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
  • Open Access

Scalable generative sampling and multilevel estimation for lattice field theories near criticality

Ankur Singha1,2,*, Jacob Kauffmann1,2, Elia Cellini3, Karl Jansen4,5, and Shinichi Nakajima1,2,6,†

  • *Contact author: a.singha@tu-berlin.de
  • †Contact author: nakajima@tu-berlin.de

Phys. Rev. D 114, 074515 – Published 26 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/jjss-lwzv

Abstract

Sampling lattice field theories near criticality is severely hindered by critical slowing down, which makes standard Markov chain methods increasingly inefficient at large lattice volumes. We introduce a multiscale generative sampler, inspired by renormalization-group ideas, that models the Boltzmann distribution through a coarse-to-fine hierarchy across length scales. At each level, a conditional Gaussian mixture model captures the main local dependence of newly introduced variables on the already-sampled coarse field, while a masked continuous normalizing flow refines the remaining conditional structure. Coarse levels encode the dominant long-wavelength modes, and finer levels progressively add short-distance fluctuations. In addition, because the architecture preserves coarse fields exactly during refinement, it provides exact restriction maps at no additional computational cost and directly enables asymptotically unbiased multilevel Monte Carlo variance reduction. For the two-dimensional scalar ϕ4 theory near criticality, the method achieves integrated autocorrelation times orders of magnitude smaller than hybrid Monte Carlo (HMC) on large volumes, maintains high importance-sampling efficiency relative to other generative baselines, and reproduces asymptotically unbiased physical observables in statistical agreement with long HMC simulations.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (75)

  1. K. G. Wilson and J. Kogut, Phys. Rep. 12, 75 (1974).
  2. M. Creutz, Quarks, Gluons and Lattices (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1983).
  3. M. Creutz, L. Jacobs, and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rep. 95, 201 (1983).
  4. Y. Aoki et al. [Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG], Phys. Rev. D 113, 014508 (2026).
  5. T. Aoyama et al., Phys. Rep. 887, 1 (2020).
  6. R. Aliberti et al., Phys. Rep. 1143, 1 (2025).
  7. U. Wolff, Nucl. Phys. B17, 93 (1990).
  8. U. Wolff, Comput. Phys. Commun. 156, 143 (2004).
  9. S. Schaefer, R. Sommer, and F. Virotta (ALPHA Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B845, 93 (2011).
  10. E. G. Tabak and E. Vanden-Eijnden, Commun. Math. Sci. 8, 217 (2010).
  11. E. G. Tabak and C. V. Turner, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 66, 145 (2013).
  12. D. Rezende and S. Mohamed, in Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, Vol. 37 (PMLR, Lille, France, 2015), pp. 1530–1538, https://proceedings.mlr.press/v37/rezende15.html.
  13. R. T. Q. Chen, Y. Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. K. Duvenaud, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 31 (2018), https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2018/file/69386f6bb1dfed68692a24c8686939b9-Paper.pdf.
  14. M. S. Albergo, G. Kanwar, and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034515 (2019).
  15. G. Kanwar, M. S. Albergo, D. Boyda, K. Cranmer, D. C. Hackett, S. Racanière, D. J. Rezende, and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 121601 (2020).
  16. M. S. Albergo, G. Kanwar, S. Racanière, D. J. Rezende, J. M. Urban, D. Boyda, K. Cranmer, D. C. Hackett, and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114507 (2021).
  17. K. A. Nicoli, S. Nakajima, N. Strodthoff, W. Samek, K.-R. Müller, and P. Kessel, Phys. Rev. E 101, 023304 (2020).
  18. K. A. Nicoli, C. J. Anders, L. Funcke, T. Hartung, K. Jansen, P. Kessel, S. Nakajima, and P. Stornati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 032001 (2021).
  19. A. Singha, D. Chakrabarti, and V. Arora, Phys. Rev. D 107, 014512 (2023).
  20. A. Singha, D. Chakrabarti, and V. Arora, Phys. Rev. D 108, 074518 (2023).
  21. R. Abbott, A. Botev, D. Boyda, D. C. Hackett, G. Kanwar, S. Racanière, D. J. Rezende, F. Romero-López, P. E. Shanahan, and J. M. Urban, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094514 (2024).
  22. P. Tuo, Z. Zeng, J. Chen, and B. Cheng, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 21, 11427 (2025).
  23. R. Abbott, D. Boyda, Y. Fu, D. C. Hackett, G. Kanwar, F. Romero-López, P. E. Shanahan, and J. M. Urban, Phys. Rev. D 114, 014513 (2026).
  24. A. Faraz, A. Singha, D. Chakrabarti, S. Nakajima, and V. Arora, Proc. Sci. LATTICE2024 (2025) 036 [arXiv:2308.08615].
  25. J. Finkenrath, Proc. Sci. LATTICE2023 (2024) 022.
  26. J. Kreit, A. Bulgarelli, L. Funcke, T. Luu, D. Schuh, S. Singh, and L. Verzichelli, Proc. Sci. LATTICE2025 (2026) 043 [arXiv:2601.18273].
  27. D. Schuh, L. Funcke, J. Kreit, T. Luu, and S. Singh, arXiv:2603.18205.
  28. V. Kanaujia, M. S. Scheurer, and V. Arora, SciPost Phys. 16, 132 (2024).
  29. S. Bacchio, P. Kessel, S. Schaefer, and L. Vaitl, Phys. Rev. D 107, L051504 (2023).
  30. M. Gerdes, P. de Haan, C. Rainone, R. Bondesan, and M. C. N. Cheng, SciPost Phys. 15, 238 (2023).
  31. M. Caselle, E. Cellini, and A. Nada, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2024) 048.
  32. M. Gerdes, P. de Haan, R. Bondesan, and M. C. N. Cheng, Phys. Rev. D 112, 094516 (2025).
  33. M. Caselle, E. Cellini, A. Nada, and M. Panero, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2022) 015.
  34. M. Caselle, E. Cellini, and A. Nada, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2025) 090.
  35. A. Bulgarelli, E. Cellini, K. Jansen, S. Kühn, A. Nada, S. Nakajima, K. A. Nicoli, and M. Panero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 151601 (2025).
  36. A. Bulgarelli, E. Cellini, and A. Nada, Phys. Rev. D 111, 074517 (2025).
  37. C. Bonanno, A. Bulgarelli, E. Cellini, A. Nada, D. Panfalone, D. Vadacchino, and L. Verzichelli, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2026) 051.
  38. D. Wu, L. Wang, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 080602 (2019).
  39. A. Singha, E. Cellini, K. A. Nicoli, K. Jansen, S. Kühn, and S. Nakajima, in The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2025) (2025).
  40. P. Białas, P. Korcyl, and T. Stebel, Comput. Phys. Commun. 281, 108502 (2022).
  41. P. Białas, V. Chahar, P. Korcyl, T. Stebel, M. Winiarski, and D. Zapolski, Comput. Phys. Commun. 318, 109892 (2026).
  42. X. Du, J. Nam, S. Liu, and R. Gómez-Bombarelli, arXiv:2603.14695.
  43. L. Wang, G. Aarts, and K. Zhou, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2024) 060.
  44. Q. Zhu, G. Aarts, W. Wang, K. Zhou, and L. Wang, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2026) 111.
  45. G. Aarts, D. E. Habibi, A. Ipp, D. I. Müller, T. R. Ranner, L. Wang, W. Wang, and Q. Zhu, arXiv:2601.19552.
  46. G. Kanwar and O. Vega, Proc. Sci. LATTICE2025 (2026) 040 [arXiv:2512.19877].
  47. O. Vega, J. Komijani, A. El-Khadra, and M. Marinkovic, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2026) 213.
  48. V. Kanaujia and V. Arora, in Proceedings of the 2026 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (2026), pp. 4336–4340.
  49. H. Alharazin, J. Y. Panteleeva, and B. D. Sun, Phys. Rev. D 114, 014522 (2026).
  50. J. M. Pawlowski and J. M. Urban, Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 1, 045011 (2020).
  51. J. Singh, M. Scheurer, and V. Arora, SciPost Phys. 11, 043 (2021).
  52. A. Singha, D. Chakrabarti, and V. Arora, SciPost Phys. Core 5, 052 (2022).
  53. L. Del Debbio, J. M. Rossney, and M. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094507 (2021).
  54. R. Abbott et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 257 (2023).
  55. G. Catumba and A. Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1037 (2025).
  56. J. Goodman and A. D. Sokal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1015 (1986).
  57. J. Goodman and A. D. Sokal, Phys. Rev. D 40, 2035 (1989).
  58. W. Janke and T. Sauer, Phys. Rev. E 49, 3475 (1994).
  59. K. E. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 2175 (1983).
  60. M. Faas and H. Hilhorst, Physica A (Amsterdam) 135, 571 (1986).
  61. M. G. Endres, R. C. Brower, W. Detmold, K. Orginos, and A. V. Pochinsky, Phys. Rev. D 92, 114516 (2015).
  62. K. Jansen, E. H. Müller, and R. Scheichl, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114512 (2020).
  63. M. Grabenstein and B. Mikeska, Phys. Rev. D 47, R3103 (1993).
  64. P. Białas, P. Czarnota, P. Korcyl, and T. Stebel, Phys. Rev. E 107, 054127 (2023).
  65. R. Abbott, M. S. Albergo, D. Boyda, D. C. Hackett et al., Proc. Sci. LATTICE2023 (2024) 035 [arXiv:2404.10819].
  66. M. Bauer, R. Kapust, J. M. Pawlowski, and F. L. Temmen, SciPost Phys. 19, 077 (2025).
  67. F. Ihssen, R. Kapust, and J. M. Pawlowski, Proc. Sci. LATTICE2025 (2026) 055 [arXiv:2510.26678].
  68. M. B. Giles, Acta Numer. 24, 259 (2015).
  69. S. Duane, A. Kennedy, B. J. Pendleton, and D. Roweth, Phys. Lett. B 195, 216 (1987).
  70. N. Madras and A. D. Sokal, J. Stat. Phys. 50, 109 (1988).
  71. L. P. Kadanoff, Phys. Phys. Fiz. 2, 263 (1966).
  72. K. Binder, Z. Phys. B 43, 119 (1981).
  73. M. F. Hutchinson, Commun. Stat. Simul. 19, 433 (1990).
  74. https://git.tu-berlin.de/rigcs/phi4/multilevel_phi4.
  75. D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, arXiv:1412.6980.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation