Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Finite-temperature phase diagram of the BMN matrix model on the lattice

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 This paper uses lattice Monte Carlo to compute the finite-temperature phase diagram of the BMN matrix model, a maximally supersymmetric quantum-mechanical system with a well-defined thermal partition function, and finds that the…

desk verdict A competent, reproducible lattice study that plausibly interpolates between perturbative and supergravity predictions, but the continuum-limit language overstates what two lattice spacings can support and the weak-coupling continuous-transition claim is still speculative. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13407 v2 pith:6SQWTGVN submitted 2024-12-18 hep-lat hep-th

Raghav G. Jha , Anosh Joseph , David Schaich This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-th
keywords BMNmatrixmodeldeconfinementtransitionPolyakovlooplatticesupersymmetrygauge/gravitydualitysupergravityMonteCarlosimulationphasediagram
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 uses lattice Monte Carlo to map the deconfinement transition of the BMN matrix model, a maximally supersymmetric quantum-mechanical theory with a well-defined thermal partition function. It determines the critical temperature (T/µ)_crit as a function of the dimensionless coupling g = λ/µ³, spanning three orders of magnitude. The central result is that the lattice results interpolate between the weak-coupling perturbative prediction (T/µ ≈ 1/(12 ln 3) ≈ 0.076, with known NNLO corrections) and the strong-coupling large-N supergravity value (T/µ ≈ 0.106). A secondary result is that the transition is first order for strong couplings but appears to become continuous for g ≲ 10⁻⁴. If correct, this provides a non-perturbative bridge between two analytic limits within a single holographic system.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by the Polyakov loop, the traced Wilson line around the thermal circle, which is an order parameter for spontaneous breaking of the Z_N center symmetry: it vanishes in the confined phase and is nonzero in the deconfined phase. The transition temperature is extracted both from the peak of the Polyakov-loop susceptibility and from a four-parameter sigmoid fit Σ = A − B/(1+exp[C(T/µ−D)]) to the Polyakov loop itself, with D locating the inflection point. To determine the order of the transition, the authors fit the growth of the susceptibility peak with N², the number of degrees of freedom, to a power law χ_max = C $N^{{2b}}$, comparing b to the first-order value b = 1.

What would settle it

A direct calculation at g = 0.01, N = 12 with Nτ = 32 or 48, comparing (T/µ)_crit to the quoted average 0.100, would settle whether the constant-average continuum-limit assumption holds; alternatively, a high-statistics measurement of the susceptibility exponent b for g = 10⁻⁴ with N = 16 would settle whether it continues to decrease toward the continuous-transition value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For each fixed coupling g, the authors scan in temperature T/µ and measure the Polyakov loop, locating the deconfinement transition from the peak of its susceptibility and from a sigmoid fit to the Polyakov loop itself. Comparing these determinations across couplings, they find (T/µ)_crit ≈ 0.076 at g ≤ 10⁻⁴, in agreement with NNLO perturbation theory, rising monotonically with g and approaching the g→∞ supergravity prediction (T/µ)_crit ≈ 0.106 at g = 0.01. The susceptibility-peak exponent b from scaling χ_max ∝ $N^{{2b}}$ is consistent with first-order behavior b = 1 for g ≳ 0.001, while decreasing toward b ≈ 0.59–0.61 as Nτ increases for g ≤ 10⁻⁴, which the authors read as evidence that the transition becomes continuous at weak coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The central claims assume that the two lattice sizes available per coupling and gauge group are sufficient to treat the average as the continuum limit, with no Nτ→∞ extrapolation and no quantified discretization error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The lattice results provide a continuous curve for (T/µ)_crit(g) that interpolates between the weak-coupling NNLO prediction and the strong-coupling supergravity limit, offering a direct target for dual-supergravity calculations of the coupling dependence.
  • The agreement at g ≤ 10⁻⁴ confirms that the NNLO perturbative expansion with expansion parameter 27g is accurate up to 27g ≈ 0.003, and that the phase-quenched RHMC calculations are reliable in this regime.
  • At strong couplings g ≥ 0.001, the susceptibility exponent b ≈ 0.87–0.91 with a trend toward 1 as Nτ increases is consistent with the first-order transition predicted in the large-N, strong-coupling limit.
  • The decrease of the susceptibility exponent toward b ≈ 0.59–0.61 for g ≤ 10⁻⁴ suggests the transition becomes continuous at weak coupling, implying a critical endpoint separating the strong-coupling first-order line.
  • The verification that Pfaffian phase fluctuations vanish in the continuum limit removes a potential sign problem for the lattice implementation of the BMN model, supporting further simulations at larger N and Nτ.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the weak-coupling transition is truly continuous, the first-order line at strong coupling must terminate at a critical endpoint g⋆ somewhere in 10⁻⁴ ≲ g ≲ 10⁻³; a dedicated scan across that interval with N ≥ 16 and Nτ ≥ 24 could map it directly.
  • The near-N-independence of (T/µ)_crit for N = 8–16 hints that the large-N limit may already be effectively saturated at these couplings; a direct N = 32 run at g = 0.01 would test whether finite-N corrections are truly absent.
  • Because only two lattice sizes were averaged for each {g,N} pair, the continuum-limit assumption could be checked by a single Nτ = 32 or 48 run at fixed g and N; if the result shifts beyond the quoted error, the reported phase diagram would need to be revised.
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 manuscript reports lattice Monte Carlo determinations of the critical deconfinement temperature of the BMN matrix model for couplings g = 10^-5 to 10^-2, using a simple one-dimensional lattice action with RHMC and phase-quenched Pfaffian. For each of four couplings and N = 8, 12, 16, the authors scan T/μ, locate susceptibility peaks in the Polyakov loop, fit the Polyakov loop to a sigmoid, and then average the two lattice sizes per {g,N}. They compare the resulting phase diagram with NNLO perturbation theory and the strong-coupling supergravity prediction, and use the growth of the susceptibility peak with N^2 to infer the order of the transition.

Significance. If the central results survive revision, they would constitute a useful non-perturbative bridge between the perturbative and holographic regimes of the BMN model, extending earlier studies with a different lattice action and an open data release. The consistency across N and Nτ, the explicit checks of the Pfaffian phase, and the reproducible workflow are genuine strengths. However, as discussed below, the quantitative interpolation claim and the weak-coupling order claim currently rely on unquantified systematics, so the manuscript needs substantive revision before the advertised conclusions are fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV / Fig. 6] The points labelled 'Nτ → ∞ extrapolations' in Fig. 6 are obtained by fitting a constant to exactly two lattice sizes (Nτ = 8 and 16 or 16 and 24). This is an average, not a continuum extrapolation: no scaling form is used, no third lattice size constrains the trend, and the agreement between two points does not bound residual discretization effects. At the weak-coupling points aμ ≈ 1/(Nτ T/μ) is ≈ 1.6 for Nτ = 8 and ≈ 0.8 for Nτ = 16, so the lattice spacing is not parametrically small; the Sec. III checks address the SO(6)-breaking ratio and the Pfaffian phase, not the convergence of the Polyakov-loop transition temperature itself. Since the abstract's central claim is a quantitative interpolation between Eq. (10) and Eq. (11), an unquantified discretization bias in (T/μ)_crit directly affects that claim. I ask the authors to either perform a genuine Nτ → ∞ extrapolation (even a simple 1/Nτ^2 ansatz with additional Nτ values) or re-label the results as averages of two lattice sizes and include an estimated discretization systematic.
  2. [Table I / Eq. (24)] The sigmoid fits used for the central values have χ²/d.o.f. as large as 54 (e.g., g = 0.001, N = 12, Nτ = 24), and the authors correctly note that the quoted fit uncertainties are underestimates. Switching to the coarser susceptibility-peak uncertainties changes the error bars but not the central values; if the sigmoid ansatz is disfavoured by the data, the fit central values themselves can be biased. The T/μ grid spacing is coarse, so the 'conservative' susceptibility-peak uncertainties may not span this bias. I ask for a systematic account of fit-model and fit-range variation, or a reweighting-based interpolation, before using these central values in the comparison with perturbation theory.
  3. [Sec. IV, final paragraph / Fig. 8] The claim that the transition is continuous for g ≲ 10^-4 is based on two lattice sizes and two gauge groups per coupling, with exponent estimates b = 0.85 → 0.61 (g = 10^-4) and 0.71 → 0.59 (g = 10^-5) obtained without uncertainties and from two-point power-law fits. There is no Nτ → ∞ extrapolation of b and no demonstration that the trend is not a finite-N or finite-Nτ artifact. This is a secondary but advertised conclusion ('appears to be continuous for weaker couplings' in the abstract). Please either add a proper finite-size scaling analysis with more N values and error propagation, or explicitly downgrade this statement to a qualitative observation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The notation '26 · 5/34' and the corresponding expression for C_NNLO appear garbled by lost superscripts; please typeset as 2^6 · 5 / 3^4 and the analogous NNLO expression.
  2. [Fig. 1] The last x-axis tick reads '0 .035', which looks like a formatting artifact; please fix the axis labeling.
  3. [Table I / Sec. IV] Since the text repeatedly refers to the averaged critical temperatures, consider reporting the averaged value and a combined systematic uncertainty in Table I, rather than only the individual Nτ entries.
  4. [Sec. III, Fig. 3] When comparing the right-most g = 0.001 point in Fig. 3 with Fig. 2, the sentence says 'apart from the different gauge group' but does not state the comparison values; please spell out the two numbers being compared.
  5. [Eq. (24)] Please clarify explicitly that the sigmoid parameter D is the inflection point of the functional form as written, since this is the identification used to define (T/μ)_crit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: critical temperatures are extracted from lattice data and compared with external perturbative and supergravity predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. It generates lattice ensembles at fixed g and T/μ, measures the Polyakov loop and its susceptibility, extracts (T/μ)_crit from susceptibility peaks and sigmoid fits, and then compares these numbers with NNLO perturbation theory (Refs. [53–55]) and the strong-coupling supergravity result (Ref. [51]). No parameter of the external predictions is fitted to the lattice data, and the theoretical benchmarks do not enter the extraction of the critical temperatures. The sigmoid ansatz is cited to the authors' own previous proceedings [28,30], but it is explicitly called an ansatz and is used only to interpolate the measured Polyakov loop; the susceptibility-peak estimates independently agree with the fit values, so this self-citation is not load-bearing. The averaging of two N_τ values by fitting to a constant is an acknowledged approximation rather than a circular reduction, and the paper explicitly flags the large χ²/d.o.f. and underestimated uncertainties. The weaker-coupling continuity claim is an interpretation of the N-scaling of χ_max, not an input to the analysis. No equation reduces to another by construction, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main results depend on standard lattice discretization and three practical assumptions: no fine-tuning is needed for the continuum limit, the Pfaffian phase can be quenched, and fuzzy-sphere vacua do not contribute. An additional ad hoc analysis choice is the constant averaging of the two lattice sizes. The only fitted quantities are the sigmoid and power-law parameters used to extract the critical temperature and the critical exponent.

free parameters (3)
  • Sigmoid fit parameters A, B, C, D (per g, N, Nτ) = Example: D = 0.10098(19) for g=0.01, N=8, Nτ=16
    The critical temperature (T/µ)_crit is read from the inflection point D of the four-parameter sigmoid fit Eq. (24). The fits omit the highest- and lowest-temperature points to control χ²/d.o.f. These fits provide the central values of the phase diagram.
  • Critical exponent b and amplitude C in χmax = C N^(2b) = b = 0.866(29) (Nτ=16) and 0.909(26) (Nτ=24) for g=0.01; b ≈ 0.61-0.85 for g=10^-4 and 0.59-0.71 for g=10^-5, without…
    The order-of-transition conclusion follows from these power-law fits. The weak-coupling values use only N=8 and 12, and uncertainties are deliberately neglected.
  • Constant fit to average the two Nτ results for each {g,N} = the reported (T/µ)_crit averages in Fig. 6
    Each pair of lattice sizes is combined by fitting to a constant, which assumes no significant Nτ dependence rather than performing a continuum extrapolation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The simple lattice action flows to the correct continuum supersymmetric BMN target without fine-tuning
    Invoked in Sec. III based on Refs. [3,38-41]. Checks in Figs. 1-2 support the absence of SO(6) breaking and a real positive Pfaffian in the continuum limit, but do not establish that the Polyakov-loop transition temperature itself is free of O(a) artifacts.
  • domain assumption The Pfaffian phase can be quenched (e^{iφ}→1) in the path integral without significantly affecting the results
    Sec. III, Eqs. (20)-(21). The phase reweighting is not performed; Figs. 2-3 show that phase fluctuations are small for the ensembles used, but no systematic error is propagated to (T/µ)_crit.
  • domain assumption The simulations stay in the trivial vacuum and fuzzy-sphere vacua do not contribute
    Sec. IV and App. B state that monitored quantities (scalar squares and Myers term) confirm this, without showing the data in the main text.
  • ad hoc to paper Averaging two lattice sizes with a constant fit is equivalent to taking the continuum limit
    Sec. IV: 'We therefore average each pair by fitting to a constant.' This replaces a systematic Nτ→∞ extrapolation and is the main unquantified assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-temperature phase diagram of the BMN matrix model on the lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SQWTGVN

@misc{pith2026241213407,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-temperature phase diagram of the BMN matrix model on the lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SQWTGVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13407}
}
abstract

We investigate the thermal phase structure of the Berenstein--Maldacena--Nastase (BMN) matrix model using non-perturbative lattice Monte Carlo calculations. Our main analyses span three orders of magnitude in the coupling, involving systems with sizes up to $N_{\tau} = 24$ lattice sites and SU($N$) gauge groups with $8 \leq N \leq 16$. In addition, we carry out extended checks of discretization artifacts for $N_{\tau} \leq 128$ and gauge group SU(4). We find results for the deconfinement temperature that interpolate between the perturbative prediction at weak coupling and the large-$N$ dual supergravity calculation at strong coupling. While we confirm that the phase transition is first order for strong coupling, it appears to be continuous for weaker couplings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13407 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The real part of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The real part of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Results for the Polyakov loop (left) and its susceptibility (right) plotted against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Polyakov loop (left) and its susceptibility (right) as in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The critical temperature of the transition, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Angular distributions of Polyakov loop eigenvalue phases for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The scaling of the susceptibility peak χmax with the number of degrees of freedom ∝ N 2 on log–log axes. The solid and dashed lines are power-law fits with fixed Nτ = 16 and 24, respectively. to a power law, χmax = CN2b , (25) where C and b are fit parameters. For the …

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. On the strong coupling limit of Yang-Mills matrix models

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In mass-deformed Yang–Mills matrix models, strong-coupling commutativity sets in at or above the critical fermion count N_c = 2(D−2), with the supersymmetric models sitting at the critical boundary where huge-operator...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Quantum Gravity meets Lattice QFT

    0001 0 . 001 0 . 01 0 . 1 1 (T/µ)crit 27g SU(8) SU(12) SU(16) Large-N holography (g → ∞) NNLO perturbation theory Figure 6. The critical temperature of the transition, (T /µ)crit., vs. the couplingg on semi-log axes, fromNτ → ∞ extrapolations described in the text. The horizontal red line is theg → ∞supergravity prediction from Ref. [51] while the blue cu...

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Supergravity and the large-N limit of theories with sixteen supercharges,

    N. Itzhaki, J. M. Maldacena, J. Sonnenschein, and S. Yankielowicz, “Supergravity and the large-N limit of theories with sixteen supercharges,” Phys. Rev. D58, 046004 (1998), hep-th/9802042

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    The Large-N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large-N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231–252 (1998), hep-th/9711200

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Towards lattice simulation of the gauge theory duals to black holes and hot strings,

    S. Catterall and T. Wiseman, “Towards lattice simulation of the gauge theory duals to black holes and hot strings,” JHEP0712, 104 (2007), arXiv:0706.3518

    arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Monte Carlo studies of supersymmetric matrix quantum mechanics with sixteen supercharges at finite temperature,

    K. N. Anagnostopoulos, M. Hanada, J. Nishimura, and S. Takeuchi, “Monte Carlo studies of supersymmetric matrix quantum mechanics with sixteen supercharges at finite temperature,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 021601 (2008), arXiv:0707.4454

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Black hole thermodynamics from simulations of lattice Yang–Mills theory,

    S. Catterall and T. Wiseman, “Black hole thermodynamics from simulations of lattice Yang–Mills theory,” Phys. Rev. D78, 041502 (2008), arXiv:0803.4273

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    First results from simulations of supersymmetric lattices

    S. Catterall, “First results from simulations of supersymmetric lattices,” JHEP 0901, 040 (2009), arXiv:0811.1203

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Schwarzschild radius from Monte Carlo calculation of the Wilson loop in supersymmetric matrix quantum mechanics,

    M. Hanada, A. Miwa, J. Nishimura, and S. Takeuchi, “Schwarzschild radius from Monte Carlo calculation of the Wilson loop in supersymmetric matrix quantum mechanics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 181602 (2009), arXiv:0811.2081

    arXiv 2009

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Higher Derivative Corrections to Black Hole Thermodynamics from Supersymmetric Matrix Quantum Mechanics,

    M. Hanada, Y. Hyakutake, J. Nishimura, and S. Takeuchi, “Higher Derivative Corrections to Black Hole Thermodynamics from Supersymmetric Matrix Quantum Mechanics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 191602 (2009), arXiv:0811.3102

    2009 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Extracting black hole physics from the lattice,

    S. Catterall and T. Wiseman, “Extracting black hole physics from the lattice,” JHEP1004, 077 (2010), arXiv:0909.4947

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Non-lattice simulation of supersymmetric gauge theories as a probe to quantum black holes and strings,

    J. Nishimura, “Non-lattice simulation of supersymmetric gauge theories as a probe to quantum black holes and strings,” Proc. Sci.LA T2009, 016 (2009), arXiv:0912.0327

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    First Results from Lattice Simulation of the PWMM,

    S. Catterall and G. van Anders, “First Results from Lattice Simulation of the PWMM,” JHEP1009, 088 (2010), arXiv:1003.4952

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Thermal phases of D1-branes on a circle from lattice super-Yang–Mills,

    S. Catterall, A. Joseph, and T. Wiseman, “Thermal phases of D1-branes on a circle from lattice super-Yang–Mills,” JHEP 1012, 022 (2010), arXiv:1008.4964

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    On the sign problem in 2D lattice super-Yang–Mills,

    S. Catterall, R. Galvez, A. Joseph, and D. Mehta, “On the sign problem in 2D lattice super-Yang–Mills,” JHEP 1201, 108 (2012), arXiv:1112.3588

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    One-dimensional supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory with 16 supercharges,

    D. Kadoh and S. Kamata, “One-dimensional supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory with 16 supercharges,” Proc. Sci. LA TTICE2012, 064 (2012), arXiv:1212.4919

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Holographic description of quantum black hole on a computer,

    M. Hanada, Y. Hyakutake, G. Ishiki, and J. Nishimura, “Holographic description of quantum black hole on a computer,” Science 344, 882–885 (2014), arXiv:1311.5607

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Restoration of supersymmetry in two-dimensional SYM with sixteen supercharges on the lattice,

    E. Giguère and D. Kadoh, “Restoration of supersymmetry in two-dimensional SYM with sixteen supercharges on the lattice,” JHEP1505, 082 (2015), arXiv:1503.04416

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gauge/gravity duality and lattice simulations of one-dimensional SYM with sixteen supercharges,

    D. Kadoh and S. Kamata, “Gauge/gravity duality and lattice simulations of one-dimensional SYM with sixteen supercharges,” (2015), arXiv:1503.08499

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The BFSS model on the lattice,

    V. G. Filev and D. O’Connor, “The BFSS model on the lattice,” JHEP 1605, 167 (2016), arXiv:1506.01366

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Numerical tests of the gauge/gravity duality conjecture for D0-branes at finite temperature and finiteN,

    M. Hanada, Y. Hyakutake, G. Ishiki, and J. Nishimura, “Numerical tests of the gauge/gravity duality conjecture for D0-branes at finite temperature and finiteN,” Phys. Rev. D 94, 086010 (2016), arXiv:1603.00538

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Supergravity from D0-brane Quantum Mechanics,

    E. Berkowitz, E. Rinaldi, M. Hanada, G. Ishiki, S. Shimasaki, and P. Vranas, “Supergravity from D0-brane Quantum Mechanics,” (2016), arXiv:1606.04948

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Precision lattice test of the gauge/gravity duality at largeN,

    E. Berkowitz, E. Rinaldi, M. Hanada, G. Ishiki, S. Shimasaki, and P. Vranas, “Precision lattice test of the gauge/gravity duality at largeN,” Phys. Rev. D94, 094501 (2016), arXiv:1606.04951

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Precision test of the gauge/gravity duality in two-dimensional N = (8, 8) SYM,

    D. Kadoh, “Precision test of the gauge/gravity duality in two-dimensional N = (8, 8) SYM,” Proc. Sci. LA TTICE2016, 033 (2017), arXiv:1702.01615

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Toward Holographic Reconstruction of Bulk Geometry from Lattice Simulations,

    E. Rinaldi, E. Berkowitz, M. Hanada, J. Maltz, and P. Vranas, “Toward Holographic Reconstruction of Bulk Geometry from Lattice Simulations,” JHEP1802, 042 (2018), arXiv:1709.01932

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Testing holography using lattice super-Yang–Mills theory on a 2-torus,

    S. Catterall, R. G. Jha, D. Schaich, and T. Wiseman, “Testing holography using lattice super-Yang–Mills theory on a 2-torus,” Phys. Rev. D97, 086020 (2018), arXiv:1709.07025

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Testing the holographic principle using lattice simulations,

    R. G. Jha, S. Catterall, D. Schaich, and T. Wiseman, “Testing the holographic principle using lattice simulations,” EPJ Web Conf.175, 08004 (2018), arXiv:1710.06398

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gauged And Ungauged: A Nonperturbative Test,

    E. Berkowitz, M. Hanada, E. Rinaldi, and P. Vranas, 12 “Gauged And Ungauged: A Nonperturbative Test,” JHEP 1806, 124 (2018), arXiv:1802.02985

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The non-perturbative phase diagram of the BMN matrix model,

    Y. Asano, V. G. Filev, S. Kováčik, and D. O’Connor, “The non-perturbative phase diagram of the BMN matrix model,” JHEP 1807, 152 (2018), arXiv:1805.05314

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Thermal phase structure of a supersymmetric matrix model,

    D. Schaich, R. G. Jha, and A. Joseph, “Thermal phase structure of a supersymmetric matrix model,” Proc. Sci. LA TTICE2019, 069 (2020), arXiv:2003.01298

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Confinement/deconfinement transition in the D0-brane matrix model — A signature of M-theory?

    G. Bergner, N. Bodendorfer, M. Hanada, S. Pateloudis, E. Rinaldi, A. Schäfer, P. Vranas, and H. Watanabe (Monte Carlo String/M-theory Collaboration), “Confinement/deconfinement transition in the D0-brane matrix model — A signature of M-theory?” JHEP 2205, 096 (2022), arXiv:2110.01312

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Thermal phase structure of dimensionally reduced super-Yang–Mills,

    D. Schaich, R. G. Jha, and A. Joseph, “Thermal phase structure of dimensionally reduced super-Yang–Mills,” Proc. Sci. LA TTICE2021, 187 (2022), arXiv:2201.03097

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Nonperturbative test of the Maldacena–Milekhin conjecture for the BMN matrix model,

    S. Pateloudis, G. Bergner, N. Bodendorfer, M. Hanada, E. Rinaldi, and A. Schäfer, “Nonperturbative test of the Maldacena–Milekhin conjecture for the BMN matrix model,” JHEP 2208, 178 (2022), arXiv:2205.06098

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Precision test of gauge/gravity duality in D0-brane matrix model at low temperature,

    S. Pateloudis, G. Bergner, M. Hanada, E. Rinaldi, A. Schäfer, P. Vranas, H. Watanabe, and N. Bodendorfer (Monte Carlo String/M-theory Collaboration), “Precision test of gauge/gravity duality in D0-brane matrix model at low temperature,” JHEP 2303, 071 (2023), arXiv:2210.04881

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Three-dimensional super-Yang–Mills theory on the lattice and dual black branes,

    S. Catterall, J. Giedt, R. G. Jha, D. Schaich, and T. Wiseman, “Three-dimensional super-Yang–Mills theory on the lattice and dual black branes,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 106009 (2020), arXiv:2010.00026

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Investigations of supersymmetric Yang–Mills theories,

    A. Sherletov and D. Schaich, “Investigations of supersymmetric Yang–Mills theories,” Proc. Sci. LA TTICE2021, 031 (2022), arXiv:2201.08626

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lattice Studies of 3D Maximally Supersymmetric Yang–Mills,

    A. Sherletov and D. Schaich, “Lattice Studies of 3D Maximally Supersymmetric Yang–Mills,” Proc. Sci. LA TTICE2022, 221 (2023), arXiv:2303.13880

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Maximally supersymmetric Yang–Mills in three dimensions,

    D. Schaich and A. Sherletov, “Maximally supersymmetric Yang–Mills in three dimensions,” Proc. Sci. LA TTICE2024, 430 (2025, in preparation)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Lattice studies of supersymmetric gauge theories,

    D. Schaich, “Lattice studies of supersymmetric gauge theories,” Eur. Phys. J. ST232, 305–320 (2023), arXiv:2208.03580

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A Local Interactive Lattice Model With Supersymmetry,

    M. F. L. Golterman and D. N. Petcher, “A Local Interactive Lattice Model With Supersymmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 319, 307–341 (1989)

    1989

  32. [40]

    Less naive about supersymmetric lattice quantum mechanics,

    J. Giedt, R. Koniuk, E. Poppitz, and T. Yavin, “Less naive about supersymmetric lattice quantum mechanics,” JHEP 0412, 033 (2004), hep-lat/0410041

    2004 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Low-dimensional Supersymmetric Lattice Models,

    G. Bergner, T. Kaestner, S. Uhlmann, and A. Wipf, “Low-dimensional Supersymmetric Lattice Models,” Annals Phys. 323, 946–988 (2008), arXiv:0705.2212

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    LatticeN = 4 three-dimensional super-Yang–Mills,

    J. Giedt, A. Lipstein, and P. Martin, “LatticeN = 4 three-dimensional super-Yang–Mills,” Proc. Sci. LA TTICE2018, 239 (2018), arXiv:1811.00516

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    On the Quantum Mechanics of Supermembranes,

    B. de Wit, J. Hoppe, and H. Nicolai, “On the Quantum Mechanics of Supermembranes,” Nucl. Phys. B305, 545 (1988)

    1988

  36. [44]

    M theory as a matrix model: A Conjecture,

    T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker, and L. Susskind, “M theory as a matrix model: A Conjecture,” Phys. Rev. D 55, 5112–5128 (1997), hep-th/9610043

    1997 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Strings in flat space and pp waves fromN = 4 super-Yang–Mills,

    D. E. Berenstein, J. M. Maldacena, and H. S. Nastase, “Strings in flat space and pp waves fromN = 4 super-Yang–Mills,” JHEP 0204, 013 (2002), hep-th/0202021

    2002 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Space-Time Singularities in String Theory,

    G. T. Horowitz and A. R. Steif, “Space-Time Singularities in String Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 260 (1990)

    1990

  39. [47]

    Plane wave matrix theory from N = 4super-Yang–Mills on R × S3,

    N. Kim, T. Klose, and J. Plefka, “Plane wave matrix theory from N = 4super-Yang–Mills on R × S3,” Nucl. Phys. B 671, 359–382 (2003), hep-th/0306054

    2003 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Fivebranes from gauge theory,

    H. Lin and J. M. Maldacena, “Fivebranes from gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D74, 084014 (2006), hep-th/0509235

    2006 arXiv

  41. [49]

    N = 4Super-Yang–Mills from the Plane Wave Matrix Model,

    T. Ishii, G. Ishiki, S. Shimasaki, and A. Tsuchiya, “N = 4Super-Yang–Mills from the Plane Wave Matrix Model,” Phys. Rev. D78, 106001 (2008), arXiv:0807.2352

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Testing a novel large-N reduction for N = 4 super-Yang–Mills theory onR × S3,

    G. Ishiki, S.-W. Kim, J. Nishimura, and A. Tsuchiya, “Testing a novel large-N reduction for N = 4 super-Yang–Mills theory onR × S3,” JHEP 0909, 029 (2009), arXiv:0907.1488

    2009 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Perturbative tests for a large-N reduced model of super-Yang–Mills theory,

    G. Ishiki, S. Shimasaki, and A. Tsuchiya, “Perturbative tests for a large-N reduced model of super-Yang–Mills theory,” JHEP 1111, 036 (2011), arXiv:1106.5590

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Thermodynamics of the BMN matrix model at strong coupling,

    M. S. Costa, L. Greenspan, J. Penedones, and J. Santos, “Thermodynamics of the BMN matrix model at strong coupling,” JHEP1503, 069 (2015), arXiv:1411.5541

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Finite-temperature phase diagram of the BMN matrix model on the lattice — data release,

    R. G. Jha, A. Joseph, and D. Schaich, “Finite-temperature phase diagram of the BMN matrix model on the lattice — data release,” (2024), doi:10.5281/zenodo.14391775

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Five-brane thermodynamics from the matrix model,

    K. Furuuchi, E. Schreiber, and G. W. Semenoff, “Five-brane thermodynamics from the matrix model,” (2003), hep-th/0310286

    2003 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Two-loop partition function in the planar plane-wave matrix model,

    M. Spradlin, M. Van Raamsdonk, and A. Volovich, “Two-loop partition function in the planar plane-wave matrix model,” Phys. Lett.B603, 239–248 (2004), hep-th/0409178

    2004 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Free energy and phase transition of the matrix model on a plane-wave,

    S. Hadizadeh, B. Ramadanovic, G. W. Semenoff, and D. Young, “Free energy and phase transition of the matrix model on a plane-wave,” Phys. Rev. D71, 065016 (2005), hep-th/0409318

    2005 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Non-perturbative phase structure of the bosonic BMN matrix model,

    N. S. Dhindsa, R. G. Jha, A. Joseph, A. Samlodia, and D. Schaich, “Non-perturbative phase structure of the bosonic BMN matrix model,” JHEP2205, 169 (2022), arXiv:2201.08791

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Deconfinement Phase Transition in Bosonic BMN Model at General Coupling,

    N. S. Dhindsa, A. Joseph, A. Samlodia, and D. Schaich, “Deconfinement Phase Transition in Bosonic BMN Model at General Coupling,” Springer Proc. Phys. 304, 1020 (2024), arXiv:2308.02538

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    SUSY LATTICE 2.3.1 — Codes for supersymmetric lattice gauge theories,

    G. Bergner, S. Catterall, C. Culver, N. S. Dhindsa, J. Giedt, R. G. Jha, A. Joseph, D. Schaich, and 13 A. Sherletov, “SUSY LATTICE 2.3.1 — Codes for supersymmetric lattice gauge theories,” (2022), github.com/daschaich/susy

    2022

  52. [60]

    Accelerating dynamical fermion computations using the rational hybrid Monte Carlo (RHMC) algorithm with multiple pseudofermion fields,

    M. A. Clark and A. D. Kennedy, “Accelerating dynamical fermion computations using the rational hybrid Monte Carlo (RHMC) algorithm with multiple pseudofermion fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 051601 (2007), hep-lat/0608015

    2007 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Parallel software for lattice N = 4supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory,

    D. Schaich and T. DeGrand, “Parallel software for lattice N = 4supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory,” Comput. Phys. Commun.190, 200–212 (2015), arXiv:1410.6971

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Nature of the phase transition for finite temperature Nf = 3QCD with nonperturbativelyO(a) improved Wilson fermions atNt = 12,

    Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, H. Ohno, and S. Takeda, “Nature of the phase transition for finite temperature Nf = 3QCD with nonperturbativelyO(a) improved Wilson fermions atNt = 12,” Phys. Rev. D101, 054509 (2020), arXiv:2001.04398

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    New Monte Carlo Technique for Studying Phase Transitions,

    A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, “New Monte Carlo Technique for Studying Phase Transitions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2635–2638 (1988)

    1988

  56. [64]

    Wilson loops in large-N field theories,

    J. M. Maldacena, “Wilson loops in large-N field theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 4859–4862 (1998), hep-th/9803002

    1998 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 505–532 (1998), hep-th/9803131

    1998 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Black-hole–black-string phase transitions in thermal (1+1)-dimensional supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory on a circle,

    O. Aharony, J. Marsano, S. Minwalla, and T. Wiseman, “Black-hole–black-string phase transitions in thermal (1+1)-dimensional supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory on a circle,” Class. Quant. Grav.21, 5169–5192 (2004), hep-th/0406210

    2004 arXiv

  59. [67]

    The Hagedorn/Deconfinement Phase Transition in Weakly Coupled Large-N Gauge Theories,

    O. Aharony, J. Marsano, S. Minwalla, K. Papadodimas, and M. Van Raamsdonk, “The Hagedorn/Deconfinement Phase Transition in Weakly Coupled Large-N Gauge Theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 8, 603–696 (2004), hep-th/0310285

    2004 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Finite-size rounding of a first-order phase transition,

    Y. Imry, “Finite-size rounding of a first-order phase transition,” Phys. Rev. B21, 2042–2043 (1980)

    1980

  61. [69]

    Scaling for first-order transitions in thermodynamic and finite systems,

    M. E. Fisher and A. N. Berker, “Scaling for first-order transitions in thermodynamic and finite systems,” Phys. Rev. B 26, 2507–2513 (1982)

    1982

  62. [70]

    Finite-size scaling at first-order phase transitions,

    K. Binder and D. P. Landau, “Finite-size scaling at first-order phase transitions,” Phys. Rev. B30, 1477 (1984)

    1984

  63. [71]

    Finite size effects at temperature driven first order transitions,

    M. S. S. Challa, D. P. Landau, and K. Binder, “Finite size effects at temperature driven first order transitions,” Phys. Rev. B34, 1841–1852 (1986)

    1986

  64. [72]

    Order of the Deconfining Phase Transition in SU(3) Lattice Gauge Theory,

    M. Fukugita, M. Okawa, and A. Ukawa, “Order of the Deconfining Phase Transition in SU(3) Lattice Gauge Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 1768 (1989)

    1989

  65. [73]

    PRIMME: preconditioned iterative multimethod eigensolver–methods and software description,

    A. Stathopoulos and J. R. McCombs, “PRIMME: preconditioned iterative multimethod eigensolver–methods and software description,” ACM Trans. Math. Softw.37, 21 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    emcee: The MCMC Hammer,

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, “emcee: The MCMC Hammer,” PASP 125, 306–312 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665. 14

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

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