Topological Data Analysis of Abelian Magnetic Monopoles in Gauge Theories

Biagio Lucini; Jeffrey Giansiracusa; Xavier Crean

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Topological Data Analysis of Abelian Magnetic Monopoles in Gauge Theories

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Topological data analysis of Abelian magnetic monopole currents yields a precise quantitative signal of deconfinement in lattice gauge theory.

desk verdict A solid proceedings-scale paper that transfers a published U(1) TDA pipeline to SU(3) MAG monopole currents and reproduces the known deconfinement coupling; the main caveats are an unshown precision comparison and the deferred coarse-spacing artefact check. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19320 v1 pith:XQYWT7R6 submitted 2025-01-31 hep-lat

Xavier Crean , Jeffrey Giansiracusa , Biagio Lucini This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-lat

keywords latticegaugetheorymagneticmonopolestopologicaldataanalysispersistenthomologydeconfinementphasetransitionMaximalAbelianfinite-sizescalingBettinumbers

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 argues that topological data analysis—counting holes and loops in data across scales—can turn the networks formed by magnetic monopole currents into precise quantitative probes of the deconfinement transition. For compact U(1) lattice gauge theory, the Betti numbers rho0 and rho1 (normalised counts of connected components and loops in the monopole-current graph) and their susceptibilities peak at the transition, and a finite-size scaling of the peaks reproduces the known critical coupling. The same construction is then applied to SU(3) Yang-Mills after projection to Maximal Abelian Gauge: at N_t=4 the susceptibility peaks extrapolate to beta_c=5.69236(15), consistent with the literature and, the paper claims, noticeably more precise than a conventional Polyakov-loop analysis at comparable statistics. If the signal is physical rather than artefactual, the observables would be sensitive to the degrees of freedom responsible for confinement, providing an interpretable geometric signature of the transition and a potential probe of the conjectured stringy-fluid regime in full QCD. The authors defer the decisive artefact check at finer lattice spacings to a follow-up study.

What carries the argument

The machinery is persistent homology applied to the graph of magnetic monopole currents. After gauge fixing (for SU(3), the Maximal Abelian Gauge), the DeGrand–Toussaint prescription counts Dirac strings through plaquettes and turns them into current lines on the dual lattice; current conservation forces these lines into closed loops. The paper forms the graph X_j of these loops and computes the two Betti numbers b0=dim H0(X_j), the number of connected components, and b1=dim H1(X_j), the number of independent loops, normalised by lattice volume to rho0 and rho1. The corresponding susceptibilities chi0 and chi1 are volume-normalised variances; their peaks in $\beta$ are located by histogram reweighting and extrapolated to the thermodynamic limit with finite-size scaling ansaetze (a power series in $V^{{-k}}$ for U(1), 1/$N_s^{3}$ for SU(3)). Persistent homology is introduced as the more general framework that tracks birth and death of homology classes through a filtration and would encode additional geometric information, though the numerical determination of beta_c in this paper uses the Betti-number observables.

What would settle it

Repeat the SU(3) analysis at a finer temporal spacing such as N_t=6 or 8: if the Betti-number susceptibility peaks no longer extrapolate to the accepted critical coupling for that spacing, or if the extracted value shifts substantially from 5.69236(15), the N_t=4 signal is artefact-dominated. A quicker control is to compare the same observables on configurations in which the monopole currents have been randomly relinked while preserving current conservation: the deconfinement peak should disappear if the topology carries the signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that homology of the monopole-current graph is a deconfinement order parameter: in the confined phase the network is a sparse percolating tangle with many loops (large rho1, small rho0), while in the deconfined phase it breaks into many small nearly tree-like clusters (rho0 approximately rho1), and the volume-normalised susceptibilities of both counts develop peaks whose positions scale to the known critical coupling. For SU(3) at N_t=4 the extracted beta_c agrees with the reference value 5.69236(15), with error bars for the fit reported to be smaller than those obtained from the Polyakov-loop susceptibility at the same statistics. The same observables reproduce the transition in compact U(1), where the transition is driven by monopole condensation and is known to be of percolation type.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis depends on the assumption that the pattern of magnetic current lines seen after gauge fixing on the N_t=4 lattice reflects the real deconfinement transition and is not mostly an artifact of the coarse lattice spacing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Betti-number susceptibilities chi0 and chi1 can be used as practical probes to locate the deconfinement coupling in lattice SU(3), with the reported fit giving the literature value beta_c=5.69236(15) at N_t=4 with smaller errors than a Polyakov-loop analysis at comparable statistics.
Because the observables do not require detecting currents that wrap the periodic torus, the method is expected to work on other spatial topologies, such as a discretised S^4, where wrapping loops cannot occur.
If these observables couple to the degrees of freedom controlling deconfinement, they are expected to be sensitive to the conjectured second transition from a stringy-fluid regime to the deconfined phase in full QCD.
The compact U(1) results validate the pipeline against a transition whose percolation-type mechanism is already understood, establishing a baseline for the non-Abelian extension.
The immediate next step stated by the paper is to repeat the SU(3) study at finer lattice spacings to check that the topological signal is not dominated by lattice artefacts.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the higher precision claimed for SU(3) may come from b1 encoding the wrapping and percolation content of the current network, a more collective feature than the local Polyakov loop; one could test this by splitting chi1 into wrapping and contractible-loop contributions.
Editorial inference: because N_t=4 is the coarsest spacing used, the agreement with the literature value could in principle be a cancellation between a real signal and lattice artefacts; the authors' planned finer-spacing runs would distinguish this from a genuine ordering.
Editorial inference: the same Betti-number pipeline transfers naturally to centre-vortex structures and to full QCD with dynamical quarks, offering a topology-based way to search for the conjectured extra phase transition that does not rely on conventional order parameters.

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

What you should know: the genuinely new piece is the SU(3) analysis — Betti number densities rho0, rho1 and their susceptibilities for Maximal Abelian Gauge monopole currents, with a finite-size scaling that lands on the literature value beta_c = 5.69236(15) at N_t=4. The U(1) half is a summary of the authors' own published SciPost paper, which is fine for a proceedings. The persistent homology section is explicitly deferred to a future publication, so don't judge the paper on that.

What it does well: the exposition is clear, the FSS intercepts are consistent with known physics, and the authors are honest about the lattice-artefact risk, citing Greensite–Lucini and saying the finer-spacing check is still to come. They also state that data and code are available from the authors, which matters for reproducibility.

The soft spots are real but proportionate. First, the claimed 'noticeably better precision' than the Polyakov loop is asserted in the conclusions without a direct, side-by-side comparison shown anywhere in the paper. That is a load-bearing marketing point and it needs support. Second, the whole SU(3) result rests on N_t=4 MAG monopole currents being a physical long-distance probe. Given the documented artefact contamination of Abelian monopole operators, the deferred finer-spacing check is not cosmetic; it is the check that decides whether the signal is physical. Third, for a first-order transition, any observable that responds sharply to the phase change will peak near beta_c, so agreement with the literature value alone cannot distinguish a physical monopole coupling from a generic sharp indicator. The authors do not overclaim — they say 'suggest' and 'if this is indeed the case' — but the central quantitative claim is stated more strongly than the evidence currently warrants.

For whom: lattice theorists interested in TDA observables or in monopole diagnostics of deconfinement. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. My recommendation would be a conditional acceptance in a proceedings context, asking for a direct precision comparison against the Polyakov loop and a clearer statement that the N_t=4 result is preliminary until the continuum-spacing check is done. The citation pattern and the discussion of prior work look fair to me.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This proceedings contribution introduces a topological data analysis (TDA) pipeline for magnetic monopole current networks and applies it to the deconfinement transition in compact U(1) lattice gauge theory and in SU(3) Yang-Mills at N_t=4. After a pedagogical review of persistent homology, the authors define Betti-number densities rho_0 and rho_1 and their susceptibilities chi_0 and chi_1 for monopole current graphs, computed from DeGrand-Toussaint monopole currents and, for SU(3), from currents after Maximal Abelian Gauge projection. In compact U(1) they extract pseudo-critical couplings by histogram reweighting and finite-size scaling using beta_c(L)=beta_c+sum_k B_k V^{-k}, reporting consistency with the plaquette-action estimate. In SU(3) they fit the peak positions of chi_0 and chi_1 with beta_c(N_s)=beta_c+a/N_s^3 and find intercepts consistent with the literature value beta_c=5.69236(15), claiming noticeably better precision than conventional Polyakov-loop analyses at comparable statistics. The paper defers a finer-lattice-spacing check of lattice artefacts to future work and speculates about applications to a possible stringy-fluid phase in QCD.

Significance. If validated, the approach would provide new, geometrically interpretable observables for deconfinement that are competitive at moderate statistics, and the compact U(1) study is a useful proof of concept. The paper has real strengths: the literature value of beta_c is used purely as an external benchmark and is not fitted, the U(1) sampling protocol explicitly addresses tunneling autocorrelations, and the U(1) pipeline is backed by a public code release (Ref. [61]). The significance is nevertheless conditional. The central quantitative claim for SU(3) rests on a single coarse lattice spacing, N_t=4, and the paper itself acknowledges that the known lattice-artefact contamination of MAG monopole observables (Ref. [14]) has not yet been ruled out. In addition, the advertised precision improvement over the Polyakov loop is asserted without any comparison being shown. For these reasons the current evidence supports a promising method, but not yet the full claim that the TDA observables are coupled to the physical degrees of freedom driving deconfinement.

major comments (4)

[§4.3 and Conclusions] The statement that "our approach provides noticeably better precision than the conventional analysis based on the study of the Polyakov loop and of its susceptibility" is the main quantitative selling point of the SU(3) section, but no Polyakov-loop comparison is shown. The manuscript does not give the beta_c values and errors obtained from the fits, the number of configurations used for the Polyakov loop, or the statistical procedure for the claimed comparison. Please add a table with the SU(3) FSS intercepts and errors for each fit variant, together with a direct comparison to a Polyakov-loop analysis at the same N_t, N_s, and statistics, or remove/qualify the precision claim.
[§5, Introduction, and Ref. [14]] The paper explicitly defers to future work the check that the N_t=4 results are not "significantly affected by lattice artefacts." This is not a cosmetic caveat: Ref. [14] found that conventional MAG monopole order parameters are dominated by lattice artefacts, and at a first-order transition any quantity that responds sharply to the change in lattice coupling will produce a peak near beta_c. Agreement with the literature beta_c is therefore a weak test of physical coupling. Since the central claim is that the TDA observables "capture the salient physical properties" of the transition, the manuscript should either supply an artefact-control test (for example, a distance/scale cut on currents, a different N_t, or a comparison with an observable known to be artefact-dominated) or explicitly restrict the conclusion to a statement about the behaviour of the homological observables at fixed N_t=4.
[§3.5 and §4.3] The finite-size scaling analysis is not reproducible as presented. For compact U(1), Eq. (6) introduces the truncation order k_max and coefficients B_k, but the text does not state the chosen k_max, the fitted values of B_k, the fit ranges, or the chi^2/dof for any fit. For SU(3), Eq. (16) is used without reporting the numerical intercepts, errors, or fit qualities, and Figure 7 only shows horizontal bands. Without these details, the claimed agreement with beta_c=5.69236(15) and the claimed "significant reduction of the error bars" cannot be independently assessed. Please include a table of the fit results for all fit variants and for both susceptibilities.
[§3.4 and §4.3] The normalization of rho_0, rho_1, chi_0, and chi_1 is ambiguous in the SU(3) analysis. Equations (4) and (5) define the densities with V=L^4 for the four-dimensional U(1) lattice, but for SU(3) it is not specified whether V is the spatial volume N_s^3, the full lattice volume N_s^3*N_t, or the number of dual-lattice links. This choice affects the magnitude of the plotted quantities and the interpretation of the susceptibility peak heights, and it should be stated explicitly.

minor comments (6)

[§3.4] There is a typo in "Feom the monopole currents" which should read "From the monopole currents."
[§4.3] The word "spacial" in "spacial lattice sizes" should be "spatial," and "susceptibilties" is missing an "i."
[Data and Code section] The data/code availability statement says the material is "avaialble from the authors" but does not clarify whether the SU(3) code is also released, as the U(1) code is via Ref. [61]. Please state the availability status for the SU(3) analysis.
[References] Reference [58] is incomplete: it gives no journal, volume, page, or arXiv identifier. Please complete the citation.
[§1 and §3.3] The phrase "zero-temperature deconfinement phase transition" for compact U(1) is potentially confusing, since the transition at beta about 1.011 is a bulk transition rather than a thermal deconfinement transition. Consider rewording to "bulk phase transition" or "zero-temperature transition."
[§4.2, Eqs. (14)-(15)] The phase-redistribution formula in Eq. (15) is hard to follow on first reading, particularly the role of delta_phi and the weighting by |U_ii|^{-1}. A brief explanatory sentence about how the excess phase is distributed would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the critical coupling is extracted from a free finite-size-scaling intercept and only compared with, not fitted to, the literature value; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central quantity beta_c is determined by the data, not imposed. In Section 4.3 the paper writes: "we fit their position beta_c(N_s) with the finite size linear ansatz beta_c(N_s)=beta_c + a/N_s^3, where beta_c is the deconfinement critical beta at N_t=4 and a parametrises the finite-size corrections." The intercept beta_c is a free parameter obtained from the measured susceptibility peaks; the literature value appears only afterwards as a benchmark: "We note a very good quality of the fits and an excellent agreement with the literature value beta_c=5.69236(15) (see, e.g., Ref. [72])." No parameter is adjusted to reproduce that literature value, so the agreement is a genuine cross-check, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The same applies to the compact U(1) study, where beta_c values for rho0, rho1, and the average plaquette action E are extracted independently by the same FSS procedure and agree with one another (Table 1). The only circularity-adjacent element is the self-citation of the authors' own U(1) computational pipeline: "For details on our computational pipeline, we point the reader to Refs. [23,61]" (Section 3.4). This citation is not load-bearing for the SU(3) result, because the pipeline is also described in the present paper, and the SU(3) observables are computed from fresh lattice configurations without fitting to any known transition temperature. The paper also candidly defers the lattice-artefact check: "we will first extend our SU(3) Yang-Mills study to finer lattice spacings, in order to ascertain that our approach is not significantly affected by lattice artefacts" (Section 5). That is a scientific limitation to weigh under correctness risk, not evidence of circularity; the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs.

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

The central numerical claims rest on standard lattice gauge theory ingredients: Wilson action, MCMC sampling, DeGrand-Toussaint monopole detection, MAG projection, and a first-order FSS ansatz. The only fitted quantities are the nuisance coefficients of the FSS fits. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

FSS coefficient a (SU(3))
Slope of the linear FSS ansatz in Eq (16), fitted to susceptibility peak positions for N_s = 16, 20, 24, 28, 32; the reported beta_c is the intercept of this fit.
FSS coefficients B_k (U(1))
Coefficients in the higher-order FSS ansatz Eq (6) for compact U(1); the truncation order is not specified in the text.
k_max truncation order in Eq (6)
Choice of how many terms to include in the U(1) FSS ansatz; not stated, and it affects the extrapolated beta_c.

assumptions (6)

standard math Homology and persistent homology over a field (Z/2) are well-defined and stable for the filtrations considered.
Used in Sections 2.4 to 2.6; the Stability Theorem [33] is invoked to justify robustness.
domain assumption Monopole currents defined by the DeGrand-Toussaint prescription form closed loops on the dual lattice, so their graph homology is meaningful.
Section 3.2; current conservation Delta*_rho j_rho(x)=0 guarantees closed loops, which is the basis of the Betti number observables.
domain assumption The SU(3) deconfining transition at N_t=4 is first order, so the FSS shift scales as 1/N_s^3 as in Eq (16).
Section 4.3; the fit ansatz relies on this. It is consistent with the literature, but not re-derived in the paper.
domain assumption Maximal Abelian Gauge projection identifies the physically relevant Abelian monopole degrees of freedom for confinement.
Section 4.2, following 't Hooft's proposal [5] and the MAG studies [69,71]; this is the physical premise for interpreting the SU(3) observables.
domain assumption Periodic boundary conditions on T^4 and S^1 x T^3 do not qualitatively distort the monopole network topology relevant to the transition.
Sections 3.1 and 4.1; the U(1) literature on spherical lattices [56] is cited to support that the transition persists without wrapping currents, but for the new SU(3) analysis this is assumed.
ad hoc to paper The tubular filtration in Section 3.6 is a meaningful geometric encoding of monopole current networks.
Section 3.6; the authors state the observed differences are a hypothesis and the persistent homology results are deferred to a forthcoming publication, so this does not bear on the FSS result.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topological Data Analysis of Abelian Magnetic Monopoles in Gauge Theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQYWT7R6

@misc{pith2026250119320,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topological Data Analysis of Abelian Magnetic Monopoles in Gauge Theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQYWT7R6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19320}
}

abstract

Motivated by recent literature on the possible existence of a second higher-temperature phase transition in Quantum Chromodynamics, we revisit the proposal that colour confinement is related to the dynamics of magnetic monopoles using methods of Topological Data Analysis, which provides a mathematically rigorous characterisation of topological properties of quantities defined on a lattice. After introducing persistent homology, one of the main tools in Topological Data Analysis, we shall discuss how this concept can be used to quantitatively analyse the behaviour of monopoles across the deconfinement phase transition. Our approach is first demonstrated for Compact $U(1)$ Lattice Gauge Theory, which is known to have a zero-temperature deconfinement phase transition driven by the restoration of the symmetry associated with the conservation of the magnetic charge. For this system, we perform a finite-size scaling analysis of observables capturing the homology of magnetic current loops, showing that the expected value of the deconfinement critical coupling is reproduced by our analysis. We then extend our method to $SU(3)$ gauge theory, in which Abelian magnetic monopoles are identified after projection in the Maximal Abelian Gauge. A finite-size scaling of our homological observables of Abelian magnetic current loops at temporal size $N_t = 4$ provides the expected value of the critical coupling with an accuracy that is generally higher than that obtained with conventional thermodynamic approaches at comparable statistics, hinting towards the relevance of topological properties of monopole currents for confinement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19320 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** In the 2d XY model, filling in plaquettes whose corners are nearly aligned will leave a hole around each (anti-)vortex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The Vietoris-Rips simplicial complex built from 6 points in the plane. everything except for a hole around the location of each vortex or anti-vortex. Counting holes with homology (see below in Sect. 2.4) then amounts to counting vortices! 2.3 Simplicial complexes, cubical complexes, and filtrations Methodology A requires a way of approximately reconstructing a shape from a finite set of samples. There are a few met… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The blue edges form a 1-cycle 𝑧, and the red edges form a 1-cycle 𝑧 ′ . The difference 𝑧 − 𝑧 ′ is the boundary of the sum 𝑤 of the two plaquettes in green. tree, one sees that any connected graph is homotopy equivalent to a collection of circles joined at a single point (one circle for each edge not contained in the spanning tree). Hence, for a general graph 𝑋, dim 𝐻0 (𝑋) is the number of connected components, and d… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: A barcode representation of persistent homology on the left, and a persistence diagram representation of the same peristent homology on the right. this metric. Note that a small perturbation of the positions of the points from which one builds a Vietoris-Rips complex …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The behaviour of the Betti number observables 𝜌0 (left) and 𝜌1 (right) across the deconfinement transition for a range of lattice sizes 𝐿 as indicated. Inset plots are zoom-ins of the critical region. Error bars are computed by bootstrapping with 𝑁bs = 500. on the inte…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Behaviour of 𝜒0 (left) and 𝜒1 (right) in 𝑆𝑈(3) Lattice Gauge Theory as a function of the coupling 𝛽 at 𝑁𝑡 = 4 for the indicated values of the lattice sizes. Continuous curves are obtained with a reweighting procedure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Finite-size scaling analysis for the position of the peaks of the susceptibilities 𝜒0 (left) and 𝜒1 (right) in SU(3) Lattice Gauge Theory as a function of the inverse spatial volume at 𝑁𝑡 = 4. Fits results are indicated for various choices of included lattices as the i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

[61]

Crean, J

X. Crean, J. Giansiracusa and B. Lucini,Topological Data Analysis of Monopoles in𝑈(1) Lattice Gauge Theory—Monte Carlo and analysis code release, 2024. 10.5281/zenodo.10806185

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10806185 2024
[14]

Is Confinement a Phase of Broken Dual Gauge Symmetry?

J. Greensite and B. Lucini,Is Confinement a Phase of Broken Dual Gauge Symmetry?,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 085004 [0806.2117]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[1]

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

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

arXiv 2023
[2]

Chiral symmetry restoration at finite temperature in a model with manifest confinement

L. Glozman,Chiral spin symmetry and hot/dense qcd,Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics131(2023) 104049 [2404.02606]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[3]

Hanada, H

M. Hanada, H. Ohata, H. Shimada and H. Watanabe,A New Perspective on Thermal Transition in QCD, PTEP2024(2024) 041B02 [2310.01940]

arXiv 2024
[4]

’t Hooft,On the Phase Transition Towards Permanent Quark Confinement,Nucl

G. ’t Hooft,On the Phase Transition Towards Permanent Quark Confinement,Nucl. Phys. B 138 (1978) 1

work page 1978
[5]

’t Hooft,Topology of the Gauge Condition and New Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,Nucl

G. ’t Hooft,Topology of the Gauge Condition and New Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,Nucl. Phys. B190 (1981) 455

work page 1981
[6]

Colour confinement and dual superconductivity of the vacuum - II

A. Di Giacomo, B. Lucini, L. Montesi and G. Paffuti,Color confinement and dual superconductivity of the vacuum. 2.,Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 034504 [hep-lat/9906025]

work page Pith review arXiv 2000

Show all 74 references

[7]

Di Giacomo, B

A. Di Giacomo, B. Lucini, L. Montesi and G. Paffuti,Color confinement and dual superconductivity of the vacuum. 1.,Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 034503 [hep-lat/9906024]

2000 arXiv
[8]

Carmona, M

J.M. Carmona, M. D’Elia, A. Di Giacomo, B. Lucini and G. Paffuti,Color confinement and dual superconductivity of the vacuum. 3., Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 114507 [hep-lat/0103005]

2001 arXiv
[9]

Carmona, M

J.M. Carmona, M. D’Elia, L. Del Debbio, A. Di Giacomo, B. Lucini and G. Paffuti,Color confinement and dual superconductivity in full QCD, Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 011503 [hep-lat/0205025]

2002 arXiv
[10]

Carmona, M

J.M. Carmona, M. D’Elia, L. Del Debbio, A. Di Giacomo, B. Lucini, G. Paffuti et al.,Color confinement and dual superconductivity in unquenched QCD,Nucl. Phys. A715(2003) 883 [hep-lat/0209080]

2003 arXiv
[11]

D’Elia, A

M. D’Elia, A. Di Giacomo, B. Lucini, G. Paffuti and C. Pica,Color confinement and dual superconductivity of the vacuum. IV.,Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 114502 [hep-lat/0503035]

2005 arXiv
[12]

Del Debbio, A

L. Del Debbio, A. Di Giacomo and B. Lucini,Vortices, monopoles and confinement,Nucl. Phys. B594(2001) 287 [hep-lat/0006028]

2001 arXiv
[13]

Del Debbio, A

L. Del Debbio, A. Di Giacomo and B. Lucini,Monopoles, vortices and confinement in SU(3) gauge theory,Phys. Lett. B500 (2001) 326 [hep-lat/0011048]

2001 arXiv
[15]

Olsthoorn, J

B. Olsthoorn, J. Hellsvik and A.V. Balatsky,Finding hidden order in spin models with persistent homology,Phys. Rev. Res.2(2020) 043308. 16 TDA of Abelian Magnetic Monopoles Xavier Crean, Jeffrey Giansiracusa and Biagio Lucini

2020
[16]

Cole, G.J

A. Cole, G.J. Loges and G. Shiu,Quantitative and interpretable order parameters for phase transitions from persistent homology, Phys. Rev. B104 (2021) 104426

2021
[17]

N. Sale, B. Lucini and J. Giansiracusa,Probing center vortices and deconfinement in su(2) lattice gauge theory with persistent homology, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 034501

2023
[18]

Tirelli and N.C

A. Tirelli and N.C. Costa,Learning quantum phase transitions through topological data analysis, Phys. Rev. B104 (2021) 235146

2021
[19]

N. Sale, J. Giansiracusa and B. Lucini,Quantitative analysis of phase transitions in two-dimensional𝑥𝑦 models using persistent homology, Phys. Rev. E105 (2022) 024121

2022
[20]

Sehayek and R.G

D. Sehayek and R.G. Melko,Persistent homology ofZ2 gauge theories,Phys. Rev. B106 (2022) 085111

2022
[21]

Hirakida, K

T. Hirakida, K. Kashiwa, J. Sugano, J. Takahashi, H. Kouno and M. Yahiro,Persistent homology analysis of deconfinement transition in effective polyakov-line model, International Journal of Modern Physics A35(2020) 2050049

2020
[22]

Spitz, K

D. Spitz, K. Boguslavski and J. Berges,Probing universal dynamics with topological data analysis in a gluonic plasma, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 056016

2023
[23]

Crean, J

X. Crean, J. Giansiracusa and B. Lucini,Topological data analysis of monopole current networks in𝑢(1) lattice gauge theory,SciPost Physics17 (2024) 100

2024
[24]

Caiani, L

L. Caiani, L. Casetti, C. Clementi and M. Pettini,Geometry of dynamics, lyapunov exponents, and phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett.79(1997) 4361

1997
[25]

Kastner,Phase transitions and configuration space topology, Rev

M. Kastner,Phase transitions and configuration space topology, Rev. Mod. Phys.80 (2008) 167

2008
[26]

Franzosi and M

R. Franzosi and M. Pettini,Theorem on the origin of phase transitions,Phys. Rev. Lett.92 (2004) 060601

2004
[27]

Donato, M

I. Donato, M. Gori, M. Pettini, G. Petri, S. De Nigris, R. Franzosi et al.,Persistent homology analysis of phase transitions,Phys. Rev. E93(2016) 052138

2016
[28]

Speidel, H.A

L. Speidel, H.A. Harrington, S.J. Chapman and M.A. Porter,Topological data analysis of continuum percolation with disks, Phys. Rev. E98 (2018) 012318

2018
[29]

Q.H. Tran, M. Chen and Y. Hasegawa,Topological persistence machine of phase transitions, Phys. Rev. E103 (2021) 052127

2021
[30]

Kashiwa, T

K. Kashiwa, T. Hirakida and H. Kouno,Persistent homology analysis for dense qcd effective model with heavy quarks,Symmetry 14(2022)

2022
[31]

Spitz, J.M

D. Spitz, J.M. Urban and J.M. Pawlowski,Confinement in non-abelian lattice gauge theory via persistent homology,Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 034506. 17 TDA of Abelian Magnetic Monopoles Xavier Crean, Jeffrey Giansiracusa and Biagio Lucini

2023
[32]

GUDHI User and Reference Manual, GUDHI Editorial Board, 3.10.1 ed. (2024)

2024
[33]

Bauer and M

U. Bauer and M. Lesnick,Induced matchings and the algebraic stability of persistence barcodes, Journal of Computational Geometry6 (2015) 162

2015
[34]

D. Ali, A. Asaad, M.-J. Jimenez, V. Nanda, E. Paluzo-Hidalgo and M. Soriano-Trigueros,A survey of vectorization methods in topological data analysis,IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45 (2023) 14069

2023
[35]

Adams, T

H. Adams, T. Emerson, M. Kirby, R. Neville, C. Peterson, P. Shipman et al.,Persistence images: A stable vector representation of persistent homology, Journal of Machine Learning Research18 (2017) 1

2017
[36]

DeGrand and D

T.A. DeGrand and D. Toussaint,Topological excitations and monte carlo simulation of abelian gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2478

1980
[37]

Creutz, L

M. Creutz, L. Jacobs and C. Rebbi,Monte Carlo Study of Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D20 (1979) 1915

1979
[38]

Lautrup and M

B.E. Lautrup and M. Nauenberg,Phase Transition in Four-Dimensional Compact QED, Phys. Lett. B95(1980) 63

1980
[39]

Bhanot,Compact QED With an Extended Lattice Action, Nucl

G. Bhanot,Compact QED With an Extended Lattice Action, Nucl. Phys. B205 (1982) 168

1982
[40]

Jersak, T

J. Jersak, T. Neuhaus and P.M. Zerwas,U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory Near the Phase Transition, Phys. Lett. B133 (1983) 103

1983
[41]

Barber, R.E

J.S. Barber, R.E. Shrock and R. Schrader,A Study of𝑑= 4 U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory With Monopoles Removed,Phys. Lett. B152 (1985) 221

1985
[42]

Evertz, J

H.G. Evertz, J. Jersak, T. Neuhaus and P.M. Zerwas,Tricritical Point in Lattice QED,Nucl. Phys. B251 (1985) 279

1985
[43]

Barber and R.E

J.S. Barber and R.E. Shrock,Dynamical Shifting of the Confinement-Deconfinement Phase Transition in 4D U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory,Nucl. Phys. B257 (1985) 515

1985
[44]

Grösch, K

V. Grösch, K. Jansen, J. Jersák, C. Lang, T. Neuhaus and C. Rebbi,Monopoles and dirac sheets in compact u(1) lattice gauge theory, Physics Letters B162 (1985) 171

1985
[45]

Lang,Renormalization study of compact U(1) lattice gauge theory, Nucl

C.B. Lang,Renormalization study of compact U(1) lattice gauge theory, Nucl. Phys. B280 (1987) 255

1987
[46]

Del Debbio, A

L. Del Debbio, A. Di Giacomo and G. Paffuti,Detecting dual superconductivity in the ground state of gauge theory,Phys. Lett. B349 (1995) 513 [hep-lat/9403013]

1995 arXiv
[47]

Lang and T

C.B. Lang and T. Neuhaus,Compact U(1) gauge theory on lattices with trivial homotopy group,Nucl. Phys. B431 (1994) 119 [hep-lat/9407005]

1994 arXiv
[48]

Kerler, C

W. Kerler, C. Rebbi and A. Weber,Phase structure and monopoles in U(1) gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 6984 [hep-lat/9403025]. 18 TDA of Abelian Magnetic Monopoles Xavier Crean, Jeffrey Giansiracusa and Biagio Lucini

1994 arXiv
[49]

Kerler, C

W. Kerler, C. Rebbi and A. Weber,Monopole currents and Dirac sheets in U(1) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Lett. B348 (1995) 565 [hep-lat/9501023]

1995 arXiv
[50]

Kerler, C

W. Kerler, C. Rebbi and A. Weber,Phase transition and dynamical parameter method in U(1) gauge theory, Nucl. Phys. B450 (1995) 452 [hep-lat/9503021]

1995 arXiv
[51]

Jersak, C.B

J. Jersak, C.B. Lang and T. Neuhaus,NonGaussian fixed point in four-dimensional pure compact U(1) gauge theory on the lattice,Phys. Rev. Lett.77 (1996) 1933 [hep-lat/9606010]

1996 arXiv
[52]

J.Jersak,C.B.LangandT.Neuhaus, Four-dimensionalpurecompactU(1)gaugetheoryona spherical lattice,Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 6909 [hep-lat/9606013]

1996 arXiv
[53]

Kerler, C

W. Kerler, C. Rebbi and A. Weber,Order parameters and boundary effects in U(1) lattice gauge theory,Phys. Lett. B380 (1996) 346 [hep-lat/9601002]

1996 arXiv
[54]

Kerler, C

W. Kerler, C. Rebbi and A. Weber,Critical properties and monopoles in U(1) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Lett. B392 (1997) 438 [hep-lat/9612001]

1997 arXiv
[55]

Campos, A

I. Campos, A. Cruz and A. Tarancon,First order signatures in 4-D pure compact U(1) gauge theory with toroidal and spherical topologies,Phys. Lett. B424 (1998) 328 [hep-lat/9711045]

1998 arXiv
[56]

Campos, A

I. Campos, A. Cruz and A. Tarancon,A Study of the phase transition in 4-D pure compact U(1) LGT on toroidal and spherical lattices, Nucl. Phys. B528 (1998) 325 [hep-lat/9803007]

1998 arXiv
[57]

Vettorazzo and P

M. Vettorazzo and P. de Forcrand,Electromagnetic fluxes, monopoles, and the order of the 4-d compact U(1) phase transition,Nucl. Phys. B686 (2004) 85 [hep-lat/0311006]

2004 arXiv
[58]

Di Cairano, M

L. Di Cairano, M. Gori, M. Sarkis and A. Tkatchenko,Phase Transitions in Abelian Lattice Gauge Theory: Production and Dissolution of Monopoles and Monopole-Antimonopole Pairs,
[59]

Arnold, T

G. Arnold, T. Lippert, K. Schilling and T. Neuhaus,Finite size scaling analysis of compact qed,Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements94 (2001) 651–656

2001
[60]

Langfeld, B

K. Langfeld, B. Lucini, R. Pellegrini and A. Rago,An efficient algorithm for numerical computations of continuous densities of states,Th European Physical Journal C76(2016) 306

2016
[62]

Bazavov and B.A

A. Bazavov and B.A. Berg,Heat bath efficiency with metropolis-type updating,Phys. Rev. D 71(2005) 114506 [hep-lat/0503006]. 19 TDA of Abelian Magnetic Monopoles Xavier Crean, Jeffrey Giansiracusa and Biagio Lucini

2005 arXiv
[63]

Ferrenberg and R.H

A.M. Ferrenberg and R.H. Swendsen,Optimized monte carlo data analysis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989) 1195

1989
[64]

’t Hooft,Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft,Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B79(1974) 276

1974
[65]

Polyakov,Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory,JETP Lett.20(1974) 194

A.M. Polyakov,Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory,JETP Lett.20(1974) 194

1974
[66]

Kronfeld, M.L

A.S. Kronfeld, M.L. Laursen, G. Schierholz and U.J. Wiese,Monopole Condensation and Color Confinement,Phys. Lett. B198 (1987) 516

1987
[67]

Kronfeld, G

A.S. Kronfeld, G. Schierholz and U.J. Wiese,Topology and Dynamics of the Confinement Mechanism,Nucl. Phys. B293(1987) 461

1987
[68]

Del Debbio, A

L. Del Debbio, A. Di Giacomo, B. Lucini and G. Paffuti,Abelian projection in SU(N) gauge theories, hep-lat/0203023

arXiv
[69]

Bonati, M

C. Bonati, M. D’Elia, A. Di Giacomo, L. Lepori and F. Pucci,Non abelian Bianchi identities, monopoles and gauge invariance,PoSLATTICE2010(2010) 270 [1011.0371]

2010 arXiv
[70]

Chernodub and M.I

M.N. Chernodub and M.I. Polikarpov,Abelian projections and monopoles, inNATO Advanced Study Institute on Confinement, Duality and Nonperturbative Aspects of QCD, pp. 387–414, 6, 1997 [hep-th/9710205]

1997 arXiv
[71]

Bonati and M

C. Bonati and M. D’Elia,The Maximal Abelian Gauge in SU(N) gauge theories and thermal monopoles for N = 3, Nucl. Phys. B877 (2013) 233 [1308.0302]

2013 arXiv
[72]

Lucini, M

B. Lucini, M. Teper and U. Wenger,The High temperature phase transition in SU(N) gauge theories, JHEP01(2004) 061 [hep-lat/0307017]

2004 arXiv
[73]

Mickley, C

J.A. Mickley, C. Allton, R. Bignell and D.B. Leinweber,Centre vortex evidence for a second finite-temperature QCD transition, 2411.19446

arXiv
[74]

Spitz, J.M

D. Spitz, J.M. Urban and J.M. Pawlowski,Topological data analysis of the deconfinement transition in SU(3) lattice gauge theory, 2412.09112. 20

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [61]

Crean, J

X. Crean, J. Giansiracusa and B. Lucini,Topological Data Analysis of Monopoles in𝑈(1) Lattice Gauge Theory—Monte Carlo and analysis code release, 2024. 10.5281/zenodo.10806185

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10806185 2024

[2] [14]

Is Confinement a Phase of Broken Dual Gauge Symmetry?

J. Greensite and B. Lucini,Is Confinement a Phase of Broken Dual Gauge Symmetry?,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 085004 [0806.2117]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008

[3] [1]

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

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

arXiv 2023

[4] [2]

Chiral symmetry restoration at finite temperature in a model with manifest confinement

L. Glozman,Chiral spin symmetry and hot/dense qcd,Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics131(2023) 104049 [2404.02606]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[5] [3]

Hanada, H

M. Hanada, H. Ohata, H. Shimada and H. Watanabe,A New Perspective on Thermal Transition in QCD, PTEP2024(2024) 041B02 [2310.01940]

arXiv 2024

[6] [4]

’t Hooft,On the Phase Transition Towards Permanent Quark Confinement,Nucl

G. ’t Hooft,On the Phase Transition Towards Permanent Quark Confinement,Nucl. Phys. B 138 (1978) 1

work page 1978

[7] [5]

’t Hooft,Topology of the Gauge Condition and New Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,Nucl

G. ’t Hooft,Topology of the Gauge Condition and New Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,Nucl. Phys. B190 (1981) 455

work page 1981

[8] [6]

Colour confinement and dual superconductivity of the vacuum - II

A. Di Giacomo, B. Lucini, L. Montesi and G. Paffuti,Color confinement and dual superconductivity of the vacuum. 2.,Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 034504 [hep-lat/9906025]

work page Pith review arXiv 2000