- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Letters

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

Field Digitization Scaling in a ZN⊂U(1) Symmetric Model

Gabriele Calliari*, Robert Ott, Hannes Pichler, and Torsten V. Zache†

  • *Contact author: Gabriele.Calliari@uibk.ac.at
  • †Contact author: Torsten.Zache@uibk.ac.at
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 080403 – Published 26 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/x164-8n1w

Abstract

The simulation of quantum field theories, both classical and quantum, requires regularization of infinitely many degrees of freedom. However, in the context of field digitization (FD)—a truncation of the local fields to N discrete values—a comprehensive framework to obtain continuum results is currently missing. Here, we propose to analyze FD by interpreting the parameter N as a coupling in the renormalization group (RG) sense. As a first example, we investigate the two-dimensional (2D) classical N-state clock model as a ZN FD of the U(1) symmetric XY model. Using effective field theory, we employ the RG to derive generalized scaling hypotheses involving the FD parameter N, which allows us to relate data obtained for different N-regularized models in a procedure that we term field digitization scaling (FDS). Using numerical tensor-network calculations at finite bond dimension χ, we further uncover an unconventional universal crossover around a low-temperature phase transition induced by finite N, demonstrating that FDS can be extended to describe the interplay of χ and N. Finally, we analytically prove that our calculations for the 2D classical-statistical ZN clock model are directly related to the quantum physics in the ground state of a (2+1)D ZN lattice gauge theory, which serves as a FD of compact quantum electrodynamics. Our Letter thus paves the way for applications of FDS to quantum simulations of more complex models in higher spatial dimensions, where it could serve as a tool to analyze the continuum limit of digitized quantum field theories.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (81)

  1. S. Sachdev, Quantum Phases of Matter (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2023).
  2. S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1995), Vol. 2.
  3. F. Assaad and H. Evertz, in Computational Many-Particle Physics, edited by H. Fehske, R. Schneider, and A. Weiße (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008), pp. 277–356.
  4. I. Montvay and G. Münster, Quantum Fields on a Lattice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1994).
  5. R. Orús, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 538 (2019).
  6. J. I. Cirac, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021).
  7. C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhattacharya, M. Carena, W. A. De Jong, P. Draper, A. El-Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada et al., PRX Quantum 4, 027001 (2023).
  8. A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexandrou, S. Arunachalam, C. W. Bauer, K. Borras, S. Carrazza, A. Crippa, V. Croft et al., PRX Quantum 5, 037001 (2024).
  9. H. J. Rothe, Lattice Gauge Theories: An Introduction (World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore, 2012).
  10. J. Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996).
  11. S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Science 336, 1130 (2012).
  12. N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052335 (2019).
  13. C. Delcamp and A. Tilloy, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033278 (2020).
  14. Y. Meurice, R. Sakai, and J. Unmuth-Yockey, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 025005 (2022).
  15. J. Bender, E. Zohar, A. Farace, and J. I. Cirac, New J. Phys. 20, 093001 (2018).
  16. A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, S. Harmalkar, H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and N. C. Warrington (NuQS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 114501 (2019).
  17. D. C. Hackett, K. Howe, C. Hughes, W. Jay, E. T. Neil, and J. N. Simone, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062341 (2019).
  18. D. González-Cuadra, T. V. Zache, J. Carrasco, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 160501 (2022).
  19. H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Shu, Y.-L. Wang, and B. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054505 (2024).
  20. E. J. Gustafson, Y. Ji, H. Lamm, E. M. Murairi, S. O. Perez, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034515 (2024).
  21. T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A 73, 022328 (2006).
  22. E. Zohar and M. Burrello, Phys. Rev. D 91, 054506 (2015).
  23. Z. Davoudi, I. Raychowdhury, and A. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074505 (2021).
  24. A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094501 (2021).
  25. M. L. Rhodes, M. Kreshchuk, and S. Pathak, PRX Quantum 5, 040347 (2024).
  26. L. Ebner, A. Schäfer, C. Seidl, B. Müller, and X. Yao, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014505 (2024).
  27. A. J. Buser, H. Gharibyan, M. Hanada, M. Honda, and J. Liu, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2021) 34.
  28. G. Bergner, M. Hanada, E. Rinaldi, and A. Schäfer, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2024) 234.
  29. T. V. Zache, D. González-Cuadra, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 171902 (2023).
  30. T. Hayata and Y. Hidaka, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2023) 126.
  31. T. Hayata and Y. Hidaka, Phys. Rev. D 111, 034513 (2025).
  32. A. N. Ciavarella and C. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 111901 (2024).
  33. S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese, Nucl. Phys. B492, 455 (1997).
  34. U.-J. Wiese, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 380, 20210068 (2022).
  35. V. Kasper, F. Hebenstreit, M. K. Oberthaler, and J. Berges, Phys. Lett. B 760, 742 (2016).
  36. T. V. Zache, M. Van Damme, J. C. Halimeh, P. Hauke, and D. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D 106, L091502 (2022).
  37. J. C. Halimeh, L. Homeier, A. Bohrdt, and F. Grusdt, PRX Quantum 5, 030358 (2024).
  38. G. Calliari, M. Di Liberto, H. Pichler, and T. V. Zache, PRX Quantum 6, 030304 (2025).
  39. R. Joshi, M. Meth, J. C. Louw, J. J. Osborne, K. Mato, M. Ringbauer, and J. C. Halimeh, arXiv:2507.12589.
  40. A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, H. Lamm, and S. Lawrence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 090501 (2019).
  41. H. Singh and S. Chandrasekharan, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054505 (2019).
  42. T. Bhattacharya, A. J. Buser, S. Chandrasekharan, R. Gupta, and H. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 172001 (2021).
  43. S. Maiti, D. Banerjee, S. Chandrasekharan, and M. K. Marinkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 041601 (2024).
  44. A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, A. Carosso, M. J. Cervia, E. M. Murairi, and A. Sheng, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094502 (2024).
  45. J. Ingoldby, M. Spannowsky, T. Sypchenko, and S. Williams, Phys. Rev. D 110, 096016 (2024).

  46. Recently, N-state clock models have been the focus of several numerical studies, in particular Refs. [47, 48, 49], aiming at a precise numerical extrapolation of the critical temperatures, as well as the investigation of a possible self-dual point and the compactification radius of the conformal field theory. In contrast, in this Letter we focus on relating the ZN models across distinct N, interpreting them as different digitizations of the same U(1) critical properties in the vicinity of the low-temperature phase transitions.

  47. Z.-Q. Li, L.-P. Yang, Z. Y. Xie, H.-H. Tu, H.-J. Liao, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. E 101, 060105 (2020).
  48. G. Li, K. H. Pai, and Z.-C. Gu, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023159 (2022).
  49. H. Chen, P. Hou, S. Fang, and Y. Deng, Phys. Rev. E 106, 024106 (2022).
  50. G. Ortiz, E. Cobanera, and Z. Nussinov, Nucl. Phys. B854, 780 (2012).
  51. M. Meth, J. Zhang, J. F. Haase, C. Edmunds, L. Postler, A. J. Jena, A. Steiner, L. Dellantonio, R. Blatt, P. Zoller et al., Nat. Phys. 21, 570 (2025).
  52. I. D’Andrea, C. W. Bauer, D. M. Grabowska, and M. Freytsis, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074501 (2024).
  53. D. Paulson, L. Dellantonio, J. F. Haase, A. Celi, A. Kan, A. Jena, C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, K. Jansen, P. Zoller, and C. A. Muschik, PRX Quantum 2, 030334 (2021).
  54. J. F. Haase, L. Dellantonio, A. Celi, D. Paulson, A. Kan, K. Jansen, and C. A. Muschik, Quantum 5, 393 (2021).

  55. In this work, we are interested in the behavior N≥5, since the detailed universal aspects of N-state clock models differ for small N<5 [47].

  56. S. Elitzur, R. B. Pearson, and J. Shigemitsu, Phys. Rev. D 19, 3698 (1979).
  57. H. Ueda, K. Okunishi, K. Harada, R. Krčmár, A. Gendiar, S. Yunoki, and T. Nishino, Phys. Rev. E 101, 062111 (2020).
  58. C. Chatelain, J. Stat. Mech. (2014) P11022.
  59. VL. Berezinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 32, 493 (1971).
  60. VL. Berezinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 34, 610 (1972).
  61. J. M. Kosterlitz, J. Phys. C 7, 1046 (1974).
  62. M. T. Fishman, L. Vanderstraeten, V. Zauner-Stauber, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235148 (2018).
  63. P. B. Wiegmann, J. Phys. C 11, 1583 (1978).

  64. In this work, we do not investigate the second BKT transition at T=TH, whose behavior is essentially independent of N.

  65. S. Kehrein, Nucl. Phys. B592, 512 (2001).

  66. In this work we use the critical temperatures TL(N) numerically determined in Ref. [48].

  67. By comparing our results in Eq. (5) to the derived ξ behavior, we infer C≈|t|/N, which can also be interpreted as an N-dependent UV initialization of gL(T,N)∝|t|/N.

  68. M. Hasenbusch and K. Pinn, J. Phys. A 30, 63 (1997).
  69. See Supplemental Material http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/x164-8n1w for a comparison between our field-digitization scaling analysis and a simple temperature rescaling.
  70. L. Tagliacozzo, Thiago. R. De Oliveira, S. Iblisdir, and J. I. Latorre, Phys. Rev. B 78, 024410 (2008).
  71. F. Pollmann, S. Mukerjee, A. Turner, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 255701 (2009).

  72. Because of the truncation in χ, the scaling variable x=x(ξ) cannot be a constant in the whole critical region, but rather it quantifies the proximity to the CP.

  73. F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, D. Perez-Garcia, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 220601 (2006).
  74. D. Horn, M. Weinstein, and S. Yankielowicz, Phys. Rev. D 19, 3715 (1979).
  75. C. Castelnovo and C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. B 77, 054433 (2008).

  76. For simplicity, here we state the result for an infinite plane, where the ground state is unique.

  77. P. Patil, H. Shao, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B 103, 054418 (2021).
  78. H. Shao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, Science 352, 213 (2016).
  79. G. Calliari, R. Ott, H. Pichler, and T. V. Zache, Field digitization scaling in a ZN⊂U(1) symmetric model, 10.5281/zenodo.16575343 (2025).
  80. J. Naumann, E. L. Weerda, M. Rizzi, J. Eisert, and P. Schmoll, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 86 (2024).

  81. Our standard implementation of the CTMRG algorithm closely follows Ref. [80], and our isotropic code is inspired by Ref. [62].

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 080403– Published 26 February, 2026
  • Received 26 August 2025
  • Revised 16 December 2025
  • Accepted 27 January 2026
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.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation