On the equation of state of U(1) lattice gauge theory in three dimensions

Alessandro Mariani; Antonio Smecca; Marco Panero; Michele Caselle

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 79 references

On the equation of state of U(1) lattice gauge theory in three dimensions

T0 review · 3 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 The confining phase of 3D compact U(1) gauge theory is a single massive state, not a Hagedorn tower.

desk verdict First EoS for 3D compact U(1) with a clean parameter-free single-state test; the deconfined claim hinges on a suspect beta_c and needs a sensitivity check. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16185 v2 pith:2TKU3Q5Q submitted 2025-01-27 hep-lat hep-th

Michele Caselle , Alessandro Mariani , Marco Panero , Antonio Smecca This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-lathep-th

keywords compactU(1)gaugetheorylatticeequationofstateHagedornspectrumStefan-BoltzmannlimitdeconfinementmassivephotonPolyakovloop

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 uses lattice Monte Carlo simulations to extract the equation of state of three-dimensional compact U(1) gauge theory and reads the result as a probe of the particle spectrum. Below the deconfinement temperature, the pressure is consistent with a gas of a single massive state whose mass matches the lightest massive photon found in earlier spectroscopy, with no sign of the exponentially growing tower of states (a Hagedorn spectrum) seen in non-Abelian gauge theories. Above the transition, the pressure saturates the Stefan-Boltzmann value almost immediately, as expected for a free photon gas with one transverse polarization. If correct, the theory's thermodynamics is essentially trivial on both sides of the transition: one confining state below, one massless state above.

What carries the argument

Three ingredients carry the argument: the integral method expressing the pressure as $p(T)/T^3 = 3N_t^3 \int_0^{\beta(T)} d\beta'\,[\langle U_p(T)\rangle - \langle U_p(0)\rangle]$; the hadron-gas formula for a massive state in two spatial dimensions, $p(T)/T^3 = 2\,(M/(2\pi T))^{3/2} \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-3/2} K_{3/2}(nM/T)$; and the finite-$N_t$ free-photon formula whose leading term is the Stefan-Boltzmann value. The temperature axis in the comparison plots is set by estimating $\beta_c$ from the peak of the Polyakov-loop susceptibility on the largest simulated lattice without an infinite-volume extrapolation.

What would settle it

Run the same pressure measurement with the thermodynamic-limit βc (e.g., from second-moment correlation-length scaling on much larger lattices, as in ref. [18]) and re-plot p/$T^{3}$ versus T/Tc; if the data no longer follows the single-state curve below Tc or the free-photon curve above, the central claim fails. A direct spectral check would also work: resolve any state heavier than the massive photon; a state light enough to contribute to the pressure below Tc would disprove the single-state picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the equilibrium thermodynamics of 3D compact U(1) lattice gauge theory is fully accounted for by the minimal spectrum. In the confining phase, $p/T^3$ follows the curve for a single massive degree of freedom with mass $m_{0^{--}}=1/\lambda_D$ taken from ref. [13]; in the deconfined phase, it reaches the free-photon Stefan-Boltzmann value $p/T^3=\zeta(3)/(2\pi)$ already for $T\gtrsim 1.2\,T_c$. The authors take this as a disproof of a Hagedorn-like spectral density and as evidence against genuinely independent heavier glueball-like states in the spectrum. They contrast this behavior with SU($N$) Yang-Mills theories, where a rich glueball spectrum and non-perturbative plasma effects make the approach to the Stefan-Boltzmann limit slow.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison relies on estimating the critical coupling βc from the peak of the Polyakov-loop susceptibility on finite lattices without extrapolating to infinite volume; if the thermodynamic βc is significantly different (as earlier dual-formulation work suggests for Nt=8), the horizontal temperature scale in the comparison plots shifts and the quantitative agreement could weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Below $T_c$, the pressure curve is reproduced by one massive state, so any heavier states must be too massive or too weakly coupled to affect thermodynamics.
Above $T_c$, the fast saturation to the Stefan-Boltzmann limit means the deconfined plasma is essentially an ideal gas of massless photons with no magnetic screening.
The equation of state can serve as a spectral diagnostic: thermodynamic data constrain the particle content in regimes where direct spectroscopy is numerically prohibitive.
In every continuum limit of this theory, a linearly confining phase with glueball-like bound states does not survive; confinement properties are tied to the finite lattice spacing.
The contrast with SU($N$) Yang-Mills, which has a Hagedorn spectrum and slow approach to the Stefan-Boltzmann limit, shows that confinement does not by itself imply a rich glueball spectrum.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the same pressure-as-spectroscopy strategy could be applied to other theories with suspected trivial spectra, such as four-dimensional compact QED at strong coupling, where direct glueball spectroscopy is harder and the first-order transition blocks a continuum limit.
Editorial extension: the qualitative no-Hagedorn-tower conclusion is likely robust to the $\beta_c$ ambiguity, but the quantitative statement that the single-state curve fits within uncertainties is not; a dual-formulation calculation of the pressure with an extrapolated $\beta_c$ would settle the quantitative version.
Editorial extension: if confirmed, the result sharpens the distinction between Abelian and non-Abelian confinement and suggests that effective low-energy descriptions of U(1) spin liquids should contain a single massive photon-like mode rather than a tower of gauge-neutral bound states.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the genuinely new piece: this is the first Monte Carlo equation of state for 3D compact U(1). The comparison in the confining phase is a real test, because the mass comes from Athenodorou and Teper's independent spectrum calculation, and there are no fit parameters. That part convinced me.

The confined-phase agreement is also robust to the beta_c problem you might worry about. Changing beta_c rescales the horizontal axis in figures 2-4, but data and the single-state curve both rescale together, since both are functions of beta. So the claim that one state explains the low-temperature pressure survives even large shifts.

The soft spot is the high-temperature side. The beta_c values in table 1 come from susceptibility peaks on finite volumes, without infinite-volume extrapolation. For Nt=8 the paper's beta_c is 2.55(1), while ref [18], using the dual formulation on much larger lattices, reports about 5.6. If that is right, the Nt=8 data never cross Tc—the simulated beta range stops near 4—so the "Stefan-Boltzmann immediately above Tc" statement is untested on the finest lattice, and the absence of a Hagedorn rise is not demonstrated, because the data never approach the true transition from below. The authors say they don't expect a qualitative change, but that's an assertion; the quantity in question is exactly what controls whether the deconfined region is probed.

It's a fixable issue. A dedicated finite-size scaling for beta_c, or a sensitivity analysis showing the conclusions under a range of beta_c, would settle it. I'd also ask for the numerical data tables and the zero-temperature subtraction details; they are standard but missing.

Overall, this is a solid lattice calculation with one genuinely new observable and a clean parameter-free test for the spectrum. The deconfined-phase conclusion is plausible but not yet established. Send it to a good referee; the authors are clearly capable of addressing the calibration issue. I'd cite it for the confined-phase result.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a lattice Monte Carlo determination of the pressure of three-dimensional compact U(1) gauge theory at finite temperature, using the integral method on Nt=4, 6, and 8 lattices. In the confined phase, the authors compare p/T^3 with the prediction of a single massive state whose mass is taken from the independent spectrum study of ref. [13]; in the deconfined phase they compare with the free-photon gas expectation including finite-Nt corrections. They report agreement with the single-state curve and with the Stefan-Boltzmann value immediately above Tc, and interpret this as evidence against a Hagedorn-like spectral density and for the absence of independent heavier states. They also discuss the inequivalent continuum limits of the theory.

Significance. The significance of the result, if correct, is substantial: it would provide a sharp constraint on the spectrum of 3D compact U(1) and a quantitative contrast with the thermodynamics of non-Abelian gauge theories. The central comparison in Figure 3 is parameter-free in the sense that the mass input comes from the independent group of ref. [13], and the saturation of the free-photon value in the main plot of Figure 2 is visually clear. The manuscript is honest about the limitations of its beta_c estimates, but the discussion in Section 4 underestimates how severely those limitations bear on the deconfined-phase and Hagedorn conclusions.

major comments (3)

[Section 3 (Table 1) and Section 4] The values of beta_c used to set the T/Tc axis are obtained from the peak of the Polyakov-loop susceptibility on a single finite volume (the largest simulated) with no infinite-volume extrapolation. The manuscript itself notes in Section 4 that ref. [18] found beta_c ~ 5.6 for Nt=8 on lattices up to Ns=512, compared with 2.55(1) used here. Since the simulated beta range for Nt=8 extends only to beta ~ 4, if the true beta_c is ~ 5.6 then all Nt=8 data lie in the confined phase. The conclusions that p/T^3 reaches the Stefan-Boltzmann limit immediately above Tc and that no Hagedorn-like rise is present would then not be tested by the finest lattice. The statement in Section 4 that a refined beta_c would not modify the qualitative picture is unsupported: beta_c is precisely the quantity that determines whether the data probe the deconfined region. This is a load-bearing uncertainty for two of the paper's central claims.
[Section 3 (inset of Figure 2 and Figure 3)] Even if one retains the finite-volume beta_c values, the T/Tc rescaling is a source of systematic uncertainty that should be propagated. A shift in beta_c horizontally rescales all data and the single-state curve; the confined-phase comparison may be partially resilient, but the deconfined-phase and spectral-density conclusions are not invariant under such a shift. The authors should provide a robustness check using alternative beta_c determinations (for example the value from ref. [18]) or estimate the resulting systematic error on T/Tc and show that the conclusions survive.
[Section 3 (around Figure 3)] The claim of disproving a Hagedorn-like spectral density is stronger than what the data can support given the limited coverage of T/Tc close to the transition. If the beta_c uncertainty is resolved in the direction suggested by ref. [18], no data point for Nt=8 would be near the true Tc from below, and a Hagedorn rise beginning at, say, T/Tc > 0.9 could not be excluded. The paper should quantify the range of T/Tc actually probed and, if possible, give a bound on the Hagedorn temperature or on the strength of any additional spectral contribution.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2 (eq. 2.10)] The zero-temperature subtraction <Up(0)> is not accompanied by a specification of the lattices used for the zero-temperature ensembles (spatial extent and whether Nt was taken equal to Ns); this should be stated for reproducibility.
[Section 3 (Table 1 caption)] The table caption says the beta_c values correspond to the peak of the Polyakov-loop susceptibility for the largest spatial size considered, but it would help to state explicitly that these are not infinite-volume extrapolations, as the text does; consider adding a footnote in the table caption.
[Section 4] The phrase 'in none of them does a phase with a linearly confining potential survive' is somewhat terse; a sentence explaining that in the lambda_D-fixed limit the string tension diverges, and in the sigma-fixed limit the linear regime is pushed to infinite distance, would improve readability.
[Title/Abstract] The header on page 1 has a typographical artifact ('ofU(1)' without a space); the journal version should fix it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central pressure comparisons are parameter-free tests against an independent mass input and absolute Stefan–Boltzmann values.

full rationale

The paper's main confined-phase comparison is a genuine, parameter-free prediction: the pressure p/T^3 is obtained from plaquette measurements via the integral method (eq. 2.10), while the single-state curve is built from eq. (2.13) using the lightest mass determined in ref. [13] by Athenodorou and Teper, an independent group, and the scale-setting relation also taken from ref. [13]. No parameter is fitted to make the data match that curve; the beta_c values in Table 1 are measured from the Polyakov-loop susceptibility peak, not tuned to the pressure. Similarly, the deconfined-phase comparison is against the absolute Stefan–Boltzmann value eq. (2.11) and the finite-Nt corrections eq. (2.12), so agreement is a real test. Eq. (2.13) is attributed to the authors' earlier ref. [36], but it is a standard ideal-gas formula in two spatial dimensions; the physics input is the independent mass, not an unverified self-cited assumption. The acknowledged finite-volume uncertainty in beta_c, discussed in Section 4 with ref. [18] reporting a substantially larger beta_c for Nt = 8, is a legitimate systematic-error concern that could shift the T/Tc axis, but it does not make the derivation circular: beta_c enters as a measured normalization rather than as a parameter chosen to reproduce p/T^3. No step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper itself introduces no invented entities. The main inputs are the measured beta_c values (finite-volume estimates) and the external spectrum and scale-setting results from ref [13]. The zero-temperature subtraction is not specified, which is a missing baseline rather than a free parameter.

free parameters (3)

beta_c for Nt=4 = 2.11(1)
From a Gaussian fit to the Polyakov-loop susceptibility peak on the largest volume (Ns=80). Used to define T_c and the T/T_c axis in figures 2-4. No infinite-volume extrapolation was performed.
beta_c for Nt=6 = 2.35(5)
From a Gaussian fit to the Polyakov-loop susceptibility peak on the largest volume (Ns=80). Used to define T_c and the T/T_c axis in figures 2-4. No infinite-volume extrapolation was performed.
beta_c for Nt=8 = 2.55(1)
From a Gaussian fit to the Polyakov-loop susceptibility peak on the largest volume (Ns=104). Used to define T_c and the T/T_c axis in figures 2-4. No infinite-volume extrapolation was performed; Section 4 notes that ref. [18] found a significantly larger beta_c in the dual formulation, indicating slow thermodynamic-limit convergence.

assumptions (6)

standard math The integral method relation p/T^3 = 3 Nt^3 ∫ dβ (⟨Up(T)⟩ - ⟨Up(0)⟩) is exact for the pressure in the thermodynamic limit.
Standard lattice thermodynamics identity, eq (2.10).
standard math The hadron-gas formula eq (2.13) gives the pressure of a single massive degree of freedom in two spatial dimensions.
From ref [36], used as the model for the confining phase.
standard math The free-photon gas formula eq (2.12) with finite-Nt corrections gives the Stefan-Boltzmann limit.
From ref [43], used as the model for the deconfined phase.
domain assumption The lightest state mass and the scale-setting relation from ref [13] (m_{0--} = 1/lambda_D and eq (4.5)) are correct and can be used to set the lattice spacing and to predict the pressure.
The entire single-state comparison in figure 3 uses these as external inputs. They come from a different group, so not self-citation, but the validity of the paper's central claim depends on their accuracy.
domain assumption The deconfinement transition is in the Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class and the finite-volume beta_c used here is a sufficient estimate of the critical coupling.
The paper itself flags in Section 4 that the extrapolation to infinite volume is non-trivial and cites ref [18] finding a significantly larger beta_c for Nt=8 in the dual formulation. This is the weakest load-bearing assumption.
domain assumption The weighted average of the plaquette from the largest three volumes represents the infinite-volume limit for this ultra-local quantity.
Stated in Section 3; used for all pressure data.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the equation of state of U(1) lattice gauge theory in three dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TKU3Q5Q

@misc{pith2026250116185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the equation of state of U(1) lattice gauge theory in three dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TKU3Q5Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16185}
}

read the original abstract

We study the equation of state of three-dimensional compact U(1) gauge theory on the lattice by means of numerical simulations, and discuss the implications of our results for the spectrum of the theory, in connection with previous results from the literature. We also compare our findings to the case of non-Abelian gauge theories and comment on the continuum limit.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[18]

Deconfinement and universality in the 3D U(1) lattice gauge theory at finite temperature: study in the dual formulation

O. Borisenko, V. Chelnokov, M. Gravina and A. Papa, Deconfinement and universality in the 3D U(1) lattice gauge theory at finite temperature: study in the dual formulation , JHEP 09 (2015) 062, [ 1507.00833]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[13]

Athenodorou and M

A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, On the spectrum and string tension of U(1) lattice gauge theory in 2+1 dimensions , JHEP 01 (2019) 063, [ 1811.06280]

arXiv 2019
[1]

A. M. Polyakov, Quark Confinement and Topology of Gauge Groups , Nucl. Phys. B120 (1977) 429–458

work page 1977
[2]

G¨ opfert and G

M. G¨ opfert and G. Mack,Iterated Mayer expansion for classical gases at low temperatures , Commun. Math. Phys. 81 (1981) 97–126

work page 1981
[3]

G¨ opfert and G

M. G¨ opfert and G. Mack,Proof of Confinement of Static Quarks in Three-Dimensional U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory for All Values of the Coupling Constant , Commun. Math. Phys. 82 (1981) 545

work page 1981
[4]

Banks, R

T. Banks, R. Myerson and J. B. Kogut, Phase Transitions in Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B129 (1977) 493. – 12 –

work page 1977
[5]

V. F. M¨ uller and W. R¨ uhl,Discrete Field Variables, the Coulomb Gas, and Low Temperature Behavior, Z. Phys. C 9 (1981) 261

work page 1981
[6]

Aharony, N

O. Aharony, N. Barel and T. Sheaffer, Effective Strings in QED 3, JHEP 03 (2025) 143, [2412.01313]

arXiv 2025

Show all 79 references

[7]

Karliner and G

M. Karliner and G. Mack, Mass Gap and String Tension in QED Comparison of Theory With Monte Carlo Simulation , Nucl. Phys. B225 (1983) 371–376

1983
[8]

R. J. Wensley and J. D. Stack, Monopoles and Confinement in Three-dimensions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989) 1764

1989
[9]

M. Loan, M. Brunner, C. Sloggett and C. Hamer, Path integral Monte Carlo approach to the U(1) lattice gauge theory in (2+1)-dimensions , Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 034504, [hep-lat/0209159]

2003 arXiv
[10]

Azcoiti, E

V. Azcoiti, E. Follana, A. Vaquero and G. Di Carlo, Geometric Algorithm for Abelian-Gauge Models, JHEP 08 (2009) 008, [ 0905.0639]

2009 arXiv
[11]

Caselle, M

M. Caselle, M. Panero, R. Pellegrini and D. Vadacchino, A different kind of string , JHEP 1501 (2015) 105, [ 1406.5127]

2015 arXiv
[12]

Caselle, M

M. Caselle, M. Panero and D. Vadacchino, Width of the flux tube in compact U(1) gauge theory in three dimensions , JHEP 1602 (2016) 180, [ 1601.07455]

2016 arXiv
[14]

P. D. Coddington, A. J. G. Hey, A. A. Middleton and J. S. Townsend, The Deconfining Transition for Finite Temperature U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory in (2+1)-dimensions , Phys. Lett. B175 (1986) 64–68

1986
[15]

M. N. Chernodub, E.-M. Ilgenfritz and A. Schiller, A Lattice study of 3-D compact QED at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 054507, [ hep-lat/0105021]

2001 arXiv
[16]

Borisenko, M

O. Borisenko, M. Gravina and A. Papa, Critical behavior of the compact 3d U(1) theory in the limit of zero spatial coupling , J. Stat. Mech. 0808 (2008) P08009, [ 0806.2081]

2008 arXiv
[17]

Borisenko, R

O. Borisenko, R. Fiore, M. Gravina and A. Papa, Critical behavior of the compact 3d U(1) gauge theory on isotropic lattices , J. Stat. Mech. 1004 (2010) P04015, [ 1001.4979]

2010 arXiv
[19]

Caselle, A

M. Caselle, A. Nada, M. Panero and D. Vadacchino, Conformal field theory and the hot phase of three-dimensional U(1) gauge theory , JHEP 05 (2019) 068, [ 1903.00491]

2019 arXiv
[20]

Read and S

N. Read and S. Sachdev, Spin-Peierls, valence-bond solid, and N´ eel ground states of low-dimensional quantum antiferromagnets , Phys. Rev. B 42 (1990) 4568–4589

1990
[21]

Hermele, M

M. Hermele, M. P. A. Fisher and L. Balents, Pyrochlore photons: The U (1) spin liquid in a S = 12 three-dimensional frustrated magnet, Phys. Rev. B 69 (2004) 064404, [cond-mat/0305401]

2004 arXiv
[22]

Takashima, I

S. Takashima, I. Ichinose and T. Matsui, Deconfinement of spinons on critical points: Multi-flavor CP 1 + U(1) lattice gauge theory in three dimensions , Phys. Rev. B 73 (2006) 075119, [cond-mat/0511107]. – 13 –

2006 arXiv
[23]

E. H. Fradkin, Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics , vol. 82. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2, 2013

2013
[24]

Moessner and J

R. Moessner and J. E. Moore, Topological phases of matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021

2021
[25]

Padmanath, Hadron Spectroscopy and Resonances: Review , PoS LA TTICE2018(2018) 013, [1905.09651]

M. Padmanath, Hadron Spectroscopy and Resonances: Review , PoS LA TTICE2018(2018) 013, [1905.09651]

2018 arXiv
[26]

Vadacchino, A review on Glueball hunting , in 39th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, 5, 2023, 2305.04869

D. Vadacchino, A review on Glueball hunting , in 39th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, 5, 2023, 2305.04869

2023 arXiv
[27]

Michael, Adjoint Sources in Lattice Gauge Theory , Nucl

C. Michael, Adjoint Sources in Lattice Gauge Theory , Nucl. Phys. B 259 (1985) 58–76

1985
[28]

Blossier, M

B. Blossier, M. Della Morte, G. von Hippel, T. Mendes and R. Sommer, On the generalized eigenvalue method for energies and matrix elements in lattice field theory , JHEP 04 (2009) 094, [0902.1265]

2009 arXiv
[29]

Hagedorn, Statistical thermodynamics of strong interactions at high-energies , Nuovo Cim

R. Hagedorn, Statistical thermodynamics of strong interactions at high-energies , Nuovo Cim. Suppl. 3 (1965) 147–186

1965
[30]

Hagedorn and J

R. Hagedorn and J. Rafelski, Hot Hadronic Matter and Nuclear Collisions , Phys. Lett. B97 (1980) 136

1980
[31]

Hagedorn, How We Got to QCD Matter from the Hadron Side: 1984 , Lect

R. Hagedorn, How We Got to QCD Matter from the Hadron Side: 1984 , Lect. Notes Phys. 221 (1985) 53–76

1985
[32]

Fiore, R

R. Fiore, R. Hagedorn and F. d’Isep, Statistical Bootstrap Model and Phase Transition From Hadron Matter to Quark Gluon Plasma , Nuovo Cim. A88 (1985) 301

1985
[33]

Cleymans and H

J. Cleymans and H. Satz, Thermal hadron production in high-energy heavy ion collisions , Z. Phys. C57 (1993) 135–148, [ hep-ph/9207204]

1993 arXiv
[34]

Wheaton, J

S. Wheaton, J. Cleymans and M. Hauer, THERMUS: A Thermal model package for ROOT , Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 84–106, [ hep-ph/0407174]

2009 arXiv
[35]

H. B. Meyer, High-Precision Thermodynamics and Hagedorn Density of States , Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 051502, [ 0905.4229]

2009 arXiv
[36]

Caselle, L

M. Caselle, L. Castagnini, A. Feo, F. Gliozzi and M. Panero, Thermodynamics of SU(N) Yang-Mills theories in 2+1 dimensions I – The confining phase , JHEP 1106 (2011) 142, [1105.0359]

2011 arXiv
[37]

Bors´ anyi, G

S. Bors´ anyi, G. Endr˝ odi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz and K. K. Szab´ o,Precision SU(3) lattice thermodynamics for a large temperature range , JHEP 1207 (2012) 056, [ 1204.6184]

2012 arXiv
[38]

Caselle, A

M. Caselle, A. Nada and M. Panero, Hagedorn spectrum and thermodynamics of SU(2) and SU(3) Yang-Mills theories , JHEP 07 (2015) 143, [ 1505.01106]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 016 (2017)]

2015 arXiv
[39]

Aharony and Z

O. Aharony and Z. Komargodski, The Effective Theory of Long Strings , JHEP 1305 (2013) 118, [1302.6257]

2013 arXiv
[40]

Caselle, Effective String Description of the Confining Flux Tube at Finite Temperature , Universe 7 (2021) 170, [ 2104.10486]

M. Caselle, Effective String Description of the Confining Flux Tube at Finite Temperature , Universe 7 (2021) 170, [ 2104.10486]

2021 arXiv
[41]

G. Boyd, J. Engels, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, C. Legeland et al., Thermodynamics of SU(3) lattice gauge theory , Nucl. Phys. B469 (1996) 419–444, [ hep-lat/9602007]. – 14 –

1996 arXiv
[42]

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
[43]

Caselle, L

M. Caselle, L. Castagnini, A. Feo, F. Gliozzi, U. G¨ ursoy et al., Thermodynamics of SU(N) Yang-Mills theories in 2+1 dimensions II – The deconfined phase , JHEP 1205 (2012) 135, [1111.0580]

2012 arXiv
[44]

Bruno, M

M. Bruno, M. Caselle, M. Panero and R. Pellegrini, Exceptional thermodynamics: The equation of state of G 2 gauge theory, JHEP 1503 (2015) 057, [ 1409.8305]

2015 arXiv
[45]

Kitazawa, T

M. Kitazawa, T. Iritani, M. Asakawa, T. Hatsuda and H. Suzuki, Equation of State for SU(3) Gauge Theory via the Energy-Momentum Tensor under Gradient Flow , Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 114512, [ 1610.07810]

2016 arXiv
[46]

Giusti and M

L. Giusti and M. Pepe, Equation of state of the SU( 3) Yang-Mills theory: a precise determination from a moving frame , Phys. Lett. B769 (2017) 385–390, [ 1612.00265]

2017 arXiv
[47]

Caselle, A

M. Caselle, A. Nada and M. Panero, QCD thermodynamics from lattice calculations with non-equilibrium methods: The SU(3) equation of state , Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 054513, [1801.03110]

2018 arXiv
[48]

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
[49]

D. J. Gross, R. D. Pisarski and L. G. Yaffe, QCD and Instantons at Finite Temperature , Rev. Mod. Phys. 53 (1981) 43

1981
[50]

K. G. Wilson, Confinement of Quarks , Phys. Rev. D10 (1974) 2445–2459

1974
[51]

Villain, Theory of one-dimensional and two-dimensional magnets with an easy magnetization plane

J. Villain, Theory of one-dimensional and two-dimensional magnets with an easy magnetization plane. 2. The Planar, classical, two-dimensional magnet , J. Phys. (France) 36 (1975) 581–590

1975
[52]

Savit, Topological Excitations in U(1) Invariant Theories , Phys

R. Savit, Topological Excitations in U(1) Invariant Theories , Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 55

1977
[53]

Glimm and A

J. Glimm and A. M. Jaffe, Instantons in a U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory: A Coulomb Dipole Gas, Commun. Math. Phys. 56 (1977) 195

1977
[54]

B. E. Baaquie, (2 + 1) -dimensional Abelian lattice gauge theory , Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 3040

1977
[55]

Isgur and J

N. Isgur and J. E. Paton, A Flux Tube Model for Hadrons in QCD , Phys. Rev. D31 (1985) 2910

1985
[56]

Svetitsky and L

B. Svetitsky and L. G. Yaffe, Critical Behavior at Finite Temperature Confinement Transitions, Nucl. Phys. B210 (1982) 423

1982
[57]

J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Ordering, metastability and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems , J. Phys. C 6 (1973) 1181–1203

1973
[58]

Engels, J

J. Engels, J. Fingberg, F. Karsch, D. Miller and M. Weber, Nonperturbative thermodynamics of SU(N) gauge theories , Phys. Lett. B252 (1990) 625–630

1990
[59]

Caselle, L

M. Caselle, L. Castagnini, A. Feo, F. Gliozzi and M. Panero, Thermodynamics of SU(N) gauge theories in 2+1 dimensions in the T < Tc regime, PoS Lattice 2010 (2010) 184, [1011.4883]

2010 arXiv
[60]

Hagedorn, Hadronic matter near the boiling point , Nuovo Cim

R. Hagedorn, Hadronic matter near the boiling point , Nuovo Cim. A56 (1968) 1027–1057

1968
[61]

A. D. Linde, Infrared Problem in Thermodynamics of the Yang-Mills Gas , Phys. Lett. B96 (1980) 289. – 15 –

1980
[62]

Appelquist and R

T. Appelquist and R. D. Pisarski, High-Temperature Yang-Mills Theories and Three-Dimensional Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 2305

1981
[63]

Braaten and R

E. Braaten and R. D. Pisarski, Soft Amplitudes in Hot Gauge Theories: A General Analysis , Nucl. Phys. B337 (1990) 569

1990
[64]

Hasenbusch, The Two dimensional XY model at the transition temperature: A High precision Monte Carlo study , J

M. Hasenbusch, The Two dimensional XY model at the transition temperature: A High precision Monte Carlo study , J. Phys. A38 (2005) 5869–5884, [ cond-mat/0502556]

2005 arXiv
[65]

A. H. Guth, Existence Proof of a Nonconfining Phase in Four-Dimensional U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 2291

1980
[66]

Fr¨ ohlich and T

J. Fr¨ ohlich and T. Spencer,Massless phases and symmetry restoration in Abelian gauge theories and spin systems , Commun. Math. Phys. 83 (1982) 411–454

1982
[67]

A. M. Polyakov, Compact Gauge Fields and the Infrared Catastrophe , Phys. Lett. B59 (1975) 82–84

1975
[68]

M. Zach, M. Faber, W. Kainz and P. Skala, Monopole currents in U(1) lattice gauge theory: A Comparison to an effective model based on dual superconductivity , Phys. Lett. B358 (1995) 325–331, [ hep-lat/9508017]

1995 arXiv
[69]

M. Zach, M. Faber and P. Skala, Investigating confinement in dually transformed U(1) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 123–131, [ hep-lat/9705019]

1998 arXiv
[70]

Vettorazzo and P

M. Vettorazzo and P. de Forcrand, Finite temperature phase transition in the 4-d compact U(1) lattice gauge theory , Phys. Lett. B 604 (2004) 82–90, [ hep-lat/0409135]

2004 arXiv
[71]

Y. Koma, M. Koma and P. Majumdar, Static potential, force, and flux tube profile in 4-D compact U(1) lattice gauge theory with the multilevel algorithm , Nucl. Phys. B692 (2004) 209–231, [hep-lat/0311016]

2004 arXiv
[72]

Panero, A Numerical study of a confined Q ¯Q system in compact U(1) lattice gauge theory in 4D , Nucl

M. Panero, A Numerical study of a confined Q ¯Q system in compact U(1) lattice gauge theory in 4D , Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 140 (2005) 665–667, [ hep-lat/0408002]

2005 arXiv
[73]

Panero, A Numerical study of confinement in compact QED , JHEP 0505 (2005) 066, [hep-lat/0503024]

M. Panero, A Numerical study of confinement in compact QED , JHEP 0505 (2005) 066, [hep-lat/0503024]

2005 arXiv
[74]

B. A. Berg and A. Bazavov, Non-Perturbative U(1) Gauge Theory at Finite Temperature , Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 094502, [ hep-lat/0605019]

2006 arXiv
[75]

Tagliacozzo, Monopole-antimonopole correlation functions in 4-D U(1) gauge theory , Phys

L. Tagliacozzo, Monopole-antimonopole correlation functions in 4-D U(1) gauge theory , Phys. Lett. B 642 (2006) 279–285, [ hep-lat/0603022]

2006 arXiv
[76]

Heinzl, A

T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, K. Langfeld, M. Lavelle, W. Lutz and D. McMullan, Probing the ground state in gauge theories , Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 054501, [ 0709.3486]

2008 arXiv
[77]

Amado, N

A. Amado, N. Cardoso and P. Bicudo, Flux tube widening in compact U(1) lattice gauge theory computed at T < Tc with the multilevel method and GPUs , 1309.3859

arXiv
[78]

Fedotov, A

A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya et al., Advances in QED with intense background fields , Phys. Rept. 1010 (2023) 1–138, [ 2203.00019]

2023 arXiv
[79]

J. S. Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization , Phys. Rev. 82 (1951) 664–679. – 16 –

1951

Pith tools

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

[1] [18]

Deconfinement and universality in the 3D U(1) lattice gauge theory at finite temperature: study in the dual formulation

O. Borisenko, V. Chelnokov, M. Gravina and A. Papa, Deconfinement and universality in the 3D U(1) lattice gauge theory at finite temperature: study in the dual formulation , JHEP 09 (2015) 062, [ 1507.00833]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015

[2] [13]

Athenodorou and M

A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, On the spectrum and string tension of U(1) lattice gauge theory in 2+1 dimensions , JHEP 01 (2019) 063, [ 1811.06280]

arXiv 2019

[3] [1]

A. M. Polyakov, Quark Confinement and Topology of Gauge Groups , Nucl. Phys. B120 (1977) 429–458

work page 1977

[4] [2]

G¨ opfert and G

M. G¨ opfert and G. Mack,Iterated Mayer expansion for classical gases at low temperatures , Commun. Math. Phys. 81 (1981) 97–126

work page 1981

[5] [3]

G¨ opfert and G

M. G¨ opfert and G. Mack,Proof of Confinement of Static Quarks in Three-Dimensional U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory for All Values of the Coupling Constant , Commun. Math. Phys. 82 (1981) 545

work page 1981

[6] [4]

Banks, R

T. Banks, R. Myerson and J. B. Kogut, Phase Transitions in Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B129 (1977) 493. – 12 –

work page 1977

[7] [5]

V. F. M¨ uller and W. R¨ uhl,Discrete Field Variables, the Coulomb Gas, and Low Temperature Behavior, Z. Phys. C 9 (1981) 261

work page 1981

[8] [6]

Aharony, N

O. Aharony, N. Barel and T. Sheaffer, Effective Strings in QED 3, JHEP 03 (2025) 143, [2412.01313]

arXiv 2025