arXiv is now an independent nonprofit! Learn more
License: CC BY 4.0
arXiv:2608.04497v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 05 Aug 2026

The two-particle-irreducible vertex of the two-dimensional lattice ϕ4\phi^{4} model across the Ising transition

Lode Pollet Department of Physics and Arnold Sommerfeld Center for Theoretical Physics (ASC), Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology (MCQST), 80799 Munich, Germany
Abstract

We reconstruct the 2PI vertex Γ(k,p;q)\Gamma(k,p;q) from Monte Carlo measurements of the connected two-particle correlator for the two-dimensional single-component ϕ4\phi^{4} lattice field theory and follow it across the Ising transition. Resolving the vertex in the irreducible representations of the point group C4vC_{4v}, we find that the instability is driven by the A1A_{1} (ferromagnetic) channel at zero transfer, whose leading eigenvalue of the symmetrized Bethe–Salpeter kernel approaches unity. Substantial B1B_{1} (nematic) and B2B_{2} (diagonal nematic) contributions cooperate with A1A_{1} across all system sizes, highlighting that the soft sector is multidimensional. In real space, the vertex is short-ranged away from criticality while it develops a power-law tail at the critical point. In the ordered phase, the q=0q=0 eigenvalue collapses because the ferromagnetic weight has condensed into the (one-particle-reducible) order parameter (or collective coordinate for a finite system), although finite-momentum fluctuations persist. By stripping the crossed-channel ladders, we obtain the fully irreducible vertex, which is a local contact – to a very good approximation. Inserted into the parquet and Schwinger–Dyson equations, this contact reproduces the Monte Carlo self-energy with an accuracy better than one-tenth of a percent. This provides a first-principles benchmark of the dynamical local-vertex approximation (DΓ\GammaA). Additionally, we demonstrate that in the critical region, the physical solution of the parquet equations behaves as a repulsive fixed point, driven initially by a single order-parameter mode.

I Introduction

The single-particle propagator GG and self-energy Σ\Sigma are the standard objects of a correlated field theory [1, 16, 25], but they carry only part of the fluctuations: the response of the system to a change in GG is governed by the two-particle-irreducible (2PI) vertex Γ=δΣ/δG\Gamma=\delta\Sigma/\delta G, the kernel of the Bethe-Salpeter equation [29]. It is the vertex, not the self-energy, that decides which collective channel becomes unstable and where the correlation length diverges. For the two-dimensional ϕ4\phi^{4} model, which is the paradigmatic realization of the Ising universality class [26], the transition is ferromagnetic, and one might expect the vertex to be dominated by the fully symmetric (A1A_{1}) channel at zero momentum transfer. Furthermore, the Green function and the self-energy depend only on a single momentum in a translation-invariant system and reside exclusively in A1A_{1}. However, as we will show, this expectation is incomplete: As fluctuations strengthen, the vertex develops structure in the other irreducible representations of the lattice point group, most notably a nematic B1B_{1} component, followed by a diagonal nematic B2B_{2} component.

In this work, we reconstruct the 2PI vertex Γ(k,p;q)\Gamma(k,p;q), which follows by inversion from Monte Carlo measurements of the connected two-particle correlator. We resolve Γ(k,p;q)\Gamma(k,p;q) in the irreducible representations of C4vC_{4v}, track the leading Bethe-Salpeter eigenvalue as it approaches unity at the phase transition (also known as the Thouless point) and characterize the vertex both in momentum and in real space. To the best of our knowledge, such a channel- and transfer-resolved map of the 2PI vertex has not been reported in full for the two-dimensional Ising/ϕ4\phi^{4} problem. We will then extract the fully irreducible vertex of the parquet by stripping the reducible (crossed-channel ladder) contributions from the 2PI vertex, in the disordered phase up to the critical point. The fully irreducible vertex plays a central role in such theories as the parquet formalism [12, 11, 7], the nn-PI theories [5, 9], the Schwinger-Dyson equations (SDE) [27] and the functional renormalization group (fRG) [24, 4]. This will allow us to establish DΓ\Gamma[28] as a very good approximation in the disordered phase, and to analyze the stability of the parquet equations in the critical region, where the physical solution turns into a repulsive fixed point.

II Model and method

We study the single-component ϕ4\phi^{4} theory on the square lattice with Euclidean action

S=βijϕiϕj+m2iϕi2+λiϕi4,S=-\beta\sum_{\langle ij\rangle}\phi_{i}\phi_{j}+m^{2}\sum_{i}\phi_{i}^{2}+\lambda\sum_{i}\phi_{i}^{4}, (1)

at m2=0m^{2}=0 and λ=12\lambda=\tfrac{1}{2}, sampled with the Brower–Tamayo cluster algorithm [8]. Monte Carlo does not give Γ\Gamma directly; what is accumulated is the connected two-particle correlator of the composite operator ρq(k)=ϕkϕk+q\rho_{q}(k)=\phi_{k}^{*}\phi_{k+q},

χ(k,p;q)\displaystyle\chi(k,p;q) =ρq(k)ρq(p)ρq(k)ρq(p).\displaystyle=\langle\rho_{q}(k)\,\rho_{q}(p)^{*}\rangle-\langle\rho_{q}(k)\rangle\langle\rho_{q}(p)^{*}\rangle. (2)

The vertex is obtained by the Bethe–Salpeter equation (BSE) [29],

Γ=χ01χ1,\Gamma=\chi_{0}^{-1}-\chi^{-1}, (3)

where χ\chi is full susceptibility and the bare susceptibility χ0\chi_{0} is given by

χ0(k,p;q)=G(k)G(k+q)[δk,p+δp,kq],\chi_{0}(k,p;q)=G(k)G(k+q)\,[\delta_{k,p}+\delta_{p,-k-q}], (4)

which also carries the exchange term δp,kq\delta_{p,-k-q} required by the fact that the field is real (ϕk=ϕk\phi_{-k}=\phi_{k}^{*}). The BSE can be used, for instance, to describe collective excitations (such as plasmons and magnons), bound states (such as excitons and Cooper pairs), and thermodynamic response (such as viscosity and thermal conductivity). The 2PI version of the BSE can be shown to be derivable in second order from a Luttinger-Ward functional, which ensures that macroscopic conservation laws such as charge and energy are conserved and that non-perturbative physics can be studied [2, 3]. We note in passing that the results presented here stand on their own and do not rely on a Luttinger-Ward functional, although they do have implications for theories built on it.

We monitor the instability using the symmetrized kernel given by

K=χ01/2Γχ01/2=1χ01/2χ1χ01/2,K=\chi_{0}^{1/2}\Gamma\chi_{0}^{1/2}=1-\chi_{0}^{1/2}\chi^{-1}\chi_{0}^{1/2},

where the leading eigenvalue reaches unity at the Thouless point. The function ρq(k)\rho_{q}(k) satisfies ρ0(k)=ρ0(k)\rho_{0}(k)=\rho_{0}(-k) at q=0q=0 due to the fact that the field ϕ\phi is real. Similar relations hold for other values of qq. Consequently, the susceptibility χ\chi is rank-deficient by construction. Throughout this work, we focus on its physical (non-null) subspace, where the condition number remains moderate (see Appendix  F). At q=0q=0, the operator ρ0(k)=|ϕk|2\rho_{0}(k)=|\phi_{k}|^{2} is even under inversion, which means that only the four inversion-even irreducible representations A1,A2,B1,B2A_{1},A_{2},B_{1},B_{2} can appear.

III Vertex physics of the Ising transition

Refer to caption
Figure 1: The leading eigenvalue of the symmetrized Bethe-Salpeter kernel, given by χ01/2Γχ01/2\chi_{0}^{1/2}\Gamma\chi_{0}^{1/2}, is evaluated at zero transfer and resolved in the C4vC_{4v} irreducible representations as a function of the inverse temperature β\beta (with L=16L=16, represented by filled symbols). The A1A_{1} channel (ferromagnetic) drives the instability toward unity, while the B1B_{1} (nematic) and B2B_{2} (diagonal nematic) channels cooperate. The A2A_{2} channel is inert, and the EE channel, associated with anti-ferromagnetic fluctuations, vanishes identically at q=0q=0 due to parity. However, it is non-zero at the corner transfer q=M=(π,π)q=M=(\pi,\pi), indicated by a grey dashed line. Open symbols illustrate the finite-size trend for the two leading channels: L=8L=8 (dashed) and L=32L=32 (dotted). The A1A_{1}, B1B_{1}, and B2B_{2} channels all strengthen as LL increases, and the peak sharpens as it approaches the critical point. The filled diamond represents the A1A_{1} peak for L=64L=64. The upper x-axis shows the second-moment correlation length for comparison (refer to App. G). In the inset, the ratio λB1/λB2\lambda_{B_{1}}/\lambda_{B_{2}} at β=0.70\beta=0.70 is plotted against 1/L1/L. This ratio decreases toward a finite limit as the two components of the stress-energy tensor align, reflecting the emergent rotational symmetry of the conformal field theory (CFT). The star marks a linear extrapolation of the data in terms of 1/L1/L.

Figure 1 presents the leading eigenvalues for each symmetry sector. In the disordered phase, all channels are weak and comparable. As we approach the transition, the fully symmetric A1A_{1} channel begins to separate, with its leading eigenvalue increasing toward the Thouless value of unity. This indicates a ferromagnetic instability as observed through the 2PI vertex framework. Initially, the nematic B1B_{1} channel grows alongside A1A_{1}, reaching just over half its value at the largest system size. The finite-size trends for the two leading channels are as follows: for A1A_{1}, the values are logarithmically diverging as 0.75,0.85,0.88,0.890.75,0.85,0.88,0.89 at L=8,16,32,64L=8,16,32,64; for B1B_{1}, the values are 0.34,0.44,0.510.34,0.44,0.51 at L=8,16,32L=8,16,32. Note that for L=64L=64 we could only resolve the leading A1A_{1} eigenvalue because of increasingly demanding statistical requirements. The B2B_{2} channel behaves similarly to B1B_{1} but exhibits a smaller amplitude, while A2A_{2} remains negligible. Therefore, the soft sector is not characterized by a single mode; instead, it is a cooperating multiplet dominated by A1A_{1}. Although only A1A_{1} ultimately diverges, B1B_{1} and B2B_{2} contribute through their off-diagonal coupling with A1A_{1}, and should therefore not be omitted. The leading eigenvalues peak slightly beyond the thermodynamic transition point before receding in the ordered phase: the maximal A1A_{1} eigenvalue is observed near β0.70\beta\simeq 0.70, while the clean second-moment correlation-length crossing indicates βc0.685\beta_{c}\simeq 0.685 (App. G). Therefore, the vertex signal slightly overestimates βc\beta_{c} for finite system sizes; we adopt βc0.685\beta_{c}\simeq 0.685 throughout our analysis. It is worth mentioning that stripe and even nematic phases are predicted for the Ising model, but they require additional terms, such as a sufficiently strong antiferromagnetic coupling (which leads to frustration) along the diagonal and the presence of an external magnetic field [18].

The EE channel is exactly zero at q=0q=0 due to parity. However, it takes on a finite value at the corner transfer M=(π,π)M=(\pi,\pi), which describes a short-range antiferromagnetic fluctuation. This fluctuation increases gradually through the critical window without nearing instability.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: The leading kernel eigenvalue as a function of transfer momentum |q||q| is shown along the irreducible wedge, with points marked at Γ\Gamma, XX, and MM, for four regimes at L=8L=8 in the A1A_{1} sector. The near-critical curve is taken at β=0.7\beta=0.7, where the A1A_{1} eigenvalue reaches its maximum on this finite lattice of size L=8L=8. This finite-size pseudo-critical point is slightly above the thermodynamic critical point βc0.685\beta_{c}\approx 0.685 (as discussed in Sec. III and App. G). It is important to note that we are plotting this finite-size maximum instead of βc\beta_{c}. In the deep disordered phase, the vertex is weak and nearly independent of qq. As we approach criticality, the dominance of the q=0q=0 mode increases, while the decay with respect to |q||q| becomes more gradual. A band of small-qq modes softens collectively as the correlation length diverges. In the ordered phase (β=1.2\beta=1.2), the eigenvalue at q=0q=0 collapses to zero, while finite-qq fluctuations continue to persist.

Figure 2 illustrates the behavior of the vertex as a function of momentum transfer. In the disordered phase, the leading eigenvalue is small and relatively flat across different values of |q||q|, indicating that the vertex is weak and lacks structure. As we approach criticality, a prominent maximum at q=0q=0 emerges, but the decline away from this point is gradual. This results in a band of small-momentum modes becoming softer, which serves as the momentum-space signature of the diverging correlation length.

In the ordered phase, the scenario at the origin reverses: at β=1.2\beta=1.2, the eigenvalue at q=0q=0 drops to zero. The ferromagnetic weight that facilitated the transition has condensed into the uniform order parameter (or a collective coordinate for a finite system), which is one-particle-reducible and consequently absent from the 2PI vertex. However, the loss of weight is not limited to the single point q=0q=0; rather, the entire small-qq region becomes depleted. At β=1.2\beta=1.2, the eigenvalue in the ordered phase is reduced to approximately two-thirds of its critical value at the smallest momentum resolved on the L=8L=8 lattice (|q|=π/4|q|=\pi/4), while the curves converge near the zone boundary.

For the larger L=16L=16 lattice, we are able to access smaller values of |q|=π/8|q|=\pi/8, where the suppression intensifies, approaching one-half (data not shown). Thus, the short-wavelength structure of the vertex remains largely unchanged as we enter the ordered phase, whereas the long-wavelength component is suppressed. The gradual depletion of weight as |q|0|q|\to 0 is physically expected, as ordering suppresses long-wavelength fluctuations while preserving short-wavelength fluctuations.

The comparison with the disordered side is quite striking. For β=1.2\beta=1.2, the absolute value of the relative detuning from βc\beta_{c}, calculated as |ββc|/βc0.71\left|\beta-\beta_{c}\right|/\beta_{c}\approx 0.71, is significantly greater than that for β=0.6\beta=0.6, where |ββc|/βc0.14\left|\beta-\beta_{c}\right|/\beta_{c}\approx 0.14. However, the finite-qq eigenvalues for β=1.2\beta=1.2 are consistently larger by about a factor of two at the smallest momenta, measuring 0.370.37 compared to 0.170.17 for L=8L=8.

This indicates that the finite-qq fluctuation structure gaps out remarkably slowly on the ordered side. While the order parameter condenses sharply in the q=0q=0 channel, the short-wavelength fluctuations are only slightly reduced and retain most of their critical strength well into the ordered phase. In contrast, these fluctuations have not yet developed on the disordered side.

This observation does not contradict the fact that the connected correlation length ξc\xi_{c} on the ordered side, as shown in Figure 7 and Appendix G, decreases much more rapidly as a function of detuning compared to the disordered side. For instance, ξc2.3\xi_{c}\approx 2.3 at the shoulder (β=0.6\beta=0.6) drops to only ξc0.4\xi_{c}\approx 0.4 at β=1.2\beta=1.2.

In the decomposition K=χ01/2Γχ01/2K=\chi_{0}^{1/2}\Gamma\chi_{0}^{1/2}, the vertex Γ(q)\Gamma(q) remains essentially flat across all temperatures, while its overall magnitude increases significantly—by roughly a factor of fifty—from the shoulder into the ordered phase. Therefore, all the transfer dependence of KK is contained within the bubble χ0(k;q)=G(k)G(k+q)\chi_{0}(k;q)=G(k)G(k+q), whose profile is determined by the connected correlation length ξc\xi_{c}: for long ξc\xi_{c}, it is strongly qq-dependent (enhanced at small transfer), while for short ξc\xi_{c}, it is weakly qq-dependent.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: The absolute value of the relative-coordinate vertex kernel is defined as Γrel(r)=1Nk,pei(kp)rΓ(k,p;0)\Gamma_{\mathrm{rel}}(r)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k,p}e^{-i(k-p)\cdot r}\Gamma(k,p;0) as a function of lattice distance |r||r| for three regimes (with L=8L=8 on a linear scale). As shown in Fig. 2, the near-critical curve occurs at β=0.7\beta=0.7, which corresponds to the maximum finite-size A1A_{1}-eigenvalue for the L=8L=8 lattice, slightly above the thermodynamic critical point βc0.685\beta_{c}\simeq 0.685. When moving away from criticality, the vertex exhibits a sharp peak at the origin and has negligible weight for |r|>1|r|>1. At criticality, the maximum weight shifts away from the origin to |r|=1|r|=1, and a weak tail begins to develop at larger values of |r||r| (as quantified in the text). The enhancement observed at |r|=L/2|r|=L/2 is not limited to |r|=4|r|=4 but is rather a finite-size X=(π,0)X=(\pi,0) zone-boundary effect. The inset shows that at criticality (β=0.68\beta=0.68 for L=8L=8), the fully irreducible vertex Λ\Lambda (described in Sec. V) takes on a pure contact form, with no tail distinguishable from the noise. Error bars in both panels are estimated using bootstrap methods over the Monte Carlo vertex bins. Additionally, the role of the center-of-mass coordinate is explained in App. B.

In Figure 3, we analyze the locality of the 2PI vertex in real space (refer to App. B for a discussion on the center-of-mass coordinate). The xx-axis represents the relative coordinate conjugate to the momentum difference kpk-p, evaluated at zero transfer (q=0q=0) and summed over the center-of-mass momentum k+pk+p.

When away from criticality, the kernel shows a sharp on-site spike, which has effectively decayed by one lattice spacing. This indicates that the vertex is ultra-local, primarily influenced by its r=0r=0 component, consistent with the nearly structureless momentum dependence depicted in Fig. 2. As we approach the transition, the weight begins to redistribute: the on-site component decreases, and the maximum shifts outward to |r|=1|r|=1, with a faint tail extending to larger distances.

High-statistics data at L=16L=16 indicate that the tail is best described by a power law of the form ra\sim r^{-a}. The effective exponent softens as it approaches the transition, with values of a2.4,2.0,1.8a\simeq 2.4,2.0,1.8 at β=0.64,0.66,0.68\beta=0.64,0.66,0.68, respectively. This decay is significantly faster than the power-law decay of the propagator, which follows rηr^{-\eta} with η=1/4\eta=1/4 at the critical point.

IV Emergent symmetries

The three cooperating channels illustrated in Fig. 1 are not an arbitrary selection. For those familiar with conformal field theory, these channels are the lattice analogs of the low-lying even (spin-neutral) operators of the Ising CFT: the energy density (A1A_{1}) and the two components of the stress-energy tensor (B1B_{1}, B2B_{2}). For readers acquainted with diagrammatic expansions, the channel B1B_{1} is initially produced in the 2PI vertex by amputating the sunset diagram, while B2B_{2} is first generated in higher order.

IV.1 Single-channel identifications

The fully symmetric A1A_{1} channel is built on the harmonic coskx+cosky\cos k_{x}+\cos k_{y}, i.e. the isotropic nearest-neighbor energy density ε\varepsilon, and is therefore explicitly conjugate to the inverse temperature β\beta. Its response is the energy (specific-heat) susceptibility, which in the two-dimensional Ising universality class diverges logarithmically at criticality, as known exactly from Onsager’s solution [26]. Consistently, A1A_{1} is the channel that grows and becomes size-dependent on approach to the transition.

The nematic B1B_{1} channel is built on coskxcosky\cos k_{x}-\cos k_{y}, conjugate to the difference of the two nearest-neighbor couplings JxJyJ_{x}-J_{y}, i.e. the lattice-anisotropy direction. The corresponding response is the anisotropy susceptibility, given in the Ising class by the second derivative of the free energy with respect to the anisotropy at the isotropic point (located by Onsager’s anisotropic solution sinh(2βJx)sinh(2βJy)=1\sinh(2\beta J_{x})\sinh(2\beta J_{y})=1). The anisotropic susceptibility will remain finite at the transition. Note that the Ising universality class guarantees us a logarithmically diverging A1A_{1} and finite B1B_{1} response for ϕ4\phi^{4}, but the values will not match identically with Onsager’s solution for the 2D Ising model.

IV.2 Emergent rotational symmetry

The B2B_{2} channel, built on sinkxsinky\sin k_{x}\sin k_{y}, has no Onsager counterpart. At small momentum coskxcoskykx2ky2\cos k_{x}-\cos k_{y}\sim k_{x}^{2}-k_{y}^{2} and sinkxsinkykxky\sin k_{x}\sin k_{y}\sim k_{x}k_{y} are the real and imaginary parts of (kx+iky)2(k_{x}+ik_{y})^{2}: B1B_{1} and B2B_{2} are the two components of the traceless stress-energy tensor, anisotropic strain B1TxxTyyB_{1}\sim T_{xx}-T_{yy} and shear B2TxyB_{2}\sim T_{xy}. On the square lattice, they belong to distinct C4vC_{4v} irreducible representations—no lattice symmetry relates them, since the 4545^{\circ} rotation that would, is not in the point group—so, a priori, they fluctuate independently, and B2B_{2}, having no bare coupling, is generated entirely by fluctuations. Continuous rotational invariance, emergent at the critical point, nonetheless locks the two together into a fixed ratio.

We observe this locking directly: the eigenvalue ratio λB1/λB2\lambda_{B_{1}}/\lambda_{B_{2}} decreases monotonically with system size toward a finite limit (2.08,1.63,1.442.08,1.63,1.44 at L=8,16,32L=8,16,32; see the inset of Fig. 1), a linear 1/L1/L extrapolation placing it near 1.21.2. This limiting value is not universal (it is set by the lattice-to-continuum matching of the two harmonics over the Brillouin zone), but the locking itself is: An anisotropic start (JxJyJ_{x}\neq J_{y}) flows to the same isotropic fixed point. The anisotropy is an irrelevant deformation absorbed by a rescaling of space, so that the two stress-tensor components must converge to their universal ratio regardless of the microscopic couplings.

V The fully irreducible vertex and a parquet benchmark

After determining the exact vertex through Monte Carlo simulations, we now turn our attention to its implications for diagrammatic theories. The vertex we have measured is irreducible in the particle-hole (phph) channel, but it does incorporate the resummation of the ladder diagrams in the two crossed channels: the particle-particle (pppp) and the transverse particle-hole (ph¯\overline{\text{ph}}) channels. The fully irreducible vertex Λ\Lambda is the key object in the parquet formalism, which is irreducible in all channels [12, 11, 7]. Therefore, it is natural to consider what remains once these ladders are removed.

Since the field is real and the interaction involves a single on-site ϕ4\phi^{4} term, the connected four-point function maintains full crossing symmetry on the lattice (see App. C). The vertices from the three channels reduce to just one function, which is evaluated at three different momentum transfers: qq (ph), k+pk+p (pp), and kpk-p (ph¯\overline{\text{ph}}). We have directly verified these identities on the connected correlator χc=χχ0\chi_{c}=\chi-\chi_{0} and found that they hold within the Monte Carlo data’s error bars.

We construct the vertex function Λ\Lambda from the same data using the parquet equation (our conventions for the parquet formalism are explained in App. D):

Λ=Γph+Γpp+Γph¯2F,\Lambda=\Gamma_{\text{ph}}+\Gamma_{\text{pp}}+\Gamma_{\overline{\text{ph}}}-2F, (5)

where each vertex is obtained through a Bethe-Salpeter inversion, given by Γr=χ0,r1χr1\Gamma_{r}=\chi_{0,r}^{-1}-\chi_{r}^{-1} for r(pp,ph,ph¯)r\in(\text{pp},\text{ph},\overline{\text{ph}}). Here, F=χ01(χχ0)χ01F=\chi_{0}^{-1}(\chi-\chi_{0})\chi_{0}^{-1} represents the fully amputated vertex. In the case of a finite Euclidean lattice system, the Luttinger-Ward functional is proven to be unique [23]. Consequently, the susceptibility χ\chi is positive definite and possesses the properties of a covariance. This implies that both χ\chi and each Γr\Gamma_{r} are invertible, ensuring that Λ\Lambda is finite by construction. It is worth noting that for fermionic systems, the Luttinger-Ward functional can become multivalued [22, 30, 20, 19], which adds complexity to a similar analysis.

The locality of Λ\Lambda is illustrated in the inset of Fig. 3. The relative-coordinate weight at one lattice spacing (r1)(r_{1}) is only 0.2% to 3% of its on-site value (r0)(r_{0}) across the entire window. We cannot discern the weight at larger distances due to noise. By stripping the Bethe-Salpeter ladders, we remove this tail as expected: Λ\Lambda is 20 to 110 times more local than the particle-hole vertex at L=8L=8 and, within the resolution of our construction, behaves like a pure contact term. This observation is not a result of finite-size artifacts. For the L=16L=16 data at β=0.6\beta=0.6, we find that Λ(r1)/Λ(r0)=0.0029±0.0030\Lambda(r_{1})/\Lambda(r_{0})=0.0029\pm 0.0030, indicating a pure contact term within 1σ1\sigma. At β=0.64\beta=0.64, this ratio is Λ(r1)/Λ(r0)=0.0150±0.0056\Lambda(r_{1})/\Lambda(r_{0})=0.0150\pm 0.0056, which remains a pure contact term within 3σ3\sigma. At β=0.68\beta=0.68, we observe Λ(r1)/Λ(r0)=0.0250±0.0064\Lambda(r_{1})/\Lambda(r_{0})=0.0250\pm 0.0064, again a pure contact term within 4σ4\sigma. While it is likely that the fully irreducible vertex develops a short-ranged but low-amplitude contribution for r0r\neq 0 at very large system sizes, establishing this with certainty is challenging, even with high-precision Monte Carlo data. All local mean values remain consistent with the error bars observed for L=8L=8. Additionally, we note that removing the ladders also resolves the center-of-mass issue discussed in App. B. The center of mass (COM) structure of the 2PI vertex resides in the ladders, while Λ\Lambda carries less than 1% of it, increasing only slightly as we approach βc\beta_{c} in the A1A_{1} channel. Our findings place the fRG/parquet expectations and methods, such as DΓ\GammaA (see App E[31, 28], on solid ground for ϕ4\phi^{4} models.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: The local self-energy, denoted as Σ¯=Σ(k)k\overline{\Sigma}=\langle\Sigma(k)\rangle_{k}, is plotted against β\beta for a system with L=8L=8. This data comes from a fully self-consistent solution using the parquet–Schwinger-Dyson–Dyson approach. The results show the full measured (exact) vertex represented by red squares, while the DΓ\GammaA local single-site vertex is indicated by green triangles. The blue open diamonds show the bare-vertex (parquet-approximation) result, Λ=6λ/N\Lambda=-6\lambda/N, included as a reference. These findings are compared to Monte Carlo simulations, with points that include bootstrap errors. The exact vertex closely aligns with the Monte Carlo self-energy, whereas the local DΓ\GammaA vertex falls approximately 1% short. Additionally, the DΓ\GammaA vertex is more strongly renormalized, which leads to a loss of stability at an earlier stage. The dotted vertical lines indicate the points where each self-consistent iteration fails to converge, identified by Jacobian eigenvalues that exit the unit disk. It occurs first for the bare vertex, at β0.60\beta\simeq 0.60, then for the DΓ\GammaA vertex at β0.61\beta\simeq 0.61, and last for the exact vertex at β0.62\beta\simeq 0.62. Both values are significantly below the critical point βc0.685\beta_{c}\simeq 0.685 and the finite-size critical value for L=8L=8, which is approximately βc0.64(1)\beta_{c}\approx 0.64(1). The upper x-axis displays the connected correlation length, as detailed in Appendix G.

As the tail of Λ\Lambda is obscured by noise, we must explore alternative methods to determine its relevance. To achieve this, we replace Λ\Lambda with its effective contact value, defined as λeff=1N2Q,k,pΛ(k,p;Q)\lambda_{\text{eff}}=\frac{1}{N^{2}}\sum_{Q,k,p}\Lambda(k,p;Q), and then we close the parquet loop. It is worth noting that the term Q=0Q=0 predominantly contributes to this summation; however, it exceeds λeff\lambda_{\text{eff}} by an unacceptable 2-3% when β0.6\beta\geq 0.6, resulting in significantly poorer outcomes that are not presented here. We will proceed with our analysis in several steps.

Firstly, as a preliminary test, we close the loop at the measured propagator. By inserting the single value λeff\lambda_{\rm eff} into the parquet approach at the Monte Carlo GG and propagating through Eq. (15) and the Dyson equation, we can reproduce the measured self-energy to better than a tenth of a percent throughout the convergent window. This confirms that the physical solution obtained from Monte Carlo methods is a fixed point of the parquet formalism, even in the critical region (though excluding the thermodynamic phase transition). From a physical perspective, the fully irreducible vertex functions as a screened local contact, which is only mildly renormalized from the bare interaction by a factor of approximately 0.85 (see Fig. 6) in the disordered phase, and this changes to an enhancement of approximately 1.15 at criticality. This indicates that the strong correlations contributing to the self-energy are primarily contained in the ladder diagrams that the parquet formalism resums, rather than in Λ\Lambda itself.

Secondly, our observation raises the natural question within the DΓ\GammaA framework: how does the measured contact compare with the local vertex that a practitioner would actually use, specifically the fully irreducible vertex of a dynamical mean-field impurity? In classical ϕ4\phi^{4} field theory, the impurity corresponds to a single site, which is solved self-consistently within a Gaussian bath through quadrature (this approach is equivalent to the DMFT approximation). The fully irreducible vertex, denoted as ΛDMFT\Lambda_{\rm DMFT}, is derived from Eq. (5) specialized for one mode (refer to App. E for a detailed derivation). This leads to the DΓ\GammaA approximation, and its vertex is compared to λeff\lambda_{\rm eff} in Fig. 6. It is important to note that due to the simplicity of the theory, the fully irreducible vertex is frequency-independent, which is why we denote it as ΛDMFT\Lambda_{\rm DMFT}.

Figure 4 compares the local self-energy to the one obtained through λeff\lambda_{\rm eff}. This provides a fair test because local theories, such as DMFT and DΓ\GammaA, are expected to effectively capture local quantities. However, there is a notable difference compared to the previous paragraph, which analyzed the parquet equation for the measured propagator: here, we need to solve the full parquet equations (known as closure) without prior knowledge of the exact GG. This can lead to stability issues (see below); in fact, the physical solution transitions from an attractive fixed point to a repelling one, notably throughout the entire critical region. For future reference, we refer to this procedure as a parquet–Schwinger-Dyson–Dyson sweep, or PSD; the earlier approach of parquet–Schwinger-Dyson sweeps at a fixed, exact GG will be referred to as PS.

Nevertheless, the figure clearly shows that away from criticality, ΛDMFT\Lambda_{\rm DMFT} and λeff\lambda_{\rm eff} agree within a few percent. Thus, we validate the assumption that the fully irreducible vertex is local and can be well approximated by a local impurity against the exact vertex. However, as we approach βc\beta_{c}, the measured contact is enhanced while the DΓ\GammaA vertex remains nearly constant (and incorrectly always screens). Next, we examine the non-local properties, which are not directly controlled by DMFT/DΓ\GammaA. As long as the (connected) correlation length ξc\xi_{c} remains less than one lattice spacing, DMFT/DΓ\GammaA remains virtually exact. However, as ξc\xi_{c} increases, the limitations of the local vertex become evident, as illustrated in Fig. 5. While the correlation function G(r)G(r) obtained with the exact vertex aligns with Monte Carlo results at all distances, the DΓ\GammaA local vertex overshoots the long-range propagator by up to 10–20%, and this deviation increases with the distance |r||r|. This discrepancy highlights the non-local corrections that a momentum-independent Λ\Lambda cannot accommodate.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: The real-space propagator G(r)G(r) is compared between the fully self-consistent parquet solution—derived from both the fully measured (statistically exact) vertex and the approximate DΓ\GammaA local vertex—and the Monte Carlo propagator (also statistically exact) at β=0.58\beta=0.58 and 0.600.60 (with L=8L=8, on a logarithmic scale). The exact vertex accurately reproduces G(r)G(r) at all distances, while the local DΓ\GammaA vertex shows an overshoot at large |r||r|. In the lower panels, the percentage deviation from the Monte Carlo results is presented. Statistical errors, obtained through bootstrapping, are approximately 0.1%0.1\%, which is smaller than the plotted symbols.

Thirdly, we return to the issue of convergence. The loss of convergence observed in the parquet self-consistency equations is not attributed to a physical singularity; rather, it is a result of damped fixed-point iterations acquiring a Jacobian eigenvalue of unit modulus or greater. This causes the physical fixed point to become repulsive [14].

Refer to caption
Figure 6: The ratio of the local fully irreducible vertex to the bare vertex as a function of β\beta is shown, with the exact measured contact λeff\lambda_{\rm eff} represented by red circles for L=8L=8 and orange diamonds for L=16L=16. The bootstrap errors are smaller than the symbols. These measurements are compared to the vertex ΛDMFT\Lambda_{\rm DMFT} from a single-site dynamical mean-field theory, indicated by blue squares, as well as to the bare value, represented by a grey dotted horizontal line. The approximate location of the thermodynamic phase transition is indicated by a vertical grey dashed line at βc0.685\beta_{c}\approx 0.685. It is important to note that λeff\lambda_{\rm eff} does not coincide with the bare vertex at β=0\beta=0 because it reflects an atomic limit theory rather than a Gaussian free theory.

This picture is supported by the Monte Carlo data: when inserting the exact solution at a fixed propagator, the spectral radius of the map increases smoothly from 0.900.90 at β=0.60\beta=0.60 to 0.940.94 at β=0.64\beta=0.64, crossing unity between β=0.64\beta=0.64 and 0.660.66. This places the linear stability threshold at approximately β0.65\beta\simeq 0.65. The self-consistent iteration, which couples this map to the Dyson update, loses convergence significantly earlier, at β0.62\beta\simeq 0.62, because the Dyson feedback is itself destabilizing (see below and App. H). Anderson-accelerated iterations [32, 15] and a β\beta-annealed continuation do not help; they seek an attractor and stop at the same point where stability is lost. However, a Jacobian-free Newton-Krylov root-finder [21], which can converge to repulsive fixed points, does manage to extend the solution up to β=0.65\beta=0.65—the onset of the single-mode repeller—but stalls just above this point at the mode proliferation phase (β0.66\beta\geq 0.66; see App. H). Therefore, the extent to which such methods can be applied to the two-dimensional lattice up to βc\beta_{c} remains an open question. The scenario presented in Ref. [14] suggests a procedure to stabilize the equations in the non-convergent regime, particularly when dealing with a large eigenvalue. We reference App. H, where we analyze this in detail, but summarize the two key results here: First, at its onset, there is a single mode (specifically, the A1A_{1} zero-transfer (order-parameter) direction), so the fixed-GG (PS) map remains an attractor up to its wall (β0.64\beta\approx 0.640.650.65). However, closing the Dyson loop (PSD) feeds that same soft mode back through the propagator, which makes it repulsive earlier (Eq. (20)): self-consistency is destabilizing, and the PSD map fails first. Second, this wall is not a fixed barrier below βc\beta_{c}; rather, its onset is a finite-size feature that recedes toward βc\beta_{c} with increasing system size. Near criticality, the unstable set proliferates into many complex modes, and single-mode stabilization is no longer sufficient (App. H). In summary, solving the parquet equations remains a notoriously challenging and open problem, even with knowledge of the physical irreducible vertex. We emphasize again that this is not a limitation of the parquet equations themselves; they remain valid in the critical region.

VI Discussion

We have reconstructed the 2PI vertex for lattice ϕ4\phi^{4} theory using Monte Carlo measurements of the connected two-particle correlator, which can serve as a benchmark object against which various theories such as fRG, parquet, DΓ\GammaA, and Schwinger–Dyson can be tested. We then analyzed the 2D ϕ4\phi^{4} Ising transition from the vertex perspective. Our main results can be summarized as follows:

First (see Figs. 1 and 2), the soft sector at the transition is multidimensional. The A1A_{1} irreducible representation drives the instability, but the B1B_{1} and B2B_{2} representations cooperate and strengthen as the system size increases. Consequently, the minimal reduced description of the near-critical vertex spans these channels rather than relying solely on the A1A_{1} mode. The contribution from B2B_{2} is tied to B1B_{1} because of the emergent rotational invariance at the critical point.

Second, the two vertices differ in range (see Figs. 3 and 6). The fully irreducible vertex Λ\Lambda is spatially compact—a near-contact object with approximately 40 times more amplitude at r=0r=0 than at r=1r=1 even at criticality—while the particle-hole irreducible (2PI) vertex develops a power-law tail at criticality and shows non-monotonic behavior at small rr in the relative coordinate, along with a complex structure in the center-of-mass coordinate. In the disordered phase, both vertices are localized within r1r\approx 1; here, Λ\Lambda screens the bare contact by approximately 10%, whereas toward criticality, the effective contact is instead enhanced (as shown in Fig. 6).

Third, the DΓ\GammaA approximation for ϕ4\phi^{4} theory accurately reproduces the fully irreducible vertex and the local self-energy (see Fig. 4), but begins to fail when the correlation length exceeds one lattice spacing. This failure is first evident in the closure of the correlation function (see Fig. 5) and can also be observed, albeit to a lesser extent, in local quantities (see Fig. 4).

Fourth, in the critical region, the physical solution of the parquet-SDE-Dyson (PSD) equations turns into a repulsive fixed point, and we clarify the structure of this instability (see App H). This instability begins as a single order-parameter (A1A_{1}) mode, which contributes an eigenvalue to the Jacobian with a magnitude greater than one. The fixed-propagator map (PS) remains an attractor up to a certain boundary that self-consistency (PSD) pushes to a lower wall. This boundary is a finite-size feature that approaches βc\beta_{c} as the system size increases. Following Ref. [14], we stabilize that single mode, enhancing convergence; however, nearer to the transition, the unstable set proliferates into many largely complex modes, and a rank-one flip is no longer sufficient. This is a stability, not an existence, issue—it is not a property of the PSD equations themselves, nor is it related to the uniqueness of the Luttinger-Ward functional (which is guaranteed to be unique in our case); only the solver’s Jacobian becomes unstable.

Collectively, these results establish the directly measured vertex as a controlled, statistically valid benchmark for two-particle-based theories—such as parquet, DΓ\GammaA, fRG, and Schwinger–Dyson—on the disordered side of lattice field theory, and they precisely locate where these closures begin to fail.

In principle, this approach could be extended to any NN-component ϕ4\phi^{4} theory on any DD-dimensional finite lattice in the disordered phase, provided an efficient cluster algorithm exists for the two- and four-point correlators. However, we caution that this is not a scalable, general-purpose method: measuring the fully connected four-point function accurately enough to extract the Bethe–Salpeter ladders is costly in both statistics and memory, and these costs grow rapidly with the number of components, dimensionality, and correlation length. Therefore, we expect this method to remain practical only for a few comparatively simple models. The most natural candidates include the 3D Ising model, the O(N)O(N) vector models (with the N=2N=2 quasi-long-range-ordered critical phase being a particularly challenging test), and Heisenberg O(3)O(3) spin models, whose vertex already couples nearest neighbors. In each case, the disordered side is accessible, but solving the closure relation (PSD) near criticality remains a formidable and likely model-dependent problem; we see no reason to expect it to be easier in that region than it was in our case. Future work will address the ordered phase and extensions to bosonic and fermionic many-body systems, where the vertex is significantly more complex and further conceptual complications arise, including the multivalued nature of the Luttinger-Ward functional in the fermionic case.

VII Acknowledgements

Thanks – I wish to thank Lei Wang for an initial conversation on recent AI developments and drawing my attention to Ref. [23].
Funding – We acknowledge financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), project Nr 530111096. The project/research is part of the Munich Quantum Valley, which is supported by the Bavarian state government with funds from the Hightech Agenda Bayern Plus.
Data Analysis and Code Generation Disclosure – This project was the author’s first attempt to make extensive use of the current generation of AI large-language models (LLM). The mathematical derivations, numerical simulations, and linear algebra stabilization routines detailed were developed with the computational assistance of, primarily, Anthropic Claude 4.8 Opus and, to a lesser extent, OpenAI ChatGPT-5.5. Specifically, the Anthropic AI tool was used to draft Python scripts for solving the parquet and DΓAD\Gamma A self-consistency equations and adding observables to the (primarily human-written) Monte Carlo codes, and to optimize the statistical analysis pipeline. All mathematical outputs, code logic, and data matrices were subjected to rigorous human supervision, manual derivation cross-checks, and independent verification by the author to guarantee accuracy and physical validity to the best of their knowledge and skill. The OpenAI tool was used as a conversation tool about the progress of the project. Google Gemini was used for broad literature searches and minor scripting. The author claims full responsibility. The paper text has been extensively edited by a human and then checked by Grammarly.
Data availability – The ALPSCore libraries were used in the Monte Carlo simulations [17, 33]. Data and certain programs used in this work will be made publicly available under https://github.com/LodePollet upon publication and earlier upon reasonable non-anonymous request.

Appendix A Conventions and definitions

To enhance the reproducibility of our results, we provide a collection of definitions, conventions, and normalizations. All momenta run over the discrete Brillouin zone of the L×LL\times L lattice, represented as k=2πL(nx,ny)k=\tfrac{2\pi}{L}(n_{x},n_{y}), where N=L2N=L^{2}.

Fields and propagator. The Fourier transform is symmetric, ϕk=N1/2xeikxϕx\phi_{k}=N^{-1/2}\sum_{x}e^{-ik\cdot x}\phi_{x}, so that the fact that the fields are real implies ϕk=ϕk\phi_{-k}=\phi_{k}^{*}. The propagator is G(k)=|ϕk|2G(k)=\langle|\phi_{k}|^{2}\rangle. With the action S=βijϕiϕj+m2iϕi2+λiϕi4S=-\beta\sum_{\langle ij\rangle}\phi_{i}\phi_{j}+m^{2}\sum_{i}\phi_{i}^{2}+\lambda\sum_{i}\phi_{i}^{4} the free inverse propagator is

G01(k)=2(m2β(coskx+cosky)),G_{0}^{-1}(k)=2\bigl(m^{2}-\beta(\cos k_{x}+\cos k_{y})\bigr), (6)

and we work at m2=0m^{2}=0, λ=12\lambda=\tfrac{1}{2}. In the (1/n!)Vn(1/n!)V_{n} convention the bare amputated quartic vertex is V4=24λV_{4}=24\lambda; the symmetric transform turns the on-site λxϕx4\lambda\sum_{x}\phi_{x}^{4} into a momentum-conserving vertex V4mom=24λ/NV_{4}^{\rm mom}=24\lambda/N.

Two-particle correlator and particle–hole vertex. With ρq(k)=ϕkϕk+q\rho_{q}(k)=\phi_{k}^{*}\phi_{k+q} the measured connected correlator and its non-interacting counterpart are

χ(k,p;q)\displaystyle\chi(k,p;q) =ρq(k)ρq(p)ρq(k)ρq(p),\displaystyle=\langle\rho_{q}(k)\rho_{q}(p)^{*}\rangle-\langle\rho_{q}(k)\rangle\langle\rho_{q}(p)^{*}\rangle, (7)
χ0(k,p;q)\displaystyle\chi_{0}(k,p;q) =G(k)G(k+q)[δk,p+δp,kq],\displaystyle=G(k)G(k+q)\,[\delta_{k,p}+\delta_{p,-k-q}], (8)

where the exchange term δp,kq\delta_{p,-k-q} is required by ϕk=ϕk\phi_{-k}=\phi_{k}^{*}. The particle–hole 2PI vertex, the connected part, and the full amputated vertex are

Γph\displaystyle\Gamma_{\rm ph} =χ01χ1,\displaystyle=\chi_{0}^{-1}-\chi^{-1}, χc\displaystyle\chi_{c} =χχ0,\displaystyle=\chi-\chi_{0}, F\displaystyle F =χ01χcχ01,\displaystyle=\chi_{0}^{-1}\chi_{c}\,\chi_{0}^{-1}, (9)

and the instability is monitored through K=χ01/2Γphχ01/2K=\chi_{0}^{1/2}\Gamma_{\rm ph}\chi_{0}^{1/2}, whose leading eigenvalue reaches unity at the Thouless point (physical phase transition). Throughout, matrix operations act on the (k,p)(k,p) indices at fixed transfer qq on the physical (non-null) subspace of χ\chi.

Appendix B Remark on the locality of the 2PI vertex

A remark on the interpretation of Fig. 3 is in order here. The relative-coordinate kernel Γrel(r)\Gamma_{\mathrm{rel}}(r) is obtained by summing over all (k,p)(k,p) at fixed kpk-p, ie, by averaging the vertex over the center-of-mass momentum k+pk+p. It hence measures the range of the convolution part of the vertex and is blind to any dependence on k+pk+p. This distinction matters because the center-of-mass part is directly measurable as Γcom=ΓΓconv\Gamma_{\mathrm{com}}=\Gamma-\Gamma_{\mathrm{conv}} with Γconv(k,p)=g(kp)\Gamma_{\mathrm{conv}}(k,p)=g(k-p), g(d)=Γ(k,kd)kg(d)=\langle\Gamma(k,k-d)\rangle_{k}, and we quantify its weight Γcom2/Γ2\lVert\Gamma_{\mathrm{com}}\rVert^{2}/\lVert\Gamma\rVert^{2} on the physical inversion-even subspace. Deep in the disordered phase this weight is negligible: it is below 0.1%0.1\% for β0.4\beta\leq 0.4. On approach to the transition however it grows rapidly and monotonically, reaching 4%\sim 4\% at β=0.60\beta=0.60, 15%\sim 15\% at 0.640.64, and 40%\sim 40\% of the total vertex norm by β=0.68\beta=0.68: Near criticality, the center-of-mass structure is comparable to the convolution part. It is moreover organized in precisely the soft sector that drives the instability (Fig. 1): decomposing into C4vC_{4v} irreducible representations, the weight at β=0.68\beta=0.68 is carried foremost by A1A_{1} (energy, 26.7%26.7\%), then by B1B_{1} and B2B_{2} (the stress-tensor pair, 8.8%8.8\% and 2.5%2.5\%, respectively), with A2A_{2} negligible (0.7%0.7\%), and this holds for both the L=8L=8 and L=16L=16 data sets. The near-locality of Γrel\Gamma_{\mathrm{rel}} is therefore a partial statement: the relative-coordinate kernel stays short ranged (Fig. 3), while a second, center-of-mass structure emerges and grows toward half the vertex as βc\beta_{c} is approached. Note that this is not the case for the fully irreducible vertex discussed below: the COM structure lives almost exclusively in the ladders.

Appendix C Crossing and the fully irreducible vertex

Because the field is real and the interaction is a single local ϕ4\phi^{4} term, the connected four-point function is fully crossing symmetric. Therefore, the two crossing relations

χc(k,p;q)=χc(k,k+q;pk)=χc(k,p;kpq)\chi_{c}(k,p;q)=\chi_{c}(k,k+q;p-k)=\chi_{c}(k,p;-k-p-q) (10)

hold identically (and we have verified this on the data); they map the particle-hole transfer qq onto the transverse (ph¯\overline{\rm ph}, transfer kpk-p) and particle-particle (pp, transfer k+pk+p) channels. Each channel carries its own vertex Γr=χ0,r1χr1\Gamma_{r}=\chi_{0,r}^{-1}-\chi_{r}^{-1}, r{ph,pp,ph¯}r\in\{{\rm ph},{\rm pp},\overline{\rm ph}\}, obtained from the same measured function evaluated at the crossed transfer. The fully irreducible vertex follows from the parquet equation [cf. Eq. (5)]

Λ=Γph+Γpp+Γph¯2F.\Lambda=\Gamma_{\rm ph}+\Gamma_{\rm pp}+\Gamma_{\overline{\rm ph}}-2F. (11)

Since each channel-irreducible vertex satisfies Γr=FΦr\Gamma_{r}=F-\Phi_{r}, summing over the three channels gives rΓr=3FrΦr\sum_{r}\Gamma_{r}=3F-\sum_{r}\Phi_{r}. Using the parquet identity F=Λ+rΦrF=\Lambda+\sum_{r}\Phi_{r}, i.e. rΦr=FΛ\sum_{r}\Phi_{r}=F-\Lambda, immediately gives Eq. (11). Through the exchange structure of Eq. (8) we see that χ0\chi_{0} acts as 2G(k)G(k+q)2\,G(k)G(k+q) on the symmetric physical subspace (the factor of 2 is a consequence of the bosonic (real-field) counting of the reducible diagrams [13]), so that each χ01\chi_{0}^{-1} in FF carries a factor 12\tfrac{1}{2}. There is also a factor 14\tfrac{1}{4} between the amputated bare vertex V4=24λV_{4}=24\lambda and the contact measured in our normalization, and this places the amputated tree vertex at Ftree=V4/4=6λ/NF^{\rm tree}=-V_{4}/4=-6\lambda/N. This fixes the normalization convention used throughout the paper in which the local contact λeff=N2Q,k,pΛ(k,p;Q)\lambda_{\rm eff}=N^{-2}\sum_{Q,k,p}\Lambda(k,p;Q) and the bare parquet input (6λ/N-6\lambda/N) are quoted.

Appendix D Parquet self-consistency and the self-energy

Whereas App. C extracts Λ\Lambda from the measured vertices, here we solve the parquet equations with a given Λ\Lambda. We have followed the functional derivation of the parquet equations for ϕ4\phi^{4} [13]. As stated in App. C, because FF is crossing symmetric, the three reducible parts (BSE equations) are images of a single function Φph[Q]\Phi_{\rm ph}[Q], and the parquet equations collapse to a fixed-point iteration over the transfer QQ alone,

Γph[Q](a,b)\displaystyle\Gamma_{\rm ph}[Q](a,b) =Λ+Φph(a,a+Q;ba)\displaystyle=\Lambda+\Phi_{\rm ph}(a,a+Q;b-a)
+Φph(a,b;(a+b+Q)),\displaystyle+\Phi_{\rm ph}(a,b;-(a{+}b{+}Q)), (12)
F[Q]\displaystyle F[Q] =(1Γph[Q]χ0[Q])1Γph[Q],\displaystyle=\bigl(1-\Gamma_{\rm ph}[Q]\,\chi_{0}[Q]\bigr)^{-1}\Gamma_{\rm ph}[Q], (13)
Φph[Q]\displaystyle\Phi_{\rm ph}[Q] =F[Q]Γph[Q].\displaystyle=F[Q]-\Gamma_{\rm ph}[Q]. (14)

The self-energy follows from the Schwinger-Dyson equation as Σ(k)=ΣH(k)+Σ\Sigma(k)=\Sigma_{H}(k)+\Sigma_{\mathchoice{\vbox{\hbox{ \hbox to3.27pt{\vbox to3.27pt{\pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\thinspace\lower-1.63625pt\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{}}{}{{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@moveto{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{1.35625pt}{0.74904pt}{0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}{1.35625pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-1.35625pt}{-0.74904pt}{-0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}{-1.35625pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{1.35625pt}{-0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } {{}{}}{{}}{} {{}{}}{}{}\pgfsys@moveto{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@lineto{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } } \pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope{}{}{}\hss}\pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}\endpgfpicture}}}}}{\vbox{\hbox{ \hbox to3.27pt{\vbox to3.27pt{\pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\thinspace\lower-1.63625pt\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{}}{}{{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@moveto{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{1.35625pt}{0.74904pt}{0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}{1.35625pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-1.35625pt}{-0.74904pt}{-0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}{-1.35625pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{1.35625pt}{-0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } {{}{}}{{}}{} {{}{}}{}{}\pgfsys@moveto{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@lineto{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } } \pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope{}{}{}\hss}\pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}\endpgfpicture}}}}}{\vbox{\hbox{ \hbox to2.35pt{\vbox to2.35pt{\pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\thinspace\lower-1.17444pt\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{}}{}{{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@moveto{0.96445pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.96445pt}{0.53265pt}{0.53265pt}{0.96445pt}{0.0pt}{0.96445pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.53265pt}{0.96445pt}{-0.96445pt}{0.53265pt}{-0.96445pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.96445pt}{-0.53265pt}{-0.53265pt}{-0.96445pt}{0.0pt}{-0.96445pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.53265pt}{-0.96445pt}{0.96445pt}{-0.53265pt}{0.96445pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } {{}{}}{{}}{} {{}{}}{}{}\pgfsys@moveto{-0.96445pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@lineto{0.96445pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } } \pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope{}{}{}\hss}\pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}\endpgfpicture}}}}}{\vbox{\hbox{ \hbox to1.61pt{\vbox to1.61pt{\pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\thinspace\lower-0.80305pt\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{}}{}{{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@moveto{0.66306pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.66306pt}{0.3662pt}{0.3662pt}{0.66306pt}{0.0pt}{0.66306pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.3662pt}{0.66306pt}{-0.66306pt}{0.3662pt}{-0.66306pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.66306pt}{-0.3662pt}{-0.3662pt}{-0.66306pt}{0.0pt}{-0.66306pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.3662pt}{-0.66306pt}{0.66306pt}{-0.3662pt}{0.66306pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } {{}{}}{{}}{} {{}{}}{}{}\pgfsys@moveto{-0.66306pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@lineto{0.66306pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } } \pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope{}{}{}\hss}\pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}\endpgfpicture}}}}}} with ΣH=12λϕ2\Sigma_{H}=-12\lambda\,\langle\phi^{2}\rangle the Hartree term and the sunset diagram [6] given by

Σ(k)=16λNk2,k3G(k2)G(k3)G(k4)F(k,k2,k3,k4),\Sigma_{\mathchoice{\vbox{\hbox{ \hbox to3.27pt{\vbox to3.27pt{\pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\thinspace\lower-1.63625pt\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{}}{}{{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@moveto{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{1.35625pt}{0.74904pt}{0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}{1.35625pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-1.35625pt}{-0.74904pt}{-0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}{-1.35625pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{1.35625pt}{-0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } {{}{}}{{}}{} {{}{}}{}{}\pgfsys@moveto{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@lineto{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } } \pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope{}{}{}\hss}\pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}\endpgfpicture}}}}}{\vbox{\hbox{ \hbox to3.27pt{\vbox to3.27pt{\pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\thinspace\lower-1.63625pt\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{}}{}{{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@moveto{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{1.35625pt}{0.74904pt}{0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}{1.35625pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-1.35625pt}{-0.74904pt}{-0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}{-1.35625pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.74904pt}{-1.35625pt}{1.35625pt}{-0.74904pt}{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } {{}{}}{{}}{} {{}{}}{}{}\pgfsys@moveto{-1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@lineto{1.35625pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } } \pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope{}{}{}\hss}\pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}\endpgfpicture}}}}}{\vbox{\hbox{ \hbox to2.35pt{\vbox to2.35pt{\pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\thinspace\lower-1.17444pt\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{}}{}{{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@moveto{0.96445pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.96445pt}{0.53265pt}{0.53265pt}{0.96445pt}{0.0pt}{0.96445pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.53265pt}{0.96445pt}{-0.96445pt}{0.53265pt}{-0.96445pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.96445pt}{-0.53265pt}{-0.53265pt}{-0.96445pt}{0.0pt}{-0.96445pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.53265pt}{-0.96445pt}{0.96445pt}{-0.53265pt}{0.96445pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } {{}{}}{{}}{} {{}{}}{}{}\pgfsys@moveto{-0.96445pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@lineto{0.96445pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } } \pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope{}{}{}\hss}\pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}\endpgfpicture}}}}}{\vbox{\hbox{ \hbox to1.61pt{\vbox to1.61pt{\pgfpicture\makeatletter\hbox{\thinspace\lower-0.80305pt\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\definecolor{pgfstrokecolor}{rgb}{0,0,0}\pgfsys@color@rgb@stroke{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@color@rgb@fill{0}{0}{0}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }\nullfont\hbox to0.0pt{\pgfsys@beginscope\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@setlinewidth{\the\pgflinewidth}\pgfsys@invoke{ }{{}{{}}{}{{{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@moveto{0.66306pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.66306pt}{0.3662pt}{0.3662pt}{0.66306pt}{0.0pt}{0.66306pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.3662pt}{0.66306pt}{-0.66306pt}{0.3662pt}{-0.66306pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@curveto{-0.66306pt}{-0.3662pt}{-0.3662pt}{-0.66306pt}{0.0pt}{-0.66306pt}\pgfsys@curveto{0.3662pt}{-0.66306pt}{0.66306pt}{-0.3662pt}{0.66306pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@closepath\pgfsys@moveto{0.0pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } {{}{}}{{}}{} {{}{}}{}{}\pgfsys@moveto{-0.66306pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@lineto{0.66306pt}{0.0pt}\pgfsys@stroke\pgfsys@invoke{ } } \pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope{}{}{}\hss}\pgfsys@discardpath\pgfsys@invoke{ }\pgfsys@endscope\hss}}\endpgfpicture}}}}}}(k)=-\;\frac{16\lambda}{N}\!\sum_{k_{2},k_{3}}\!G(k_{2})G(k_{3})G(k_{4})\,F(k,k_{2},k_{3},k_{4}), (15)

with k4=kk2k3k_{4}=-k-k_{2}-k_{3}, ϕ2=N1kG(k)\langle\phi^{2}\rangle=N^{-1}\sum_{k}G(k), and the full vertex entered in particle-hole form, F(k,k2,k3,k4)=F[Q=k2+k](k,k3)F(k,k_{2},k_{3},k_{4})=F[Q{=}k_{2}{+}k](-k,k_{3}). The coefficient of the sunset is fixed: the field-theory sunset carries 4λ/N-4\lambda/N acting on the field-normalized vertex, and the measured F=Fmom/4F=F^{\rm mom}/4 of App. C converts this to 16λ/N-16\lambda/N. Equivalently, Eq. (15) with a constant F=6λ/NF=-6\lambda/N reproduces the direct second-order sunset 96λ2N2GGG96\,\lambda^{2}N^{-2}\sum GGG identically. Inserting the measured FF into Eq. (15) reproduces the Monte Carlo self-energy over the full Brillouin zone to 4×1044\times 10^{-4} and within error bars. The propagator closes through the Dyson equation G(k)=[G01(k)Σ(k)]1G(k)=[G_{0}^{-1}(k)-\Sigma(k)]^{-1}.

This set of equations is iterated, in principle, until Φph\Phi_{\rm ph} converges although the stability of the parquet equations is difficult to guarantee (see main text and App. H).

Appendix E Single-site dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) and DΓAD\Gamma A

The impurity of Fig. 6 is one site in a self-consistent Gaussian bath, with static Weiss field aa and action Simp=12aϕ2+λϕ4S_{\rm imp}=\tfrac{1}{2}a\,\phi^{2}+\lambda\phi^{4}; its moments ϕ2imp\langle\phi^{2}\rangle_{\rm imp} and ϕ4imp\langle\phi^{4}\rangle_{\rm imp} are single integrals. The self-consistency loop, in the normalization of Eq. (6), is

Gloc=1G01(k)Σk,a=Gloc1+Σ,Σ=a1ϕ2imp,G_{\rm loc}=\Bigl\langle\tfrac{1}{G_{0}^{-1}(k)-\Sigma}\Bigr\rangle_{k},\quad a=G_{\rm loc}^{-1}+\Sigma,\quad\Sigma=a-\tfrac{1}{\langle\phi^{2}\rangle_{\rm imp}}, (16)

iterated to ϕ2imp=Gloc\langle\phi^{2}\rangle_{\rm imp}=G_{\rm loc}. This constitutes the ϕ4\phi^{4} equivalent of dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT). Its extension to DΓAD\Gamma A, which includes the local vertex, is as follows: For a single mode the three channels of Eq. (11) collapse to one scalar: with χ0=2ϕ2imp2\chi_{0}=2\langle\phi^{2}\rangle_{\rm imp}^{2} and χ=ϕ4impϕ2imp2\chi=\langle\phi^{4}\rangle_{\rm imp}-\langle\phi^{2}\rangle_{\rm imp}^{2},

Γ=χ01χ1,F=χχ02χ01,ΛDΓA=3Γ2FN,\Gamma=\chi_{0}^{-1}-\chi^{-1},\quad F=\chi\chi_{0}^{-2}-\chi_{0}^{-1},\quad\Lambda_{\rm D\Gamma A}=\frac{3\Gamma-2F}{N}, (17)

the final division by NN bringing the single-site vertex in line with the lattice (momentum) normalization of λeff\lambda_{\rm eff}.

Appendix F Conditioning, noise, and inversion

Through Monte Carlo simulations we have access to a stochastically sampled 4-point (and 2-point) correlator. The inversion of such a stochastically sampled correlator is rank deficient. The stability of the procedure rests on separating the exactly null, the well-measured, and the noise-limited parts of χ\chi, and on choosing the metric in which each quantity is read.

Null space and physical subspace. The relation expressing that the field is real, ρq(k)=ρq(k)\rho_{q}(k)=\rho_{-q}(-k), makes χ\chi exactly rank deficient: roughly half of its eigenvalues vanish identically (3434 of 6464 at L=8L=8; 130130 of 256256 at L=16L=16). These exact zeros must be projected out before any inversion. After this projection the condition number of the full matrix is reduced to 103\sim\!10^{3}10410^{4}. All inversions in Eqs. (9) are pseudo-inverses restricted to this subspace, defined by a relative truncation threshold τ\tau: an eigen-direction of the matrix is kept only if its eigenvalue exceeds τ\tau times the largest eigenvalue. We use τ106\tau\simeq 10^{-6} and find the results stable across the range τ[106,104]\tau\in[10^{-6},10^{-4}]. The bare bubble χ0\chi_{0} of Eq. (8) is, by contrast, block diagonal in the pairs (k,kq)(k,-k-q) and is inverted exactly, so χ01\chi_{0}^{-1} and χ01/2\chi_{0}^{1/2} introduce no error.

Robustness through the metric. The leading eigenvalue of the symmetrised kernel K=χ01/2Γχ01/2K=\chi_{0}^{1/2}\Gamma\chi_{0}^{1/2} is determined by the soft high-susceptibility collective modes (the A1A_{1} energy mode and the B1,B2B_{1},B_{2} stress modes). Those are well sampled, enabling a precise determination of the leading eigenvalues. The real-space vertex Γrel(r)\Gamma_{\rm rel}(r) needs the small eigenvalues of χ\chi and is therefore far noisier. One must rank the spectrum of KK by its positive eigenvalues: large negative eigenvalues are pseudo-inverse noise from the near-null sector, not physical, and ranking by |||\cdot| returns nonsense. The same χ01/2\chi_{0}^{1/2} weighting suppresses a purely numerical artifact that appears near criticality. As the soft mode grows, the truncation threshold τλmax(χ)\tau\,\lambda_{\max}(\chi) (and this is here the susceptibility λmax(χ)=χ(0)=G(0)\lambda_{\max}(\chi)=\chi(0)=G(0) ) can regularize by dropping a small χ\chi eigenvalue at M=(π,π)M=(\pi,\pi): although the large χ01(M,M)\chi_{0}^{-1}(M,M) (recall χ0(M)=G(M)G(M+q)\chi_{0}(M)=G(M)G(M+q) is tiny there) survives and produces a spurious spike in the raw Γ=χ01χ1\Gamma=\chi_{0}^{-1}-\chi^{-1}, this spurious peak is absent from KK as can be seen from writing KK as K=𝟏χ01/2χ1χ01/2K=\mathbf{1}-\chi_{0}^{1/2}\chi^{-1}\chi_{0}^{1/2} in which the residual χ01/2χ1χ01/2\chi_{0}^{1/2}\chi^{-1}\chi_{0}^{1/2} carries only the small χ0(M)\chi_{0}(M) and is suppressed rather than amplified. Where the raw vertex itself is needed, it is removed by an absolute-scale rather than relative regularisation.

The fully irreducible vertex is a difference of large terms. Equation (11) subtracts quantities of comparable magnitude, so it amplifies the sampling noise on the small matrix elements. We therefore symmetrize Λ\Lambda over the C4vC_{4v} group elements, which is physically exact. What survives cleanly is the contact: the r=0r=0 amplitude λeff=N2Q,k,pΛ(k,p;Q)\lambda_{\rm eff}=N^{-2}\sum_{Q,k,p}\Lambda(k,p;Q) is orthogonal to the noisy tail and is determined to a precision of 0.3%\sim\!0.3\% whereas extracting a range ξΛ\xi_{\Lambda} from the tail is not meaningful on the present statistics.

Parquet iteration. The Bethe-Salpeter step of Eq. (14) is solved as a linear least-squares problem for (1Γχ0)F=Γ(1-\Gamma\chi_{0})F=\Gamma rather than by explicit inversion, which is stable even as 1Γχ01-\Gamma\chi_{0} becomes singular. The iteration is started from the Monte Carlo propagator, under-relaxed (mixing 0.250.25), and guarded by a divergence test (max|Φph|>106\max|\Phi_{\rm ph}|>10^{6}). The divergence encountered for β0.64\beta\gtrsim 0.64 is the fixed-point-iteration instability discussed in Sec. V.

Appendix G Conventional finite-size scaling analysis

As an independent check on the location of the transition we perform a standard finite-size-scaling analysis of the propagator at L=8,16,32L=8,16,32 (Fig. 7). The zero-momentum susceptibility χ=G(k=0)\chi=G(k{=}0) rises monotonically: on a finite lattice the raw G(0)G(0) acquires the magnetization (order parameter) above βc\beta_{c}. The Binder-cumulant analogue here is the renormalization-group-invariant ratio of the correlation length to the system size ξ/L\xi/L. The second-moment correlation length ξ2nd\xi_{\rm 2nd} [10],

ξ2nd=12sin(π/L)G(0)G(k1)1,kn=(2nπL,0),\xi_{\rm 2nd}=\frac{1}{2\sin(\pi/L)}\sqrt{\frac{G(0)}{G(k_{1})}-1},\quad k_{n}=\left(\frac{2n\pi}{L},0\right), (18)

(where G(k1)G(k_{1}) is averaged over the two axis directions) gives a crossing that is almost LL-independent, βc0.685\beta_{c}\simeq 0.685 for both the (8,16)(8,16) and (16,32)(16,32) pairs. The second moment is however built on G(0)G(0) and is mildly condensate-biased near the transition (and also much larger than LL on the ordered side for the same reason). It is therefore only meaningful on the disordered side. The connected correlation length ξc\xi_{c} is measured from the effective mass at the two lowest nonzero momenta and is free of the magnetization. It is computed as

ξc2=k^2(k2)G(k2)k^2G(k1)G(k1)G(k2),\xi_{c}^{-2}=\frac{\hat{k}^{2}(k_{2})G(k_{2})-\hat{k}^{2}G(k_{1})}{G(k_{1})-G(k_{2})}, (19)

where k^2(k)=2[(1coskx)+(1cosky)]\hat{k}^{2}(k)=2\bigl[(1-\cos k_{x})+(1-\cos k_{y})\bigr]. The connected correlation length is sharper than the second-moment correlation length: ξc/L\xi_{c}/L peaks at a pseudo-critical coupling that drifts upward with system size, β(L)0.64, 0.66, 0.67\beta^{\ast}(L)\simeq 0.64,\,0.66,\,0.67 at L=8,16,32L=8,16,32, and its crossings move up in step, 0.6560.6700.656\to 0.670 from (8,16)(8,16) to (16,32)(16,32). Both the peak and the crossing drift upward and, extrapolated linearly in 1/L1/L, land somewhat above the clean second-moment crossing; the same offset appears in the vertex signal, whose A1A_{1} eigenvalue (Fig. 1) peaks at β0.70\beta\simeq 0.70 with little size dependence. As discussed in Sec. III, these estimators peak just beyond the transition rather than at it, so we take the second-moment crossing, βc0.685\beta_{c}\simeq 0.685 (panel (b)), as the thermodynamic value. Note that this quantity never equals the full (or even half) the system size. The bootstrap uncertainty on each crossing is below 10310^{-3}; the spread quoted here is the systematic difference between estimators and the finite-size drift, not statistical noise.

Refer to caption
Figure 7: Conventional finite-size scaling at L=8,16,32L=8,16,32. Left: zero-momentum susceptibility χ=G(k=0)\chi=G(k{=}0), monotonic. Centre: second-moment ratio ξ2nd/L\xi_{\rm 2nd}/L, whose crossing (dotted) sits at βc0.685\beta_{c}\simeq 0.685 in a nearly LL-independent way. Vertical lines are located at the crossings between (L=8,L=16L=8,L=16) and (L=16,L=32L=16,L=32). Right: ratio of the connected correlation length to system size ξc/L\xi_{c}/L; its peak and crossings drift upward with LL, overshooting the second-moment crossing (this estimator peaks just beyond the transition; see text). Error bars are obtained through bootstrapping. Vertical lines correspond to peak positions on the β\beta grid.

Appendix H Rank-one sign-flip stabilization at the edge of the convergence window

Throughout this appendix we focus on the properties (Jacobian) of the numerical fixed-point map used to solve the parquet-SDE and parquet-SDE-Dyson equations.

Let us recap what we observe numerically for L=8L=8. The finite-size transition point is at β=0.640.65\beta=0.64-0.65 (see Fig. 7(c)), the thermodynamic one at βc0.685\beta_{c}\approx 0.685 (see Fig. 7(b)). The parquet-SDE-Dyson (PSD) equations could be solved by damped fixed point iterations up to β=0.62\beta=0.62 (Fig. 4). Keeping GG fixed at its exact Monte Carlo value, the parquet-SDE (PS) equations could be solved by damped fixed-point iterations up to β=0.64\beta=0.64. For β>0.62\beta>0.62 the physical solution corresponds to a repulsive fixed point in the PSD equations. The fixed-GG PS map remains an attractor up to β=0.64\beta=0.64 (so damped iteration already converges there), and only turns repulsive at β=0.65\beta=0.65; a Jacobian-free Newton-Krylov root-finder, which can reach repulsive fixed points, therefore extends the PS solution to β=0.65\beta=0.65 before stalling at the mode proliferation (β0.66\beta\geq 0.66).

That the PSD wall lies below the PS wall is a direct consequence of the Dyson closure being destabilizing. With GG frozen (PS), the sensitivity of the map along the A1A_{1} soft mode is set by the ladder resummation, 1/(1λA1)\sim 1/(1-\lambda_{A_{1}}). Closing the Dyson loop (PSD) feeds the self-energy shift back into the propagator, and hence back into the vertex, adding a crossed contribution to the Jacobian eigenvalue along that same mode,

MA1=[1(1λA1)21]c,c0.27,M^{\prime}_{A_{1}}\;=\;\Big[\frac{1}{(1-\lambda_{A_{1}})^{2}}-1\Big]\,c,\qquad c\simeq 0.27, (20)

where cc is the (crossed) propagator-feedback weight measured at the wall. This term is positive and grows faster than the PS sensitivity as λA11\lambda_{A_{1}}\to 1, so it drives the self-consistent eigenvalue through unity at a smaller λA1\lambda_{A_{1}}—and hence a lower β\beta—than the fixed-GG map. The physical vertex is thus an attractor of the PS map up to its (higher) wall, whereas adding self-consistency turns the very same order-parameter mode repulsive earlier: the PSD map fails first. The fixed point itself is unchanged; only the Jacobian of the closure differs.

At its onset the fixed-point iteration instability is a single real mode. At β=0.65\beta=0.65 the Jacobian of the PS sweep at the physical point Φ\Phi^{\ast} (which was reached by Newton continuation seeded with the measured solution) has exactly one eigenvalue crossing the real axis at +1+1 (μ=1.066\mu=1.066), and its eigenvector is 99.8%99.8\% A1A_{1} at zero transfer, i.e. the energy soft mode of Fig. 1. Following Ref. [14], reversing the sign of the damping on this one direction (a rank-one projector) turns the repeller into an attractor: plain damped iteration seeded near Φ\Phi^{\ast} diverges along the mode, whereas the sign-flipped map converges (Fig. 8), validating the mechanism directly on a lattice field theory. Below the wall (β0.64\beta\leq 0.64) the fixed point is already an attractor and plain damped iteration suffices; like Newton-Krylov, the sign flip is needed only at β=0.65\beta=0.65, the one coupling where the fixed point has just turned repulsive.

We then tried, unsuccessfully, to extend this mechanism to larger β\beta: the unstable subspace proliferates and turns complex (1681\to 6\to 8 eigenvalues with Reμ>1\mathrm{Re}\,\mu>1 at β=0.65,0.66,0.67\beta=0.65,0.66,0.67), so a single real sign-flip no longer suffices and reaching the thermodynamic βc\beta_{c} would require the fuller multi-mode machinery of Ref. [14], which we do not pursue. However, by comparing with Fig. 7(c) it may well be that β>0.64\beta>0.64 is in the finite-size ordered phase, which is outside the scope of this paper; in other words, it might not be meaningful to solve the PS / PSD sweeps beyond β>0.64\beta>0.64 in which case the mechanism of Ref. [14] works fine throughout the disordered phase.

Refer to caption
Figure 8: Rank-one sign-flip at the parquet wall (L=8,β=0.65L=8,\beta=0.65 for a PS sweep based on the exactly known Monte Carlo vertex): distance to the physical fixed point Φ\Phi^{\ast} versus iteration, seeded along the single unstable A1A_{1} direction. Plain damped iteration diverges; reversing the damping sign on that one mode makes it converge [14].

There is an argument to support that the location of the convergence window might itself be a finite-size effect. Because the unstable direction is the A1A_{1} zero-transfer mode, the wall (by which we mean the boundary of the convergence window) can be tracked cheaply without solving the PS sweeps (which is very expensive) through the measured A1A_{1} ladder eigenvalue λA1(q=0)\lambda_{A_{1}}(q{=}0) (which is, we recall, the leading eigenvalue of χ01/2Γphχ01/2\chi_{0}^{1/2}\Gamma_{\rm ph}\chi_{0}^{1/2} at zero transfer, see Fig. 1). The wall is estimated from the coupling at which λA1\lambda_{A_{1}} reaches the value it takes at the L=8L=8 wall. Calibrated on PS-sweeps at L=8L=8 and β=0.65\beta=0.65 (λA1,PS=0.537\lambda_{A_{1},{\rm PS}}^{\ast}=0.537), and on the PSD-sweeps at L=8L=8 and β=0.62\beta=0.62 (λA1,PSD=0.351\lambda_{A_{1},{\rm PSD}}^{\ast}=0.351), and assuming that the same λA1,PS(D)\lambda_{A_{1},{\rm PS(D)}}^{\ast} thresholds remain valid at larger system size, we see that the wall moves up monotonically with system size (Fig. 9): βwall=0.650, 0.656, 0.663\beta_{\rm wall}=0.650,\,0.656,\,0.663 (PS) and 0.620, 0.637, 0.6450.620,\,0.637,\,0.645 (PSD) at L=8,16,32L=8,16,32. Of the two calibrations, the PSD one is cleaner: its L=8L=8 wall (β=0.62\beta=0.62) sits safely inside the disordered phase, whereas the PS calibration point (β=0.65\beta=0.65) already lies at or above the finite-size critical coupling βc(L=8)0.64\beta_{c}(L{=}8)\approx 0.64 (Fig. 7(c)), where the single-mode picture is beginning to break down; the PS drift should be read accordingly.

A linear extrapolation in 1/L1/L places both near 0.650.650.670.67, still climbing toward the finite-size-scaling estimate βc0.685\beta_{c}\simeq 0.685. Since the fixed threshold is a lower bound on the drift (larger LL carries more soft-mode weight), this probably understates how far the onset of the window drifts. It would, however, be too strong to conclude that the window opens all the way to βc\beta_{c}: On the contrary, as ββc\beta\to\beta_{c} the critical channel softens as a whole and the unstable set likely proliferates into many, increasingly complex modes (1681\to 6\to 8, above), i.e. a manifestation of critical slowing down.

Refer to caption
Figure 9: Finite-size scaling of the parquet convergence window: βwall\beta_{\rm wall} versus 1/L1/L for L=8,16,32L=8,16,32. Blue squares: the wall of the full self-consistent parquet-SDE-Dyson (PSD) map; red circles: the wall of the fixed-propagator parquet-SDE (PS) map. Both maps were solved directly only at L=8L=8 (PSD wall 0.620.62; PS wall 0.650.65, the single-A1A_{1}-mode repeller onset that the sign flip reaches); at L=16,32L=16,32 the wall is located as the coupling at which the A1A_{1} q=0q=0 ladder eigenvalue reaches its respective L=8L=8 threshold value (see text). Grey triangles: the finite-size critical point βc(L)\beta_{c}(L) from the ξc\xi_{c} peak of Fig. 7(c); the shaded region above is the finite-size ordered phase. Both walls drift up with LL toward the thermodynamic βc0.685\beta_{c}\simeq 0.685 (dash-dotted). Error bars: the β\beta-grid resolution (±0.005\pm 0.005) for the walls, and the ξc\xi_{c}-peak systematic (±0.007\pm 0.007) for βc(L)\beta_{c}(L).

References

  • [1] A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinskii (1963) Methods of quantum field theory in statistical physics. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY. Cited by: §I.
  • [2] G. Baym and L. P. Kadanoff (1961) Conservation Laws and Correlation Functions. Phys. Rev. 124, pp. 287. External Links: Document Cited by: §II.
  • [3] G. Baym (1962) Self-Consistent Approximations in Many-Body Systems. Phys. Rev. 127, pp. 1391. External Links: Document Cited by: §II.
  • [4] J. Berges, N. Tetradis, and C. Wetterich (2002) Non-perturbative renormalization flow in quantum field theory and statistical physics. Physics Reports 363 (4), pp. 223–386. Note: Renormalization group theory in the new millennium. IV External Links: ISSN 0370-1573, Document, Link Cited by: §I.
  • [5] J. Berges (2004-11) nn-Particle irreducible effective action techniques for gauge theories. Phys. Rev. D 70, pp. 105010. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §I.
  • [6] N. E. Bickers and D. J. Scalapino (1992) Critical behavior of electronic parquet solutions. Phys. Rev. B 46, pp. 8050. External Links: Document Cited by: Appendix D.
  • [7] N. E. Bickers and S. R. White (1991) Conserving approximations for strongly fluctuating electron systems. II. Numerical results and parquet extension. Phys. Rev. B 43, pp. 8044. External Links: Document Cited by: §I, §V.
  • [8] R. C. Brower and P. Tamayo (1989) Embedded Dynamics for ϕ4\phi^{4} Theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, pp. 1087. External Links: Document Cited by: §II.
  • [9] M. E. Carrington (2004-06-01) The 4PI effective action for ϕ4\phi^{4}theory. The European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields 35 (3), pp. 383–392. External Links: ISSN 1434-6052, Document, Link Cited by: §I.
  • [10] F. Cooper, B. Freedman, and D. Preston (1982) Solving ϕ1,24\phi_{1,2}^{4} field theory with Monte Carlo. Nuclear Physics B 210 (2), pp. 210–228. External Links: ISSN 0550-3213, Document, Link Cited by: Appendix G.
  • [11] C. De Dominicis and P. C. Martin (1964) Stationary Entropy Principle and Renormalization in Normal and Superfluid Systems. I. Algebraic Formulation. J. Math. Phys. 5, pp. 14. External Links: Document Cited by: §I, §V.
  • [12] I. T. Diatlov, V. V. Sudakov, and K. A. Ter-Martirosian (1957) Asymptotic meson-meson scattering theory. Sov. Phys. JETP 5, pp. 631. Cited by: §I, §V.
  • [13] C. J. Eckhardt, P. Kappl, A. Kauch, and K. Held (2023) A functional-analysis derivation of the parquet equation. SciPost Phys. 15, pp. 203. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: Appendix C, Appendix D.
  • [14] H. Eßl, S. Rohshap, M. Gievers, M. Wallerberger, A. Toschi, and A. Kauch (2026) Stabilizing the parquet problem. External Links: 2606.04936, Link Cited by: Figure 8, Appendix H, Appendix H, §V, §V, §VI.
  • [15] H. Fang and Y. Saad (2009) Two classes of multisecant methods for nonlinear acceleration. Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications 16 (3), pp. 197–221. External Links: Document, Link, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/nla.617 Cited by: §V.
  • [16] A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka (1971) Quantum theory of many-particle systems. McGraw–Hill, New York. Cited by: §I.
  • [17] A. Gaenko, A. E. Antipov, G. Carcassi, T. Chen, X. Chen, Q. Dong, L. Gamper, J. Gukelberger, R. Igarashi, S. Iskakov, M. Könz, J. P. F. LeBlanc, R. Levy, P. N. Ma, J. E. Paki, H. Shinaoka, S. Todo, M. Troyer, and E. Gull (2017-04) Updated core libraries of the ALPS project. Computer Physics Communications 213, pp. 235–251. External Links: ISSN 0010-4655, Link, Document Cited by: §VII.
  • [18] A. I. Guerrero, D. A. Stariolo, and N. G. Almarza (2015) Nematic phase in the J1J_{1}-J2J_{2} square-lattice Ising model in an external field. Phys. Rev. E 91, pp. 052123. External Links: Document Cited by: §III.
  • [19] O. Gunnarsson, G. Rohringer, T. Schäfer, G. Sangiovanni, and A. Toschi (2017-08) Breakdown of Traditional Many-Body Theories for Correlated Electrons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, pp. 056402. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §V.
  • [20] O. Gunnarsson, T. Schäfer, J. P. F. LeBlanc, J. Merino, G. Sangiovanni, G. Rohringer, and A. Toschi (2016-06) Parquet decomposition calculations of the electronic self-energy. Phys. Rev. B 93, pp. 245102. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §V.
  • [21] D.A. Knoll and D.E. Keyes (2004) Jacobian-free Newton–Krylov methods: a survey of approaches and applications. Journal of Computational Physics 193 (2), pp. 357–397. External Links: ISSN 0021-9991, Document, Link Cited by: §V.
  • [22] E. Kozik, M. Ferrero, and A. Georges (2015) Nonexistence of the Luttinger-Ward Functional and Misleading Convergence of Skeleton Diagrammatic Series for Hubbard-Like Models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, pp. 156402. External Links: Document Cited by: §V.
  • [23] L. Lin and M. Lindsey (2018) Variational structure of Luttinger-Ward formalism and bold diagrammatic expansion for Euclidean lattice field theory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, pp. 2282. External Links: Document Cited by: §V, §VII.
  • [24] W. Metzner, M. Salmhofer, C. Honerkamp, V. Meden, and K. Schönhammer (2012-03) Functional renormalization group approach to correlated fermion systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, pp. 299–352. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §I.
  • [25] J. W. Negele and H. Orland (1988) Quantum many-particle systems. Addison–Wesley, Redwood City, CA. Cited by: §I.
  • [26] L. Onsager (1944) Crystal Statistics. I. A Two-Dimensional Model with an Order-Disorder Transition. Phys. Rev. 65, pp. 117. External Links: Document Cited by: §I, §IV.1.
  • [27] C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams (1994) Dyson-Schwinger equations and their application to hadronic physics. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 33, pp. 477–575. External Links: ISSN 0146-6410, Document, Link Cited by: §I.
  • [28] G. Rohringer, H. Hafermann, A. Toschi, A. A. Katanin, A. E. Antipov, M. I. Katsnelson, A. I. Lichtenstein, A. N. Rubtsov, and K. Held (2018) Diagrammatic routes to nonlocal correlations beyond dynamical mean field theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, pp. 025003. External Links: Document Cited by: §I, §V.
  • [29] E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe (1951) A Relativistic Equation for Bound-State Problems. Phys. Rev. 84, pp. 1232. External Links: Document Cited by: §I, §II.
  • [30] T. Schäfer, S. Ciuchi, M. Wallerberger, P. Thunström, O. Gunnarsson, G. Sangiovanni, G. Rohringer, and A. Toschi (2016) Nonperturbative landscape of the Mott-Hubbard transition: multiple divergence lines around the critical endpoint. Phys. Rev. B 94, pp. 235108. External Links: Document Cited by: §V.
  • [31] A. Toschi, A. A. Katanin, and K. Held (2007) Dynamical vertex approximation: a step beyond dynamical mean-field theory. Phys. Rev. B 75, pp. 045118. External Links: Document Cited by: §V.
  • [32] H. F. Walker and P. Ni (2011) Anderson Acceleration for Fixed-Point Iterations. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 49 (4), pp. 1715–1735. External Links: Document, Link, https://doi.org/10.1137/10078356X Cited by: §V.
  • [33] M. Wallerberger, S. Iskakov, A. Gaenko, J. Kleinhenz, I. Krivenko, R. Levy, J. Li, H. Shinaoka, S. Todo, T. Chen, X. Chen, J. P. F. LeBlanc, J. E. Paki, H. Terletska, M. Troyer, and E. Gull (2018-11) Updated Core Libraries of the ALPS Project. Technical report Technical Report arXiv:1811.08331, arXiv. Note: Comment: 14 pages, 3 figures, 4 tables; submitted to Comput. Phys. Commun. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1609.03930 External Links: Link, Document Cited by: §VII.