Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Collective motion in the massive Schwinger model via Tensor Network

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Light fermions turn the massive Schwinger model into a fluid and expose its parity-breaking transition

desk verdict Careful tensor-network study of the Schwinger model whose phase-transition results are solid but whose Bjorken-flow claim is under-supported until the deferred Milne-space analysis is made available. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10835 v1 pith:3N2KBUN7 submitted 2025-09-13 hep-ph hep-latnucl-th

Haiyang Shao , Shile Chen , Shuzhe Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-latnucl-th
keywords massiveSchwingermodeltensornetworksTEBDreal-timedynamicshydrodynamizationboost-invariantflowparitysymmetrybreakingstring
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 follows, with a tensor-network simulation, what happens after a localized blob of energy is placed on top of the vacuum of the massive Schwinger model—a one-space, one-time-dimensional gauge theory that has confinement and chiral dynamics in common with quantum chromodynamics. It reports two findings. When the fermion mass is small compared with the gauge coupling ($m/g = 0.1$), the energy spreads inside a light cone with a flow velocity close to $v^z \approx z/t$ and the bulk viscous pressure decays toward zero, so the system hydrodynamizes in the manner assumed for the central region of heavy-ion collisions. This fluid-like behavior weakens as $m/g$ increases and is replaced by oscillations. At the topological angle $\theta = \pi$, the electric field and charge density expose a dynamical counterpart of the spontaneous parity-breaking transition near $m/g \approx 0.33$: below the threshold, string breaking screens charges and the central electric field decays; above it, the primary charges propagate as nearly free particles connected by a persistent electric field.

What carries the argument

The calculations are driven by a gauge-invariant matrix product state that encodes the $U(1)$ Gauss law blockwise in the tensor network, evolved in real time with the time-evolving block decimation (TEBD) algorithm; the electric field is truncated with a cutoff large enough for convergence. The hydrodynamic analysis uses the symmetric, gauge-invariant stress tensor, decomposed in the energy-comoving frame into energy density, flow velocity, and effective pressure $P + \Pi$, with the equilibrium equation of state $P(\varepsilon)$ computed separately by a doubled-space (Thermofield Double) purification, so that the bulk viscous pressure $\Pi$ isolates the off-equilibrium response. The phase-transition analysis uses two electric-field observables, the time-averaged central field and the growth rate of the total field, which serve as dynamical order parameters whose sharp rise near $m/g \approx 0.33$ at $\theta=\pi$ signals the spontaneous breaking of parity.

What would settle it

Evolve $m/g=0.1$ at $\theta=0$ on a larger lattice (say $N=200$) with the same energy and check at $t=25/g$ whether the bulk viscous pressure still decays to zero and the velocity still follows $v^z\approx z/t$ before reflections return from the boundaries; if $\Pi$ stays at its early magnitude or boundary echoes dominate the profile, the boost-invariant flow claim is falsified. For the parity transition, scan $m/g$ in small steps across 0.33 at $\theta=\pi$: the claim predicts both electric-field order parameters stay consistent with zero below the threshold and rise sharply above it, so a smooth monotone rise or a jump at a different mass would falsify the dynamical-transition claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a localized energy excitation in the massive Schwinger model evolves like a relativistic fluid whenever the coupling dominates the mass: the stress tensor, decomposed in the energy-comoving frame, gives a velocity profile $v^z \approx z/t$ and a bulk viscous pressure $\Pi$ that decreases in time and tends to zero, matching the standard boost-invariant expansion scenario. As $m/g$ grows, $\Pi$ stays sizable and the velocity becomes oscillatory, marking the breakdown of the fluid description. Independently, at $\theta = \pi$ the evolution of the electric field and charge density separates into two regimes across $m/g \approx 0.33$: in the parity-restored phase the electric string breaks repeatedly, producing secondary pairs that screen the primary charges, so the central field oscillates and decays; in the parity-broken phase the string is stabilized, primary charges separate almost freely, and a persistent electric field connects them. The paper quantifies this with two order parameters—the time-averaged central electric field $\langle E(0,t)\rangle$ and the time-averaged growth rate of the total electric field $dE_{\mathrm{total}}/dt$—both of which stay near zero below the threshold and rise sharply above it, with a power-law fit consistent with a critical transition.

Load-bearing premise

The hydrodynamic conclusion rests on treating a 100-site open-boundary lattice with a two-site phase rotation in the middle as a fair stand-in for an infinite, effectively boost-invariant expanding medium over the simulated time window; if finite-size effects or boundary reflections shape the early expansion, the fluid interpretation weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The light-mass Schwinger model becomes a first-principles testbed for hydrodynamization: the full approach to equilibrium can be watched through the decay of the bulk viscous pressure.
  • The threshold in $m/g$ where the bulk pressure stops vanishing and the velocity becomes oscillatory also marks where the fluid description loses validity.
  • At $\theta=\pi$ and $m/g>0.33$, the persistent electric field and nearly free charge separation give a real-time, finite-volume analogue of deconfinement at zero temperature.
  • The two electric-field order parameters supply a dynamical definition of the parity-breaking transition that does not rely on equilibrium order parameters and could be measured in a simulator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the same two electric-field observables could be measured on a cold-atom quantum simulator with site-resolved charge and electric field, turning the sharp rise near $m/g\approx 0.33$ into a laboratory witness of the parity transition.
  • Extension: scanning the topological angle $\theta$ between 0 and $\pi$ in this setup could test whether the stiffening of the equation of state at the parity transition shifts the mass threshold for the onset of fluidity.
  • Extension: the paper quotes a power-law fit as evidence of critical scaling, but extracting a reliable critical exponent would require a finite-size scaling study across several lattice sizes rather than one lattice.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports real-time tensor network simulations (TEBD) of the massive Schwinger model on a lattice of N=100 sites with spacing a=0.5/g, starting from a gauge-invariant, charge-neutral localized excitation obtained by applying U(pi,nu_50)U(pi,nu_51) to the ground state. It computes local expectation values of the energy-momentum tensor, extracts Landau-frame energy density, flow velocity, and effective pressure, and constructs the thermal equation of state by Thermofield-Double purification. The main physical claims are: (i) at small m/g the system displays Bjorken-like collective expansion, characterized by v_z about z/t and decaying bulk pressure, with the behavior degrading as m/g increases; and (ii) at theta=pi the electric-field and charge-density dynamics show a sharp change near m/g approximately 0.33, interpreted as a dynamical signal of the spontaneous parity-breaking transition, with string breaking and screening on one side and stable charge separation on the other. Numerical convergence with respect to Lmax, bond dimension, time step, and lattice spacing is documented in Appendix A, and the equation of state is benchmarked against exact diagonalization.

Significance. The numerics are careful: Appendix A reports convergence over electric-field cutoff, time step, bond dimension, and lattice spacing; the equation of state is benchmarked against exact diagonalization up to N=16; and SVD truncation errors and energy conservation are quantified. If the hydrodynamic interpretation is correct, the paper offers a concrete (1+1)-dimensional gauge-theory realization of hydrodynamization and a dynamical probe of the parity phase transition. However, the central Bjorken-flow claim is currently supported only by qualitative features, with the quantitative Milne-space analysis deferred to a companion letter that is not checkable in this submission. As it stands, the manuscript is therefore a valuable numerical study of the Schwinger model, but the headline hydrodynamic conclusion is underdetermined by the evidence presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B, Fig. 4] The identification of Bjorken flow rests on visual inspection of v_z approximately z/t and Pi going to zero. Bjorken flow in (1+1)D is defined by boost invariance, meaning all dimensionless observables should be independent of Milne rapidity eta and depend only on tau; v_z approximately z/t is a necessary but not sufficient condition, since self-similar non-hydrodynamic expansions can share it. The manuscript explicitly defers the Milne-space analysis to the companion Letter [53], whose arXiv identifier (2509.xxxxx) is a placeholder and cannot be checked. Please include the fixed-eta analysis in this manuscript, for example plots of epsilon(tau,eta), P+Pi(tau,eta), or T^tau tau and T^eta eta at fixed eta over a wide rapidity window, or explicitly weaken the claim from 'exhibits Bjorken flow' to 'shows Bjorken-flow-like signatures'.
  2. [Appendix A, lattice-independence test] The test with N=80 to 140 keeps Na=50/g fixed, so it changes the lattice spacing while holding the total volume constant. It therefore cannot detect finite-volume artifacts or boundary reflections. With open boundary conditions, the light-crossing time from the central excitation to either boundary is t=25/g, exactly the final time of the simulation, so the late-time portions of the full profiles in Fig. 4 may be affected by boundary physics, and no test at a larger physical volume is provided. Please add a fixed-a, larger-Na comparison for m/g=0.1, or a boundary-contamination analysis, or restrict the hydrodynamic statement to the central region and to times before reflected signals return.
  3. [Section IV.C, Fig. 5] The power-law fit uses x_c=0.33 as a fixed input taken from known static results, so the fit is a consistency check rather than an independent dynamical determination of the critical point; the exponent, amplitude, and averaging window are chosen or fitted. Moreover, the two 'order parameters' are both derived from the same electric-field data and are not statistically independent, so their 'close agreement' should not be presented as independent confirmation. Please state these limitations explicitly and present the scaling result as evidence consistent with, rather than a determination of, the known transition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The quantity tau_ini used for the constant-proper-time lines is not defined in the text; please define it and state the reference time from which tau is measured.
  2. [Table I and Fig. 8 caption] Table I lists D=500 for all real-time evolution, while the Fig. 8 caption states D=250 for m/g=0.1 and 2.0 and D=500 for m/g=0.5; please clarify the production bond dimensions used for each parameter set.
  3. [Section IV.B] The statement that 'the medium spreads out within the lightcone' is difficult to verify from the color-scale panels of Fig. 4; consider overlaying the light-cone boundaries on the energy-density panels.
  4. [Section IV.C] The term 'order parameter' is used loosely for the time-averaged central electric field and the growth rate of total electric field; neither is a true order parameter for spontaneous parity breaking in a finite system, so consider using 'dynamical indicators' and identifying one as the primary observable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the EoS and hydrodynamic decomposition are computed independently, and the known critical point is used transparently as a fit anchor rather than derived from the data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The lattice Hamiltonian, Kogut-Susskind discretization, Gauss-law-constrained MPS, and TEBD evolution are standard and are not constructed from the target conclusions. The equilibrium EoS used to define the bulk pressure is computed independently from the same lattice model via thermofield-double purification and benchmarked against exact diagonalization (Fig. 7), and the hydrodynamic variables are extracted from the measured stress tensor by the Landau-frame decomposition (Eqs. 14-17), not by fitting. The Bjorken-flow claim rests on the spacetime profiles in Fig. 4, with the companion Letter [53] cited only as a placeholder for a more detailed Milne-space analysis; the present argument does not reduce to that citation, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. For the phase transition, the order parameters of Fig. 5 are raw expectation values of the electric field, and the critical point x_c=0.33 is explicitly labeled as known and used as the anchor of a power-law fit whose exponent the authors disclaim determining rigorously; this is a consistency check, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The fixed-volume lattice-size test and the absence of an in-paper Milne-invariance check are evidence gaps, but they are not circular steps.

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

The central claims rest on standard assumptions about lattice gauge theory and tensor network convergence, plus two hand-picked parameters (excitation strength and time window) and a power-law fit with fixed critical point. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • a (power-law amplitude) = not stated
    Amplitude in f(x)=a(x-0.33)^b fit to <E(0,t)> data in Fig. 5.
  • b (power-law exponent) = 0.82
    Exponent in f(x)=a(x-0.33)^b, fitted to the central electric field data; authors note rigorous determination is beyond scope.
  • excitation strength phi = pi
    Strength of the local phase rotation applied at sites 50 and 51 (Eq. 34); chosen by hand to deposit sufficient energy, not varied.
  • time averaging window = t=10 to 25/g
    Interval over which <E(0,t)> and <dE_total/dt> are averaged (Sec. IV.C); choice affects order parameter values and could bias the transition signal.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Known static critical point m/g≈0.33 at θ=π from prior DMRG/lattice studies
    Used as fixed x_c in the power-law fit (Sec. IV.C); the paper does not derive the critical point from dynamics.
  • domain assumption Landau frame decomposition (Eq. 14-16) is applicable to the local expectation values of the stress tensor in a non-equilibrium state
    Needed to extract ε, v_z, and P+Π from T^μν; assumes a hydrodynamic interpretation of a quantum state with large quantum fluctuations.
  • domain assumption Lattice mass shift relation m_con = m_lat - g^2 a/8 (Ref. [45])
    Used to connect lattice mass to continuum mass, though the paper does not explicitly use it in the main analysis; it underscores discretization choices.
  • domain assumption TEBD simulations with Lmax=3, D=250-500, Δt=0.004/g are converged to the exact real-time evolution over t up to 25/g
    Convergence tested in Appendix A, but the validity for all observables at late times is assumed; no exact benchmark for the full dynamics is available.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collective motion in the massive Schwinger model via Tensor Network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3N2KBUN7

@misc{pith2026250910835,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collective motion in the massive Schwinger model via Tensor Network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3N2KBUN7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10835}
}
read the original abstract

We simulate the real-time dynamics of a massive Schwinger model using the Time-Evolving Block Decimation tensor network algorithm. Starting from a non-equilibrium initial state with localized energy excitation on top of vacuum, we track the subsequent evolution to investigate two distinct physical phenomena. First, by analyzing the system's energy-momentum tensor, we show that this system exhibits hydrodynamic behavior analogous to Bjorken flow at large coupling-to-mass ratio, a signature that diminishes as the coupling weakens, or mass increases. Second, by examining the evolution of the electric field and charge density, we observe the signal of spontaneous parity symmetry breaking phase transition in a dynamical system. The parity-restored regime is marked by ''string breaking'' and efficient charge screening, while the parity-broken regime displays stable propagation of nearly free charges and persistent electric fields connecting them.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10835 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Pressure (upper) and speed of sound squared ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spacetime evolution in the Schwinger model for several mass-to-coupling ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Two order parameters as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.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. Quantum simulating multi-particle processes in high energy nuclear physics: dijet production and color (de)coherence

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A quantum-circuit framework maps partonic cross-sections for multi-particle QCD processes in media, benchmarked on dipole formation and antenna radiation at leading order.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [53]

    Onset of Bjorken Flow in Quantum Evolution of the Massive Schwinger Model,

    Haiyang Shao, Shile Chen, and Shuzhe Shi, “Onset of Bjorken Flow in Quantum Evolution of the Massive Schwinger Model,” (2025), arXiv:2509.xxxxx [hep-ph]

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions,

    Edward Shuryak, “Strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions,” Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035001 (2017), arXiv:1412.8393 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [2]

    Why does the quark gluon plasma at RHIC behave as a nearly ideal fluid?

    Edward Shuryak, “Why does the quark gluon plasma at RHIC behave as a nearly ideal fluid?” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.53, 273–303 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312227

    arXiv 2004

  4. [3]

    Gauge Invariance and Mass. 2

    Julian S. Schwinger, “Gauge Invariance and Mass. 2.” Phys. Rev.128, 2425–2429 (1962)

    work page 1962

  5. [4]

    Quantum electro- dynamics in two-dimensions,

    J. H. Lowenstein and J. A. Swieca, “Quantum electro- dynamics in two-dimensions,” Annals Phys.68, 172–195 (1971)

    work page 1971

  6. [5]

    SCHWINGER MODEL ON S(2),

    C. Jayewardena, “SCHWINGER MODEL ON S(2),” Helv. Phys. Acta61, 636–711 (1988)

    work page 1988

  7. [6]

    On the fermion condensate in Schwinger model,

    Andrei V. Smilga, “On the fermion condensate in Schwinger model,” Phys. Lett. B278, 371–376 (1992)

    work page 1992

  8. [7]

    Instantons and vacuum expectation values in the Schwinger model,

    C. Adam, “Instantons and vacuum expectation values in the Schwinger model,” Z. Phys. C63, 169–180 (1994)

    work page 1994

Show all 63 references
  1. [8]

    Massive Schwinger model within mass perturbation theory,

    Christoph Adam, “Massive Schwinger model within mass perturbation theory,” Annals Phys.259, 1–63 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9704064

    1997 arXiv

  2. [9]

    More About the Massive Schwinger Model,

    Sidney R. Coleman, “More About the Massive Schwinger Model,” Annals Phys.101, 239 (1976). 11

    1976

  3. [10]

    The Schwinger mass in the massive Schwinger model,

    Christoph Adam, “The Schwinger mass in the massive Schwinger model,” Phys. Lett. B382, 383–388 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9507331

    1996 arXiv

  4. [11]

    General bound state structure of the massive Schwinger model,

    C. Adam, “General bound state structure of the massive Schwinger model,” Phys. Lett. B382, 111–116 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9602175

    1996 arXiv

  5. [12]

    The boson-boson bound state in the massive Schwinger model,

    Christoph Adam, “The boson-boson bound state in the massive Schwinger model,” Z. Phys. C74, 727–730 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9601227

    1997 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Classically emulated digital quantum simulation of the Schwinger model with a topological term via adiabatic state preparation,

    Bipasha Chakraborty, Masazumi Honda, Taku Izubuchi, Yuta Kikuchi, and Akio Tomiya, “Classically emulated digital quantum simulation of the Schwinger model with a topological term via adiabatic state preparation,” Phys. Rev. D105, 094503 (2022), arXiv:2001.00485 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Real-Time Nonperturbative Dynamics of Jet Production in Schwinger Model: Quantum Entanglement and Vacuum Modification,

    Adrien Florio, David Frenklakh, Kazuki Ikeda, Dmitri Kharzeev, Vladimir Korepin, Shuzhe Shi, and Kwang- min Yu, “Real-Time Nonperturbative Dynamics of Jet Production in Schwinger Model: Quantum Entanglement and Vacuum Modification,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 021902 (2023), arXiv:23...

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Quantum real-time evolution of entanglement and hadronization in jet production: Lessons from the massive Schwinger model,

    Adrien Florio, David Frenklakh, Kazuki Ikeda, Dmitri E. Kharzeev, Vladimir Korepin, Shuzhe Shi, and Kwang- min Yu, “Quantum real-time evolution of entanglement and hadronization in jet production: Lessons from the massive Schwinger model,” Phys. Rev. D110, 094029 (2024), arXiv...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Detecting the critical point through entan- glement in the Schwinger model,

    Kazuki Ikeda, Dmitri E. Kharzeev, Ren´ e Meyer, and Shuzhe Shi, “Detecting the critical point through entan- glement in the Schwinger model,” Phys. Rev. D108, L091501 (2023), arXiv:2305.00996 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Nonlinear chiral magnetic waves,

    Kazuki Ikeda, Dmitri E. Kharzeev, and Shuzhe Shi, “Nonlinear chiral magnetic waves,” Phys. Rev. D108, 074001 (2023), arXiv:2305.05685 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Quan- tum thermalization of Quark-Gluon Plasma,

    Shile Chen, Li Yan, and Shuzhe Shi, “Quan- tum thermalization of Quark-Gluon Plasma,” (2024), arXiv:2412.00662 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Real-time dynamics of Chern-Simons fluctuations near a critical point,

    Kazuki Ikeda, Dmitri E. Kharzeev, and Yuta Kikuchi, “Real-time dynamics of Chern-Simons fluctuations near a critical point,” Phys. Rev. D103, L071502 (2021), arXiv:2012.02926 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Towards a real-time computa- tion of timelike hadronic vacuum polarization and light- by-light scattering: Schwinger Model tests,

    Jo˜ ao Barata, Kazuki Ikeda, Swagato Mukherjee, and Jonathan Raghoonanan, “Towards a real-time computa- tion of timelike hadronic vacuum polarization and light- by-light scattering: Schwinger Model tests,” JHEP02, 118 (2025), arXiv:2406.03536 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Class of ansatz wave functions for one-dimensional spin systems and their relation to the density matrix renormalization group,

    Stefan Rommer and Stellan Ostlund, “Class of ansatz wave functions for one-dimensional spin systems and their relation to the density matrix renormalization group,” Phys. Rev. B55, 2164–2181 (1997), arXiv:cond- mat/9606213

    1997

  15. [22]

    Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems,

    G. Vidal, “Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 040502 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0310089

    2004 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Density matrix renormalization group approach to the massive Schwinger model,

    T. Byrnes, P. Sriganesh, R. J. Bursill, and C. J. Hamer, “Density matrix renormalization group approach to the massive Schwinger model,” Phys. Rev. D66, 013002 (2002), arXiv:hep-lat/0202014

    2002 arXiv

  17. [24]

    The mass spectrum of the Schwinger model with Matrix Product States,

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, K. Jansen, and J. I. Cirac, “The mass spectrum of the Schwinger model with Matrix Product States,” JHEP11, 158 (2013), arXiv:1305.3765 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Density Induced Phase Transitions in the Schwinger Model: A Study with Matrix Product States,

    Mari Carmen Ba˜ nuls, Krzysztof Cichy, J. Ignacio Cirac, Karl Jansen, and Stefan K¨ uhn, “Density Induced Phase Transitions in the Schwinger Model: A Study with Matrix Product States,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 071601 (2017), arXiv:1611.00705 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Phase Diagram of the Two-Flavor Schwinger Model at Zero Temperature,

    Ross Dempsey, Igor R. Klebanov, Silviu S. Pufu, Ben- jamin T. Søgaard, and Bernardo Zan, “Phase Diagram of the Two-Flavor Schwinger Model at Zero Temperature,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 031603 (2024), arXiv:2305.04437 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Thermal evolution of the Schwinger model with Matrix Product Operators,

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, K. Jansen, and H. Saito, “Thermal evolution of the Schwinger model with Matrix Product Operators,” Phys. Rev. D92, 034519 (2015), arXiv:1505.00279 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Chiral condensate in the Schwinger model with Matrix Product Operators,

    Mari Carmen Ba˜ nuls, Krzysztof Cichy, Karl Jansen, and Hana Saito, “Chiral condensate in the Schwinger model with Matrix Product Operators,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 094512 (2016), arXiv:1603.05002 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Hamiltonian simulation of the Schwinger model at fi- nite temperature,

    Boye Buyens, Frank Verstraete, and Karel Van Acoleyen, “Hamiltonian simulation of the Schwinger model at fi- nite temperature,” Phys. Rev. D94, 085018 (2016), arXiv:1606.03385 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Matrix prod- uct states for gauge field theories,

    Boye Buyens, Jutho Haegeman, Karel Van Acoleyen, Henri Verschelde, and Frank Verstraete, “Matrix prod- uct states for gauge field theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 091601 (2014), arXiv:1312.6654 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Real Time Dynamics and Confinement in theZ n Schwinger-Weyl lattice model for 1+1 QED,

    Giuseppe Magnifico, Marcello Dalmonte, Paolo Facchi, Saverio Pascazio, Francesco V. Pepe, and Elisa Erco- lessi, “Real Time Dynamics and Confinement in theZ n Schwinger-Weyl lattice model for 1+1 QED,” Quantum 4, 281 (2020), arXiv:1909.04821 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [32]

    High-Energy Collision of Quarks and Mesons in the Schwinger Model: From Ten- sor Networks to Circuit QED,

    Ron Belyansky, Seth Whitsitt, Niklas Mueller, Ali Fahimniya, Elizabeth R. Bennewitz, Zohreh Davoudi, and Alexey V. Gorshkov, “High-Energy Collision of Quarks and Mesons in the Schwinger Model: From Ten- sor Networks to Circuit QED,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 091903 (2024), arXiv:23...

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Real-time scattering in the lattice Schwinger model,

    Irene Papaefstathiou, Johannes Knolle, and Mari Car- men Ba˜ nuls, “Real-time scattering in the lattice Schwinger model,” Phys. Rev. D111, 014504 (2025), arXiv:2402.18429 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Thermalization from quantum entanglement: jet simulations in the massive Schwinger model,

    Adrien Florio, David Frenklakh, Sebastian Grieninger, Dmitri E. Kharzeev, Andrea Palermo, and Shuzhe Shi, “Thermalization from quantum entanglement: jet simulations in the massive Schwinger model,” (2025), arXiv:2506.14983 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Universality and emergent effec- tive fluid from jets and string breaking in the mas- sive Schwinger model using tensor networks,

    Romuald A. Janik, Maciej A. Nowak, Marek M. Rams, and Ismail Zahed, “Universality and emergent effec- tive fluid from jets and string breaking in the mas- sive Schwinger model using tensor networks,” (2025), arXiv:2502.12901 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Thermal modifications of mesons and energy-energy correlators from real-time simulations of aU(1) lattice gauge theory,

    Jo˜ ao Barata, David Frenklakh, and Swagato Mukher- jee, “Thermal modifications of mesons and energy-energy correlators from real-time simulations of aU(1) lattice gauge theory,” (2025), arXiv:2507.16890 [hep-ph]

    2025

  30. [37]

    Real-time simulation of jet energy loss and entropy production in high-energy scattering with matter,

    Jo˜ ao Barata and Enrique Rico, “Real-time simulation of jet energy loss and entropy production in high-energy scattering with matter,” (2025), arXiv:2502.17558 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Parton Distribution Functions in the Schwinger Model with Tensor Networks,

    Manuel Schneider, Mari Carmen Ba˜ nuls, Krzysztof Ci- chy, and C. J. David Lin, “Parton Distribution Functions in the Schwinger Model with Tensor Networks,” PoS LA TTICE2024, 024 (2025), arXiv:2409.16996 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [39]

    On the spin angular momentum of mesons,

    F. J. Belinfante, “On the spin angular momentum of mesons,” Physica6, 887–898 (1939)

    1939

  33. [40]

    Leon Rosenfeld,Sur le tenseur d’impulsion-´ energie (Bruxelles : Lamertin, 1940) iD: rug01:000736042. 12

    1940

  34. [41]

    Lev Davidovich Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Fluid me- chanics(1959)

    1959

  35. [42]

    Hamiltonian For- mulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories,

    John B. Kogut and Leonard Susskind, “Hamiltonian For- mulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. D11, 395–408 (1975)

    1975

  36. [43]

    Strong Coupling Calculations of Lattice Gauge Theo- ries: (1+1)-Dimensional Exercises,

    Tom Banks, Leonard Susskind, and John B. Kogut, “Strong Coupling Calculations of Lattice Gauge Theo- ries: (1+1)-Dimensional Exercises,” Phys. Rev. D13, 1043 (1976)

    1976

  37. [44]

    About the Pauli exclusion principle,

    Pascual Jordan and Eugene P. Wigner, “About the Pauli exclusion principle,” Z. Phys.47, 631–651 (1928)

    1928

  38. [45]

    Discrete chiral symmetry and mass shift in the lattice Hamiltonian approach to the Schwinger model,

    Ross Dempsey, Igor R. Klebanov, Silviu S. Pufu, and Bernardo Zan, “Discrete chiral symmetry and mass shift in the lattice Hamiltonian approach to the Schwinger model,” Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043133 (2022), arXiv:2206.05308 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [46]

    An area law for one-dimensional quan- tum systems,

    M. B. Hastings, “An area law for one-dimensional quan- tum systems,” J. Stat. Mech.0708, P08024 (2007), arXiv:0705.2024 [quant-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Lieb- Robinson Bounds and the Generation of Correlations and Topological Quantum Order,

    S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and F. Verstraete, “Lieb- Robinson Bounds and the Generation of Correlations and Topological Quantum Order,” Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 050401 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0603121

    2006 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Tensor network states and algorithms in the pres- ence of a global U(1) symmetry,

    Sukhwinder Singh, Robert N. C. Pfeifer, and Guifre Vi- dal, “Tensor network states and algorithms in the pres- ence of a global U(1) symmetry,” Phys. Rev. B83, 115125 (2011), arXiv:1008.4774 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2011 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Ma- trix Product Density Operators: Simulation of Finite- Temperature and Dissipative Systems,

    F. Verstraete, J. J. Garc´ ıa-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, “Ma- trix Product Density Operators: Simulation of Finite- Temperature and Dissipative Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207204 (2004)

    2004

  43. [50]

    The Massive Schwinger Model on a Lattice: Background Field, Chiral Symmetry and the String Ten- sion,

    C. J. Hamer, John B. Kogut, D. P. Crewther, and M. M. Mazzolini, “The Massive Schwinger Model on a Lattice: Background Field, Chiral Symmetry and the String Ten- sion,” Nucl. Phys. B208, 413–438 (1982)

    1982

  44. [51]

    The Massive Schwinger Model on the Lattice Studied via a Local Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Method,

    A. Schiller and J. Ranft, “The Massive Schwinger Model on the Lattice Studied via a Local Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Method,” Nucl. Phys. B225, 204 (1983)

    1983

  45. [52]

    Highly Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Col- lisions: The Central Rapidity Region,

    J. D. Bjorken, “Highly Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Col- lisions: The Central Rapidity Region,” Phys. Rev. D27, 140–151 (1983)

    1983

  46. [54]

    Lectures on gauge theory,

    David Tong, “Lectures on gauge theory,” (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    String tension and robustness of confine- ment properties in the Schwinger-Thirring model,

    Joao C. Pinto Barros, Marcello Dalmonte, and Andrea Trombettoni, “String tension and robustness of confine- ment properties in the Schwinger-Thirring model,” Phys. Rev. D100, 036009 (2019), arXiv:1808.00444 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bosonization and Functional Renormaliza- tion Group Approach in the Framework of QED2,

    I. Nandori, “Bosonization and Functional Renormaliza- tion Group Approach in the Framework of QED2,” Phys. Rev. D84, 065024 (2011), arXiv:1008.2934 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Physical properties of the mas- sive Schwinger model from the nonperturbative func- tional renormalization group,

    Patrick Jentsch, Romain Daviet, Nicolas Dupuis, and Stefan Floerchinger, “Physical properties of the mas- sive Schwinger model from the nonperturbative func- tional renormalization group,” Phys. Rev. D105, 016028 (2022), arXiv:2106.08310 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,

    E. A. Martinezet al., “Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,” Na- ture534, 516–519 (2016), arXiv:1605.04570 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Lattice gauge theories and string dynamics in Rydberg atom quantum simulators,

    Federica M. Surace, Paolo P. Mazza, Giuliano Giudici, Alessio Lerose, Andrea Gambassi, and Marcello Dal- monte, “Lattice gauge theories and string dynamics in Rydberg atom quantum simulators,” Phys. Rev. X10, 021041 (2020), arXiv:1902.09551 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Thermaliza- tion dynamics of a gauge theory on a quantum sim- ulator,

    Zhao-Yu Zhou, Guo-Xian Su, Jad C. Halimeh, Robert Ott, Hui Sun, Philipp Hauke, Bing Yang, Zhen-Sheng Yuan, J¨ urgen Berges, and Jian-Wei Pan, “Thermaliza- tion dynamics of a gauge theory on a quantum sim- ulator,” Science377, abl6277 (2022), arXiv:2107.13563 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Tunable Confinement-Deconfinement Transition in an Ultracold-Atom Quantum Simulator,

    Yanting Cheng, Shang Liu, Wei Zheng, Pengfei Zhang, and Hui Zhai, “Tunable Confinement-Deconfinement Transition in an Ultracold-Atom Quantum Simulator,” PRX Quantum3, 040317 (2022), arXiv:2204.06586 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Confinement in aZ 2 lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer,

    Julius Mildenberger, Wojciech Mruczkiewicz, Jad C. Hal- imeh, Zhang Jiang, and Philipp Hauke, “Confinement in aZ 2 lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer,” Na- ture Phys.21, 312–317 (2025), arXiv:2203.08905 [quant- ph]

    2025

  55. [63]

    Real-time scattering and freeze- out dynamics in Rydberg-atom lattice gauge theory,

    De-Sheng Xianget al., “Real-time scattering and freeze- out dynamics in Rydberg-atom lattice gauge theory,” (2025), arXiv:2508.06639 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. Appendix A: Calculation Parameters and Convergence T ests This appendix establishes the numerical robustness of our simula...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.