Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Comparison of a pseudoscalar meson form factor in QCD with 3, 4, and 5 colors

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 The pseudoscalar meson vector form factor is essentially unchanged when QCD is simulated with 3, 4, or 5 colors, and its shape matches the vector-meson-dominance single-pole curve.

desk verdict A small, transparent lattice study giving the first direct Nc=3,4,5 comparison of the pion form factor; the result is plausible but needs a discussion of a 3-sigma outlier and the approximate matching across ensembles. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14143 v1 pith:AXXDQBDM submitted 2024-12-18 hep-lat

Thomas DeGrand This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lat MSC 81T2581V05 PACS 11.15.Pg12.38.Gc
keywords largeN_cQCDpseudoscalarmesonformfactorvectordominancelatticechargeradiuspionnumberofcolors
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 whether the internal charge distribution of the lightest pseudoscalar meson changes when QCD is given 3, 4, or 5 colors instead of the physical 3. It computes the vector form factor F($q^{2}$) from lattice simulations at a single, approximately matched quark mass, lattice spacing, and volume, and finds that the shape of F($q^{2}$) over accessible momenta is independent of N_c, matching the single-pole vector-meson-dominance curve. If correct, this is direct evidence that meson structure, not just masses and decay constants, obeys large-N_c counting, and that the pion's charge radius is essentially a color-singlet property. A sympathetic reader would care because large-N_c independence is a central organizing principle for QCD, and direct cross-color comparisons of a form factor have been rare.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pseudoscalar meson vector form factor F($q^{2}$), defined through the matrix element ⟨π(p′)|J_μ(q)|π(p)⟩ = (p′_μ + p_μ) F($q^{2}$). The calculation uses momentum-peaked smeared interpolating fields, built from a Gaussian smearing function shifted to peak at a chosen momentum K, to create pions with nonzero momentum, and extracts F($q^{2}$) through simultaneous correlated fits to two- and three-point correlators. The comparison is then made against the single-pole vector-meson-dominance formula F($q^{2}$) = 1/(1 + $q^{2}$/$m_V^{2}$), which is not a fit but a parameterization using the measured common vector meson mass.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to repeat the comparison at a second, smaller lattice spacing and with the pseudoscalar mass matched to better than 1% across N_c; if the form-factor curves then separate by N_c at moderate momentum transfer (around $q^{2}$ ≈ 0.4 in lattice units) instead of collapsing onto one another, the claimed N_c-independence of the shape would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery, stated on its own terms, is that the shape of the pseudoscalar meson vector form factor F($q^{2}$) is independent of the number of colors: for N_c = 3, 4, and 5, at a common matched fermion mass, lattice spacing, and simulation volume, the form-factor points collapse onto a single curve. Current conservation fixes F(0) = 1, so the meaningful comparison is the shape, and the data are consistent with the vector-meson-dominance expectation F($q^{2}$) = 1/(1 + $q^{2}$/$m_V^{2}$) using the common vector meson mass am_V = 0.53. In the quark-model language the author uses, the charge density of the pseudoscalar meson is independent of the color group, and the SU(N_c) gauge theory with a small number of fundamental flavors shows no special behavior at N_c = 3.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three simulated ensembles really do sit at a common physical point; the matching is only approximate (pseudoscalar masses differ by about 5%, and the scale parameter t0/$a^{2}$ by about 10%), so a form-factor shape that depends on quark mass or lattice spacing at that level would make the observed N_c-independence an artifact of the matching rather than a property of the large-N_c limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The pion's charge radius, set by the slope of F(q^2) at q^2 = 0, is the same across N_c = 3, 4, and 5 at the matched physical point; in quark-model terms, the squared wave function at zero separation is color-independent.
  • The single-pole vector-meson-dominance form with a common vector mass describes the data, so the vector-meson-dominance picture survives a direct cross-color test.
  • Combining the observed N_c-independence with the known 1/g_V ∝ √N_c scaling implies that the vector-to-two-pseudoscalar coupling g_{VPP} scales as 1/√N_c, and hence vector-meson hadronic decay widths scale as 1/N_c, exactly as large-N_c counting predicts.
  • The observed N_c-independence suggests there is nothing special about SU(3) for this observable: SU(N_c) gauge theories with two fundamental flavors show the same meson charge structure, and differences across N_c are governed by large-N_c counting rules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the cleanest test of this claim would be to repeat the comparison at a smaller lattice spacing and with lighter quark masses; the paper explicitly leaves the 1/N_c corrections from the two-pion vacuum-polarization loop as a target for a better study, and those corrections could become visible at low q^2 once matching is tightened.
  • I infer that the same momentum-peaked source and fitting machinery could be applied to other hadronic form factors, such as the nucleon or axial form factors, to test whether color-blindness of shape is a generic property of hadron structure or specific to the pion.
  • I infer that a natural numerical extension is to simulate N_c = 6 or 7 at the same matched point; if the form-factor curve remains on the same single-pole curve while the vector mass changes, the vector-meson-dominance description would be further reinforced, whereas a visible splitting would reveal the onset of 1/N_c corrections.
  • I infer that the paper's result, if confirmed, gives model-builders a practical rule: charge radii and form-factor shapes computed at N_c = 3 can be carried over to large-N_c composite Higgs or dark-QCD models without color-factor rescaling, a transfer the paper itself does not discuss.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a lattice QCD calculation of the pseudoscalar meson vector form factor F(q^2) for N_c = 3, 4, and 5 colors with N_f = 2 degenerate Wilson-clover fermions on 16^3 x 48 lattices. The author uses momentum-smeared interpolating fields and simultaneous correlated fits to two- and three-point correlators to extract F(q^2) at several discrete lattice momenta. The central claims are that the shape of F(q^2) is nearly independent of N_c over the range of momenta with good signal, and that the shape is consistent with vector meson dominance (VMD) using a common vector meson mass amV = 0.53.

Significance. If the central claim is established, this would be a direct and relatively clean test of large-N_c expectations: the charge distribution of the pion would be independent of the number of colors once quark mass, lattice spacing, and volume are matched, and the comparison would connect g_{VPP} scaling to 1/sqrt(N_c) as predicted by large-N_c counting. The study is explicitly low-statistics and single-lattice-spacing, so its significance is exploratory rather than precision-setting, but the cross-color comparison is a useful contribution. Strengths include the use of established fitting technology, transparent reporting of tables of results, and the fact that the VMD curve is an independent parameterization rather than a fit to the form factor data. However, as detailed below, the robustness of the central claim is not yet demonstrated at the quoted precision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Table I and Fig. 10] The three ensembles do not sit at a common physical point, and the sensitivity to this mismatch is not quantified. t0/a^2 = 2.155(7), 2.312(10), 2.386(6) differ by about 11% (so the lattice spacing differs by roughly 5%), and amPS = 0.328(1), 0.341(2), 0.323(1) differ by about 5%. Since the comparison is made at fixed lattice momentum, the physical q^2 also varies by about 5%. With the author's own VMD parameterization, dF/dq^2 approximately -1/mV^2 = -3.6, so a 5% rescaling of q^2 shifts F by about 0.05 at q^2 near 0.3, which is comparable to the quoted statistical errors of 0.02-0.09. The manuscript should provide an estimate of this sensitivity, for example by plotting F against q^2 t0 or by rescaling q^2 to a common mV, before the N_c-independence claim can be assessed at the quoted precision.
  2. [Section III, Table III] The J0 result at q = (1,0,0) for N_c = 4, F = 0.57(3), is approximately 4 sigma below the N_c = 3 value 0.73(3) and about 3 sigma below the N_c = 5 value 0.68(2), while the Jx determination in Table IV at the same momentum is consistent across colors (0.68(5), 0.68(4), 0.74(4)). This is an unexplained internal inconsistency that directly affects the central claim. The author should investigate the N_c = 4 J0 point, for example by checking fit stability, ZV systematics, or excited-state contamination, and either correct it or explicitly state that the shape independence holds only within a subset of the data.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 10 and Eq. (22)] The statement that the data are consistent with vector meson dominance is not supported at q = (1,1,1). For q^2 = 3(2pi/16)^2 approximately 0.463 and amV = 0.53, Eq. (22) gives F approximately 0.38, whereas the J0 values are 0.51(5), 0.52(6), and 0.57(5), i.e. 2.4-3.8 sigma above the curve; the Jx values are similar or higher. The author should discuss lattice or kinematic corrections, or exclude this point, before claiming consistency with VMD over the whole momentum range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 6 caption] The phrase 'in units otf 2pi/L' should be 'in units of 2pi/L'.
  2. [Equation (10)] The normalization N in Eq. (10) is never specified; although not needed for the final ratios, a brief sentence would avoid confusion.
  3. [Table III] The q = 0 values F(0) = 0.99(5), 1.00(3), and 0.96(3) are consistent with current conservation; stating this explicitly as a check would strengthen the presentation.
  4. [Section II C] The informal remark that the fitting procedure 'might not be acceptable to the over cautious reader' is out of place in a journal report; a short statement of the model-averaging procedure and the stability checks would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: F(q^2) is a direct lattice measurement; the VMD line uses amV=0.53 from prior spectroscopy as an external input, not as a fit to the form factor.

full rationale

The central claim—that the shape of the pseudoscalar vector form factor is independent of Nc—rests on the correlator fits in Secs. II–III and the tabulated F(q^2) values in Tables III–IV. Those are new measurements, not outputs of a fitted parameter. The VMD comparison in Eq. 22 and Fig. 10 is explicitly stated not to be a fit ('The line in Fig. 10 is not a fit'), and its input amV=0.53 is taken from Table I/Ref. [24], a separate spectroscopy observable; using a previously measured vector-meson mass to test a form-factor model is not circular. The author's own prior papers supply the ensembles, t0/a^2, amPS, amV, and ZV, but these are input parameters and calibrations, not the target result; nothing in the derivation of F(q^2) is defined in terms of F(q^2) itself or of the Nc-independence claim. The residual 5–10% spread in t0/a^2 and amPS across Nc is a matching and systematic-uncertainty concern, not a circularity. No quoted step exhibits a definitional reduction, a fitted input masquerading as a prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation.

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

The calculation relies on standard lattice QCD assumptions: the action and algorithm are conventional, and the spectral decomposition is truncated to the ground state. The main non-standard choices are the empirical source parameters R and K, the hand-selected fit windows, and the approximate matching of lattice spacing and quark mass across Nc. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Gaussian source width R = 6 (lattice units)
    Chosen empirically for good overlap with zero-momentum states; affects signal quality but not the extracted form factor values.
  • Source peak momentum K = (0.2, 0.2, 0.2) in lattice units
    Chosen empirically to optimize coupling to low-momentum states up to q=(1,1,1); the author notes it couples poorly to q=(2,0,0).
  • Model averaging fit windows = t ranges selected visually then weighted by Jay-Neil
    The fit ranges are hand-picked as 'flat to the eye' before model averaging; the choice could bias extracted F values and is a source of unquantified systematic uncertainty.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lowest-state dominance in the three-point correlator (Eq. 2): excited states are negligible for the chosen t windows.
    The extraction of F and V_mu truncates the spectral decomposition to a single pion; the chosen fit windows are assumed to be dominated by the ground state.
  • domain assumption The lattice spacing is matched across Nc by matching t0/a^2; t0 has a common physical value independent of Nc.
    Used to claim a common lattice spacing of roughly 0.1 fm; the t0/a^2 values differ (2.155, 2.312, 2.386), so the matching is approximate.
  • domain assumption The RI-scheme Z_V computed on smaller volumes (16^3 x 32 or 24^3 x 32) applies to the 16^3 x 48 ensembles.
    Z_V is computed on pre-existing data sets with ~1% scatter; volume and Nc dependence of Z_V is assumed negligible.
  • domain assumption Finite volume effects are negligible because m_PS L > 5 for all ensembles.
    The single volume 16^3 x 48 with L ~ 1.6 fm is assumed large enough; no finite-volume study is performed.
  • domain assumption The continuum dispersion relation E(p) = sqrt(m^2+p^2) describes the lattice energies sufficiently well.
    Used to identify momentum states and interpret q^2; Fig. 5 shows consistency within errors but the lattice dispersion could introduce O(a^2) effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison of a pseudoscalar meson form factor in QCD with 3, 4, and 5 colors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXXDQBDM

@misc{pith2026241214143,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison of a pseudoscalar meson form factor in QCD with 3, 4, and 5 colors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXXDQBDM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14143}
}
abstract

I show comparisons of the pseudoscalar meson vector form factor from simulations of QCD with $N_c = 3$, 4 and 5 colors and $N_f = 2$ flavors of degenerate mass fermions at a common (matched) fermion mass, lattice spacing, and simulation volume. The dependence of the form factor on the momentum transfer is nearly independent of the number of colors, and is consistent with the expectations of vector meson dominance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14143 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Diagram for the pion form factor, labelling the momen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Diagram at the quark level of the pion form factor, lab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Correlators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Energy as a function of momentum (all in lattice units [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Examples of fits producing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Examples of fits producing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Examples of fits producing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Examples of fits producing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The form factor of the pseudoscalar meson as a functi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Amplitudes which contribute to the vector dominanc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 72, 461 (1974). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90154-0

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90154-0 1974

  2. [2]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 75, 461 (1974). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90088-1

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90088-1 1974

  3. [3]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 160, 57-115 (1979) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90232-3

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90232-3 1979

  4. [4]

    Harari, Phys

    H. Harari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 562-565 (1969) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.22.562

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.22.562 1969

  5. [5]

    J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 689-692 (1969) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.22.689 18 Nc q F (q2)latt F (q2) 3 (0, 0, 0) 4.13(21) 0.99(5) (1, 0, 0) 3.06(12) 0.73(3) (1, 1, 0) 2.09(37) 0.51(9) (1, 1, 1) 2.13(21) 0.51(5) (2, 0, 0) 1.49(29) 0.36(7) 4 (0, 0, 0) 4.20(10) 1.00(3) (1, 0, 0) 2.39(14) 0.57(3) (1, 1, 0) 2.01(10) 0.48(2) (1, 1, 1) 2.20(27) 0.52(6) (2,...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.22.689 1969

  6. [6]

    Lucini and M

    B. Lucini and M. Panero, Phys. Rept. 526, 93 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.01.001 [arXiv:1210.4997 [hep-th]],

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, PoSLA TTICE2019, 276 (2020) doi:10.22323/1.363.0276 [arXiv:2001.10859 [hep-lat]],

    M. Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, PoSLA TTICE2019, 276 (2020) doi:10.22323/1.363.0276 [arXiv:2001.10859 [hep-lat]],

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Hern´ andez and F

    P. Hern´ andez and F. Romero-L´ opez, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, no.2, 52 (2021) doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00374-2 [arXiv:2012.0333 1 [hep-lat]],

    work page arXiv 2021

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Van Royen and V

    R. Van Royen and V. F. Weisskopf, Nuovo Cim. A 50, 617-645 (1967) [erratum: Nuovo Cim. 19 A 51, 583 (1967)] doi:10.1007/BF02823542

    1967 doi

  2. [10]

    Martinelli and C

    G. Martinelli and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B 306, 865-889 (1988) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(88)90445-2

    1988 doi

  3. [11]

    G. S. Bali, B. Lang, B. U. Musch and A. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev . D 93, no.9, 094515 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.094515 [arXiv:1602.05525 [hep -lat]]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Izubuchi, L

    T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Kallidonis, N. Karthik, S. Mukhe rjee, P. Petreczky, C. Shugert and S. Syritsyn, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.3, 034516 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034516 [arXiv:1905.06349 [hep-lat]]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. [Fermilab Lattice and MILC], Phys. Rev. D 107, no.9, 094516 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.094516 [arXiv:2212.12648 [he p-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    T. A. DeGrand and E. Wickenden, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.9, 094516 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.094516 [arXiv:2309.12270 [he p-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Duane and J

    S. Duane and J. B. Kogut, Nucl. Phys. B 275, 398 (1986). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(86)90606-1

    1986 doi

  8. [16]

    Nuisance parameters

    for ⃗ q= (1, 1, 0), (5-7) to (12-16) for ⃗ q= (1, 1, 1), but only (4-5) to (7-9) for ⃗ q= (2, 0, 0). Finally, the data for the form factor is shown in Fig. 10 and is recorde d in Tables III and IV. The shape of F (q2) is independent of the number of colors. The line in Fig. 10...

  9. [17]

    Duane and J

    S. Duane and J. B. Kogut, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2774 (1985). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.2774

    1985 doi

  10. [18]

    S. A. Gottlieb, W. Liu, D. Toussaint, R. L. Renken and R. L . Sugar, Phys. Rev. D 35, 2531 (1987). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.35.2531

    1987 doi

  11. [19]

    Takaishi and P

    T. Takaishi and P. de Forcrand, Phys. Rev. E 73, 036706 (2006). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.73.036706 [hep-lat/0505020]

    2006 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Urbach, K

    C. Urbach, K. Jansen, A. Shindler and U. Wenger, Comput. Phys. Commun. 174, 87 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2005.08.006 [hep-lat/0506011]

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hasenbusch, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, Phys. Lett. B 519, 177 (2001). doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01102-9 [hep-lat/0107019]

    2001 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hasenfratz and F

    A. Hasenfratz and F. Knechtli, Phys. Rev. D 64, 034504 (2001). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.034504 [hep-lat/0103029]

    2001 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hasenfratz, R

    A. Hasenfratz, R. Hoffmann and S. Schaefer, JHEP 0705, 029 (2007). doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2007/05/029 [hep-lat/0702028]

    2007 arXiv

  16. [24]

    DeGrand, Y

    T. DeGrand, Y. Shamir and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D 85, 074506 (2012). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.074506 [arXiv:1202.2675 [hep- lat]]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    DeGrand and Y

    T. DeGrand and Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 3, 034506 (2016) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 1, 019902 (2017)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.019902, 1 0.1103/PhysRevD.94.034506 [arXiv:1606.01277 [hep-lat]]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Martinelli, C

    G. Martinelli, C. Pittori, C. T. Sachrajda, M. Testa and A. Vladikas, Nucl. Phys. B 445, 81-108 (1995) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00126-D [arXiv: hep-lat/9411010 [hep-lat]]

    1995 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Narayanan and H

    R. Narayanan and H. Neuberger, JHEP 0603, 064 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/03/064 [hep-th/0601210]. M. Luscher, Commun. Math. Phys. 293, 899 (2010) doi:10.1007/s00220-009- 0953-7 [arXiv:0907.5491 [hep-lat]]

    2006 arXiv

  20. [28]

    L¨ uscher, JHEP 1008, 071 (2010) Erratum: [JHEP 1403, 092 (2014)] doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2010)071, 10.1007/JHEP03(2014)092 [arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]]

    M. L¨ uscher, JHEP 1008, 071 (2010) Erratum: [JHEP 1403, 092 (2014)] doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2010)071, 10.1007/JHEP03(2014)092 [arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sommer, PoS LATTICE 2013, 015 (2014) doi:10.22323/1.187.0015 [arXiv:1401.3270 [h ep- lat]]

    R. Sommer, PoS LATTICE 2013, 015 (2014) doi:10.22323/1.187.0015 [arXiv:1401.3270 [h ep- lat]]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Br¨ ommel et al

    D. Br¨ ommel et al. [QCDSF/UKQCD], Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 335-345 (2007) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0295-6 [arXiv:hep-lat/06 08021 [hep-lat]]

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    W. I. Jay and E. T. Neil, Phys. Rev. D 103, 114502 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.114502 [arXiv:2008.01069 [stat.ME]]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Parisi, Phys

    G. Parisi, Phys. Rept. 103, 203-211 (1984) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(84)90081-4

    1984 doi

  25. [33]

    The Analysis of Algorithms for Lattice Fi eld Theory,

    G. P. Lepage, “The Analysis of Algorithms for Lattice Fi eld Theory,” invited lectures at the 20 1989 TASI summer school, Boulder CO, June 4-30, 1989

    1989

  26. [34]

    For a textbook description of the vector dominance mode l, see R. P. Feynman, Taylor and Francis, 2019, ISBN 978-0-429-49333-1 doi:10.1201/97804 29493331

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Klingl, N

    A more recent, detailed exposition is F. Klingl, N. Kais er and W. Weise, Z. Phys. A 356, no.2, 193-206 (1996) doi:10.1007/s002180050167 [arXiv:h ep-ph/9607431 [hep-ph]]

    1996

  28. [36]

    https://github.com/milc-qcd/milc qcd/ 21

Pith tools

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