no residual chi^2, no fit parameters for the double Gaussian, and no statement of the fit window or of how the plateau region was excluded. The caption's description of the fit region is also ambiguous ('measurements falling outside the region delimited by the two vertical black lines'). Because the entire conclusion depends on this plateau, the paper should report a quantitative test, e.g., the integrated residual and its statistical error, and demonstrate robustness to the choice of fit range and to the LLR interval size Delta u_p.
  3. [Sec. 2, Fig. 3 (left)] The faithfulness of the LLR reconstruction in the region between the peaks is not demonstrated. This is exactly the region where the density of states is exponentially suppressed, where the iterative determination of the a_n coefficients is hardest, and where the finite interval size Delta u_p can smooth the reconstructed distribution. The paper reports that the 4x80^3 lattice requires more iterations, which underscores the convergence risk, but no convergence check is shown for the 4x48^3 data used in Fig. 3. The plateau could therefore be an artifact of incomplete LLR convergence or of finite Delta u_p rather than a physical mixed-phase contribution; this must be addressed before the conclusion of Section 3 can be accepted.
  4. [Sec. 2, Fig. 2 (right)] The thermodynamic-limit extrapolation uses a quadratic polynomial in N_t^3/N_s^3 without justification or robustness tests. With five lattice sizes and three fit parameters, the fits have little discriminating power, and the choice of the scaling variable and fit order can materially change the intercept. The paper should either derive the expected finite-size form, or show stability of the two intercepts under alternative fit choices (e.g., linear versus quadratic, or dropping the smallest volume), and quote a systematic error from this source.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments contain a typo: 'ST/R00238X/1The DiRAC Extreme Scaling service' should be split into a proper grant code and sentence start.
  2. [Sec. 2 after Eq. (8)] The text reports chi^2/N_dof=5.5, but with five data points and a quadratic fit the number of degrees of freedom is two; please state the number of points explicitly and define the fit function.
  3. [Sec. 2, Fig. 2 text] The notation (Delta <u_p>_{beta_CV})^2 is used before it is defined; please define it in a displayed equation, e.g., as the squared difference of the two peak locations at the critical coupling.
  4. [Sec. 2, Fig. 2 caption] The manuscript relies heavily on Ref. [64] for the interval-size extrapolation ('as discussed in the appendices of Ref. [64]'); please indicate which appendix is used and what the extrapolated values are before the final fit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the C_V and plaquette-jump comparison tests the external double-Gaussian identity (8), and the mixed-phase plateau is an empirical reconstruction, not an input to the LLR fit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The only reconstructed object is the density of states rho(E) via the LLR method (Eq. (4)); the specific heat, plaquette distribution, and plaquette jump are all derived from that same rho through Eq. (5). The central comparison is not circular because Eq. (8) is an independent thermodynamic identity from double-Gaussian finite-size scaling, not a constraint imposed on the LLR coefficients. C_V^(max) is determined from the variance of the full reconstructed plaquette distribution, while (Delta <u_p>)^2 is determined from the separation of the two peaks; these are distinct functions of the reconstructed distribution, so their disagreement in the thermodynamic limit is a substantive empirical finding rather than a tautology. The methodological citations to the authors' earlier work [53, 57, 64] document the LLR implementation, but the method has independent benchmarks in SU(3) and is used by other groups [60-63], and the data and analysis code are publicly released [66, 67]; hence no load-bearing assumption is imported solely through self-citation. The paper explicitly flags the chi^2/dof = 5.5 fit, possible underestimated correlations, and the need for more iterations on the 4x80^3 lattice; these are systematics and convergence concerns, not evidence that the target result is assumed in the input. Overall, no prediction in the paper reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces three hand-chosen or fitted parameters (extrapolation coefficients, interval sizes, fit region), relies on standard lattice, LLR, and thermodynamic assumptions, and postulates no new entities. The least standard assumption is the finite-size extrapolation form, which is not derived within the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Quadratic finite-size extrapolation coefficients = Intercepts: 5.85(2)e-6 (specific heat) and 6.09(7)e-6 (plaquette jump); other coefficients not reported
    Fig. 2 fits (4a^4/6V) C_V^(max) and (Delta <u_p>)^2 with quadratic polynomials in N_t^3/N_s^3; the extrapolated intercepts are the basis for the claimed discrepancy.
  • LLR energy interval sizes Delta u_p per lattice volume = 0.00048 (20^3, 24^3), 0.00025 (28^3), 0.00013 (40^3, 48^3)
    One interval size is chosen per lattice volume; the Delta u_p to 0 limit is described as taken in Ref. [64] but is not detailed here, so these choices enter the reconstructed distributions.
  • Double-Gaussian fit region for Fig. 3 = Not specified numerically
    The fit includes only data outside the two vertical lines delimiting the central region; this hand-chosen region determines the double-Gaussian fit used to exhibit the plateau.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Wilson lattice action and periodic boundary conditions provide a valid discretization of Sp(4) Yang-Mills theory
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(2) without discussion of discretization errors; no continuum limit is attempted in this paper.
  • domain assumption The LLR method yields an unbiased piecewise-linear approximation to ln rho(E) with convergent coefficients a_n
    The entire analysis relies on the LLR reconstruction (Eq. (4)) as an accurate density of states; the paper refers to Refs. [53,57,64] for validation.
  • domain assumption At the critical point the plaquette distribution is adequately described by a double-Gaussian plus possible flat mixed-phase contributions, and the equal-height condition marks the critical coupling
    Section 2 uses the double-Gaussian picture to define the critical point and the plaquette jump; the paper's conclusion is a challenge to this picture.
  • domain assumption The relation Eq. (8) between the specific heat peak and the plaquette discontinuity holds in the thermodynamic limit
    This relation is the benchmark against which the discrepancy is measured; it is quoted from finite-size scaling theory (Ref. [65]).
  • ad hoc to paper The finite-size scaling variable N_t^3/N_s^3 with a quadratic fit is a valid extrapolation form
    The paper fits quadratic polynomials in N_t^3/N_s^3 without deriving this form or citing a reference; standard first-order scaling would include O(1/N_s) surface corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Updates on the density of states method in finite temperature symplectic gauge theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPJM7QRQ

@misc{pith2026241113101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Updates on the density of states method in finite temperature symplectic gauge theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPJM7QRQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13101}
}
abstract

First-order phase transitions in the early universe have rich phenomenological implications, such as the production of a potentially detectable signal of stochastic relic background gravitational waves. The hypothesis that new, strongly coupled dynamics, hiding in a new dark sector, could be detected in this way, via the telltale signs of its confinement/deconfinement phase transition, provides a fascinating opportunity for interdisciplinary synergy between lattice field theory and astro-particle physics. But its viability relies on completing the challenging task of providing accurate theoretical predictions for the parameters characterising the strongly coupled theory. Density of states methods, and in particular the linear logarithmic relaxation (LLR) method, can be used to address the intrinsic numerical difficulties that arise due the meta-stable dynamics in the vicinity of the critical point. For example, it allows one to obtain accurate determinations of thermodynamic observables that are otherwise inaccessible, such as the free energy. In this contribution, we present an update on results of the analysis of the finite temperature deconfinement phase transition in a pure gauge theory with a symplectic gauge group, $Sp(4)$, by using the LLR method. We present a first analysis of the properties of the transition in the thermodynamic limit, and provide a road map for future work, including a brief preliminary discussion that will inform future publications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13101 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Colour map display of the plaquette distribution, 𝑃𝛽 (𝑢 𝑝), for a range of couplings between 𝛽 = 7.339 and 7.341, and plaquette values between 𝑢 𝑝 = 0.568 and 0.576. Brighter colours correspond to regions of phase space with higher probability. The LLR method has been applied to the 𝑆 𝑝(4) gauge theory, on lattices of size 4 × 243 with Δ𝑢𝑝 = 0.00048 (left panel) and 4 × 483 with Δ𝑢𝑝 = 0.00013 (right panel). of 𝑎𝑛. A… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: the specific heat, 𝐶𝑉 (𝛽), as a function of the coupling, 𝛽, around the critical point of the 𝑆 𝑝(4) lattice gauge theory on lattice with various sizes, calculated using the LLR method. Right panel: the peak of the specific heat, 𝐶 (max) 𝑉 , normalised by a factor of 4𝑎 4 /6𝑉˜ (in green), and the square of the plaquette jump, (Δ⟨𝑢 𝑝⟩𝛽𝐶𝑉 ) 2 (in red), as a function of the cube of the inverse of the aspect… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: the plaquette distribution at the critical point, reconstructed using the LLR method for the 𝑆 𝑝(4) lattice gauge theory on a selection of volumes, computed with finite interval size. The dashed lines show the locations of the peaks of the distribution. Right panel: the plaquette distribution of the largest available lattice, 𝑁𝑡 × 𝑁 3 𝑠 = 4 × 483 , evaluated at the critical point (blue continuous line), … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Non-conformal obstructions to bubble expansion

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Non-conformal equations of state introduce wall and flow obstructions that delete entire classes of bubble solutions and create 'shocked detonations', shrinking the allowed wall-velocity space and suppressing gravitat...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [64]

    Bennett, B

    E. Bennett, B. Lucini, D. Mason, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,The density of states method for symplectic gauge theories at finite temperature, 2409.19426

    arXiv

  2. [66]

    Bennett, B

    E. Bennett, B. Lucini, D. Mason, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,The density of states method for Symplectic gauge theories at finite temperature—data and analysis code release, 2024. 10.5281/zenodo.13807598

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.13807598 2024

  3. [67]

    Bennett, B

    E. Bennett, B. Lucini, D. Mason, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,The density of states method for Symplectic gauge theories at finite temperature — HiRep LLR Code v1.0.0,

    work page

  4. [1]

    Witten,Cosmic Separation of Phases, Phys

    E. Witten,Cosmic Separation of Phases, Phys. Rev. D30 (1984) 272

    work page 1984

  5. [2]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M.S. Turner,Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 2837 [astro-ph/9310044]

    arXiv 1994

  6. [3]

    Allen,The Stochastic gravity wave background: Sources and detection, inLes Houches School of Physics: Astrophysical Sources of Gravitational Radiation, pp

    B. Allen,The Stochastic gravity wave background: Sources and detection, inLes Houches School of Physics: Astrophysical Sources of Gravitational Radiation, pp. 373–417, 4, 1996 [gr-qc/9604033]

    arXiv 1996

  7. [4]

    Schwaller,Gravitational Waves from a Dark Phase Transition,Phys

    P. Schwaller,Gravitational Waves from a Dark Phase Transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 181101 [1504.07263]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [5]

    Croon, V

    D. Croon, V. Sanz and G. White,Model Discrimination in Gravitational Wave spectra from Dark Phase Transitions,JHEP08 (2018) 203 [1806.02332]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 68 references
  1. [6]

    Christensen,Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds,Rept

    N. Christensen,Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds,Rept. Prog. Phys.82 (2019) 016903 [1811.08797]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Pasechnik, M

    R. Pasechnik, M. Reichert, F. Sannino and Z.-W. Wang,Gravitational waves from composite dark sectors,JHEP 02(2024) 159 [2309.16755]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Pisma Zh

    A.D. Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5 (1967) 32

    1967

  4. [9]

    D’Onofrio and K

    M. D’Onofrio and K. Rummukainen,Standard model cross-over on the lattice, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 025003 [1508.07161]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S.D. Katz and K.K. Szabo,The Order of the quantum chromodynamics transition predicted by the standard model of particle physics, Nature443 (2006) 675 [hep-lat/0611014]

    2006 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Aarts et al.,Phase Transitions in Particle Physics: Results and Perspectives from Lattice Quantum Chromo-Dynamics, Prog

    G. Aarts et al.,Phase Transitions in Particle Physics: Results and Perspectives from Lattice Quantum Chromo-Dynamics, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.133 (2023) 104070 [2301.04382]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [12]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo collaboration,Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) 061102 [1602.03837]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [13]

    NANOGravcollaboration, The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics, Astrophys. J. Lett.951 (2023) L11 [2306.16219]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Huang, M

    W.-C. Huang, M. Reichert, F. Sannino and Z.-W. Wang,Testing the dark SU(N) Yang-Mills theory confined landscape: From the lattice to gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 035005 [2012.11614]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Halverson, C

    J. Halverson, C. Long, A. Maiti, B. Nelson and G. Salinas,Gravitational waves from dark Yang-Mills sectors, JHEP05(2021) 154 [2012.04071]. 9 Density of states in𝑆𝑝(2𝑁) gauge theories David Mason

    2021 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Z. Kang, J. Zhu and S. Matsuzaki,Dark confinement-deconfinement phase transition: a roadmap from Polyakov loop models to gravitational waves, JHEP09(2021) 060 [2101.03795]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Reichert, F

    M. Reichert, F. Sannino, Z.-W. Wang and C. Zhang,Dark confinement and chiral phase transitions: gravitational waves vs matter representations,JHEP01 (2022) 003 [2109.11552]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Reichert and Z.-W

    M. Reichert and Z.-W. Wang,Gravitational Waves from dark composite dynamics,EPJ Web Conf. 274 (2022) 08003 [2211.08877]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [19]

    E.Bennett, D.K.Hong, J.-W.Lee, C.J.D.Lin, B.Lucini, M.Piaietal., Sp(4)gaugetheoryon the lattice: towards SU(4)/Sp(4) composite Higgs (and beyond), JHEP03(2018) 185 [1712.04220]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Bennett, D.K

    E. Bennett, D.K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini, M. Piai et al.,Sp(4) gauge theories onthelattice: 𝑁𝑓 = 2dynamicalfundamentalfermions ,JHEP12(2019)053[ 1909.12662]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Bennett, D.K

    E. Bennett, D.K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C.-J.D. Lin, B. Lucini, M. Mesiti et al.,𝑆𝑝(4) gauge theories on the lattice: quenched fundamental and antisymmetric fermions,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 074516 [1912.06505]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Bennett, J

    E. Bennett, J. Holligan, D.K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini et al.,Color dependence of tensor and scalar glueball masses in Yang-Mills theories,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 011501 [2004.11063]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [23]

    Bennett, J

    E. Bennett, J. Holligan, D.K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini et al.,Glueballs and strings in𝑆𝑝(2𝑁) Yang-Mills theories, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 054509 [2010.15781]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [24]

    D 106 (2022) 014501 [2202.05516]

    E.Bennett,D.K.Hong,H.Hsiao,J.-W.Lee, C.J.D.Lin,B.Lucinietal., Latticestudiesofthe Sp(4)gaugetheorywithtwofundamentalandthreeantisymmetricDiracfermions ,Phys.Rev. D 106 (2022) 014501 [2202.05516]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Bennett, D.K

    E. Bennett, D.K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini, M. Piai et al.,Color dependence of the topological susceptibility in Yang-Mills theories,Phys. Lett. B835 (2022) 137504 [2205.09254]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [26]

    Bennett, D.K

    E. Bennett, D.K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini, M. Piai et al.,Sp(2N) Yang-Mills theories on the lattice: Scale setting and topology, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 094503 [2205.09364]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Bennett, J

    E. Bennett, J. Holligan, D.K. Hong, H. Hsiao, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin et al.,Sp(2N) Lattice Gauge Theories and Extensions of the StandardModel of Particle Physics,Universe9(2023) 236 [2304.01070]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Bennett et al.,Symplectic lattice gauge theories in the grid framework: Approaching the conformal window, Phys

    E. Bennett et al.,Symplectic lattice gauge theories in the grid framework: Approaching the conformal window, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 094508 [2306.11649]. 10 Density of states in𝑆𝑝(2𝑁) gauge theories David Mason

    2023 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Bennett, D.K

    E. Bennett, D.K. Hong, H. Hsiao, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini et al.,Lattice investigations of the chimera baryon spectrum in the Sp(4) gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 094512 [2311.14663]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Bennett, J

    E. Bennett, J. Holligan, D.K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini et al.,Spectrum of mesons in quenched Sp(2N) gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 094517 [2312.08465]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [31]

    Bennett et al.,Meson spectroscopy from spectral densities in lattice gauge theories, 5, 2024

    E. Bennett et al.,Meson spectroscopy from spectral densities in lattice gauge theories, 5, 2024

    2024

  27. [32]

    Bennett, N

    E. Bennett, N. Forzano, D.K. Hong, H. Hsiao, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin et al.,On the mixing between flavor singlets in lattice gauge theories coupled to matter fields in multiple representations, 5, 2024

    2024

  28. [33]

    J.-W. Lee, E. Bennett, D.K. Hong, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini, M. Piai et al.,Progress in the lattice simulations of Sp(2𝑁) gauge theories, PoSLATTICE2018(2018) 192 [1811.00276]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [34]

    B.Lucini,E.Bennett,J.Holligan,D.K.Hong,H.Hsiao,J.-W.Leeetal., Sp(4)gaugetheories and beyond the standard model physics,EPJ Web Conf.258 (2022) 08003 [2111.12125]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [35]

    Bennett, J

    E. Bennett, J. Holligan, D.K. Hong, H. Hsiao, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin et al.,Progress in 𝑆𝑝(2𝑁) lattice gauge theories,PoSLATTICE2021(2022) 308 [2111.14544]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [36]

    Hsiao, E

    H. Hsiao, E. Bennett, D.K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini et al.,Spectroscopy of 𝑆𝑝(4) lattice gauge theory with𝑛𝑓 = 3 antisymmetric fermions,PoSLATTICE2022(2023) 211 [2210.08154]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Hsiao, E

    H. Hsiao, E. Bennett, D.K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini et al.,Spectroscopy of chimera baryons in a𝑆𝑝(4) lattice gauge theory, 11, 2022. 10.22323/1.430.0211

    2022 doi

  33. [38]

    Maas and F

    A. Maas and F. Zierler,Strong isospin breaking inSp(4) gauge theory, PoSLATTICE2021 (2022) 130 [2109.14377]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [39]

    F.ZierlerandA.Maas, 𝑆𝑝(4) SIMPDarkMatterontheLattice ,PoSLHCP2021(2021)162

    2021

  35. [40]

    Kulkarni, A

    S. Kulkarni, A. Maas, S. Mee, M. Nikolic, J. Pradler and F. Zierler,Low-energy effective description of dark𝑆𝑝(4) theories, SciPost Phys.14(2023) 044 [2202.05191]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [41]

    Zierler, J.-W

    F. Zierler, J.-W. Lee, A. Maas and F. Pressler,Singlet Mesons in Dark𝑆𝑝(4) Theories, PoS LATTICE2022(2023) 225 [2210.11187]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [42]

    Zierler, S

    F. Zierler, S. Kulkarni, A. Maas, S. Mee, M. Nikolic and J. Pradler,Strongly Interacting Dark Matter from Sp(4) Gauge Theory,EPJ Web Conf.274 (2022) 08014 [2211.11272]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [43]

    Bennett, H

    E. Bennett, H. Hsiao, J.-W. Lee, B. Lucini, A. Maas, M. Piai et al.,Singlets in gauge theories with fundamental matter, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 034504 [2304.07191]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [44]

    Dengler, A

    Y. Dengler, A. Maas and F. Zierler,Scattering of dark pions in an Sp(4)-gauge theory,PoS LATTICE2023(2024) 103 [2311.18549]. 11 Density of states in𝑆𝑝(2𝑁) gauge theories David Mason

    2024 arXiv

  40. [45]

    D 110 (2024) 054513 [2405.06506]

    Y.Dengler,A.MaasandF.Zierler, ScatteringofdarkpionsinSp(4)gaugetheory ,Phys.Rev. D 110 (2024) 054513 [2405.06506]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [46]

    Borsanyi, K

    S. Borsanyi, K. R., Z. Fodor, D.A. Godzieba, P. Parotto and D. Sexty,Precision study of the continuum SU(3) Yang-Mills theory: How to use parallel tempering to improve on supercritical slowing down for first order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 074513 [2202.05234]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [47]

    Lucini, M

    B. Lucini, M. Teper and U. Wenger,Properties of the deconfining phase transition in SU(N) gauge theories,JHEP 02(2005) 033 [hep-lat/0502003]

    2005 arXiv

  43. [48]

    Panero,Thermodynamics of the QCD plasma and the large-N limit, Phys

    M. Panero,Thermodynamics of the QCD plasma and the large-N limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.103 (2009) 232001 [0907.3719]

    2009 arXiv

  44. [49]

    Holland, M

    K. Holland, M. Pepe and U.J. Wiese,The Deconfinement phase transition of Sp(2) and Sp(3) Yang-Millstheoriesin(2+1)-dimensionsand(3+1)-dimensions ,Nucl.Phys.B 694(2004)35 [hep-lat/0312022]

    2004 arXiv

  45. [50]

    Holland, P

    K. Holland, P. Minkowski, M. Pepe and U.J. Wiese,Exceptional confinement in G(2) gauge theory, Nucl. Phys. B668 (2003) 207 [hep-lat/0302023]

    2003 arXiv

  46. [51]

    Bruno, N

    M. Bruno, N. Forzano, M. Panero and A. Smecca,Thermal evolution of dark matter in the early universe from a symplectic glueball model, 2410.17122

  47. [52]

    Cossu, M

    G. Cossu, M. D’Elia, A. Di Giacomo, B. Lucini and C. Pica,G(2) gauge theory at finite temperature, JHEP10(2007) 100 [0709.0669]

    2007 arXiv

  48. [53]

    Langfeld, B

    K. Langfeld, B. Lucini and A. Rago,The density of states in gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 111601 [1204.3243]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [54]

    Langfeld and J.M

    K. Langfeld and J.M. Pawlowski,Two-color QCD with heavy quarks at finite densities,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 071502 [1307.0455]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [55]

    Langfeld, B

    K. Langfeld, B. Lucini, R. Pellegrini and A. Rago,An efficient algorithm for numerical computations of continuous densities of states,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 306 [1509.08391]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [56]

    Cossu, D

    G. Cossu, D. Lancaster, B. Lucini, R. Pellegrini and A. Rago,Ergodic sampling of the topological charge using the density of states,Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 375 [2102.03630]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [57]

    Lucini, D

    B. Lucini, D. Mason, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,First-order phase transitions in Yang-Mills theories and the density of state method, 2305.07463

    arXiv

  53. [58]

    Mason, B

    D. Mason, B. Lucini, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,The density of states method in Yang-Mills theories and first order phase transitions,EPJ Web Conf.274 (2022) 08007 [2211.10373]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [59]

    Mason, B

    D. Mason, B. Lucini, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,The density of state method for first-order phase transitions in Yang-Mills theories,PoSLATTICE2022(2023) 216 [2212.01074]. 12 Density of states in𝑆𝑝(2𝑁) gauge theories David Mason

    2023 arXiv

  55. [60]

    Springer and D

    F. Springer and D. Schaich,Density of states for gravitational waves,PoSLATTICE2021 (2022) 043 [2112.11868]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [61]

    Springer and D

    F. Springer and D. Schaich,Progress applying density of states for gravitational waves,EPJ Web Conf.274 (2022) 08008 [2212.09199]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [62]

    Lattice Strong Dynamics (LSD)collaboration, Advances in using density of states for large-N Yang–Mills, PoSLATTICE2022(2023) 223 [2303.01149]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [63]

    Lattice Strong Dynamics (LSD)collaboration, First-order bulk transitions in large-𝑁 lattice Yang–Mills theories using the density of states, 2311.10243

    arXiv

  59. [65]

    M.S.S.Challa,D.P.LandauandK.Binder, Finitesizeeffectsattemperaturedrivenfirstorder transitions, Phys. Rev. B34 (1986) 1841

    1986

  60. [2024]

    10.5281/zenodo.13807993. 13

    doi

Pith tools

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