Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 42 references

Aspects of Propagator Sparsening in Lattice QCD

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that sequentially applying gauge-covariant averaging to quark propagators before decimating them preserves pion, proton, and Delta correlation functions and form-factor ratios far better than plain decimation, allowing…

desk verdict A useful sparsening extension with a clean analytic core, but the central 'many steps are best' claim is confounded by mixing sink-only and source+sink blocking. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05404 v2 pith:MOH2JKRU submitted 2025-01-09 hep-lat

Sam Christian , William Detmold This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lat PACS 11.15.Ha12.38.Gc
keywords latticeQCDpropagatorsparseninggauge-covariantblockingdecimationhadroncorrelationfunctionsformfactorsWickcontractions
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 aggressively a quark propagator can be compressed before hadron physics is lost, and tests a compression recipe: instead of simply discarding lattice sites, first average each site with its gauge-transported nearest and next-to-nearest neighbors, and repeat that averaging many times. The claim is that sequential weighted covariant averaging is the most effective sparsening studied here for reproducing unsparsened two- and three-point correlation functions, including ground-state energies and vector-current form-factor ratios. If true, lattice QCD calculations can store smaller propagators and pay less for Wick contractions without sacrificing the long-distance, low-energy information they need. The paper also documents a trade-off: more averaging steps suppress excited states but add statistical noise.

What carries the argument

The central object is the blocking map F in Eq. (5), which replaces a propagator S(x|y) by a gauge-covariant average of S over nearest-neighbor (weight $\alpha$) and next-to-nearest-neighbor (weight $\beta$) lattice sites, transporting quark fields with gauge links so the result transforms correctly under gauge rotations. Applying F n times builds paths of length up to n between source and sink; for $\alpha$ = $\beta$ = 1 and n = 20, the averaged operator corresponds to a strongly smeared interpolating operator. This is what carries the argument: blocking before decimation is equivalent to constructing correlation functions with smeared operators, and sequential repetition systematically suppresses the higher-momentum modes that plain decimation would otherwise leave in the correlation function. The paper measures fidelity with three metrics, M1, M2, and M3, comparing sparsened to unsparsened effective energies and noise, and uses the ratio R^h, with a square-root-of-two correction at the maximal momentum q = pi/s, to extract form-factor information.

What would settle it

Compute the same correlation functions with symmetric source-sink blocking at n = 1, n = 2, and n = 5 at fixed decimation, and compare against n = 20; if one symmetric step already reproduces the n = 20 fidelity, then the number of sequential steps is not the cause. A second check would be a controlled scan of n = 10, 20, and 40 to see whether fidelity improves monotonically with step count.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that weighted covariant-averaging applied sequentially many times before decimation preserves low-energy physics better than plain decimation at the same decimation factor. On a $24^{3}$ x 48 lattice with an improved clover fermion action, the authors compute pion, proton, and $\Delta$ two-point functions and pion and proton vector-current three-point functions, sparsened by factors s = 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 with one, five, or twenty blocking steps at couplings $\alpha$ = $\beta$ = 1. They report that twenty blocking steps make the sparsened correlation functions agree with their unsparsened versions at earlier times and allow larger decimation factors, at the price of increased statistical uncertainties; the extracted ground-state energies and the ratio R^h used for form factors remain consistent with the unsparsened results. This is an extension claim: not a new law of nature, but evidence that a particular sparsening construction inherits the robust-energy result of decimation while improving excited-state control.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison that leads to the claim that many sequential averaging steps are the key mixes two changes at once: n = 20 blocks both source and sink, while n = 1 and n = 5 block only the sink, so if symmetric source-sink blocking alone explains the improvement, the central claim about many steps is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With sequential blocking at alpha = beta = 1 and n = 20, decimation factors up to at least s = 12 keep extracted hadron energies consistent with unsparsened values.
  • Sparsened three-point functions reproduce the vector-current ratio R^h across several momenta and operator insertion times, which carries over to form-factor extractions.
  • Because storage and Wick-contraction costs scale with the number of retained sites, larger usable decimation factors translate directly into smaller propagators and cheaper later stages of multi-hadron calculations.
  • The optimum sparsening choice is a three-way balance: more blocking steps suppress excited states, but increase statistical noise, so the best choice depends on the statistics budget and the target observable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's data do not isolate the number of blocking steps from the source-sink symmetry of the blocking, so a direct test with symmetric n = 1 blocking versus n = 20 blocking would settle whether sequential averaging itself is the active ingredient.
  • If the step-count effect survives that control, tuning alpha and beta separately for each hadron and momentum is a natural optimization, since the reported metrics show a broad region of good fidelity near alpha = beta = 1.
  • The same sequential covariant averaging could be applied to the gauge field or to other field objects, potentially moving storage savings earlier in the pipeline; the paper notes the construction generalizes but does not test it.
  • A practical adoption would require a floating-point cost benchmark: for multi-baryon Wick contractions, the extra blocking steps must cost less than the contraction savings they enable, which this paper does not quantify.
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 paper proposes a general scheme for quark-propagator sparsening that combines gauge-covariant nearest- and next-to-nearest-neighbor blocking with spatial decimation, and studies the resulting pion, proton, and Delta two-point functions and pion/proton three-point functions on a 24^3 x 48 Wilson-clover ensemble. The central claim, stated in the abstract and reiterated in Sec. VII, is that sparsening is most effective in reproducing unsparsened correlation functions when weighted covariant averaging is sequentially applied many times. The paper also derives an analytic equivalence between blocking and smeared interpolating operators (Sec. II C) and includes a free-propagator consistency check (Appendix A).

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the work has clear practical value: it would justify larger decimation factors for sparsened propagators, reducing storage and Wick-contraction costs in multi-nucleon and many-body lattice QCD calculations. The analytic relation in Sec. II C between gauge-covariant blocking and smeared interpolating operators is a clean and useful contribution, and the free-propagator study in Appendix A is a sensible independent toy model that supports the qualitative dependence on alpha and beta seen in the QCD results. However, as detailed below, the numerical evidence for the headline claim about the number of blocking steps is confounded, so the quantitative conclusion is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV C; Fig. 5 and Figs. 6-9] The comparison that underpins the abstract claim is confounded. In Fig. 5 (and similarly in Figs. 6, 7, 8, and 9), the n=1 and n=5 runs block only the sink, while the n=20 runs block both the source and the sink. The improved agreement between decimated and unsparsened results at n=20 could therefore be caused by symmetric source-sink smearing rather than by the number of sequential blocking steps. The text in Sec. IV C states 'For α = β = 1, we study symmetric blocking of the source and sink using F1, F5, and F20', which directly contradicts the figure captions that n=1 and n=5 are sink-only. If symmetric n=1 and n=5 data exist, they should be included in the comparison figures; if they do not, the comparison does not isolate the effect of varying n. This is load-bearing because the paper's central claim is precisely that 'many' blocking steps are most effective.
  2. [Sec. IV C, Eq. (25), Fig. 5] Even if the source/sink asymmetry were fixed, the reference 'unsparsened' correlator is not the undecimated correlator at the same blocking level. The pink band in Fig. 5 appears to denote the n=0, s=1 result, so the distance between the n=20 decimated curve and this band is compared with the distance between the n=1 decimated curve and the same n=0 band. Because increasing n itself reduces excited-state contamination (as the paper acknowledges, 'in-line with previous results for operator smearing'), the improved agreement at n=20 may simply reflect the known smearing effect on the undecimated correlator rather than enhanced preservation of long-distance information after decimation. A controlled measure would compare the decimated n-step correlator against the undecimated n-step correlator for each n, or otherwise report M1 with the reference correlator at the same blocking level. This point is central to the interpretation of Figs. 5-9 and should be addressed.
  3. [Table I; Fig. 6 caption] There is an internal inconsistency about which runs are symmetric. The caption of Table I states that the quoted uncertainties are 'for sparsening both the source and sink with α = β = 1' and lists n=1 and n=5 entries, while the caption of Fig. 6 states that 'in the case of n = 1 and 5, we block only the sink but for n = 20, we block both the source and sink'. The manuscript must specify unambiguously which runs are sink-only and which are symmetric; if Table I includes symmetric n=1 and n=5 runs, the corresponding effective-energy comparisons should be shown, and if it does not, the table caption must be corrected. This inconsistency affects the reproducibility of the reported results.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption labels the second panel as 'Left' when it should be 'Right'.
  2. [Eq. (5), last line] In the final term of Eq. (5), the factor U†_{μ2}(x) appears where a gauge link attached to the source coordinate y would be expected; please check the placement of the arguments in this term.
  3. [Sec. II A, text after Eq. (1)] The sentence '⟨π†(p,t)π(p,0)⟩⟩' contains a duplicated angle bracket from the PDF typesetting; this should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the sparsening results are compared against independently computed unsparsened correlators with scanned, not fitted, parameters.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The sparsened propagators are obtained by applying the blocking map of Eq. (5) and decimation to numerically computed quark propagators, and the effectiveness metrics M1-M3 compare the resulting correlation functions against unsparsened correlators computed on the same ensembles; no sparsening parameter (alpha, beta, n, s) is fitted to reproduce the target, so the claimed effectiveness is not forced by construction. The blocking operator itself is introduced as a definition, and the claimed equivalence between propagator blocking and smeared interpolating operators (Eqs. (8)-(9) and Fig. 1) is an explicit mathematical identity used for interpretation, not an input-output equation that guarantees the central numerical conclusion. The paper even states that early-time ground-state recovery 'is not a surprising result and is similar to previous results found for smearing' and attributes it to the blocking step, rather than presenting it as a free-standing prediction. The free-propagator appendix is an independent toy-model control (U=I, different mass, same qualitative trends), not a fit to the QCD data. Self-citations to Refs. [13-18,20] are used as prior context or baseline ('we recover the previous results of Ref. [18]'), not as load-bearing evidence, and no uniqueness claim is imported. The main caveat is an experimental-design confound: Fig. 5 uses sink-only blocking for n=1 but source-and-sink blocking for n=20, and Sec. IV C's statement that F1/F5/F20 are studied with symmetric blocking conflicts with the figure captions; this is a potential correctness/interpretation issue for the 'many blocking steps' claim, not circularity, and does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical conclusions depend on the lattice action parameters, the statistical framework, and the ground-state plateau assumption; the blocking weights alpha and beta are hand-chosen free parameters. No invented entities are introduced; the paper only defines a numerical map F on existing quark propagators and gauge fields.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (nearest-neighbor blocking weight) = scanned in [-1,1]; main results at alpha=1
    Entered by hand in Eq. (5); controls covariant-averaging strength. Not fitted to data, but the reported best behavior is at alpha=1.
  • beta (next-to-nearest-neighbor blocking weight) = scanned in [-1,1]; main results at beta=1
    Same hand-chosen scan in Eq. (5). Behavior is similar to alpha; not fitted to data.
  • number of blocking steps n = n=1,5,20; main conclusion uses n=20
    Number of sequential applications of F in Eq. (6), chosen rather than optimized. The central many-times claim rests on n=20.
  • signal-to-noise cutoff smax = 0.5
    Defines t' in metric construction; the authors report no significant dependence on its value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Wilson-clover ensemble at beta=6.1, stout rho=0.125, m0=-0.245, csw=1.249 with Nf=3 flavors is a valid proxy for low-energy QCD on this lattice.
    Section III. The paper relies on this ensemble to draw conclusions about sparsening behavior in QCD.
  • domain assumption Bootstrap resampling of 100 configurations gives reliable estimates of statistical uncertainty.
    Section III. No autocorrelation analysis or independent ensembles are provided.
  • domain assumption Fitted plateaus are dominated by the ground state in two- and three-point correlators.
    Sec. IV B and Sec. V A, including footnote 2. If excited states persist, apparent plateaus and form-factor ratios can be spurious.
  • ad hoc to paper The equivalence between blocking and smeared interpolating operators holds for beta != 0 and for source blocking.
    Sec. II C states this follows 'analogously' without a full derivation. It is used to interpret blocking as operator smearing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aspects of Propagator Sparsening in Lattice QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MOH2JKRU

@misc{pith2026250105404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aspects of Propagator Sparsening in Lattice QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MOH2JKRU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05404}
}
read the original abstract

In lattice field theory, field sparsening aims to replace quantum fields, or objects constructed from them, with approximations that preserve the appropriate symmetries and maintain many aspects of the physics that the fields determine. For example, an effective sparsening of a quark propagator provides an efficient map from a quark propagator on a fine lattice geometry to a quark propagator defined on a coarser geometry in order to reduce storage and computational costs of subsequent calculational stages while maintaining long-distance correlations and corresponding low-energy physical information. Previous studies have focused on decimating lattice sites or randomly sampling lattice sites to reduce the size of the propagator and subsequent costs of Wick contractions. Here, we extend the study of sparsening to incorporate covariant averaging of spatial sites and examine the effects on two-point and three-point correlation functions involving various hadrons. We find that sparsening is most effective in reproducing the unsparsened versions of these correlation functions when weighted covariant-averaging is sequentially applied many times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05404 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A diagrammatic demonstration of the relation be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Examples of the typical effects observed in the two-point correlation functions as a function of the couplings in Eq. (5) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Examples of the typical effects observed in the two-point correlation functions as a function of the couplings in Eq. (5) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Examples of the typical effects observed in the two-point correlation functions as a function of the time extent. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The best-fit values of the pion, proton, and ∆ baryon effective energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Examples of the typical effects observed in the improved ratio of the three- and two-point correlation functions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Best-fit plateau values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Best-fit plateau values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Defining features of results computed from a free propagator at momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The difference in effective energy between the un- sparsened effective energy and sparsened effective energy at all times less than a fixed maximum time, ˆt, weighted by the absolute error of the two: Mh,⃗ p 1 (ˆt) = ˆtX t=1 (Eh us(t, ⃗ p) − Eh s (t, ⃗ p))2 (σh,⃗ p us (t))2 + (σh,⃗ p s (t))2 . (25)

    work page

  2. [2]

    (22)) and sparsened effective energy, weighted by the absolute error of the two: Mh,⃗ p 2 (ˆt) = ˆtX t=1 (Eh s (t, ⃗ p) − Eh,⃗ p p )2 (σh,⃗ p s (t))2 + (σhp )2

    The difference between extracted energy (from Eq. (22)) and sparsened effective energy, weighted by the absolute error of the two: Mh,⃗ p 2 (ˆt) = ˆtX t=1 (Eh s (t, ⃗ p) − Eh,⃗ p p )2 (σh,⃗ p s (t))2 + (σhp )2 . (26) We also compare Mh 2 to the same quantity com- puted from the unsparsened correlation function

    work page

  3. [3]

    Mh,⃗ p 3 (ˆt) = ˆtX t=1 (σh,⃗ p s (t))2 (σh,⃗ p us (t))2

    The summed ratio of the squared standard devia- tions of the unsparsened and sparsened correlation functions at all times less than a maximum time. Mh,⃗ p 3 (ˆt) = ˆtX t=1 (σh,⃗ p s (t))2 (σh,⃗ p us (t))2 . (27) For each correlation function, we define t′ as the min- imum t for which σh,⃗ p us /Eh us(t, ⃗ p) > smax = 0.5 and then use it to set ˆt = min(t′...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Finally, across all quantities that we computed, the effects of increasing α and β are very similar, as measured through the M2 metric. More precisely, the results of sparsening for ( α, β) = ( A, B) and (α, β) = (B, A) produce sparsened correlation func- tions with absolute differences of log 10(M2) less than 0.1 in almost all cases. Moreover, for one st...

    work page

  5. [5]

    These fig- ures also demonstrate that sparsening with α+β < 0 generally does not recover the ground state effec- tively, as measured through the metric M2

    Figures 2 and 4 demonstrate that across varying number of blocking steps, the ground state of the two-point correlation function is recovered at in- creasingly earlier times for larger α, β. These fig- ures also demonstrate that sparsening with α+β < 0 generally does not recover the ground state effec- tively, as measured through the metric M2

    work page

  6. [6]

    at fixed n = 20 and ⃗ q= 2π N [1, 0, 0]. VI. DISCUSSION Some overall observations on the effects of the more general sparsening procedure that was introduced here can be made based on the preceding studies of two- and three-point correlation functions

    work page

  7. [7]

    For α = β = 1, Figs. 5 and 8 demonstrate that in- creasing the number of blocking steps recovers the ground state of the two-point correlation function and the optimized ratio of three-point to two-point correlation functions at earlier times across differ- ent amounts of decimation. In both examples, as time increases, the magnitude of the statistical un...

    work page

  8. [8]

    IV B), and then compare the statistical uncertainties of this extracted ground state across different spars- ening methods

    One way to measure the trade-offs of these two competing effects is to determine the ground state of the respective correlation functions (Sec. IV B), and then compare the statistical uncertainties of this extracted ground state across different spars- ening methods. Figures 6, 8, and 9 demonstrate that for large amounts of decimation ( s = 6), in- creasi...

    work page

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Weisz, Nucl

    P. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B 212, 1 (1983)

    1983

  2. [10]

    Weisz and R

    P. Weisz and R. Wohlert, Nucl. Phys. B 236, 397 (1984), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 247, 544 (1984)]

    1984

  3. [11]

    Symanzik, Nucl

    K. Symanzik, Nucl. Phys. B 226, 187 (1983)

    1983

  4. [12]

    Symanzik, Nucl

    K. Symanzik, Nucl. Phys. B 226, 205 (1983)

    1983

  5. [13]

    Iwasaki, Nucl

    Y. Iwasaki, Nucl. Phys. B 258, 141 (1985)

    1985

  6. [14]

    Iwasaki, (1983), arXiv:1111.7054 [hep-lat]

    Y. Iwasaki, (1983), arXiv:1111.7054 [hep-lat]

    1983 arXiv

  7. [15]

    L¨ uscher and P

    M. L¨ uscher and P. Weisz, Phys. Lett. B158, 250 (1985)

    1985

  8. [16]

    Sheikholeslami and R

    B. Sheikholeslami and R. Wohlert, Nucl. Phys. B 259, 572 (1985)

    1985

  9. [17]

    Hasenfratz and F

    P. Hasenfratz and F. Niedermayer, Nucl. Phys. B 414, 785 (1994), arXiv:hep-lat/9308004

    1994 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bietenholz and U

    W. Bietenholz and U. J. Wiese, Nucl. Phys. B 464, 319 (1996), arXiv:hep-lat/9510026

    1996 arXiv

  11. [19]

    T. A. DeGrand, A. Hasenfratz, P. Hasenfratz, and F. Niedermayer, Nucl. Phys. B 454, 587 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9506030

    1995 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hasenfratz, in Advanced Summer School on Nonper- turbative Quantum Field Physics (1998) pp

    P. Hasenfratz, in Advanced Summer School on Nonper- turbative Quantum Field Physics (1998) pp. 137–199, arXiv:hep-lat/9803027

    1998 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. G. Endres, R. C. Brower, W. Detmold, K. Orginos, and A. V. Pochinsky, Phys. Rev. D 92, 114516 (2015), arXiv:1510.04675 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Detmold and M

    W. Detmold and M. G. Endres, Phys. Rev. D 94, 114502 (2016), arXiv:1605.09650 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Detmold and M

    W. Detmold and M. G. Endres, Phys. Rev. D 97, 074507 (2018), arXiv:1801.06132 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P. E. Shanahan, A. Trewartha, and W. Detmold, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094506 (2018), arXiv:1801.05784 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Abbott, M

    R. Abbott, M. S. Albergo, D. Boyda, D. C. Hack- ett, G. Kanwar, F. Romero-L´ opez, P. E. Shanahan, and J. M. Urban, PoS LA TTICE2023, 035 (2024), arXiv:2404.10819 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Detmold, D

    W. Detmold, D. J. Murphy, A. V. Pochinsky, M. J. Sav- age, P. E. Shanahan, and M. L. Wagman, Phys. Rev. D 104, 034502 (2021), arXiv:1908.07050 [hep-lat]. 15 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 t 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 E(t) n = 1, s = 2 −1 0 1 2 α −1 0 1 2 β n = 1, s = 2...

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Li, S.-C

    Y. Li, S.-C. Xia, X. Feng, L.-C. Jin, and C. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014514 (2021), arXiv:2009.01029 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Amarasinghe, R

    S. Amarasinghe, R. Baghdadi, Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, M. Illa, A. Parre˜ no, A. V. Pochinsky, P. E. Shanahan, and M. L. Wagman, Physical Review D 107, 094508 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Detmold, M

    W. Detmold, M. Illa, W. I. Jay, A. Parre˜ no, R. J. Perry, P. E. Shanahan, and M. L. Wagman, (2024), arXiv:2404.12039 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Abbott, W

    R. Abbott, W. Detmold, F. Romero-L´ opez, Z. Davoudi, M. Illa, A. Parre˜ no, R. J. Perry, P. E. Shanahan, and M. L. Wagman (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D 108, 114506 (2023), arXiv:2307.15014 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Abbott, W

    R. Abbott, W. Detmold, M. Illa, A. Parre˜ no, R. J. Perry, F. Romero-L´ opez, P. E. Shanahan, and M. L. Wag- man (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 011903 (2025), arXiv:2406.09273 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    X. Feng, L. Jin, and M. J. Riberdy, Physical Review Letters 128, 052003 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Grid python toolkit (gpt),

    C. Lehner, “Grid python toolkit (gpt),” https:// github.com/lehner/gpt

  26. [34]

    Daniel, R

    D. Daniel, R. Gupta, G. W. Kilcup, A. Patel, and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 46, 3130 (1992), arXiv:hep- lat/9204011

    1992

  27. [35]

    Morningstar and M

    C. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D 69, 054501 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0311018

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. M. Zanotti, D. B. Leinweber, A. G. Williams, J. Zhang, W. Melnitchouk, S. Choe, et al., Physical Review D 68, 054506 (2003)

    2003

  29. [37]

    Hockley, W

    L. Hockley, W. Kamleh, D. Leinweber, and A. Thomas, Few Body Syst. 64, 46 (2023), arXiv:2304.10187 [hep- lat]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. R. Beane et al. (NPLQCD, QCDSF), Phys. Rev. D 103, 054504 (2021), arXiv:2003.12130 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Davoudi, W

    Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, Z. Fu, A. V. Grebe, W. Jay, D. Murphy, P. Oare, P. E. Shanahan, and M. L. Wag- man (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D 109, 114514 (2024), arXiv:2402.09362 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R. G. Edwards and B. Jo´ o (SciDAC, LHPC, UKQCD), Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 140, 832 (2005), arXiv:hep- lat/0409003

    2005

  33. [41]

    P. A. Boyle, G. Cossu, A. Yamaguchi, and A. Portelli, PoS LA TTICE2015, 023 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Reuther, J

    A. Reuther, J. Kepner, C. Byun, S. Samsi, W. Ar- cand, D. Bestor, B. Bergeron, V. Gadepally, M. Houle, M. Hubbell, M. Jones, A. Klein, L. Milechin, J. Mullen, A. Prout, A. Rosa, C. Yee, and P. Michaleas, in 2018 IEEE High Performance extreme Computing Conference (HPEC) (IEEE, ...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.