Paper detail

One-thimble regularisation of lattice field theories: is it only a dream?

Lefschetz thimbles regularisation of (lattice) field theories was put forward as a possible solution to the sign problem. Despite elegant and conceptually simple, it has many subtleties, a major one boiling down to a plain question: how many thimbles should we take into account? In the original formulation, a single thimble dominance hypothesis was put forward: in the thermodynamic limit, universality arguments could support a scenario in which the dominant thimble (associated to the global minimum of the action) captures the physical content of the field theory. We know by now many counterexamples and we have been pursuing multi-thimble simulations ourselves. Still, a single thimble regularisation would be the real breakthrough. We report on ongoing work aiming at a single thimble formulation of lattice field theories, in particular putting forward the proposal of performing Taylor expansions on the dominant thimble.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.