Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 22 references

Scale Separation, Strong Coupling UV Phases, and the Identification of the Edge of the Conformal Window

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Scale separation can hide chiral breaking near the conformal window edge.

desk verdict A transparent toy-model caution about scale separation and artefact phases near the conformal window edge; the qualitative lesson is solid, but the quantitative '10%' estimates are calibration-dependent. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07309 v1 pith:Z2EH43L6 submitted 2024-12-10 hep-ph hep-lathep-th

Anja Alfano , Nick Evans This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-lathep-th
keywords conformalwindowchiralsymmetrybreakingholographicmodelwalkinggaugetheorieslatticeartefactphaseBFboundscaleseparationSU(3)theorywithNf=10
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks how reliably lattice simulations can identify whether a strongly coupled gauge theory lies in the conformal window or breaks chiral symmetry. Using a simple holographic model with a scalar in $\mathrm{AdS}_5$, it argues that near the edge of the conformal window two effects conspire against a clean identification. A chirally broken theory can show a large separation between the scale where the quark bilinear crosses its critical dimension and the scale where the condensate forms, so a finite lattice with UV coupling below the fixed point may see only conformal behaviour. Conversely, when the UV coupling is placed above the fixed point, the theory can fall into an artefact phase with chiral symmetry breaking triggered at the lattice scale, and this phase lies arbitrarily close to the fixed point at the conformal window edge. The model is applied to the SU(3) $N_f=10$ lattice data, and the paper concludes that the published identification of that theory as conformal is reliable.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a minimal holographic model: a single scalar field $\phi$ in a fixed $\mathrm{AdS}_5$ background with action $S=\int d^4x\,dr\,\tfrac12 r^3(\partial_r\phi)^2 + r^3 V(\phi,r)$ and potential derivative $dV/d\phi = \tfrac1{r^2}\Delta m^2[r^2+\phi^2]\phi$. The deviation $\Delta m^2$ is assumed proportional to the running gauge coupling, $\Delta m^2=-k\alpha$; when $\Delta m^2$ crosses $-1$ the bulk scalar violates the BF bound (the stability bound for scalar fields in anti-de Sitter space) and becomes unstable to acquiring a vacuum expectation value, triggering chiral symmetry breaking. The running $\alpha$ is an interpolating fit to the $N_f=10$ lattice $\beta$-function, and varying the single parameter $k$ moves the theory through the conformal window edge. The correction $r^2\to r^2+\phi^2$ lets a growing condensate relieve the instability in the infrared, and the on-shell boundary condition $\phi(r_{\min})=r_{\min}$, $\partial_r\phi(r_{\min})=0$ sets the infrared constituent quark mass; the ratio between the BF-violation scale and this mass is the paper's quantitative diagnostic for scale separation.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a dedicated lattice simulation of a theory sitting just below the conformal window edge, scanning bare couplings in fine increments across the fixed point with volumes large enough to resolve scale separations of order 100. If, as the fixed point is approached, no region of broken chiral symmetry appears below the fixed point and no artefact phase appears above it within a few percent of the fixed point, the paper's central prediction would be contradicted; conversely, observing both a slow-gap region below and an artefact phase that converges to the fixed point would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at the edge of the conformal window the usual lattice strategy of approaching the fixed point from below or above can fail in a characteristic way. With the running coupling taken from the $N_f=10$ lattice data, and an assumed linear relation $\Delta m^2=-k\alpha$ between the scalar bulk mass-squared deviation and the coupling, the model finds that when $k$ is slightly above the critical value $k=0.84$ the theory breaks chiral symmetry, but the scale separation between the BF-bound violating scale and the constituent quark mass exceeds 35 for $0.84<k\lesssim 1.1$, corresponding to $\Delta m^2$ between 1 and 1.3 times its critical value. A lattice of order $(35)^4$ that sets its UV bare coupling just below the fixed point would therefore see no condensate and could mislabel the theory as IR conformal. Setting the UV coupling above the fixed point, the intended check, triggers a BF-bound violating instability at the UV cutoff which the authors identify with the lattice artefact phase; as the conformal window edge is approached this artefact phase lies arbitrarily close to the fixed point, so confirming conformality requires tuning the coupling into an ever narrower window. Applied to $N_f=10$ SU(3), the model estimates the artefact phase onset near the lattice-observed value and concludes that the existing simulation, which saw no chiral breaking with UV coupling above the fixed point, does place that theory in the conformal window.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative conclusions all follow from the assumption that the bulk scalar mass-squared deviation is simply $-k\alpha$ in a fixed anti-de Sitter geometry with $k$ taken in a hand-picked range, and from the analogous identification of the holographic UV instability with the lattice artefact phase.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A finite lattice that sets its UV bare coupling below the fixed point can miss chiral symmetry breaking in theories within roughly 10% of the conformal window edge, because the condensate forms below the lattice's infrared resolution.
  • The standard consistency check, simulating with UV coupling above the fixed point, is limited by the artefact phase, whose proximity to the fixed point grows as the edge is approached.
  • The $N_f=10$ SU(3) theory's placement in the conformal window is supported: no chiral breaking was seen with UV coupling above the fixed point, and the model predicts the artefact phase only beyond the couplings that were simulated.
  • The same reasoning suggests that studies of theories with $N_f=8$ or $9$ for $N_c=3$ could encounter both the scale-separation trap and a nearby artefact phase.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the holographic relation $\Delta m^2=-k\alpha$ is taken literally, the distance between the artefact-phase boundary and the fixed point becomes a direct, measurable indicator of how close a theory is to the conformal window edge.
  • The model implies that published conformal-window assignments based only on simulations with UV coupling below the fixed point and small lattice volumes may need re-examination near the edge.
  • One testable consequence of identifying the artefact phase with a first-order transition is that the chiral condensate should jump discontinuously across the transition; this could be measured on the lattice.
  • Extending the model with a four-fermion operator could map out the chirally symmetric gapped phase that recent lattice work suggests for $N_f=8$, clarifying how that phase interacts with the scale-separation effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses a simple holographic toy model in which a bulk scalar has a mass-squared shift Delta m^2 = -k alpha, with alpha the running gauge coupling fitted to the SU(3) Nf=10 lattice beta-function of Ref. [1]. For k>0.84 the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound is violated and a quark condensate forms; the paper claims that near k=0.84 the separation between the BF-violation scale and the IR mass scale can exceed a factor of 35. For k<0.84 it considers UV couplings above the fixed point, interprets their BF violation as the lattice artefact phase, and argues that this phase lies arbitrarily close to the fixed point at the edge of the conformal window. The paper concludes that lattice studies near the edge may misidentify chirally broken theories as IR conformal, while also endorsing the above-fixed-point test in Ref. [1] as making the Nf=10 conformal-window assignment reliable.

Significance. If the central assumptions were justified, the paper would provide a useful caution for lattice studies of near-conformal theories: scale separation can hide chiral symmetry breaking on finite lattices, and the above-fixed-point probe is the more robust diagnostic. The manuscript is transparent about its assumptions, numerically explicit, and offers a concrete demonstration of how a walking theory could mimic conformality. The constructive support for the Nf=10 result is also valuable. However, the advertised quantitative claims, specifically the 'arbitrarily close' artefact phase, the 'within 10%' difficulty estimate, and the '15% of the range' figure, are not independent predictions: they follow from the assumed proportionality Delta m^2=-k alpha and from hand-chosen values of k, so the paper's reach exceeds what the model can establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV] The conclusion that the artefact phase 'lies arbitrarily close' to the fixed point is enforced rather than derived. With Eq. (5), the UV BF-violation condition is k alpha_UV = 1, and the paper calibrates k=0.84 in Section II so that the Nf=10 fixed point satisfies k alpha_* = 1. Thus the statement that any alpha_UV above alpha_* triggers the artefact phase is just the identity alpha_* = 1/k. Since Section I explicitly relaxed gamma=1 as the criterion for the conformal-window edge, taking the BF bound at the fixed point as the definition of the physical edge is itself a choice; if the real edge were determined by a different condition (the four-fermion phase of Refs. [21,22], or gamma_c<1), the artefact-phase boundary need not approach the fixed point. The paper should frame this result as a property of the assumed proportionality, not as a model-independent warning.
  2. [Sections III and V] The quantitative estimates are controlled by a hand-chosen parameter interval and a single interpolating beta-function, not by an external error budget. The statement that k in [0.4,1.4] is 'reasonable' is asserted in Section III, and the resulting 15% and 12% fractions in Sections III and IV are arithmetic consequences of that interval, which already brackets the calibrated value 0.84. Similarly, the scale-separation threshold of 35 at k approximately 1.1 is specific to the fit to the Nf=10 lattice data. The Discussion's claim that theories 'within 10% (for example in Nf)' of the edge are hard to identify has no mapping from k to Nf, so the '10%' cannot be read as an estimate in flavour space. These numbers should be labelled as illustrative toy-model values rather than as robust estimates.
  3. [Section IV] The identification of the holographic UV BF-bound instability with the lattice artefact phase is an analogy: the text says the transition 'seems analogous' and that 'the spirit of the transition is shared', but no lattice regulator dynamics are modelled. The numerical comparison with the onset of the artefact phase in Ref. [16] (g^2 about 25) is not an independent check, because it is obtained by extrapolating the lattice gamma=0.6 with the same linear proportionality, Eq. (5), that is the paper's central assumption. The practical lattice conclusions would require an argument that the first-order bulk transition in Ref. [16] is driven by the continuum chiral instability rather than by regulator-specific effects.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section V] The phrase 'Moving the UV fixed point above the critical coupling' should read 'moving the UV coupling above the critical value', since the fixed point itself is not being moved.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says the red part shows where the 'BF bound is broken'; this should be 'BF bound is violated', and the caption should clarify that the red segments indicate the phi=0 potential-instability region, as the plotted solutions have nonzero phi.
  3. [Equation (4)] The relation Delta m^2 = gamma(gamma-2) is written without defining the range of gamma; stating explicitly that the BF bound at Delta m^2=-1 corresponds to gamma=1 would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The 'arbitrarily close' artefact phase is the k=0.84 calibration restated as a result; the 10% difficulty estimates are arithmetic on hand-chosen ranges, while the scale-separation numerics and the Nf=10 verdict remain externally anchored — partial circularity.

  1. self definitional [Section II (k=0.84 calibration) with Section IV ('the artefact phase lies arbitrarily close to the physical phase')]
    "If one takes the lattice value of the fixed point for α = 15/4π and wanted ∆m2 = −1 in the IR to enforce that it is the edge of the conformal window, then one would pick k = 0.84. ... Were one to place the UV coupling to the fixed point value though, one would trigger a transition to the artefact phase. In other words, the artefact phase lies arbitrarily close to the physical phase as one approaches the conformal window."

    Within the model the edge and the artefact threshold are the same equation twice. Sec. II fixes k = 0.84 so that the lattice fixed point α* = 15/4π saturates the BF bound: kα* = 1 (Δm² = −1). Sec. IV defines the artefact phase as UV BF violation, kα_UV > 1, boundary α_UV = 1/k = α*. The headline result — the artefact phase 'lies arbitrarily close' to the fixed point at the edge — is the calibration identity α* = 1/k, not a computed proximity. With one k (Eq. 5) coupling IR and UV, this is imposed by construction; an edge fixed by another criterion (γ_c < 1, or the four-fermion condensate of Refs. [21,22]) would put the artefact boundary a finite distance above the fixed point. The warning inherits the asserted identification of the edge with BF saturation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV (Fig. 3 band discussion) with Section V ('within 10%' estimate)]
    "We can see from Figure 3 that theories with 0.76 < k < 0.84 are very hard to study in this way - this is 12% of the range k = 0.4 − 1.4. ... We estimate that for theories within 10% (above and below) of the conformal window edge, considerable tuning will be needed."

    The difficulty estimates are arithmetic restatements of chosen inputs. The 12% is 0.08/1.0 from the hand-picked plausible interval k ∈ [0.4,1.4] (introduced as 'If one reasonably thought…'); the 10% band in Fig. 3 is an arbitrarily chosen UV-coupling excess above the fixed point; and k = 0.84 sets the reference edge. No external data fixes these numbers. The abstract's promise to 'quantify the chance of a misidentification' and the Sec. V estimate that theories 'within 10% (above and below) of the conformal window edge' need 'considerable tuning' convert assumed ranges into a quantitative conclusion. The paper is transparent about these choices, but the 'within 10%' message is an input choice, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain: Section II posits Δm² = −kα (Eq. 5) in fixed AdS5, with k the only new parameter. The paper is explicit that this is an assumption ('we will simply assume'), not a derived result, and that the one-loop value k = 1.27, the γ=1 value k = 0.64, and the lattice-edge value k = 0.84 are all hand choices. The load-bearing circular step is the k = 0.84 calibration: it is chosen 'to enforce that it is the edge of the conformal window' at the lattice fixed point, i.e., kα* = 1. The artefact-phase boundary (UV BF violation, kα_UV = 1) then sits at α_UV = 1/k = α* by construction, so the headline claim that the artefact phase 'lies arbitrarily close' to the fixed point is the identity α* = 1/k rather than an emergent proximity. Likewise the 10%/12%/15% misidentification estimates are arithmetic on the assumed interval k ∈ [0.4,1.4] and the chosen 10% UV-excess band. By contrast, the scale-separation result (>35 for Δm² between 1 and 1.3 of critical) is a genuine numerical solution of the EOM with the β function fitted to lattice data [1]; it does not reduce to the calibration, although its 10% framing does. The paper's positive verdict on Nf=10 rests on external lattice evidence — the above-fixed-point run in [1] showing no breaking, and the artefact-phase onset in [16] matching g² ≈ 25 — so that conclusion is independently anchored. Self-citations ([8], [11], [13], [20]) are standard holographic setup pieces, not load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the same authors. The identification of UV BF violation with the lattice artefact phase is explicitly analogical and is checked against external data [16], so it is not circular. Overall: the central 'arbitrarily close' proximity statement and the headline quantitative warning reduce to construction, while the scale-separation numerics and the lattice assessment retain independent content — hence partial circularity, score 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or mediators; all model elements, including the bulk scalar, the BF bound, and the running coupling, are standard holographic ingredients borrowed from prior work. Its actual freedom is the proportionality constant k and the fitted beta-function interpolation. The quantitative statements about the conformal window edge inherit the ad hoc assumptions listed above.

free parameters (3)
  • k = critical k=0.84; explored 0.4 to 1.4; unphysical k>3 to 4
    Sets the strength of the coupling-induced mass shift through Δm²=-kα and determines where the BF bound is crossed, hence all scale-separation and artefact-phase results.
  • beta-function interpolating function coefficients = not given numerically
    Fit to the lattice beta function of [1] to define the running coupling α(μ) used as input to the equation of motion.
  • IR boundary condition point r_min = set by ϕ(r_min)=r_min
    Normalizes the IR quark mass scale; ratios of scales are independent of this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math AdS/CFT dictionary M²=Δ(Δ-4) and the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound
    Used to map the scalar bulk mass to operator dimension and to identify the onset of chiral instability in Section II.
  • ad hoc to paper Δm² is proportional to the running coupling with constant k, Δm²=-kα, in a fixed AdS5 geometry
    Stated in Section II as the paper's central model assumption; the proportionality and constant k are not derived from a top-down construction.
  • domain assumption The conformal window edge corresponds to γ=1, equivalently Δm²=-1, at the IR fixed point
    Adopted from prior gap-equation and holographic analyses [3-8] and used to set k=0.84 from the lattice fixed point value.
  • ad hoc to paper Varying k at fixed running profile is a good ansatz for moving through theories near the conformal window edge
    Stated in the N.b. paragraph of Section II; not independently justified.
  • ad hoc to paper The UV BF-bound instability in the holographic model corresponds to the lattice artefact phase
    Assumed in Section IV based on analogy; no derivation from the lattice regulator dynamics is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scale Separation, Strong Coupling UV Phases, and the Identification of the Edge of the Conformal Window." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z2EH43L6

@misc{pith2026241207309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scale Separation, Strong Coupling UV Phases, and the Identification of the Edge of the Conformal Window},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z2EH43L6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07309}
}
read the original abstract

We use a simple holographic model to discuss approaching the edge of the conformal window in strongly coupled gauge theories to draw lessons for lattice studies. Walking gauge theories have a gap between the scale where they enter the strong coupling regime and the scale of chiral symmetry breaking. We highlight that there can also be a gap between the scale where the critical value of the quark anti-quark operator's anomalous dimension is passed and the scale of the condensate. This potentially makes identifying the edge of the conformal window in a lattice simulation with UV bare coupling below the fixed point value on a finite lattice difficult. A resolution is to study the theory with a coupling above the fixed point value at the UV cut off. Here we show that an ``artefact" phase with chiral symmetry breaking triggered at the UV cut off exists and lies arbitrarily close to the fixed point at the edge of the conformal window. We quantify the chance of a misidentification of a chiral symmetry breaking theory as IR conformal. We also quantify where the artefact phase lies, tuned to the fixed point value. We use the latest lattice results for SU(3) gauge theory with ten quark flavours in [Hasenfratz:2023wbr] as a test case; we conclude their identification that the theory is in the conformal window is reliable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07309 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The beta function plot taken from [1]; our fit is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The vacuum solutions ϕ for k = 3, 1.8, 1.4 with the scale of rmin scaled to one in each case. The red part of each solution shows the r range where the BF bound is broken at ϕ = 0. in the conformal window or in the chiral symmetry break￾ing phase above the conformal window edge. We will now consider approaching the edge of the con￾formal window from above (the set of theories that break chiral symmetry) and from bel… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mass ratio as a function of k for the four values of x along with a 10% area (blue box) under the minimum BF-bound violating value of k = 0.84. Curves pass through a mass ratio of 35 at: k = 1.099 for x = 0.8, k = 1.088 for x = 0.85, k = 1.076 for x = 0.9 and k = 1.058 for x = 0.95. The blue shaded region below the critical k value shows where the critical coupling lies within 10% above the fixed point value. figure… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hasenfratz, E

    A. Hasenfratz, E. T. Neil, Y. Shamir, B. Svetitsky and O. Witzel, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.7, L071503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L071503 [arXiv:2306.07236 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [16]

    Hasenfratz, Y

    A. Hasenfratz, Y. Shamir and B. Svetit- sky, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.7, 074509 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.074509 [arXiv:2109.02790 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [2]

    Banks and A

    T. Banks and A. Zaks, Nucl. Phys. B 196 (1982), 189-204 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90035-9

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90035-9 1982

  4. [3]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Terning and L. C. R. Wije- wardhana, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996), 1214- 1217 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1214 [arXiv:hep- ph/9602385 [hep-ph]]. 6

    arXiv 1996

  5. [4]

    D. D. Dietrich and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 085018 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.085018 [arXiv:hep-ph/0611341 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2007

  6. [5]

    A. G. Cohen and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B 314 (1989), 7-24 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90109-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90109-0 1989

  7. [6]

    Jarvinen and E

    M. Jarvinen and E. Kiritsis, JHEP 03 (2012), 002 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2012)002 [arXiv:1112.1261 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [7]

    Kutasov, J

    D. Kutasov, J. Lin and A. Parnachev, Nucl. Phys. B 858 (2012), 155-195 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.01.004 [arXiv:1107.2324 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2012

Show all 22 references
  1. [8]

    Alvares, N

    R. Alvares, N. Evans and K. Y. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 026008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.026008 [arXiv:1204.2474 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Karch and E

    A. Karch and E. Katz, JHEP 06 (2002), 043 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/043 [arXiv:hep- th/0205236 [hep-th]]

    2002

  3. [10]

    Kruczenski, D

    M. Kruczenski, D. Mateos, R. C. Myers and D. J. Winters, JHEP 07 (2003), 049 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2003/07/049 [arXiv:hep-th/0304032 [hep-th]]

    2003 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Erdmenger, N

    J. Erdmenger, N. Evans, I. Kirsch and E. Threlfall, Eur. Phys. J. A 35 (2008), 81-133 doi:10.1140/epja/i2007- 10540-1 [arXiv:0711.4467 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998), 253-291 doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a2 [arXiv:hep-th/9802150 [hep-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Babington, J

    J. Babington, J. Erdmenger, N. J. Evans, Z. Gural- nik and I. Kirsch, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004), 066007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.066007 [arXiv:hep-th/0306018 [hep-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Albash, V

    T. Albash, V. G. Filev, C. V. Johnson and A. Kundu, JHEP 07 (2008), 080 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2008/07/080 [arXiv:0709.1547 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, Annals Phys. 144 (1982), 249 doi:10.1016/0003-4916(82)90116-6

    1982 doi

  9. [17]

    Appelquist et al

    T. Appelquist et al. [LSD], Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) no.11, 114502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.114502 [arXiv:1405.4752 [hep-lat]]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Appelquist et al

    T. Appelquist et al. [Lattice Strong Dynam- ics], Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.1, 014509 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.014509 [arXiv:1807.08411 [hep-lat]]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hasenfratz, C

    A. Hasenfratz, C. Rebbi and O. Witzel, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no.11, 114508 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.114508 [arXiv:2210.16760 [hep-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    T. Alho, N. Evans and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), 105016 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.105016 [arXiv:1307.4896 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hasenfratz, Phys

    A. Hasenfratz, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.1, 014513 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.014513 [arXiv:2204.04801 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    N. Butt, S. Catterall and A. Hasenfratz, [arXiv:2409.02062 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.