Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Notes on phase structure and non-vanishing $\beta$ functions of one-unitary matrix model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The beta functions of the one-unitary matrix model never vanish together on critical lines, so its large-N transitions are third order.

desk verdict A solid n=2 beta-function calculation is over-advertised as an n≤3 result. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03366 v1 pith:ZQ6S3WX4 submitted 2026-08-04 hep-th

Hiroshi Itoyama , Reiji Yoshioka This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords unitarymatrixmodellarge-NphasetransitionGWWbetafunctionclassicalpotentialeigenvaluedistributiongapstructureirregularconformalblock
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 develops a shortcut for reading off the phase structure of a large-$N$ unitary matrix model with potential $-\cos\alpha-\sum_{k=2}^n\tau_k\cos k\alpha$: watch the local minima of the classical potential as the coupling $\lambda$ decreases, instead of solving the full eigenvalue-density integral equation. In this model a 'gap' is a disjoint arc of the eigenvalue density, and the phases are labelled by how many arcs the density occupies. Applied to potentials with $n$ up to 3, the method reproduces the known $n=2$ phase diagram and yields qualitative $n=3$ phase diagrams with 0-, 1-, 2-, and 3-gap phases. The sharper claim concerns $\beta$ functions: in the $n=1$ and $n=2$ models the $\beta$-function vector never vanishes at any point on the critical lines, so the transitions are third order rather than second order, extending the $n=1$ GWW result and matching the susceptibility exponent. These matrix models are of interest because they encode, through irregular conformal blocks, the low-energy effective action of some asymptotically free supersymmetric gauge theories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the classical potential $U_n(\alpha)=-\cos\alpha-\sum_{k=2}^n\tau_k\cos k\alpha$ and the $\beta$-function vector. The potential's local extrema, located by $U'_n(\alpha)=\sin\alpha\times(\text{polynomial of degree }n-1\text{ in }\cos\alpha)$, determine the number and location of eigenvalue accumulations as $\lambda$ decreases; $\alpha=0$ and $\pi$ are always extrema, and at most $n-1$ further extrema lie inside $(0,\pi)$. The $\beta$ functions are built from the large-$N$ expectation values $w_k=\lim_{N\to\infty}N^{-1}\langle\sum_i\cos(k\alpha_i)\rangle$, the matrix $W_{k\ell}=\partial w_k/\partial\tau_\ell$, the scale relation $w_k=e^{-a^2\sigma_k}$, and $\beta_k=\sum

What would settle it

Solve the planar large-$N$ saddle-point equation for the eigenvalue density of the $n=3$ model in one of the five classified cases, say $\tau=1/3$, $\sigma=2/5$, and track the number of gaps as $\lambda$ is lowered; if the sequence or critical values differ from the paper's Fig. 10, the potential-shape method fails. Equivalently, evaluate $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ of the $n=2$ model along a numerically located critical line and look for a simultaneous zero; a common zero would overturn the third-order claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the qualitative phase structure of the one-unitary matrix model is controlled by the shape of its classical potential. For $U_n(\alpha)=-\cos\alpha-\sum_{k=2}^n\tau_k\cos k\alpha$, the derivative $U'_n(\alpha)$ is $\sin\alpha$ times a polynomial in $\cos\alpha$ of degree $n-1$, so beyond the endpoints $\alpha=0,\pi$ there are at most $n-1$ internal extrema. As $\lambda$ decreases, eigenvalue repulsion weakens and eigenvalues accumulate around the local minima; the number of such accumulation regions is the number of gaps in the phase. For $n=2$, this logic reproduces the known diagram, including the three regimes $\tau>1/4$, $|\tau|\le 1/4$, $\tau<-1/4$ with gap seq

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that decreasing $\lambda$ simply lets eigenvalues accumulate around the local minima of the classical potential; if eigenvalue repulsion redistributes the density in a way not captured by the shape of $U_n$, the predicted gap sequences and phase boundaries are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $n=2$, the classical-potential reasoning reproduces the known phase diagram, including the three gap sequences and the triple point, without solving the full planar problem.
  • For $n=3$, the method predicts five qualitatively different phase diagrams in the $(\tau,\sigma)$ plane; each has a 0-gap phase at large $\lambda$ and some show 1-, 2-, and 3-gap phases.
  • The $n=1$ GWW result, a third-order transition with nonzero beta function at the critical point, extends to $n=2$: along critical lines the beta vector $(\beta_1,\beta_2)$ never vanishes.
  • The observation is consistent with the susceptibility exponent and indicates that the large-$N$ transitions in these models are third order rather than second order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not spell out that, if the non-vanishing beta vector is generic, each critical line is crossed transversally by the RG flow rather than ending at a fixed point; reaching such a line therefore requires tuning a combination of couplings.
  • The same local-minimum counting should extend to $n>3$ potentials, where the number of internal extrema grows with $n$; one would expect richer multi-gap phases, but the paper does not demonstrate this.
  • Once the $n=3$ planar free energy is available, computing its beta functions would test whether the no-common-zero property survives beyond $n=2$; the authors' argument suggests it does.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the one-unitary matrix model with potential U_n = -cos α - sum_{k=2}^n τ_k cos kα. It proposes that the qualitative phase structure as λ decreases can be read off from the evolution of local minima of the classical potential. This is illustrated for n=1,2,3, with five parameter regions for n=3 and corresponding phase diagrams in Fig. 10. The paper then defines β functions through w_k = e^{-a^2 σ_k} and β_k = a dτ_k/da, computes them explicitly for n=1 and for n=2 in the 0-gap and 1-gap phases, and claims that the β-vector never vanishes on the critical lines. This is presented as a generalization of the n=1 GWW case and as evidence for third-order rather than second-order phase transitions.

Significance. If the n=3 phase diagrams and the non-vanishing-β statement were fully derived, the paper would offer a useful qualitative method and a concrete link between RG β-functions and the order of large-N transitions. The explicit n=1,2 calculations are a strength: free energies are given in closed form and the β functions follow from them without fitted parameters. However, as it stands, the advertised n≤3 result is not demonstrated: the beta-function computation stops at n=2, and the n=3 phase diagrams are inferences from the classical potential. Also, non-vanishing β at a transition line does not by itself determine whether the transition is second or third order. The central claims are therefore only partially supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2–2.3, Fig. 10] The n=3 phase diagrams are obtained from the deformation of U_3(α), not from the planar eigenvalue problem. For n=2 the same reasoning is backed by the exact solution in [13], but no such check is provided for n=3. The extrema of the classical potential determine where eigenvalue density can accumulate only if the density is sharply peaked; at finite λ the Vandermonde repulsion redistributes the density and can alter the number of cuts and the location of transition lines. In particular, the 0→1→3 and 0→2→3 sequences in Fig. 10 are not derived. A large-N solution (resolvent/spectral curve) or at least the n=3 free energy in each candidate phase is needed. This is load-bearing because the abstract announces phase structure for n≤3.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.1)–(3.5), Figs. 11–12] The β functions are computed only for n=1 and n=2. The n=3 case is never paired with w_3, W, or β_k. Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5) define the general object, but the non-vanishing-vector statement is asserted for the critical lines of Fig. 10 without calculation. Thus 'This generalizes the n=1 GWW case' (abstract) is not established beyond n=2. Please either carry out the n=3 computation (e.g., from F_{n=3} in the relevant gaps) or explicitly restrict the non-vanishing claim to n=1,2.
  3. [Sec. 3, after Eq. (3.8)] The step from a non-vanishing β vector to a third-order (not second-order) transition is not derived. Non-zero β at a critical line excludes an RG fixed point on that line, but the order of the transition is a statement about the free energy: third order means F and its first derivatives are continuous while some second derivative jumps. The paper neither computes these derivatives around the transitions nor proves that the behavior of β implies this pattern. For n=1 this follows from the exact F in Eq. (3.6); for n=2, F is given by Eq. (3.17), but the derivative analysis is absent. The link to the susceptibility exponent is named in the abstract, not shown. Please supply the free-energy derivative analysis or weaken the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Fig. 8] The Fig. 8 caption reads '(a) (a) (b) (c)'; this appears to be a typo and should probably be '(a) (b) (c)'.
  2. [Eq. (3.3)] The notation τ_1 ≡ λ is confusing because λ appears as the inverse coupling in Eq. (1.1). Please clarify the convention.
  3. [Eq. (2.8)] The expression 1 + 3σ(3σ − 1)/τ^2 would benefit from parentheses: 1 + [3σ(3σ − 1)]/τ^2, to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues: 'extrama' for 'extrema' (Sec. 2.1), 'determintant' near Eq. (1.1), 'behavio r' before Fig. 11, and inconsistent hyphenation in 'β functions'. A thorough proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: beta functions are computed from exact free energies, and the n=3 generalization is an evidentiary extrapolation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The beta-function construction in Sec. 3 (Eqs. 3.1–3.5) is a definition: β_k ≡ a dτ_k/da = Σ W^{-1}_{kℓ} d_a w_ℓ with d_a w_k = 2w_k ln w_k. No fitted parameter is inserted, and the target conclusion (non-vanishing beta vector) is not an input to the definition. For n=1, β_1 follows from the exact Gross–Witten/Wadia free energy (Eq. 3.6), an external benchmark; the nonzero value at λ=2 is a computed fact, not a manufactured one. For n=2, w_1, w_2 are obtained from the 1-gap free energy (Eq. 3.17), which is taken from the authors' previous paper [13]. That is a legitimate citation to prior analytic work: [13] does not assume the non-vanishing beta-vector claim, and the beta functions are newly computed from that free energy, so the citation is independent support rather than a circularity. The figures 11–12 report a computed property of those beta functions, not a fit or a prediction forced by the inputs. The paper's central weakness is not circularity but an evidentiary gap: Sec. 2.2 gives only qualitative classical-potential phase diagrams for n=3 (Fig. 10), while Sec. 3 derives beta functions only for n=1,2. Thus the abstract's statement that the nowhere-vanishing beta-vector 'generalizes the n=1 GWW case' to n≤3 is an extrapolation, not a derivation. Similarly, the claim that non-vanishing beta functions 'tell us' third-order rather than second-order transitions is an inference not grounded in the discontinuity structure of the free energy. These are unsupported claims, but they are not cases where a result is equivalent to its inputs by construction. No ansatz is smuggled in via citation, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is merely renamed.

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

No fitted parameters: λ, τ, σ are model couplings. The paper introduces a scale a and string tensions σ_k via w_k = e^{-a^2 σ_k}, but these are definitions, not fitted to data. The heavy reliance on [13] and the unchecked potential-shape heuristic are the main input assumptions.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The large-N eigenvalue distribution's phase structure is correctly reflected by the number and depth ordering of local minima of the classical potential W(α) as λ decreases.
    Used throughout Sec 2 to infer 0-gap/1-gap/2-gap/3-gap sequences and to draw Fig.10 for n=3 without solving the matrix model.
  • ad hoc to paper The beta functions β_k = a dτ_k/da defined through w_k = e^{-a^2 σ_k} and W^{-1} are the appropriate RG beta functions for the model.
    This definition appears in Sec 3 (eq. 3.2-3.3) without justification or comparison to standard definitions; the interpretation of the flow depends on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-vanishing of the beta-function vector on critical lines implies the transition is third order rather than second order.
    Stated in the abstract and Sec 3 after computing β1=4ln2 at λ=2 for n=1; no argument connects a nonzero beta vector to the order of the transition, and the susceptibility-exponent argument is not shown.
  • domain assumption The n=2 free energy F^{(1)} (eq. 3.17) from the authors' previous paper [13] is correct.
    Used as input for the beta-function computation in the 1-gap phase; the derivation is not reproduced in this note.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Notes on phase structure and non-vanishing $\beta$ functions of one-unitary matrix model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQ6S3WX4

@misc{pith2026260803366,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Notes on phase structure and non-vanishing $\beta$ functions of one-unitary matrix model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQ6S3WX4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03366}
}
abstract

Unitary matrix models, among other things, play an important role in representing the irregular conformal block and hence LEEA of some asymptotically free susy gauge theories. Here, we develop a method of how to determine the qualitative structure of phase diagram by the deformation of classical potential, and illustrate this by the examples that contain term up to $\cos n\alpha$, $n \leq 3$. We point out that a set of $\beta$ functions on critical ``lines" is nowhere a vanishing vector. This generalizes the $n =1$ GWW case and tells us the third order (rather than second order) phase transition in conformity with the range of values for the susceptibility exponent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03366 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. Fig.4.). There are three different cases to consider. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. case (ii) |τ | ≤ 1 4 : 0 ⇒ 1 There exist a local minimum at α = 0 and a local maximum at α = π. In this case, the minimum is only at α = 0 and we obtain 0 → 1 transition. case (iii) τ < − 1 4 : 0 ⇒ 1 ⇒ 2 There exist two local maxima at α = 0, π and two local minima at α = ±α0. If λ is large enough, eigenvalues go over the barrier. This is one-gap phase. As λ gets smaller, the eigenvalues are distributed around each … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. τ= 1 2 , α0 = 2π 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: τ = 1 6 . The dots represent the points where cos(3α) = 0 and the circles represent the points where (cos(3α))′ = 3 sin(3α) = 0, (0 ≤ α ≤ π). These points move in the direction indicated by the arrow as σ increases. (a) σ = 0, (b) σ = 3+2√ 2 18 , (c) σ = 1 2 . (II) Cas…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: τ = 1 3 . (a) σ = 0, (b) σ = 1 27 , (c) σ = 2 5 > 3+√ 5 18 . (III) Case 3: τ = 1 2 For any σ, α = 2π 3 is the extremum of U3(α). When σ = 0, we have U3( 2π 3 ) > U3(π). As σ increases, U3( 2π 3 ) decreases and U3(π) increases. At a certain σ, the local minimum at α = π…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: τ = 1 2 . (a) σ = 0, (b) σ = 1 9 , (c) σ = 1 8 , (d) σ = 1 6 , (e) σ = 1 3 . (IV) Case 4: 1 2 < τ ≤ 1 At σ = 0, the local maximum point α0(σ = 0) is located within π 3 < α < 2π 3 . As σ increases, α0(σ) approaches π 3 because the gradient of − cos(3α) is negative in π …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: τ = 5 6 . (a) σ = 0, (b) σ = 7 27 , (c) σ = 1 2 . (V) Case 5: τ > 1 As can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: τ = 3 2 . (a) σ = 0, (b) σ = 5 9 , (c) σ = 2. 2.3 phase diagram Let us estimate the phase diagram expected from the shape of U3(α). With τ fixed, we consider the phase diagram with respect to σ and λ. For sufficiently large λ, the repulsion also becomes large and the e…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: It follows that 0 ≤ wk ≤ 1. By definition, it is obvious that wk ≤ 1. The point α = 0 is the minimum of the potential (τk > 0) and it implies that the eigenvalue density is maximized around this point. In its vicinity, cos(kα) > 0 and, therefore, we see that wk ≥ 0. L…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The beta function for λ on the transition line. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The beta function for τ on the transition line. Acknowledgments We thank Takahiro Nishinaka for continuing discussion on this subject. The work of H.I. and R.Y. is supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI (23K03393, 23K03394). References [1] Madan Lal Mehta, Random matrices,…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Phases and triple(multiple) point: critical phenomena around the AD singularity

    Hiroshi Itoyama and Reiji Yoshioka, “Phases and triple (multiple ) point: Criti- cal phenomena around the AD singularity,” Nucl. Phys. B 1010, 116765 (2025), arXiv:2411.10747

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Madan Lal Mehta, Random matrices, volume 142, (Elsevier, 2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [2]

    Method of Generating q-Expansion Coefficients for Conformal Block and N=2 Nekrasov Function by beta-Deformed Matrix Model

    H. Itoyama and T. Oota, “Method of Generating q-Expansion Co efficients for Conformal Block and N=2 Nekrasov Function by beta-Deformed Matrix Model,” N ucl. Phys. B 838, 298–330 (2010), arXiv:1003.2929

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  4. [3]

    Conformal blocks a s Dotsenko-Fateev Integral Discriminants,

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and Sh. Shakirov, “Conformal blocks a s Dotsenko-Fateev Integral Discriminants,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 3173–3207 (2010), arXiv:1001.0563

    arXiv 2010

  5. [4]

    Massive Scaling Limit of beta-Deformed Matrix Model of Selberg Type

    H. Itoyama, T. Oota, and N. Yonezawa, “Massive Scaling Limit of b eta-Deformed Ma- trix Model of Selberg Type,” Phys. Rev. D 82, 085031 (2010), arXiv:1008.1861

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  6. [5]

    Discrete Painleve system and the double scaling limit of the matrix model for irregular conformal block and gauge theory

    H. Itoyama, T. Oota, and Katsuya Yano, “Discrete Painlev´ e sy stem and the double scaling limit of the matrix model for irregular conformal block and gau ge theory,” Phys. Lett. B 789, 605–609 (2019), arXiv:1805.05057. 12

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    Discrete Painleve system for the partition function of $N_f =2$ $SU(2)$ supersymmetric gauge theory and its double scaling limit

    H. Itoyama, T. Oota, and Katsuya Yano, “Discrete Painlev´ e sy stem for the partition function of Nf = 2 SU (2) supersymmetric gauge theory and its double scaling limit,” J. Phys. A 52(41), 415401 (2019), arXiv:1812.00811

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Discrete Painlev´ e sy stem associated with Unitary matrix model,

    H. Itoyama, T. Oota, and Katsuya Yano, “Discrete Painlev´ e sy stem associated with Unitary matrix model,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1194(1), 012050 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Multicritical points of unitary matrix model with logarithmic potential identified with Argyres–Douglas points,

    H. Itoyama, T. Oota, and Katsuya Yano, “Multicritical points of unitary matrix model with logarithmic potential identified with Argyres–Douglas points,” In t. J. Mod. Phys. A 35(24), 2050146 (2020), arXiv:1909.10770

    2020 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Theory space of one unitary ma trix model and its critical behavior associated with Argyres–Douglas theory,

    H. Itoyama and Katsuya Yano, “Theory space of one unitary ma trix model and its critical behavior associated with Argyres–Douglas theory,” Int. J . Mod. Phys. A 36(30), 2150227 (2021), arXiv:2103.11428

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Construction of irreg ular conformal/W block and flavor mass relations of N = 2 SUSY gauge theory from the An−1 quiver matrix model,

    H. Itoyama, T. Oota, and R. Yoshioka, “Construction of irreg ular conformal/W block and flavor mass relations of N = 2 SUSY gauge theory from the An−1 quiver matrix model,” Phys. Lett. B 841, 137938 (2023), arXiv:2210.16738

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    A-D hypersurface of su(n) N = 2 supersym- metric gauge theory with Nf = 2 n − 2 flavors,

    H. Itoyama, T. Oota, and R. Yoshioka, “A-D hypersurface of su(n) N = 2 supersym- metric gauge theory with Nf = 2 n − 2 flavors,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38(02), 2350017 (2023), arXiv:2212.06590

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Large Order Behav ior Near the AD Point: The Case of N = 2, su(2), Nf = 2,

    C.-T. Chan, H. Itoyama, and R. Yoshioka, “Large Order Behav ior Near the AD Point: The Case of N = 2, su(2), Nf = 2,” PTEP 2024(4), 041B01 (2024), arXiv:2402.03670

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Electric - magnetic duality, monopole c ondensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electric - magnetic duality, monopole c ondensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 426, 19–52, [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 430, 485–486 (1994)] (1994), hep-th/940 7087

    1994

  7. [15]

    Seiberg-Witten prepotential from instanto n counting,

    N. A. Nekrasov, “Seiberg-Witten prepotential from instanto n counting,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 7(5), 831–864 (2003), hep-th/0206161. 13

    2003 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Liouville Correlation F unctions from Four- dimensional Gauge Theories,

    L. F. Alday, D. Gaiotto, and Y. Tachikawa, “Liouville Correlation F unctions from Four- dimensional Gauge Theories,” Lett. Math. Phys. 91, 167–197 (2010), arXiv:0906.3219

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Toda Theories, Matrix Models, Topo logical Strings, and N=2 Gauge Systems,

    R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, “Toda Theories, Matrix Models, Topo logical Strings, and N=2 Gauge Systems,” (2009), arXiv:0909.2453

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The Quiver Matrix Mod el and 2d-4d Con- formal Connection,

    H. Itoyama, K. Maruyoshi, and T. Oota, “The Quiver Matrix Mod el and 2d-4d Con- formal Connection,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 123, 957–987 (2010), arXiv:0911.4244

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Developments of theory of effec tive prepotential from extended Seiberg–Witten system and matrix models,

    H. Itoyama and R. Yoshioka, “Developments of theory of effec tive prepotential from extended Seiberg–Witten system and matrix models,” PTEP 2015(11), 11B103 (2015), arXiv:1507.00260

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Developments of supersymmetric gauge theory by matrices,

    H. Itoyama, “Developments of supersymmetric gauge theory by matrices,” Nippon But- suri Gakkai-Shi 71(9), 607–616 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    A slow review of the AGT correspondence,

    B. Le Floch, “A slow review of the AGT correspondence,” J. Phys . A 55(35), 353002 (2022), arXiv:2006.14025

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    New phenomena in SU(3) supe rsymmetric gauge theory,

    P. C. Argyres and M. R. Douglas, “New phenomena in SU(3) supe rsymmetric gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 448, 93–126 (1995), hep-th/9505062

    1995 arXiv

  15. [23]

    New N =2 superconformal field theories in four-dimensions,

    P. C. Argyres, M. R. Plesser, N. Seiberg, and E. Witten, “New N =2 superconformal field theories in four-dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 461, 71–84 (1996), hep-th/9511154

    1996 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Renormalization group flow n ear the superconfor- mal points in N=2 supersymmetric gauge theories,

    Takahiro Kubota and Naoto Yokoi, “Renormalization group flow n ear the superconfor- mal points in N=2 supersymmetric gauge theories,” Prog. Theor. Ph ys. 100, 423–436 (1998), hep-th/9712054

    1998 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Possible third-order phase transit ion in the large- N lattice gauge theory,

    D. J. Gross and E. Witten, “Possible third-order phase transit ion in the large- N lattice gauge theory,” Physical Review D 21(2), 446 (1980)

    1980

  18. [26]

    N = ∞ phase transition in a class of exactly soluble model lattice gauge theories,

    S. R. Wadia, “ N = ∞ phase transition in a class of exactly soluble model lattice gauge theories,” Physics Letters B 93(4), 403–410 (1980)

    1980

  19. [27]

    Phase Structure of Unitary Matrix Models,

    G. Mandal, “Phase Structure of Unitary Matrix Models,” Mod. Ph ys. Lett. A 5, 1147– 1158 (1990). 14

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.