You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


An important property of massless QCD is the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry. The associated Goldstone pions dominate the low-energy, finite-volume scaling behavior of the Dirac operator spectrum in the microscopic regime, defined by $1/\Lambda_{QCD} << L << 1/m_\pi$, with $L$ the linear extent of the system [@LS]. This behavior, in turn, can be characterized by chiral random matrix theory (RMT), which lead to a revival of RMT, first used to understand the energy levels of nuclear matter [@porter]. What enters into the RMT description of the low-energy, finite-volume scaling behavior are some symmetry properties of the Dirac operator and the sector of fixed topological charge under consideration [@SV; @JV94]. The RMT predictions are universal in the sense that only the symmetry properties, but not the form of the potential matters  [@univ]. Furthermore, the properties tested in this letter can be derived directly from the effective, finite-volume partition functions of QCD of Leutwyler and Smilga, without the detour through RMT [@noRMT], though RMT nicely and succinctly describes and classifies all these properties. The topological charge enters the RMT prediction via the number of fermionic zero modes, related to the topological charge through the index theorem. The symmetry properties of the Dirac operator fall into three classes, corresponding to the chiral orthogonal, unitary, and symplectic ensembles [@JV94]. Examples are fermions in the fundamental representation of gauge group SU(2) for the orthogonal ensemble, fermions in the fundamental representation of gauge group SU($N_c$) with $N_c \ge 3$ for the unitary ensemble, and fermions in the adjoint representation of gauge group SU($N_c$) for the symplectic ensemble.

= 0.8

The classification according to the three different chiral random matrix ensembles is intimately connected to the chiral symmetry properties of the fermions. A good non-perturbative regularization of QCD should therefore retain those chiral symmetry properties. Until recently such a regularization was not known. The next best thing were staggered fermions, which at least retained a reduced chiral-like symmetry on the lattice. Indeed, staggered fermions were used to verify predictions of chiral RMT [@numRMT1; @numRMT2], albeit with two important shortcomings: (i) staggered fermions in the fundamental representation of SU(2) have the symmetry properties of the symplectic ensemble [@HV95], not the orthogonal ensemble as continuum fermions, while adjoint staggered fermions belong to the orthogonal ensemble [@EHNstAdj], not the symplectic one. (ii) staggered fermions do not have exact zero modes at finite lattice spacing [@KSzeromode], even for topologically non-trivial gauge field backgrounds, and thus seem to probe only the $\nu=0$ predictions of chiral random matrix theory [@numRMT1; @numRMT2].

The development of the overlap formalism for chiral fermions on the lattice [@over] recently lead to the massless Overlap-Dirac operator, a lattice regularization for vector-like gauge theories that retains the chiral properties of continuum fermions on the lattice [@herbert]. In particular, the continuum predictions of chiral random matrix theory should apply. Overlap fermions have exact zero modes in topologically non-trivial gauge field backgrounds [@ehn1], allowing, for the first time, verification of the RMT predictions in $\nu \ne 0$ sectors. The nice agreement we shall describe further validates the chiral RMT predictions on the one hand and strengthens the case for the usefulness of the Overlap regularization of massless fermions on the other hand.

The massless Overlap-Dirac operator [@herbert] is given by $$D={1\over 2} \left [ 1 + \gamma_5 \epsilon (H_w(m)) \right ] ~.
\label{eq:over}$$ Here, $\gamma_5 H_w(-m)$ is the usual Wilson-Dirac operator on the lattice and $\epsilon$ denotes the sign function. The mass $m$ has to be chosen to be positive and well above the critical mass for Wilson fermions but below the mass where the doublers become light on the lattice. In this letter, we will be interested in the low lying eigenvalues of $H=\gamma_5 D$, which is a hermitian operator. Relevant properties of this operator can be found in Ref. [@ehn1]. We will use the Ritz algorithm [@Ritz] applied to $H^2$ to obtain the lowest few eigenvalues. The numerical algorithm involves the action of $H$ on a vector and for this purpose one will have to use a representation of $\epsilon(H_w(m))$. We will use the rational approximation discussed in Ref. [@ehn1; @ehn2].

For fermions in the fundamental representation of gauge group SU(2), the Overlap-Dirac operator is real since the underlying Wilson-Dirac operator is real [@su2]. They are therefore expected to fall into the chiral orthogonal ensemble. For fermions in the adjoint representation the spectrum of the Overlap-Dirac operator is doubly degenerate, since the spectrum of the underlying Wilson-Dirac operator is doubly degenerate [@adjoint], and they are therefore expected to belong to the symplectic ensemble. For three or more colors the Overlap-Dirac operator in the fundamental representation is complex with no additional symmetries and is therefore expected to fall into the chiral unitary ensemble.[^1]

We will first present our results for the distribution of the “unfolded” level spacing [@porter; @unfold]. The unfolding of the eigenvalues of $H$ are done in the following manner. Let $E_i^n$ label the non-zero positive eigenvalues of $H$ with $n$ labeling the configuration number and $E_i^n > E_{i-1}^n$ for all $i$. We are considering only the positive eigenvalues of $H$, since the non-zero eigenvalues of $H$ all come in positive/negative pairs [@ehn1]. For fermions in the adjoint representation of SU($N_c$) the spectrum of $H$ is doubly degenerate and we only keep half the spectrum, dropping the degeneracy. Unfolding proceeds by first sorting all the $E_i^n$ in ascending order and associating the location $N_i^n$ of $E_i^n$ in the sorted list with $E_i^n$. $N_i^n$ is referred to as the unfolded spectrum and the level spacing is simply given by $(N_{i+1}^n-N_i^n)/N$ where $N$ is the number of configurations. The distributions of the unfolded level spacing, $s$, in RMT are well approximated by the various Wigner distributions [@HV95] $$P(s) = \cases {{\pi\over 2} s {\rm e}^{-{\pi\over 4}s^2} & orthogonal
 ensemble \cr
{32\over\pi^2} s^2 {\rm e}^{-{4\over\pi}s^2} & unitary ensemble \cr
{262144\over 729\pi^3} s^4 {\rm e}^{-{64\over 9\pi} s^2} & symplectic
 ensemble ~. \cr }
\label{eq:level_space}$$

= 0.8

In our numerical simulations we computed the low lying spectrum of the Overlap-Dirac operator in the fundamental representation on pure gauge SU(2) configurations with $\beta=1.8$ as an example of the chiral orthogonal ensemble, on pure gauge SU(3) configurations with $\beta=5.1$ as an example of the chiral unitary ensemble, and in the adjoint representation on pure gauge SU(2) configurations with $\beta=2.0$. The lattice size was $4^4$ in all cases. The various level spacing distributions are shown in Fig. \[fig:level\]. There is very clear evidence that the SU(2) and SU(3) ensembles with fermions in the fundamental representation fall into the orthogonal and unitary ensemble, respectively, and the SU(2) ensemble with fermions in the adjoint representation falls into the symplectic ensemble.

We next turn to the distribution of the lowest eigenvalue for the various ensembles. Chiral RMT predicts that these distributions are universal when they are classified according to the three ensembles and according to the number of exact zero modes $\nu$ within each ensemble and then considered as functions of the rescaled variable $z=\Sigma V \lambda_{\rm min}$. Here $V$ is the volume and $\Sigma$ is the infinite volume value of the chiral condensate $\langle \bar \psi \psi \rangle$ determined up to an overall wave function normalization, which is dependent in part on the Wilson–Dirac mass $m$. RMT gives for the distribution of the rescaled lowest eigenvalue for the orthogonal ensemble, expected to apply to the fermions in the fundamental representation of SU(2), in the $\nu=0$ and $\nu=1$ sector [@Forrester] $$P_{\rm min}(z) = \cases { 
{2+z\over 4} {\rm e}^{-{z\over 2}-{z^2\over 8}} & if $\nu=0$ \cr
{z\over 4} {\rm e}^{-{z^2\over 8}} & if $\nu=1$ ~. \cr } 
\label{eq:Pmin_OE}$$ For the unitary ensemble, expected to apply to the fermions in the fundamental representation of SU($N_c$) with $N_c \ge 3$, the RMT predictions are [@Forrester; @PHD] $$P_{\rm min}(z) = \cases { 
{z\over 2} {\rm e}^{-{z^2\over 4}} & if $\nu=0$ \cr
{z\over 2} I_2(z) {\rm e}^{-{z^2\over 4}} & if $\nu=1$ \cr
{z\over 2} \left[ I_2^2(z) - I_1(z) I_3(z) \right] {\rm e}^{-{z^2\over 4}}
 & if $\nu=2$ ~. \cr}
\label{eq:Pmin_UE}$$ Finally, for the symplectic ensemble, expected to apply to the fermions in the adjoint representation, the RMT prediction is [@Forrester; @Kaneko; @numRMT2] $$P_{\rm min}(z) = \cases {
\sqrt{\pi\over 2} z^{3/2} I_{3/2}(z) e^{-{z^2\over 2}} & if $\nu=0$ \cr
{2\over {(2\nu+1)! (2\nu+3)!}} z^{4\nu+3} {\rm e}^{-z^2\over 2}
T_\nu(z^2) & if $\nu > 0$ ~. \cr}
\label{eq:Pmin_SE}$$ We are interested in $\nu=1$ since the eigenvalues are doubly degenerate. A closed form expression is not known for $T_\nu(z^2)$. Instead, a rapidly converging series [@Kaneko; @numRMT2] based on partitions of integers is available, namely $T_\nu(x) = 1 + \sum_{d=1}^{\infty} a_d x^d$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{a_d = \sum_{{|\kappa|=d}\atop{l(\kappa)\le2\nu+1}} \prod_{(i,j)} 
  {{(2\nu+2j-i)}\over{(2\nu+2j-i+4)}}\times} \nonumber \\ 
 && {1\over{(\kappa_j'-i+2(\kappa_i-j)+1) (\kappa_j'-i+2(\kappa_i-j)+2)}} \quad .\end{aligned}$$ Here, the integer partition $\kappa=\{\kappa_1,\kappa_2,\ldots,\kappa_d\}$ has length $d$ and weight $l(\kappa)=\sum_i \kappa_i$. A pair of integers is associated with $\kappa=\{(i,j)| 1\le i\le l(\kappa), 1\le j\le
\kappa_i\}$, and $\kappa_i' = {\rm Card}(j| \kappa_j \ge i)$ is the conjugate partition.

We compare the RMT predictions with our data in Fig. \[fig:pmin\]. If one knows the value of the chiral condensate in the infinite volume limit, $\Sigma$, the RMT predictions for $P_{\rm min}(z)$ are parameter free. On the rather small systems that we considered here, we did not obtain direct estimates of $\Sigma$. Instead, we made one-parameter fits of the measured distributions, obtained from histograms with jackknife errors, to the RMT predictions, with $\Sigma$ the free parameter. Our results, together with some additional information about the ensembles, are given in Table \[tab:Sigma\]. We note the consistency of the values for $\Sigma$ obtained in the $\nu=0$ and $\nu=1$ sectors of each ensemble. Alternatively, we could have used the value of $\Sigma$ obtained in the $\nu=0$ sector, to obtain a parameter free prediction for the distribution of the rescaled lowest eigenvalue in the $\nu=1$ sector. Obviously, the predictions would have come out very well.

For the two ensembles with the fermions in the fundamental representation, we also found 81 (for SU(2)), and 147 (for SU(3)) configurations with two zero modes and 1 and 3 with three zero modes. For the orthogonal ensemble, we are not aware of a prediction for $P_{\rm min}(z)$ in the $\nu=2$ sector, while for the unitary ensemble our data, albeit with very limited statistics, agrees reasonable well with the parameter free prediction, eq. (\[eq:Pmin\_UE\]) with $\Sigma$ from Table \[tab:Sigma\].

For fermions in the adjoint representation, we keep only one of each pair of doubly degenerate eigenvalues, so $\nu=1$ is the sector where there are two exact zero modes. Such gauge field configurations cannot be assigned an integer topological charge since integer charges give rise to zero modes in multiples of four [@ad_index], and we note there are a significant number of configurations with two zero modes as seen in Table \[tab:Sigma\]. The good agreement with the RMT prediction found in this case lends further support to the existence of configurations with fractional topological charge [@adjoint].

In this letter we have tested the predictions of chiral random matrix theory using the Overlap-Dirac operator on pure lattice gauge field ensembles. We find full agreement with the unfolded level spacing distributions on all three ensembles. We also found that the distribution of the lowest eigenvalue in the different topological sectors fitted well with the predictions of chiral RMT, with compatible values for the chiral condensate from the different topological sectors. This is the first test of the influence of topology on the Dirac spectrum in the microscopic regime.

  Repr.          $\beta$   $m$   $\nu$    $N_\nu$   $\Sigma$     $Q$
  ------------- --------- ----- ------- --------- ------------ -------
  SU(2) fund.      1.8     2.3     0         1293  0.2181(51)   0.915
  SU(2) fund.      1.8     2.3     1         1125  0.2155(37)   0.205
  SU(3) fund.      5.1     2.0     0         2714  0.0827(8)    0.444
  SU(3) fund.      5.1     2.0     1         2136  0.0829(6)    0.656
  SU(2) adj.       2.0     2.3     0         1251  0.2900(30)   0.611
  SU(2) adj.       2.0     2.3     1          254  0.2931(45)   0.313

  : The chiral condensate, $\Sigma$, from fits of the distribution of the lowest eigenvalue to the RMT predictions. The third column gives the Wilson-Dirac mass parameter used, the fourth the number of configurations, $N_\nu$, in each topological sector and the last the confidence level of the fit.[]{data-label="tab:Sigma"}

This research was supported by DOE contracts DE-FG05-85ER250000 and DE-FG05-96ER40979. Computations were performed on the workstation cluster at SCRI and the Xolas computing cluster at MIT’s Laboratory for Computing Science. We thank P.H. Damgaard for discussions.

[99]{} H. Leutwyler and A. Smilga, [*Phys. Rev.* ]{} [**D46**]{} (1992) 5607. C.E. Porter, [*Statistical Theories of Spectra: Fluctuations,* ]{} Academic Press, New York, 1965. E. Shuryak and J.J.M. Verbaarschot, [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**A560**]{} (1993) 306. J. Verbaarschot, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**72**]{} (1994) 2531. G. Akemann, P.H. Damgaard, U. Magnea and S. Nishigaki, [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**B487**]{} (1997) 721; M.K. Sener and J.J.M. Verbaarschot, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**81**]{} (1998) 248. P.H. Damgaard, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B424**]{} (998) 322;; G. Akemann and P.H. Damgaard, [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**B528**]{} (1998) 411; and [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B432**]{} (1998) 390; J.C. Osborn, D. Toublan and J.J.M. Verbaarschot, hep-th/9806110; P.H. Damgaard, J.C. Osborn, D. Toublan and J.J.M. Verbaarschot, hep-th/9811212. M.E. Berbenni-Bitsch, S. Meyer, A. Schäfer, J.J.M. Verbaarschot and T. Wettig, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**80**]{} (1998) 1146; J.-Z. Ma, T. Guhr and T. Wettig, [*Eur. Phys. J.* ]{} [**A2**]{} (1998) 87; P.H. Damgaard, U.M. Heller, A. Krasnitz, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B445**]{} (1999) 366; M. Göckeler, H. Hehl, P.E.L. Rakow, A. Schäfer and T. Wettig, hep-lat/9811018. M.E. Berbenni-Bitsch, S. Meyer and T. Wettig, [*Phys. Rev.* ]{} [**D58**]{} (1998) 071502. M.A. Halasz and J.J.M. Verbaarschot, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**74**]{} (1995) 3920. R.G. Edwards, U.M. Heller and R. Narayanan, hep-lat/9902021. J.C. Vink, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B210**]{} (1988) 211; J.B. Kogut, J.F. Lagae and D.K. Sinclair, [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**B (Proc. Suppl.) 63**]{} (1998) 433; A.L. Kaehler, [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**B (Proc. Suppl.) 63**]{} (1998) 823. R. Narayanan and H. Neuberger, [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**B443**]{} (1995) 305. H. Neuberger, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B417**]{} (1998) 141. R.G. Edwards, U.M. Heller and R. Narayanan, [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**B540**]{} (1999) 457. B. Bunk, K. Jansen, M. Lüscher and H. Simma, DESY-Report (September 1994); T. Kalkreuter and H. Simma, [*Comput. Phys. Commun.* ]{} [**93**]{} (1996) 33. R.G. Edwards, U.M. Heller and R. Narayanan, hep-lat/9811030. H. Neuberger, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B434**]{} (1998) 99. R.G. Edwards, U.M. Heller and R. Narayanan, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B438**]{} (1998) 96. F. Farchioni, I. Hip, C.B. Lang and M. Wohlgenannt, hep-lat/9812018. O. Bohigas and M.-J. Giannoni in [*Mathematical and Computational Methods in Nuclear Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics* ]{} [**209**]{} J. Dehesa, et al. (eds.) Springer Verlag 1984. P.J. Forrester, [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**B402**]{} (1993) 709. S.M. Nishigaki, P.H Damgaard and T. Wettig, [*Phys. Rev.* ]{} [**D58**]{} (1998) 087704. J. Kaneko, [*SIAM J. Math. Anal.* ]{} [**24**]{} (1993) 1086. T. Eguchi, P.B. Gilkey and A.J. Hanson, [*Phys. Rep.* ]{} [**66**]{} (1980) 213.

[^1]: Fermions in U(1) abelian gauge theory are another example of the unitary case. For numerical tests in two dimension, see [@Lang].