arxiv: 2604.12388 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · ✦ hep-lat · cond-mat.str-el· hep-th

Recognition: unknown

Correctness criteria for complex Langevin

Michael Mandl

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-lat cond-mat.str-elhep-th

keywords complex Langevinsign problemlattice field theorycorrectness criteriadiagnostic toolsconvergence checksnumerical simulationstest models

0 comments

The pith

Tests on four simple models reveal large differences in how well various checks predict reliable complex Langevin results.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Complex Langevin dynamics can simulate field theories that suffer from a sign problem, but the method sometimes converges to incorrect values or fails to converge at all. Several diagnostic criteria have been developed to decide whether a given run has produced trustworthy numbers. The paper applies the most prominent of these criteria to four basic yet nontrivial models whose exact answers are known by independent means. It then compares the criteria on how readily they can be used and how accurately they forecast whether the simulation outcome matches the known truth. If the relative performance seen here holds more generally, practitioners gain a clearer basis for choosing which checks to rely on when studying more demanding theories.

Core claim

Four simple but nontrivial models are considered and the criteria applied to each of them in order to contrast applicability, ease of use, and predictive power. The obtained conclusions are expected to carry over to more realistic theories as well.

What carries the argument

Correctness criteria for complex Langevin dynamics, evaluated for applicability and predictive power on four benchmark models whose exact results are known independently.

If this is right

Some criteria detect incorrect convergence more reliably than others across the tested cases.
Certain easy-to-implement checks prove insufficient to guarantee correct results.
Predictive power varies enough that the strongest criteria can be prioritized for practical simulations.
The ranking of criteria observed in the simple models supplies guidance for choosing diagnostics in larger calculations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the top-performing criteria are adopted as standard, fewer invalid results would be accepted in sign-problem studies.
The same benchmark approach could be repeated on models that more closely resemble full QCD to test transferability.
Software implementations of complex Langevin could embed the strongest criteria as default validation steps.
Models where one criterion succeeds while another fails could be used to refine the weaker checks.

Load-bearing premise

That the behavior of the criteria on four simple models is representative of their performance in more realistic and complicated theories.

What would settle it

A run of complex Langevin on one of the four models in which a given criterion declares the result trustworthy yet the computed observables deviate from the known exact answer.

read the original abstract

The complex Langevin approach is a promising method for the numerical treatment of systems with a sign problem, for which conventional lattice field theory techniques based on importance sampling cannot be applied. However, complex Langevin dynamics may fail to converge in some cases and converge to a wrong limit in others, motivating the development of various diagnostic tools over the years to assess the correctness of given simulation results. This work aims at providing a systematic comparison between the most prominent such correctness criteria. In particular, the main goal is to contrast their applicability, ease of use, and - most importantly - their predictive power. To this end, four simple but nontrivial models are considered and the criteria applied to each of them. The obtained conclusions are expected to carry over to more realistic theories as well.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper compares existing correctness criteria for complex Langevin on four simple models but leaves the generalization to realistic theories unsupported.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is a direct, side-by-side application of several existing correctness criteria to the same four simple but nontrivial models. It checks how well each criterion flags convergence problems or wrong limits, and it reports on practical aspects like ease of use. This is the sort of empirical check that can save time for people running complex Langevin simulations, since the criteria have mostly been discussed in separate papers before now. The models are chosen so that exact answers are known, which lets the comparison stay grounded rather than circular. That part of the work is solid and useful as far as it goes. The setup follows the abstract plan without obvious post-hoc selection or invented quantities. The analysis stays within standard lattice methods and does not rely on fitted parameters. The soft spot is the claim that the ranking of the criteria will carry over to more realistic theories. The paper states this expectation but supplies no mapping of model features to gauge theories, no tests with added spatial extent or non-Abelian structure, and no sensitivity checks. Without that, the predictive-power ordering stays tied to the toy cases. The stress-test concern about generalizability holds up on the available description. This paper is for lattice QCD or condensed-matter researchers who already know the complex Langevin method and want a practical reference for choosing a diagnostic. It will not interest readers looking for new criteria or new models. I would send it for peer review. The comparison itself is concrete enough to be worth referee time, and the generalization issue is fixable by either adding supporting discussion or qualifying the conclusions.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper conducts a systematic empirical comparison of prominent correctness criteria for complex Langevin simulations. It applies these criteria to four simple but nontrivial models in order to evaluate their relative applicability, ease of use, and predictive power, with the explicit expectation that the resulting conclusions will generalize to more realistic lattice theories afflicted by sign problems.

Significance. A careful, reproducible comparison of diagnostic tools on multiple models would be useful for practitioners, particularly if the predictive power of each criterion is quantified in a falsifiable way (e.g., via success/failure rates on known correct and incorrect limits). The choice of four models provides a concrete test bed that avoids purely theoretical arguments.

major comments (2)

[Introduction] Introduction (final paragraph): the claim that 'the obtained conclusions are expected to carry over to more realistic theories as well' is unsupported. No mapping is given between the features of the four models (dimensionality, Abelian vs. non-Abelian, presence/absence of fermions) and the failure modes expected in higher-dimensional gauge theories or systems with dynamical fermions; no sensitivity test to added complexity is performed.
[Results / Model section] Model-selection or results section: the paper must show that the diagnostic responses observed are not artifacts of the specific model simplifications. Without such evidence, the ranking of criteria by predictive power cannot be taken as load-bearing for general use.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'predictive power' should be defined operationally (e.g., fraction of cases in which the criterion correctly flags convergence to the wrong limit) before the results are presented.
[Throughout] Notation for the criteria should be standardized across sections to avoid reader confusion when comparing applicability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and detailed report. The comments highlight important limitations in the scope and phrasing of our claims. We address each major point below, indicating where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Introduction] Introduction (final paragraph): the claim that 'the obtained conclusions are expected to carry over to more realistic theories as well' is unsupported. No mapping is given between the features of the four models (dimensionality, Abelian vs. non-Abelian, presence/absence of fermions) and the failure modes expected in higher-dimensional gauge theories or systems with dynamical fermions; no sensitivity test to added complexity is performed.

Authors: We agree that the original statement is an expectation rather than a demonstrated result and lacks an explicit mapping or sensitivity analysis. The four models were selected precisely because they permit exact benchmarks and controlled variation across Abelian/non-Abelian structure and fermionic content, allowing quantitative assessment of predictive power. We will revise the final paragraph of the introduction to remove the direct claim of carry-over and instead state that the study supplies benchmark comparisons on representative simple models that can guide the application of the criteria to more complex theories, while noting that further validation on higher-dimensional systems remains necessary. revision: yes
Referee: [Results / Model section] Model-selection or results section: the paper must show that the diagnostic responses observed are not artifacts of the specific model simplifications. Without such evidence, the ranking of criteria by predictive power cannot be taken as load-bearing for general use.

Authors: The models were deliberately simplified to enable falsifiable tests against known exact results, which is required to quantify success/failure rates of each criterion. We maintain that the differences in applicability and predictive power reflect intrinsic properties of the complex Langevin dynamics rather than model-specific artifacts, as the chosen set spans the main qualitative features relevant to sign problems. To strengthen the presentation we will expand the model-selection discussion to articulate this rationale more explicitly and to acknowledge that the ranking is strictly valid within the tested class of models. A definitive proof that no artifacts exist would require additional models or dimensions and is beyond the present scope. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved

Performing explicit sensitivity tests on higher-dimensional gauge theories or systems with dynamical fermions to rule out artifacts from model simplifications cannot be carried out within the current study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical comparison without derivation chain

full rationale

The paper conducts a numerical study comparing correctness criteria on four simple models, reporting observed behaviors and applicability without any claimed first-principles derivations, predictions, or mathematical reductions. No equations or results are shown to be equivalent to inputs by construction, no parameters are fitted and relabeled as predictions, and no self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems are invoked to justify core claims. The generalizability assumption to realistic theories is an explicit limitation rather than a hidden circular step, leaving the work self-contained as an empirical benchmark exercise.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the established framework of complex Langevin dynamics and previously proposed correctness criteria; no new free parameters, axioms beyond standard numerical methods, or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Complex Langevin dynamics can be applied to systems with complex actions and may converge to the correct expectation values under suitable conditions.
Invoked throughout the abstract as the basis for needing correctness criteria.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5415 in / 1028 out tokens · 26583 ms · 2026-05-10T14:25:13.387556+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Finite-density equation of state of hot QCD using the complex Langevin equation
hep-lat 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Continuum-extrapolated lattice QCD simulations with complex Langevin produce the equation of state at high baryon chemical potentials above the crossover temperature at the physical point.
The emergence of (3+1)-dimensional expanding spacetime from complex Langevin simulations of the Lorentzian type IIB matrix model with deformations
hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Complex Langevin simulations of the deformed Lorentzian type IIB matrix model show emergence of smooth (3+1)-dimensional expanding spacetime with real space and time.
Lattice field theories with a sign problem
hep-lat 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

A review of holomorphic extensions, dual variables, tensor renormalization group, and machine learning approaches for controlling the sign problem in lattice field theories.
Lattice field theories with a sign problem
hep-lat 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 1.0

Reviews approaches such as Lefschetz thimbles, complex Langevin dynamics, dual variables, tensor renormalization group, and machine learning to control the sign problem in lattice field theories.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Troyer and U.-J

M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese,Computational Complexity and Fundamental Limitations to Fermionic Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations,Phys. Rev. Lett.94 (2005) 170201 [cond-mat/0408370]

work page arXiv 2005
[2]

Bursa and M

F. Bursa and M. Kroyter,A simple approach towards the sign problem using path optimisation,JHEP2018(2018) 054 [1805.04941]

work page arXiv 2018
[3]

Bursa and M

F. Bursa and M. Kroyter,Optimisation of complex integration contours at higher order,JHEP2021(2021) 181 [2103.08948]

work page arXiv 2021
[4]

Başar and J

G. Başar and J. Marincel,Sign optimization and complex saddle points in one-dimensional QCD,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) L091503 [2208.02072]

work page arXiv 2022
[5]

Başar and J

G. Başar and J. Marincel,Heavy-dense QCD, sign optimization and Lefschetz thimbles,Phys. Rev. C109(2024) 045208 [2311.06343]

work page arXiv 2024
[6]

Cristoforetti, F

M. Cristoforetti, F. Di Renzo and L. Scorzato,New approach to the sign problem in quantum field theories: High density QCD on a Lefschetz thimble,Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 074506 [1205.3996]

work page arXiv 2012
[7]

Pásztor and D

A. Pásztor and D. Pesznyák,Is it worth the effort to find Lefschetz thimbles? Integration contours with numerically optimal signal-to-noise ratios in simple fermionic toy models,2509.07881

work page arXiv
[8]

title Solving sign problems with physics-informed kernels http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03159 arXiv:2603.03159

F. Ihssen, R. Kapust and J.M. Pawlowski,Solving sign problems with physics-informed kernels,2603.03159

work page arXiv
[9]

Parisi,On complex probabilities,Phys

G. Parisi,On complex probabilities,Phys. Lett. B131(1983) 393. – 64 –

1983
[10]

Klauder,A Langevin approach to fermion and quantum spin correlation functions,J

J.R. Klauder,A Langevin approach to fermion and quantum spin correlation functions,J. Phys. A16(1983) L317

1983
[11]

Okano, L

K. Okano, L. Schülke and B. Zheng,Complex Langevin Simulation,Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.111(1993) 313

1993
[12]

Berger, L

C.E. Berger, L. Rammelmüller, A.C. Loheac, F. Ehmann, J. Braun and J.E. Drut, Complex Langevin and other approaches to the sign problem in quantum many-body physics,Phys. Rep.892(2021) 1 [1907.10183]

work page arXiv 2021
[13]

Parisi and Y.-S

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

1981
[14]

Batrouni, G.R

G.G. Batrouni, G.R. Katz, A.S. Kronfeld, G.P. Lepage, B. Svetitsky and K.G. Wilson,Langevin simulations of lattice field theories,Phys. Rev. D32(1985) 2736

1985
[15]

Söderberg,On the complex Langevin equation,Nucl

B. Söderberg,On the complex Langevin equation,Nucl. Phys. B295(1988) 396

1988
[16]

Okamoto, K

H. Okamoto, K. Okano, L. Schülke and S. Tanaka,The role of a kernel in complex langevin systems,Nucl. Phys. B324(1989) 684

1989
[17]

Okano, L

K. Okano, L. Schülke and B. Zheng,Kernel-controled complex Langevin simulation. Field dependent kernel,Phys. Lett. B258(1991) 421

1991
[18]

Boguslavski, P

K. Boguslavski, P. Hotzy and D.I. Müller,Stabilizing complex Langevin for real-time gauge theories with an anisotropic kernel,JHEP2023(2023) 011 [2212.08602]

work page arXiv 2023
[19]

Boguslavski, P

K. Boguslavski, P. Hotzy and D.I. Müller,Real-time correlators in3 + 1Dthermal lattice gauge theory,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 094518 [2312.03063]

work page arXiv 2024
[20]

Alvestad, R

D. Alvestad, R. Larsen and A. Rothkopf,Towards learning optimized kernels for complex Langevin,JHEP2023(2023) 057 [2211.15625]

work page arXiv 2023
[21]

Lampl and D

N.M. Lampl and D. Sexty,Real time evolution of scalar fields with kernelled Complex Langevin equation,2309.06103

work page arXiv
[22]

Alvestad, A

D. Alvestad, A. Rothkopf and D. Sexty,Lattice real-time simulations with learned optimal kernels,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) L031502 [2310.08053]

work page arXiv 2024
[23]

Damgaard and H

P. Damgaard and H. Hüffel,Stochastic Quantization,Phys. Rep.152(1987) 227

1987
[24]

Salcedo,Representation of complex probabilities,J

L.L. Salcedo,Representation of complex probabilities,J. Math. Phys.38(1997) 1710 [hep-lat/9607044]

work page arXiv 1997
[25]

Weingarten,Complex Probabilities onR N as Real Probabilities onCN and an Application to Path Integrals,Phys

D. Weingarten,Complex Probabilities onR N as Real Probabilities onCN and an Application to Path Integrals,Phys. Rev. Lett.89(2002) 240201 [quant-ph/0210195]

work page arXiv 2002
[26]

Salcedo,The existence of positive representations for complex weights,J

L.L. Salcedo,The existence of positive representations for complex weights,J. Phys. A40(2007) 9399 [0706.4359]

work page arXiv 2007
[27]

Ambjørn and S.K

J. Ambjørn and S.K. Yang,Numerical problems in applying the langevin equation to complex effective actions,Phys. Lett. B165(1985) 140. – 65 –

1985
[28]

Ambjørn, M

J. Ambjørn, M. Flensburg and C. Peterson,The complex Langevin equation and Monte Carlo simulations of actions with static charges,Nucl. Phys. B275(1986) 375

1986
[29]

Aarts and F.A

G. Aarts and F.A. James,On the convergence of complex Langevin dynamics: the three-dimensional XY model at finite chemical potential,JHEP2010(2010) 020 [1005.3468]

work page arXiv 2010
[30]

Aarts, F.A

G. Aarts, F.A. James, J.M. Pawlowski, E. Seiler, D. Sexty and I.-O. Stamatescu, Stability of complex Langevin dynamics in effective models,JHEP2013(2013) 073 [1212.5231]

work page arXiv 2013
[31]

Pawlowski and C

J.M. Pawlowski and C. Zielinski,Thirring model at finite density in 0+1 dimensions with stochastic quantization: Crosscheck with an exact solution,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 094503 [1302.1622]

work page arXiv 2013
[32]

Pawlowski and C

J.M. Pawlowski and C. Zielinski,Thirring model at finite density in 2+1 dimensions with stochastic quantization,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 094509 [1302.2249]

work page arXiv 2013
[33]

Mollgaard and K

A. Mollgaard and K. Splittorff,Complex Langevin dynamics for chiral random matrix theory,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 116007 [1309.4335]

work page arXiv 2013
[34]

Makino, H

H. Makino, H. Suzuki and D. Takeda,Complex Langevin method applied to the 2D SU(2)Yang-Mills theory,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 085020 [1503.00417]

work page arXiv 2015
[35]

Kogut and D.K

J.B. Kogut and D.K. Sinclair,Applying complex Langevin simulations to lattice QCD at finite density,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 054512 [1903.02622]

work page arXiv 2019
[36]

Mandl, E

M. Mandl, E. Seiler and D. Sexty,Necessary and sufficient conditions for correctness of complex Langevin,J. Phys. A58(2025) 495202 [2508.14512]

work page arXiv 2025
[37]

Aarts, F.A

G. Aarts, F.A. James, E. Seiler and I.-O. Stamatescu,Adaptive stepsize and instabilities in complex Langevin dynamics,Phys. Lett. B687(2010) 154 [0912.0617]

work page arXiv 2010
[38]

Alvestad, R

D. Alvestad, R. Larsen and A. Rothkopf,Stable solvers for real-time Complex Langevin,JHEP2021(2021) 138 [2105.02735]

work page arXiv 2021
[39]

Aarts, E

G. Aarts, E. Seiler and I.-O. Stamatescu,Complex Langevin method: When can it be trusted?,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 054508 [0912.3360]

work page arXiv 2010
[40]

Aarts, F.A

G. Aarts, F.A. James, E. Seiler and I.-O. Stamatescu,Complex Langevin: etiology and diagnostics of its main problem,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1756 [1101.3270]

work page arXiv 2011
[41]

Salcedo,Spurious solutions of the complex Langevin equation,Phys

L.L. Salcedo,Spurious solutions of the complex Langevin equation,Phys. Lett. B 305(1993) 125

1993
[42]

Guralnik and C

G. Guralnik and C. Pehlevan,Complex Langevin equations and Schwinger–Dyson equations,Nucl. Phys. B811(2009) 519 [0710.3756]

work page arXiv 2009
[43]

Guralnik and C

G. Guralnik and C. Pehlevan,Effective potential for complex Langevin equations, Nucl. Phys. B822(2009) 349 [0902.1503]. – 66 –

work page arXiv 2009
[44]

Salcedo,Does the complex Langevin method give unbiased results?,Phys

L.L. Salcedo,Does the complex Langevin method give unbiased results?,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 114505 [1611.06390]

work page arXiv 2016
[45]

Witten,A New Look At The Path Integral Of Quantum Mechanics,1009.6032

E. Witten,A New Look At The Path Integral Of Quantum Mechanics,1009.6032

work page arXiv
[46]

Analytic Continuation Of Chern-Simons Theory

E. Witten,Analytic Continuation Of Chern-Simons Theory,AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math.50(2011) 347 [1001.2933]

work page Pith review arXiv 2011
[47]

García, Z

S. García, Z. Guralnik and G.S. Guralnik,Theta Vacua and Boundary Conditions of the Schwinger-Dyson Equations,hep-th/9612079

work page arXiv
[48]

Guralnik and Z

G. Guralnik and Z. Guralnik,Complexified path integrals and the phases of quantum field theory,Ann. Phys.325(2010) 2486 [0710.1256]

work page arXiv 2010
[49]

Salcedo and E

L.L. Salcedo and E. Seiler,Schwinger–Dyson equations and line integrals,J. Phys. A52(2019) 035201 [1809.06888]

work page arXiv 2019
[50]

Hansen, M

M.W. Hansen, M. Mandl, E. Seiler and D. Sexty,Role of integration cycles in complex Langevin simulations,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 074502 [2412.17137]

work page arXiv 2025
[51]

Berges and D

J. Berges and D. Sexty,Real-time gauge theory simulations from stochastic quantization with optimized updating,Nucl. Phys. B799(2008) 306 [0708.0779]

work page arXiv 2008
[52]

Hayata, Y

T. Hayata, Y. Hidaka and Y. Tanizaki,Complex saddle points and the sign problem in complex Langevin simulation,Nucl. Phys. B911(2016) 94 [1511.02437]

work page arXiv 2016
[53]

Bloch,Reweighting complex Langevin trajectories,Phys

J. Bloch,Reweighting complex Langevin trajectories,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 054509 [1701.00986]

work page arXiv 2017
[54]

Seiler, D

E. Seiler, D. Sexty and I.-O. Stamatescu,Gauge cooling in complex Langevin for lattice QCD with heavy quarks,Phys. Lett. B723(2013) 213 [1211.3709]

work page arXiv 2013
[55]

Nagata, J

K. Nagata, J. Nishimura and S. Shimasaki,Justification of the complex Langevin method with the gauge cooling procedure,Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2016(2016) 013B01 [1508.02377]

work page arXiv 2016
[56]

Attanasio and B

F. Attanasio and B. Jäger,Dynamical stabilisation of complex Langevin simulations of QCD,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 16 [1808.04400]

work page arXiv 2019
[57]

Z. Cai, Y. Kuang and H.K. Tan,Regularization of the complex Langevin method, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 014508 [2109.12762]

work page arXiv 2022
[58]

title QCD equation of state via the complex Langevin method http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.13144 arXiv:2203.13144

F. Attanasio, B. Jäger and F.P.G. Ziegler,QCD equation of state via the complex Langevin method,2203.13144

work page arXiv
[59]

Hansen and D

M.W. Hansen and D. Sexty,Testing dynamical stabilization of complex Langevin simulations of QCD,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 054508 [2405.20709]

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

Boguslavski, P

K. Boguslavski, P. Hotzy and D.I. Müller,Lefschetz thimble-inspired weight regularizations for complex Langevin simulations,SciPost Phys.18(2025) 092 [2412.02396]

work page arXiv 2025
[61]

Gausterer and S

H. Gausterer and S. Lee,The Mechanism of Complex Langevin Simulations,J. Stat. Phys.73(1993) 147 [hep-lat/9211050]. – 67 –

work page arXiv 1993
[62]

Lee,The convergence of complex Langevin simulations,Nucl

S. Lee,The convergence of complex Langevin simulations,Nucl. Phys. B413(1994) 827

1994
[63]

Gausterer,On the correct convergence of complex Langevin simulations for polynomial actions,J

H. Gausterer,On the correct convergence of complex Langevin simulations for polynomial actions,J. Phys. A27(1994) 1325 [hep-lat/9312003]

work page arXiv 1994
[64]

Gausterer,Complex Langevin: A numerical method?,Nucl

H. Gausterer,Complex Langevin: A numerical method?,Nucl. Phys. A642(1998) c239

1998
[65]

Seiler, D

E. Seiler, D. Sexty and I.-O. Stamatescu,Complex Langevin: Correctness criteria, boundary terms, and spectrum,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 014509 [2304.00563]

work page arXiv 2024
[66]

Aarts, E

G. Aarts, E. Seiler, D. Sexty and I.-O. Stamatestu,Complex Langevin dynamics and zeroes of the fermion determinant,JHEP2017(2017) 044 [1701.02322]

work page arXiv 2017
[67]

Scherzer, E

M. Scherzer, E. Seiler, D. Sexty and I.-O. Stamatescu,Complex Langevin and boundary terms,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 014512 [1808.05187]

work page arXiv 2019
[68]

Scherzer, E

M. Scherzer, E. Seiler, D. Sexty and I.-O. Stamatescu,Controlling complex Langevin simulations of lattice models by boundary term analysis,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 014501 [1910.09427]

work page arXiv 2020
[69]

Aarts, E

G. Aarts, E. Seiler, D. Sexty and I.-O. Stamatestu,Erratum: Complex Langevin dynamics and zeroes of the fermion determinant,JHEP2018(2018) 128

2018
[70]

Seiler,Complex Langevin: Boundary terms at poles,Phys

E. Seiler,Complex Langevin: Boundary terms at poles,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 094507 [2006.04714]

work page arXiv 2020
[71]

Nagata, J

K. Nagata, J. Nishimura and S. Shimasaki,Argument for justification of the complex Langevin method and the condition for correct convergence,Phys. Rev. D 94(2016) 114515 [1606.07627]

work page arXiv 2016
[72]

Nagata, J

K. Nagata, J. Nishimura and S. Shimasaki,Testing the criterion for correct convergence in the complex Langevin method,JHEP2018(2018) 004 [1802.01876]

work page arXiv 2018
[73]

Mandl, E

M. Mandl, E. Seiler and D. Sexty,Complex Langevin simulations with a kernel,PoS (LATTICE2025)(2026) 109 [2512.14153]

work page arXiv 2026
[74]

title Thermodynamic Diagnostics for Complex Langevin Simulations: The Role of Configurational Temperature http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08287 arXiv:2509.08287

A. Joseph and A. Kumar,Thermodynamic Diagnostics for Complex Langevin Simulations: The Role of Configurational Temperature,2509.08287

work page arXiv
[75]

title Configurational Temperature as a Diagnostic for Complex Langevin Dynamics in the 3D XY Model http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.13314 arXiv:2509.13314

A. Joseph and A. Kumar,Configurational Temperature as a Diagnostic for Complex Langevin Dynamics in the 3D XY Model,2509.13314

work page arXiv
[76]

Rugh,Dynamical Approach to Temperature,Phys

H.H. Rugh,Dynamical Approach to Temperature,Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997) 772 [chao-dyn/9701026]

work page arXiv 1997
[77]

Dhindsa, A

N.S. Dhindsa, A. Joseph and V. Longia,Gradient and Hessian-Based temperature estimator in lattice gauge theories: a diagnostic tool for stability and consistency in numerical simulations,JHEP2025(2025) 015 [2508.05595]

work page arXiv 2025
[78]

M. D. Wilkinson et al.,The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship,Sci. Data3(2016) 160018

2016
[79]

Correctness criteria for complex Langevin

M. Mandl,Dataset for "Correctness criteria for complex Langevin",Zenodo(2026) . – 68 –

2026
[80]

Mandl,CLaSS (Complex Langevin for Simple Systems),Zenodo(2026)

M. Mandl,CLaSS (Complex Langevin for Simple Systems),Zenodo(2026)

2026

Showing first 80 references.