- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Bootstrap for lattice Yang-Mills theory

Vladimir Kazakov1,2,* and Zechuan Zheng1,†

  • 1Laboratoire de physique de l’École normale supérieure, ENS, Université PSL, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, Université Paris Cité, 24 rue Lhomond, F-75005 Paris, France
  • 2Interdisciplinary Scientific Center Poncelet, CNRS UMI 2615, 119002 Moscow, Russia

  • *kazakov@lpt.ens.fr
  • †zechuan.zheng.phy@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 107, L051501 – Published 9 March, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.L051501

Abstract

We study the SU(∞) lattice Yang-Mills theory at the dimensions D=2, 3, 4 via the numerical bootstrap method. It combines the loop equations, with a cutoff Lmax on the maximal length of loops, and positivity conditions on certain matrices of Wilson loop averages. Our algorithm is inspired by the pioneering paper of P. D. Anderson and M. Kruczenski [Nucl. Phys. B921, 702 (2017)] but it is significantly more efficient, as it takes into account the symmetries of the lattice theory and uses the relaxation procedure in line with our previous work on matrix bootstrap. We thus obtain rigorous upper and lower bounds on the plaquette average at various couplings and dimensions. For D=4,Lmax=16 the lower bound data appear to be close to the Monte Carlo data in the strong coupling phase and the upper bound data in the weak coupling phase reproduce well the 3-loop perturbation theory. Our results suggest that this bootstrap approach can provide a tangible alternative to the, so far uncontested, Monte Carlo approach.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (53)

  1. G. S. Bali, C. Bauer, and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. D 89, 054505 (2014).
  2. M. Lüscher, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2015) 142.
  3. M. Dalla Brida and M. Lüscher, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 308 (2017).
  4. L. Del Debbio, F. Di Renzo, and G. Filaci, EPJ Web Conf. 175, 11023 (2018).
  5. M. G. Pérez, A. González-Arroyo, and M. Okawa, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2017) 150.
  6. C. Gattringer and C. B. Lang, Quantum Chromodynamics on the Lattice (Springer, Berlin, 2010), Vol. 788.
  7. P. Weisz and P. Majumdar, Scholarpedia 7, 8615 (2012).
  8. Y. M. Makeenko and A. A. Migdal, Phys. Lett. 88B, 135 (1979); 89B, 437(E) (1980).
  9. A. A. Migdal, Phys. Rep. 102, 199 (1983).
  10. A. Jevicki, O. Karim, J. P. Rodrigues, and H. Levine, Nucl. Phys. B213, 169 (1983).
  11. A. Jevicki, O. Karim, J. P. Rodrigues, and H. Levine, Nucl. Phys. B230, 299 (1984).
  12. J. P. Rodrigues, Nucl. Phys. B260, 350 (1985).
  13. R. d. M. Koch, A. Jevicki, X. Liu, K. Mathaba, and J. a. P. Rodrigues, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2022) 168.
  14. P. D. Anderson and M. Kruczenski, Nucl. Phys. B921, 702 (2017).
  15. P. Anderson and M. Kruczenski, EPJ Web Conf. 175, 11011 (2018).
  16. H. W. Lin, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2020) 090.
  17. V. Kazakov and Z. Zheng, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2022) 030.
  18. R. G. Jha, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 46, 1 (2022).
  19. R. Rattazzi, V. S. Rychkov, E. Tonni, and A. Vichi, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2008) 031.
  20. D. Poland, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015002 (2019).
  21. M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2017) 133.
  22. A. L. Guerrieri, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 241604 (2019).
  23. J. Elias Miró and A. Guerrieri, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2021) 126.
  24. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.L051501, for more details.
  25. A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2021) 082.
  26. A. Gonzalez-Arroyo and M. Okawa, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2014) 106.
  27. M. Campostrini, A. Di Giacomo, and Y. Gunduc, Phys. Lett. B 225, 393 (1989).
  28. M. Campostrini and A. Di Giacomo, Phys. Lett. B 197, 403 (1987).
  29. G. S. Bali, C. Bauer, and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 092001 (2014).

  30. We thank Maxim Chernodub for discussion and suggestions on this subject.

  31. K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974).
  32. S. R. Wadia, Phys. Rev. D 24, 970 (1981).
  33. Y. Makeenko, Methods of Contemporary Gauge Theory, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2005).
  34. Jiaxin Qiao and Zechuan Zheng (to be published).
  35. K. Osterwalder and E. Seiler, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 110, 440 (1978).
  36. I. Montvay and G. Münster, Quantum Fields on a Lattice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1997).
  37. H. Panagopoulos, A. Skouroupathis, and A. Tsapalis, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054511 (2006).
  38. M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2019) 040.
  39. R. Rattazzi, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, J. Phys. A 44, 035402 (2011).
  40. Y. He, A. Irrgang, and M. Kruczenski, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2018) 093.
  41. L. Córdova and P. Vieira, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2018) 063.
  42. M. F. Paulos and Z. Zheng, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2020) 145.
  43. C. Bachoc, D. C. Gijswijt, A. Schrijver, and F. Vallentin, in Handbook on Semidefinite, Conic and Polynomial Optimization (Springer, New York, 2012), pp. 219–269.
  44. GAP, gap—Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.11.1 (The GAP Group, 2021).
  45. N. Xu and P. Doerschuk, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 43, A3657 (2021).
  46. J.-P. Serre, Linear Representations of Finite Groups (Springer, New York, 1977), Vol. 42.
  47. B. Alles, A. Feo, and H. Panagopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 426, 361 (1998); 553, 337(E) (2003).
  48. J.-M. Drouffe and J.-B. Zuber, Phys. Rep. 102, 1 (1983).
  49. D. J. Gross and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 21, 446 (1980).
  50. S. R. Wadia, arXiv:1212.2906.
  51. V. A. Kazakov and I. K. Kostov, Phys. Lett. 105B, 453 (1981).

  52. All the SDPs are solved by mosek [53].

  53. M. ApS, mosek command line tools. Release 9.3.18 (2022), https://docs.mosek.com/latest/cmdtools/index.html.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 107, L051501– Published 9 March, 2023
  • Received 8 May 2022
  • Accepted 30 January 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation