Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Critical relaxational dynamics at the continuous transitions of three-dimensional spin models with ${\mathbb Z}_2$ gauge symmetry

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that at the topological transition of the 3D $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge model, the Metropolis relaxational dynamics slows down as $\tau\sim L^z$ with $z=2.55(6)$, considerably slower than the Ising value $z=2.0245(15)$ despite…

desk verdict Solid equilibrium MC determination of z=2.55(6) for the topological Z2-gauge transition; the main open issue is an unresolved ~2.2 sigma conflict with an out-of-equilibrium estimate, and the conclusions overstate confirmation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09575 v2 pith:7XTRJWFJ submitted 2025-01-16 cond-mat.stat-mech hep-lat

Claudio Bonati , Andrea Pelissetto , Ettore Vicari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechhep-lat MSC 82B2082B2782B80
keywords topologicalphasetransitiondynamiccriticalexponentslowingdownlatticegaugetheoryZ2-gaugesymmetryMetropolisdynamicsmodelAuniversalityXYclass
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 tries to establish that the presence of a local $\mathbb{Z}_2$ gauge symmetry changes the universal critical dynamics of continuous phase transitions in three dimensions, not just their static properties. At the topological transition of the pure $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge model, a standard locally reversible Metropolis dynamics relaxes with $z=2.55(6)$, far slower than the $z=2.0245(15)$ of the 3D Ising universality class, even though the two models have identical static critical behavior because of duality. Along the DD-DO line of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge XY model, the same slower topological dynamic class appears. By contrast, at the DD-O and DO-O transitions of that model, where XY order exists, the dynamics belongs to the standard XY model-A universality class with $z\approx 2.022$, independent of whether the order parameter is gauge invariant. If correct, the paper shows that dynamic universality in gauge systems is not fixed by static universality alone and that locally reversible algorithms at topological gauge transitions pay an extra cost in autocorrelation time.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by finite-size scaling of autocorrelation times at the critical point: self-consistent exponential autocorrelation times $\tau_x$ and integrated autocorrelation times $\tau_{x,\mathrm{int}}$ are fitted to $\tau=cL^z(1+c_\omega L^{-\omega}+\cdots)$. The observable that carries the topological-transition signal is the Polyakov loop, a nonlocal product of $\mathbb{Z}_2$ link variables along one direction, which couples more strongly to the slowest modes than the energy density and shows smaller scaling corrections. The dynamics is a Metropolis sweep that proposes local, reversible flips of the fundamental gauge and spin variables, realizing model-A relaxational dynamics. The contrast between the topological and XY transitions is made sharp by the nonlocality of the duality that relates the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge model to the Ising model: statics are mapped in the energy sector, but a local update in one model does not map to a local update in the other.

What would settle it

Measure equilibrium autocorrelation times of the local plaquette energy at the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge critical point for lattices of size $L=64$ to $128$, fit $\tau\sim cL^z$ with corrections, and compare to the Polyakov-loop result $z=2.55(6)$; an energy-based exponent that disagrees beyond errors would show that the Polyakov loop is not the bulk critical mode, while agreement would confirm the claimed dynamic class. A second check is to repeat the out-of-equilibrium slow-crossing measurement with the same lattice sizes and observables; if it does not converge to $z=2.55(6)$, the equilibrium and nonequilibrium protocols are not probing the same exponent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the topological $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge transition in 3D, the paper reports $z=2.55(6)$ from equilibrium Metropolis simulations at the critical coupling, using autocorrelation times of the nonlocal Polyakov loop as the observable most strongly coupled to the slowest modes; energy-density autocorrelations give consistent but noisier results and substantially smaller time scales. The same exponent, within errors, is found along the DD-DO transition line of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge XY model at $J=0.1$, with an unbiased fit giving $z=2.52(8)$. In contrast, along the DD-O line at $K=0.5$ and the DO-O line at $K=1$, autocorrelation times of the susceptibility of the gauge-invariant bilinear operator $Q^{ab}_x$ scale as $\tau\sim L^z$ with $z=2.02(4)$ and $z=1.96(8)$ respectively, fully consistent with the standard XY value $z=2.022(5)$. The paper concludes that LGW and LGW$\times$ transitions in these gauge models belong to the same dynamic universality class as model-A dynamics in the corresponding ungauged $\Phi^4$ theory, while the topological transitions form a distinct, slower dynamic class.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate $z=2.55(6)$ rests on the assumption that the autocorrelation time of the nonlocal Polyakov loop is governed by the same critical mode as the transition's critical slowing down, so that $\tau_P\sim L^z$ with the bulk dynamic exponent; if the Polyakov loop had a different scaling or a distinct slow mode, the fitted exponent would not be the dynamic exponent of the bulk transition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the 3D $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge topological transition, the dynamic exponent $z=2.55(6)$ means autocorrelation times grow roughly as $L^{2.55}$, so reaching a given precision at large $L$ requires substantially longer runs than an Ising simulation at the same lattice size.
  • The $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge XY model inherits the same slow topological dynamic class along its DD-DO line, so the slower dynamics is a property of the topological $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge universality class, not of the pure model alone.
  • The DD-O and DO-O transitions of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge XY model show standard XY model-A dynamics with $z\approx 2.022$, so the Metropolis dynamics on gauge-dependent variables behaves like the model-A Langevin dynamics of the effective $\Phi^4$ theory for gauge-invariant order parameters.
  • Because the duality between the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge model and the Ising model is nonlocal, no local algorithm on the Ising side can reproduce the gauge-model dynamics; local updates in the two dual models belong to different dynamic universality classes.
  • The paper conjectures that at all LGW and LGW$\times$ transitions in gauge systems, relaxational critical dynamics is the same as in the corresponding LGW $\Phi^4$ theory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct equilibrium measurement of $z$ from a purely local gauge-invariant operator on larger lattices, such as the plaquette energy at $L=64$ to $128$, would discriminate between the paper's single-exponent scenario and the possibility that the Polyakov loop carries a separate, slower mode; the paper's energy data are consistent but have much larger errors.
  • The discrepancy between the equilibrium value $z=2.55(6)$ and the out-of-equilibrium estimate $z=2.70(3)$ cited by the authors could reflect different scaling variables in slow-crossing protocols; if the two exponents remain different when measured with the same observable and the same finite-size scaling, the notion of a single dynamic exponent for this transition would need revision.
  • The same classification logic suggests testing continuous gauge groups: at GFT transitions where gauge modes themselves are critical, one would not expect the simple reduction to ungauged model-A dynamics, so a separate dynamic universality class may appear there.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the relaxational critical dynamics of the three-dimensional Z2 lattice gauge model and the Z2-gauge XY model under a standard locally reversible Metropolis dynamics. Using Monte Carlo simulations at the critical points, the authors measure autocorrelation times of gauge-invariant observables and extract the dynamic critical exponent z from the finite-size scaling tau ~ L^z. For the topological transitions (the pure Z2-gauge model and the DD-DO line of the gauge XY model) they report z=2.55(6), which is significantly larger than the 3D Ising value z=2.0245(15) despite the static equivalence of the two models via duality. For the DD-O (LGW) and DO-O (LGW*) transitions of the gauge XY model they find z consistent with the standard XY value z~2.022. The paper argues that the nonlocal nature of the duality mapping explains the different dynamic universality class at the topological transitions, while gauge modes do not affect the model-A dynamics at the LGW-type transitions.

Significance. The main result is of clear interest to statistical mechanics and lattice gauge theory: it demonstrates that static universality via a nonlocal duality does not imply dynamic universality, and it provides the first high-precision equilibrium estimate of the dynamic critical exponent for the topological Z2-gauge transition. The paper is commendably transparent: Appendix A reports the full autocorrelation-time data, the fits are checked for stability against the choice of Lmin and of the time-definition parameters, and the Polyakov-loop results are cross-checked with energy-density data. The XY results provide concrete evidence for the conjecture that gauge modes do not alter the model-A dynamic universality class at LGW and LGW* transitions. Even if the precise value of z were to shift with future studies, the qualitative conclusion of a dynamic universality class distinct from Ising is robust and significant.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. VI (Conclusions) and Sec. IV] The statement in the Conclusions that the estimate z=2.55(6) 'confirm[s] earlier numerical results [82]' is not supported by the paper's own discussion in Sec. IV, where the authors report z=2.70(3) from Ref. [82] and note that the discrepancy should be further investigated. With combined uncertainty of about 0.067, the difference is roughly 2.2 standard deviations. Please rephrase the conclusion to say that the result is qualitatively consistent with the slow dynamics found in Ref. [82], and quantify the discrepancy when citing that work.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V.A] The sentence reporting an unbiased analysis leading to z=2.52(8) would benefit from a brief statement of the fit range (Lmin) and of whether scaling corrections were included, so that the reader can judge the consistency with the headline z=2.55(6).
  2. [Appendix A] In Table I, the column label 'tau x(H)' could be confused with the Hamiltonian H; consider using 'tau_x(E)' or adding a footnote to clarify that H denotes the energy density.
  3. [Sec. II.B] For the DD-DO line study at J=0.1, the value Kc approximately 0.7612 is used; given Eq. (6) the shift from Kc(J=0) is -2e-4, so the value is correct, but stating the precise value used would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. V] The comparison value z=2.022(5) for the XY universality class is obtained from the epsilon expansion; the text could explicitly note that this is an analytical estimate rather than an independent numerical determination, which would help readers assess the strength of the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: all dynamic exponents are fit outputs from Metropolis autocorrelation times, while static inputs and comparison values come from independent published sources; self-citations set up the phase diagram but do not enter the dynamic fit.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities, z = 2.55(6) for the topological Z2-gauge transitions and z consistent with 2.022 for the DD-O and DO-O XY transitions, are obtained by direct fits of measured autocorrelation times to Eq. (14), tau = c L^z (1 + c_omega L^{-omega}). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: z is the output of the fit, not an input. The static inputs (Kc from duality/Ising, Eq. (2); Jc values and the LGW/LGW-x/topological classification from Refs. [7,71,72]) are published results used to locate the transitions, but they are not equivalent to, and do not determine, the measured dynamic exponent. For the topological transitions, the Polyakov-loop analysis is not circular: the assumption that tau_P ~ L^z with the bulk exponent is a physical modeling assumption, and it is cross-checked by the energy density and by an unbiased fit giving z = 2.52(8) on the DD-DO line. For the XY transitions, the paper reports both plots with z fixed to the XY value and free fits (z = 2.02(4) and z = 1.96(8)), so the comparison to z = 2.022 is not imposed by construction. The reliance on the authors' own prior static classification is legitimate input, not a self-citation chain that forces the dynamic result, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The unresolved discrepancy with the out-of-equilibrium estimate z = 2.70(3) of Ref. [82] is an external consistency/correctness concern, not a circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: measured autocorrelation times, standard finite-size scaling fits, and independent static/benchmark parameters.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are introduced ad hoc; the z values are measured outputs. The paper depends on standard dynamic scaling assumptions, accurately located critical couplings, and the authors' prior static classification. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated; the LGW/LGWx dynamic universality conjecture is a hypothesis, not an invented entity.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dynamic finite-size scaling: near the critical point, the autocorrelation time scales as tau = c L^z (1 + c_omega L^{-omega} + ...).
    Invoked in Sec. IV, Eq. (14), as the basis for extracting z from finite-lattice autocorrelation times.
  • domain assumption A sequential Metropolis sweep realizes the purely relaxational, locally reversible model-A dynamics with no conserved quantity.
    Assumed in Secs. IV and V so that the measured z can be compared with model-A dynamic universality classes.
  • domain assumption The critical couplings used (Kc=0.761413292(11) for the pure gauge model, Kc=0.7612 at J=0.1, Jc=0.37118(2) at K=0.5, Jc=0.22729(3) at K=1) are accurate enough that simulations are effectively at criticality.
    The paper imports these values from the literature, including the authors' prior work Refs. [71,72] and Eq. (6); small errors in these locations would bias the scaling fits.
  • domain assumption The static universality inputs from the literature (Ising and XY values of nu, omega, and dynamic z for the reference classes) are correct.
    Used in Secs. IV and V for comparison fits and for the claim that the XY-type transitions match the standard XY dynamic exponent.
  • domain assumption The classification of the DD-O, DO-O, and DD-DO transitions as LGW, LGWx, and topological respectively, with the associated RG dimensions, is correct.
    Taken from the authors' earlier static studies Refs. [7,71,72]; it determines which order parameter and universality class to compare with the dynamics.
  • standard math The duality mapping between the 3D Z2-gauge model and the 3D Ising model holds for partition functions and thermal static observables.
    Used in Sec. II A to justify that the static critical behavior is the same while the dynamics can differ because the duality is nonlocal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Critical relaxational dynamics at the continuous transitions of three-dimensional spin models with ${\mathbb Z}_2$ gauge symmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7XTRJWFJ

@misc{pith2026250109575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Critical relaxational dynamics at the continuous transitions of three-dimensional spin models with $\mathbb Z_2$ gauge symmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7XTRJWFJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09575}
}
abstract

We characterize the dynamic universality classes of a relaxational dynamics under equilibrium conditions at the continuous transitions of three-dimensional (3D) spin systems with a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-gauge symmetry. In particular, we consider the pure lattice ${\mathbb Z}_2$-gauge model and the lattice ${\mathbb Z}_2$-gauge XY model, which present various types of transitions: topological transitions without a local order parameter and transitions characterized by both gauge-invariant and non-gauge-invariant XY order parameters. We consider a standard relaxational (locally reversible) Metropolis dynamics and determine the dynamic critical exponent $z$ that characterizes the critical slowing down of the dynamics as the continuous transition is approached. At the topological ${\mathbb Z}_2$-gauge transitions we find $z=2.55(6)$. Therefore, the dynamics is significantly slower than in Ising systems -- $z\approx 2.02$ for the 3D Ising universality class -- although 3D ${\mathbb Z}_2$-gauge systems and Ising systems have the same static critical behavior because of duality. As for the nontopological transitions in the 3D ${\mathbb Z}_2$-gauge XY model, we find that their critical dynamics belong to the same dynamic universality class as the relaxational dynamics in ungauged XY systems, independently of the gauge-invariant or nongauge-invariant nature of the order parameter at the transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09575 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Sketch of the phase diagram of the 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Estimates of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. , the critical behavior of the autocorrelation times is consistent with the exponent z = 2.55(6) determined in the 3D Z2-gauge model. An unbiased analysis of the data leads to the consistent result z = 2.52(8). 12 16 24 32 L 103 104 τ FIG. 3: Estimates of τx,int with x = 2, see Sec. III, for the Polyakov loop. The solid line is a fit of the data to τ = ALz , with z fixed to z = 2.55, which is our estimate of z for t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Rescaled estimates of the autocorrelation time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

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. Out-of-equilibrium critical dynamics of the three-dimensional ${\mathbb Z}_2$ gauge model along critical relaxational flows

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The dynamic critical exponent of the 3D Z2 gauge model under Metropolis relaxational dynamics is z = 2.610(15), obtained from out-of-equilibrium finite-size scaling of the energy density.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [82]

    N. Xu, C. Castelnovo, R. G. Melko, C. Chamon, and A. W. Sandvik, Dynamic scaling of topological ordering in classical systems, Phys. Rev. B 97, 024432 (2018)

    2018

  2. [1]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , (Cam- bridge University Press, 2005)

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , (Cam- bridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  3. [2]

    J. Zinn-Justin, Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phe- 9 L n τ x(χQ) 8 1 54.9(3) 12 2 113.7(8) 16 4 188(2) 20 6 288(2) 24 9 403(3) 28 12 537(3) 32 16 700(3) 36 20 870(7) 40 25 1077(6) 48 36 1539(11) 56 49 2049(28) 64 64 2645(44) TABLE III: Autocorrelation times for the 3D Z2-gauge XY model at K = 0.5, J = 0.37118. Values of τx for x = 1 and n ≈ τx/40, see...

    2002

  4. [3]

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

    1984

  5. [4]

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

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

    2004

  6. [5]

    Fradkin, Field theories of condensed matter physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    E. Fradkin, Field theories of condensed matter physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  7. [6]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phases of Matter , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phases of Matter , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023

    2023

  8. [7]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, E. Vicari, Three-dimensional Abelian and non-Abelian gauge Higgs theories, arXiv:2410.05823

    arXiv

Show all 113 references
  1. [8]

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

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

    2019

  2. [9]

    K. G. Wilson, The renormalization group and critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys. 55, 583 (1983)

    1983

  3. [10]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Critical phenomena and renormalization group theory, Phys. Rep. 368, 549 (2002)

    2002

  4. [11]

    Senthil, L

    T. Senthil, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. A. Fisher, Quantum Criticality beyond the Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson Paradigm, Phys. Rev. B 70, 144407 (2004)

    2004

  5. [12]

    Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: a re- view, in 50 years of the renormalization group , dedi- cated to the memory of Michael E

    T. Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: a re- view, in 50 years of the renormalization group , dedi- cated to the memory of Michael E. Fisher, edited by Amnon Aharony, Ora Entin-Wohlman, David Huse, and Leo Radzihovsky, World Scientific arXiv:2306.12638

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    F. J. Wegner, Duality in generalized Ising models and phase transitions without local order parameters, Jour. of Math. Phys. 12, 2259 (1971)

    1971

  7. [14]

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

    1974

  8. [15]

    Balian, J

    R. Balian, J. M. Drouffe, and C. Itzykson, Gauge fields on a lattice. I. general outlook, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3376 (1974); Gauge fields on a lattice. II. Gauge-invariant Ising model, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2098 (1975)

    1974

  9. [16]

    Osterwalder and E

    K. Osterwalder and E. Seiler, Gauge Field Theories on the Lattice, Ann. Phys. (NY) 110, 440 (1978)

    1978

  10. [17]

    Fradkin and S

    E. Fradkin and S. Shenker, Phase diagrams of lattice gauge theories with Higgs fields, Phys. Rev. D 19, 3682 (1979)

    1979

  11. [18]

    J. B. Kogut, An introduction to lattice gauge theory and spin systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 659 (1979)

    1979

  12. [19]

    Hikami, Non-Linear σ Model of Grassmann Manifold and Non-Abelian Gauge Field with Scalar Coupling, Prog

    S. Hikami, Non-Linear σ Model of Grassmann Manifold and Non-Abelian Gauge Field with Scalar Coupling, Prog. Theor. Phys. 64, 1425 (1080)

  13. [20]

    Dasgupta and B

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

    1981

  14. [21]

    D. J. E. Callaway and L. J. Carson, Abelian Higgs model: A Monte Carlo study, Phys. Rev. D 25, 531 (1982)

    1982

  15. [22]

    Fredenhagen and M

    K. Fredenhagen and M. Marcu, Charged states in Z2 gauge theories, Commun. Math. Phys. 92, 81 (1983)

    1983

  16. [23]

    Kennedy and C

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

    1985

  17. [24]

    Kennedy and C

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

    1986

  18. [25]

    Borgs and F

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

    1987

  19. [26]

    Murthy and S

    G. Murthy and S. Sachdev, Actions of hedgehogs instan- tons in the disordered phase of 2+1 dimensional CPN −1 model, Nucl. Phys. B 344, 557 (1990)

    1990

  20. [27]

    P. E. Lammert, D. D. Roskar, and J. Toner, Topology and nematic ordering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1650 (1993); 10 Topology and nematic ordering. I. A gauge theory, Phys. Rev. E 52, 1778 (1995); Topology and nematic ordering. II. Observable critical behavior, Phys. Rev. E 52, 1801 (1995)

    1993

  21. [28]

    Kiometzis, H

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

    1994

  22. [29]

    Bergerhoff, F

    B. Bergerhoff, F. Freire, D.F. Litim, S. Lola, and C. Wetterich, Phase diagram of superconductors from non- perturbative flow equations, Phys. Rev. B 53, 5734 (1996)

    1996

  23. [30]

    Herbut and Z

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

    1996

  24. [31]

    Folk and Y

    R. Folk and Y. Holovatch, On the critical fluctuations in superconductors, J. Phys. A 29, 3409 (1996)

    1996

  25. [32]

    V. Yu. Irkhin, A. A. Katanin, and M. I. Katsnelson, 1/N expansion for critical exponents of magnetic phase transitions in the CP N −1 model for 2 < d <4, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11953 (1996)

    1996

  26. [33]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Karjalainen, M. Laine, and J. Peisa, Masses and phase structure in the Ginzburg-Landau model, Phys. Rev. B 57, 3011 (1998)

    1998

  27. [34]

    Olsson and S

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

    1998

  28. [35]

    Senthil and M

    T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Z2 gauge theory of electron fractionalization in strongly correlated systems, Phys. Rev. B 62, 7850 (2000)

    2000

  29. [36]

    R. D. Sedgewick, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Frac- tionalized phase in an XY −Z2 gauge model, Phys. Rev. B 65, 054508 (2002)

    2002

  30. [37]

    Sudbø, E

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

    2002

  31. [38]

    Kleinert, F

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

    2002

  32. [39]

    S. Mo, J. Hove, and A. Sudbø, Order of the metal- to-superconductor transition, Phys. Rev. B 65, 104501 (2002)

    2002

  33. [40]

    Senthil and O

    T. Senthil and O. Motrunich, Microscopic models for fractionalized phases in strongly correlated systems, Phys. Rev. B 66, 205104 (2002)

    2002

  34. [41]

    Neuhaus, A

    T. Neuhaus, A. Rajantie, and K. Rummukainen, Nu- merical study of duality and universality in a frozen su- perconductor, Phys. Rev. B 67, 014525 (2003)

    2003

  35. [42]

    Smiseth, E

    J. Smiseth, E. Smørgrav, F. S. Nogueira, J. Hove, and A. Sudbø, Phase Structure of d = 2+1 Compact Lattice Gauge Theories and the Transition from Mott Insulator to Fractionalized Insulator, Phys. Rev. B 67, 205104 (2003)

    2003

  36. [43]

    Moshe and J

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

    2003

  37. [44]

    R. K. Kaul and S. Sachdev, Quantum criticality of U(1) gauge theories with fermionic and bosonic matter in two spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 77, 155105 (2008)

    2008

  38. [45]

    Charrier, F

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

    2008

  39. [46]

    I. S. Tupitsyn, A. Kitaev, N. V. Prokofev, and P. C. E. Stamp, Topological multicritical point in the phase diagram of the toric code model and three-dimensional lattice gauge Higgs model, Phys. Rev. B 82, 085114 (2010)

    2010

  40. [47]

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

    2013

  41. [48]

    K. Liu, J. Nissinen, Z. Nussinov, R.-J. Slager, K. Wu, and J. Zaanen, Classification of nematic order in 2+1 dimensions: Dislocations melting and O(2)/ZN lattice gauge theory, Phys, Rev. B 91, 075103 (2015)

    2015

  42. [49]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. T. Chalker, P. Serna, M. Ortu` no, and A. M. Somoza, Deconfined Quantum Criticality, Scaling Violations, and Classical Loop Models, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041048 (2015)

    2015

  43. [50]

    C. Wang, A. Nahum, M. A. Metliski, C. Xu, and T. Senthil, Deconfined Quantum Critical Points: Symme- tries and Dualities, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031051 (2017)

    2017

  44. [51]

    Pelissetto, A

    A. Pelissetto, A. Tripodo, and E. Vicari, Criticality of O( N ) symmetric models in the presence of discrete gauge symmetries, Phys. Rev. E 97, 012123 (2018)

    2018

  45. [52]

    Ihrig, N

    B. Ihrig, N. Zerf, P. Marquard, I. F. Herbut, and M. M. Scherer, Abelian Higgs model at four loops, fixed-point collision and deconfined criticality, Phys. Rev. B 100, 134507 (2019)

    2019

  46. [53]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Multicomponent compact Abelian-Higgs lattice models, Phys. Rev. E 100, 042134 (2019)

    2019

  47. [54]

    Sachdev, H

    S. Sachdev, H. D. Scammell, M. S. Scheurer, and G. Tarnopolsky, Gauge theory for the cuprates near opti- mal doping, Phys. Rev. B 99, 054516 (2019)

    2019

  48. [55]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Phase di- agram, symmetry breaking, and critical behavior of three-Dimensional lattice multiflavor scalar chromody- namics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 232002 (2019); Three- dimensional lattice multiflavor scalar chromodynamics: Interplay bet...

    2019

  49. [56]

    H. D. Scammell, K. Patekar, M. S. Scheurer, and S. Sachdev, Phases of SU(2) gauge theory with multiple adjoint Higgs fields in 2+1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 101, 205124 (2020)

    2020

  50. [57]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Higher-charge three-dimensional compact lattice Abelian-Higgs mod- els, Phys. Rev. E 102, 062151 (2020)

    2020

  51. [58]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Three- dimensional phase transitions in multiflavor scalar SO(Nc) gauge theories, Phys. Rev. E 101, 062105 (2020)

    2020

  52. [59]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Lattice Abelian- Higgs model with noncompact gauge fields, Phys. Rev. B 103, 085104 (2021)

    2021

  53. [60]

    Somoza, P

    A. Somoza, P. Serna, and A. Nahum, Self-dual critical- ity in three-dimensional Z2 gauge theory with matter, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041008 (2021)

    2021

  54. [61]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Franchi, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Three-dimensional lattice SU( Nc) gauge theories with multiflavor scalar fields in the adjoint representation, Phys. Rev B 114, 115166 (2021)

    2021

  55. [62]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Franchi, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Phase diagram and Higgs phases of 3D lattice SU( Nc) gauge theories with multiparameter scalar potentials, Phys. Rev. E 104, 064111 (2021)

    2021

  56. [63]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Critical behav- iors of lattice U(1) gauge models and three-dimensional 11 Abelian-Higgs gauge field theory, Phys. Rev. B 105, 085112 (2022)

    2022

  57. [64]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Multicritical point of the three-dimensional Z 2 gauge Higgs model, Phys. Rev. B 105, 165138 (2022)

    2022

  58. [65]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Gauge fixing and gauge correlations in noncompact Abelian gauge models, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014517 (2023)

    2023

  59. [66]

    Bracci-Testasecca and A

    G. Bracci-Testasecca and A. Pelissetto, Multicompo- nent gauge-Higgs models with discrete Abelian gauge groups, J. Stat. Mech. 04, 043101 (2023)

    2023

  60. [67]

    Bonati and N

    C. Bonati and N. Francini, Noncompact lattice Higgs model with Abelian discrete gauge groups: Phase dia- gram and gauge symmetry enlargement, Phys. Rev. B 107, 035106 (2023)

    2023

  61. [68]

    Zhang, Z

    Y.-H. Zhang, Z. Zhu, and A. Vishwanath, XY ∗ transi- tion and extraordinary boundary criticality from frac- tional exciton condensation in quantum hall bilayer, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031023 (2023)

    2023

  62. [69]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Coulomb-Higgs phase transition of three-dimensional lattice Abelian Higgs gauge models with noncompact gauge variables and gauge fixing Phys. Rev. E 108, 044125 (2023)

    2023

  63. [70]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Abelian Higgs gauge theories with multicomponent scalar fields and multiparameter scalar potentials, Phys. Rev. B 108, 245154 (2023)

    2023

  64. [71]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Three- dimensional Z2-gauge N -vector models, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235121 (2024)

    2024

  65. [72]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, E. Vicari, Uncovering criti- cal vector order-parameter correlations by a stochastic gauge fixing at O(N )∗ and Ising∗ continuous transitions, Phys. Rev. B 110, 125109 (2024)

    2024

  66. [73]

    W.-T. Xu, F. Pollmann, and M. Knap, Critical behavior of the Fredenhagen-Marcu order parameter at topolog- ical phase transitions, arXiv:2402.00127

    arXiv

  67. [74]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Deconfinement transitions in three-dimensional compact lattice Abelian Higgs models with multiple-charge scalar fields, Phys. Rev. E 109, 044146 (2024)

    2024

  68. [75]

    Landau-star

    P. Serna, A. M. Somoza, and A. Nahum, Worldsheet patching, 1-form symmetries, and “Landau-star” phase transitions, arXiv:2403.04025

    arXiv

  69. [76]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Diverse univer- sality classes of the topological deconfinement transi- tions of three-dimensional noncompact lattice Abelian- Higgs models, Phys. Rev. D 109, 034517 (2024)

    2024

  70. [77]

    Bonati, A

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, I. Soler Calero, E. Vicari, Charged critical behavior and nonperturbative contin- uum limit of three-dimensional lattice SU( Nc) gauge Higgs models, Phys. Rev. D 110, 094504 (2024)

    2024

  71. [78]

    Ma, Modern theory of critical phenomena , Rout- ledge Editor (New York, 2001)

    S.-k. Ma, Modern theory of critical phenomena , Rout- ledge Editor (New York, 2001)

    2001

  72. [79]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  73. [80]

    Folk and G

    R. Folk and G. Moser, Critical dynamics: A field- theoretical approach, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, R207 (2006)

    2006

  74. [81]

    Ben-Av, D

    R. Ben-Av, D. Kandel, E. Katznelson, P. G. Lauwers, and S. Solomon, Critical acceleration of lattice gauge simulations. Journal of Stat. Phys. 58, 125 (1990)

    1990

  75. [83]

    Dudka, R

    M. Dudka, R. Folk, and G. Moser, Gauge dependence of the critical dynamics at the superconducting phase transition, Cond. Matter Phys. 10, 189 (2007)

    2007

  76. [84]

    Lennert, S

    C. Lennert, S. Vishveshwara, and M. P. A. Fisher, Critical Dynamics of Superconductors in the Charged Regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 097004 (2004)

    2004

  77. [85]

    G. J. Stephens, L. M. A. Bettencourt, and W. H. Zurek, Critical Dynamics of Gauge Systems: Spontaneous Vor- tex Formation in 2D Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 137004 (2002)

    2002

  78. [86]

    V. Aji, N. Goldenfeld, Critical Dynamics of a Vortex- Loop Model for the Superconducting Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 197003 (2001)

    2001

  79. [87]

    L. M. Jensen, B. J. Kim, and P. Minnhagen, Dynamic critical exponent of two-, three-, and four-dimensional XY models with relaxational and resistively shunted junction dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 61, 15412 (2000)

    2000

  80. [88]

    Lidmar, M

    J. Lidmar, M. Wallin, C. Wengel, S. M. Girvin, and A. P. Young, Dynamical universality classes of the su- perconducting phase transition, Phys. Rev. B 58, 1827 (1998)

    1998

  81. [89]

    Weber and H

    H. Weber and H. J. Jensen, Monte Carlo Calculation of the Linear Resistance of a Three Dimensional Lattice superconductor Model in the London Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2620 (1997)

    1997

  82. [90]

    F. Liu, M. Mondello, and N. Goldenfeld, Kinetics of the Superconducting Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 3071 (1991)

    1991

  83. [91]

    Rajagopal and F

    K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, Static and dynamic criti- cal phenomena at a second order QCD phase transition, Nucl. Phys. B 399, 395 (1993)

    1993

  84. [92]

    Parisi and Y.-S

    G. Parisi and Y.-S. Wu, Perturbation theory without gauge fixing, Sci. Sin. 24, 483 (1981)

    1981

  85. [93]

    Zwanziger, Covariant quantization of gauge fields without Gribov ambiguity, Nucl

    D. Zwanziger, Covariant quantization of gauge fields without Gribov ambiguity, Nucl. Phys. B 192, 259 (1981)

    1981

  86. [94]

    Floratos and J

    E. Floratos and J. Iliopoulos, Equivalence of stochas- tic and canonical quantization in perturbation theory, Nucl. Phys. B 214, 392 (1982)

    1982

  87. [95]

    Nakazato, M

    H. Nakazato, M. Namiki, I. Ohba, and K. Okano, Equiv- alence of stochastic quantization method to conven- tional field theories through super transformation in- variance, Prog. Theor. Phys. 70, 298 (1983)

    1983

  88. [96]

    Zinn-Justin, Renormalization and stochastic quanti- zation, Nucl

    J. Zinn-Justin, Renormalization and stochastic quanti- zation, Nucl. Phys. B 275, 135 (1986)

    1986

  89. [97]

    Zinn-Justin and D

    J. Zinn-Justin and D. Zwanziger, Ward identities for the stochastic quantization of gauge fields, Nucl. Phys. B 295, 297 (1988)

    1988

  90. [98]

    Binder, Monte Carlo investigations of phase tran- sitions and critical phenomena

    K. Binder, Monte Carlo investigations of phase tran- sitions and critical phenomena. Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena , Domb, C. & Green, M. S. (eds.) vol. 5b, 1 (Academic Press, London, 1976)

    1976

  91. [99]

    Hasenbusch, The dynamic critical exponent z of the three-dimensional Ising universality class: Monte Carlo simulations of the improved Blume-Capel model, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, The dynamic critical exponent z of the three-dimensional Ising universality class: Monte Carlo simulations of the improved Blume-Capel model, Phys. Rev. E 101, 022126 (2020)

    2020

  92. [100]

    Savit, Duality in Field Theory and Statistical Sys- tems, Rev

    R. Savit, Duality in Field Theory and Statistical Sys- tems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 453 (1980)

    1980

  93. [101]

    F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Precision islands in the Ising and O(N ) models, J. High Energy Phys. JHEP 08 (2016) 036

    2016

  94. [102]

    Hasenbusch, Restoring isotropy in a three- dimensional lattice model: The Ising universality class, 12 Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, Restoring isotropy in a three- dimensional lattice model: The Ising universality class, 12 Phys. Rev. B 104, 014426 (2021)

    2021

  95. [103]

    A. M. Ferrenberg, J. Xu, and D. P. Landau, Pushing the limits of Monte Carlo simulations for the three- dimensional Ising model, Phys. Rev. E 97, 043301 (2018)

    2018

  96. [104]

    M. V. Kompaniets and E. Panzer, Minimally subtracted six-loop renormalization of ϕ4-symmetric theory and critical exponents, Phys. Rev. D 96, 036016 (2017)

    2017

  97. [105]

    Hasenbusch, Finite-size scaling study of lattice mod- els in the three-dimensional Ising universality class, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, Finite-size scaling study of lattice mod- els in the three-dimensional Ising universality class, Phys. Rev. B 82, 174433 (2010)

    2010

  98. [106]

    Campostrini, A

    M. Campostrini, A. Pelissetto, P. Rossi, and E. Vicari, 25th order high-temperature expansion results for three- dimensional Ising-like systems on the simple cubic lat- tice, Phys. Rev. E 65, 066127 (2002)

    2002

  99. [107]

    Guida and J

    R. Guida and J. Zinn-Justin, Critical exponents of the N -vector model, J. Phys. A 31, 8103 (1998)

    1998

  100. [108]

    Campostrini, M

    M. Campostrini, M. Hasenbusch, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Theoretical estimates of the critical exponents of the superfluid transition in 4He by lattice methods, Phys. Rev. B 74, 144506 (2006)

    2006

  101. [109]

    Hasenbusch, Monte Carlo study of an improved clock model in three dimensions, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, Monte Carlo study of an improved clock model in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 100, 224517 (2019)

    2019

  102. [110]

    S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi, Carving out OPE space and precise O(2) model critical exponents, J. High Energy Phys. 06, 142 (2020)

    2020

  103. [111]

    Hasenbusch, A

    M. Hasenbusch, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Relax- ational dynamics in 3D randomly dilute Ising models, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2007) P11009

    2007

  104. [112]

    N. V. Antonov and A. N. Vasilev, Critical dynamics as a field theory, Theor. Math. Phys. 60, 671 (1984)

    1984

  105. [113]

    P. C. Hohenberg, B. I. Halperin, and S.-K. Ma, Cal- culation of Dynamic Critical Properties using Wilson’s Expansion Methods, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 1548 (1972)

    1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.