Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Strong coupling in (2+1+1)-flavor QCD

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Four-flavor lattice QCD yields a stable strong-coupling value.

desk verdict First 2+1+1-flavor static-energy extraction of Lambda_MS; preliminary, honest about its gaps, and the stability claim is plausible but the 0.1% discretization systematic deserves a hard look in the final. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01453 v1 pith:BCA6ELRA submitted 2025-02-03 hep-lat hep-ph

Viljami Leino , Alexei Bazavov , Nora Brambilla , Andreas Kronfeld , Julian Mayer-Steudte , Peter Petreczky , Sebastian Steinbei{ss}er , Antonio Vairo
show 1 more author
Johannes Heinrich Weber
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-ph PACS 12.38.Gc
keywords strongcouplingstaticenergylatticeQCDcharmquarkrenormalonLambda_MSMILCensemblespotential
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 proceedings paper reports a first lattice determination of $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ (the quantity behind $\alpha_s(M_Z)$) from the static energy in (2+1+1)-flavor QCD, using the MILC ensembles down to lattice spacing 0.03216 fm. It argues that the short-distance lattice static energy can be matched to the perturbative static potential once the finite charm mass is included, and that the extracted $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ is stable across two renormalon treatments and two fit strategies. The authors find general agreement with previous TUMQCD 2+1-flavor extractions and the latest FLAG average, which matters because the strong coupling is a fundamental Standard Model parameter and this is a new, fully dynamical four-flavor route to it. The results are preliminary: they are presented in $r_1$ units, no final numbers are quoted, and the continuum extrapolation is left for the final publication.

What carries the argument

The central object is the static energy $E_0(r)$ of a static quark-antiquark pair, with its perturbative expansion in the strong coupling including ultrasoft logarithms. The two load-bearing tools are the force-integration form $\int_{r_*}^r dr'\,F^{(N_f)}(r')+\delta V_m^{(N_f)}(r)$, which replaces the renormalon-affected constant by an integration constant, and the minimal renormalon subtraction (MRS) prescription, which sums the leading factorial growth of the perturbative coefficients; both are combined with the tree-level improved distance $r_I$ that removes the leading lattice cutoff artifacts. The charm-quark decoupling is implemented through the correction $\delta V_m$, known up to $\alpha_s^3$, which makes the $N_f=3+1$ fits possible up to $r_{\max}\simeq0.13~\mathrm{fm}$.

What would settle it

Complete the one-loop lattice perturbation theory calculation of the static potential with HISQ fermions (the in-preparation Ref. [35]) and redo the fits with the one-loop improved distance: if the central value of $r_1\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ shifts by more than the 0.1% systematic error that was added to the shortest-distance points to compensate its absence, the quoted error budget would be too small.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using Coulomb-gauge Wilson-line correlators on MILC (2+1+1)-flavor ensembles, the authors compute the static energy $E_0(r)$ and compare it with the perturbative static-energy expansion, adding the finite-charm-mass correction $\delta V_m$ known to two loops in perturbation theory. To handle the renormalon ambiguity in the additive constant, they use either the force-integrated static energy or the minimal renormalon subtraction (MRS) prescription, and they extract $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ from correlated two-parameter fits in $r_1$ units, with a model average over fit ranges weighted by the Akaike information criterion. They find that both the short-distance $N_f=4$ fits and the $N_f=3+1$ fits with a massive charm describe the data well up to $r_{\max}\approx0.1$--$0.13~\mathrm{fm}$, and that the resulting $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ values are stable between all fit options and consistent with the TUMQCD 2+1-flavor results and the FLAG 2024 average. Because the analysis is preliminary, the paper deliberately refrains from quoting final numbers and defers the continuum extrapolation to a subsequent publication.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes that the two-loop truncated charm-mass correction together with the tree-level improved distance describes the lattice static energy at separations up to roughly 0.1–0.13 fm within the quoted errors, so that the remaining perturbative and discretization uncertainties are smaller than the statistical ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the stability survives the final continuum extrapolation, $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ from the (2+1+1)-flavor static energy will provide a new independent lattice determination with a fully dynamical charm quark.
  • The success of the $N_f=3+1$ fits with a two-loop charm correction supports the decoupling picture in which charm becomes a heavy quark near $r\approx0.15~\mathrm{fm}$, extending the perturbative range beyond what a four-massless-quark description allows.
  • Using the updated $r_1$ scale from the kaon decay constant (Ref. [40]) would bring the (2+1+1)- and (2+1)-flavor extractions into closer agreement in physical units than the current $r_1=0.3037(25)~\mathrm{fm}$ does.
  • Once the final publication releases the quoted $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$, the same fit machinery can be applied to the coarser ensembles to perform a continuum extrapolation, the remaining step to a final $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ number.
  • The MRS-based extractions agree with the force-integrated ones, suggesting that the renormalon treatment is not a dominant source of systematic error for this observable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the 0.1% systematic on the shortest-distance points is a placeholder for an unfinished one-loop calculation, the final publication could revise the weight of short-distance data; a shift in the improved distance is the most plausible route for the preliminary stability to fail.
  • If the final continuum extrapolation keeps the agreement with FLAG, the static-energy method will have demonstrated competitive four-flavor precision, providing a cross-check of the FLAG average that is independent of other observables.
  • The mild dependence of $r_1\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ on light-quark mass at fixed lattice spacing (grouped points in the right panel of Fig. 4) could be a residual discretization effect or a genuine quark-mass dependence that a continuum extrapolation with more ensembles will have to resolve.
  • A test the paper does not yet perform is to compare the $N_f=4$ and $N_f=3+1$ extractions after converting to a common scheme via perturbative decoupling; if the two values disagree beyond the quoted AIC-weighted errors, the charm-mass treatment rather than the renormalon prescription would be the suspect.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a Lattice 2024 proceedings contribution from the TUMQCD collaboration reporting preliminary results for the extraction of Lambda_MS, and hence alpha_s(MZ), from the static energy in (2+1+1)-flavor QCD. The analysis uses MILC ensembles with the finest lattice spacing a=0.03216 fm as the primary data set, comparing the lattice static energy with two perturbative treatments: the force-integration method and the minimal renormalon subtraction (MRS) prescription, both with and without a finite-charm correction. Fits are performed with a two-parameter fit of a shift constant and Lambda_MS, using correlated jackknife errors and AIC model averaging over fit ranges. Results are expressed in r1 units, no continuum extrapolation is attempted, and no quotable numbers are given because the analysis is preliminary. The central claim is that the extracted r1 Lambda_MS is stable among all fit options and agrees with previous TUMQCD 2+1-flavor extractions and the recent FLAG average.

Significance. If the result holds, this would be the first static-energy determination of Lambda_MS in 2+1+1-flavor QCD, providing an important cross-check of the strong coupling from a four-flavor lattice calculation. The paper has several strengths: it uses publicly available MILC ensembles, it employs two independent renormalon-control strategies, it uses a transparent jackknife and AIC fit procedure, and it is appropriately cautious in not quoting final numbers and in stating that the continuum extrapolation and the one-loop improvement are left to a future publication. The main limitation is that all quantitative conclusions in these proceedings rest on a single finest lattice spacing and on a hand-assigned discretization systematic, so the significance is that of a solid progress report rather than a final determination.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Figure 2, and Section 3] The text states that the one-loop improved distance of Ref. [35] is not used and that a 0.1% extra systematic is assigned to all points with r^2 <= 8a, but it does not report the actual magnitude of the tree-level versus one-loop improvement at the off-axis separations included in the fits. This matters because the fits on the finest ensemble use r/a in the range of roughly 3 to 4 (rmax ~ 0.1 and 0.13 fm in Section 3), and the paper performs no continuum extrapolation. The stability claim in Section 3 therefore depends on the 0.1% figure covering the missing one-loop discretization effects. I would ask the authors to quantify the difference between the tree-level and one-loop improved distances at the fitted separations, or to explicitly state that the stability claim is contingent on the finalization of the one-loop calculation.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Figure 4 (left)] The 'general agreement' with previous TUMQCD and FLAG results is displayed in r1 units, but the scale-setting conventions differ: the (2+1)-flavor extraction used r1 = 0.3106(17) fm from f_pi, while the (2+1+1)-flavor scale used here is r1 = 0.3037(25) fm. The paper itself notes that presenting the comparison in physical units would make the difference more pronounced. As it stands, the agreement in r1 units could be partly an artifact of the different r1 conventions. The authors should either provide the comparison in physical units or temper the agreement claim so that the reader can assess the genuine level of consistency.
  3. [Section 3, Figure 4 (left)] The figure contains a '3-loop' extraction for the Nf=3+1 case, but the text correctly notes that this point is incomplete because the finite-charm corrections are known only at two loops. Since the paper's main stability claim is based on seeing agreement among all fit options, including an incomplete three-loop point weakens the evidence: a two-loop calculation with a partial three-loop term is not a full three-loop result. I recommend separating the two-loop results from the incomplete three-loop point in the stability discussion, and phrasing the convergence statement only in terms of the complete two-loop orders.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains many missing spaces and OCR-type artifacts (e.g., 'Thestrongcoupling', '𝛼s( 𝑀𝑍)', 'Nf = 3+ 1'), which make the text difficult to read; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Equation (3)] The last displayed line with the product over N_st terms and the ellipsis is ambiguous about how many states are included in the truncation; please clarify the notation, for example by explicitly defining the range of n and the meaning of the ellipsis.
  3. [Figure 2] The legend and axis labels mix 'Bare', 'Euclidean', 'Tree-level', and '1-loop'; it would be helpful to state explicitly which curves are the bare data, which are the improved-distance curves, and which points are excluded from fits.
  4. [Figure 3] The residual-panel labels '1 2 3 4 5 9 16 rI/a' are cryptic; please spell out these labels (e.g., as rI/a values for the paths contributing at each separation) so that the residual structure can be interpreted without the reader having to reconstruct the path topologies.
  5. [Section 3] The sentence describing fits over 'all possible ranges' should specify the minimum number of data points and the granularity in rmin and rmax, since the AIC weighting depends on the set of candidate ranges.
  6. [References] References [35] and [40] are marked as in preparation; this is acceptable for proceedings, but the text should make it explicit that the numerical comparison of tree-level versus one-loop improvement is not yet peer-reviewed and will be provided in [35].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Lambda_MS extraction is a two-parameter fit of independent MILC lattice data to external perturbative coefficients, with self-citations only for methodology and scale setting.

full rationale

The paper extracts Lambda_MS by performing a two-parameter fit (shift constant and Lambda_MS) of the perturbative static energy to the static energy computed on MILC (2+1+1)-flavor ensembles. The perturbative expressions and the finite-mass charm corrections are taken from the external literature (Refs. [2-7], [23], [24]), not from the present work or from a fit. The lattice data are independent of the perturbative formulas. The two renormalon treatments (force integration and MRS) are used to stabilize the perturbative series, but neither is constructed to force agreement; the fits are validated by chi-square per degree of freedom and by AIC model averaging over multiple fit ranges. Self-citations to previous TUMQCD work appear for methodological details (fitting, scale setting) and for an empirical statement that perturbation theory works up to ~0.13 fm; this statement is conservative and is not load-bearing because the fit procedure itself tests the validity of the ranges through AIC weighting and residuals. The comparison with previous TUMQCD and FLAG results is a consistency check, not an input. The paper explicitly notes that results are preliminary and quotes no final number, further reducing any concern that a fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. No definitional equivalence between inputs and outputs, no fitted parameter presented as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of perturbative QCD and lattice QCD, plus two specific modeling choices: the two-loop charm mass correction and the hand-assigned 0.1% error for the missing one-loop improvement. The only fitted parameters are Lambda_MS and the matching constant Lambda, which is expected for a measurement of this type. No new entities or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Lambda_MS (fitted target) = not quoted (preliminary, shown in figures)
    The QCD scale parameter is fitted from lattice static energy data by matching to the perturbative static potential. This is the central parameter the paper aims to determine.
  • Lambda (matching constant) = fitted per fit range
    The integration or shift constant in Eq. (2) is matched to lattice data at a reference distance r*. It absorbs the linear divergence and renormalon ambiguity of the static energy.
  • 0.1% extra systematic error = 0.1%
    A hand-assigned additional error applied to all points with r^2 <= 8a to compensate for the missing one-loop lattice perturbation theory improvement. The value is chosen, not derived from a calculation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The perturbative expansion of the static energy, Eq. (1), is valid at short distances r Lambda_MS << 1, up to rmax around 0.1 to 0.13 fm.
    The entire extraction depends on matching lattice data to perturbation theory in this range. The paper cites previous TUMQCD results for the expected range of validity but does not derive it from first principles here.
  • domain assumption The charm quark decouples in the static potential, so the finite-mass correction delta_V_m interpolates between Nf and Nf+1 massless results.
    Used to include charm effects in the (2+1+1)-flavor fits. The limits m >> 1/r and m << 1/r are established, but the intermediate region around r ~ 0.1 to 0.13 fm is assumed to be well described by the two-loop correction.
  • ad hoc to paper Tree-level improvement of the distance r_I, plus the 0.1% extra error, adequately controls lattice discretization effects at short distances.
    Section 2.2 states that the one-loop improvement is still being finalized and is replaced by a hand-chosen 0.1% error and by excluding on-axis points. This is a modeling choice specific to this preliminary analysis.
  • standard math AIC model averaging over all fit ranges, with jackknife blocks, yields an unbiased estimate of Lambda_MS and its systematic uncertainty.
    The AIC weighting is a standard statistical method, cited from Jay and Neil (Ref. [39]). It is applied to select among many fit ranges, but the validity depends on the assumption that the model set brackets the truth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong coupling in (2+1+1)-flavor QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BCA6ELRA

@misc{pith2026250201453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong coupling in (2+1+1)-flavor QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BCA6ELRA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01453}
}
abstract

The strong coupling $\alpha_\mathrm{s}$ can be obtained from the static energy as shown in previous lattices studies. For short distances, the static energy can be calculated both on the lattice with the use of Wilson line correlators, and with the perturbation theory up to three loop accuracy with leading ultrasoft log resummation. Comparing the perturbative expression and lattice data allows for precise determination of $\alpha_\mathrm{s}(m_Z)$. We will present preliminary results for the determination of $\alpha_\mathrm{s} {(M_Z)}$ in (2+1+1)-flavor QCD using the configurations made availableby the MILC-collaboration with smallest lattice spacing reaching 0.0321fm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01453 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: The static force 𝑟 2𝐹(𝑟) at different orders of perturbation theory and different scalings of 𝜇 = 𝑐/𝑟. Right: The static energy at different combinations of light and massive quarks. The free constant shift Λ is optimized to minimize the covered range in y-axis to make the differences between curves more visible. malon of mass dimension one. Since the constant by itself does not depend on 𝛼s , and all 𝛼s depen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Different orders of improved distance 𝑟𝐼 applied to the finest lattice ensemble for the bare (Left) and HYP-smeared (right) 𝐸0 (𝑟). The black curve shows a coulombic trend line with fixed coupling. 2.2 Lattice We compute the static energy from the (2+1+1)-flavor lattice ensembles generated by the MILC Collaboration [29–31]. For gluons the one-loop Symanzik-improved action with tadpole improvement has been used. The … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Comparison of the lattice data to the perturbative curves with the fitted ΛMS. Right: the fit results for individual choices of 𝑟min and 𝑟max for the 3 flavor + charm fit (blue curve on the left) together with the model weights and 𝜒 2 /d.o.f since these ranges tend to be same between different jackknife blocks, we make sure to use the same set of selected fit ranges for all jackknife blocks. This fit procedur… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Resulting 𝑟1ΛMS from the fits to the finest lattice ensemble at different orders of perturbative expansion in green. The 3-loop∗ point is incomplete at three loops. In blue we show the previous TUMQCD extractions from 2+1 flavors and in black the current FLAG ave…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Renormalon subtracted nonrelativistic QCD for heavy hadron systems

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    MRS-pNRQCD plus GFMC stabilizes heavy-hadron spectroscopy; NNLO baryon masses undershoot lattice QCD by 125–175 MeV with 1/m_Q scaling, and a critical mass ratio for tetraquark binding is extracted.

  2. Factorial growth in perturbation theory, power corrections: precise extraction of quark masses and $\alpha_\text{s}$

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A QCD method that subtracts and Borel-sums factorially growing high-order terms improves the stability of perturbative series for the static energy, pole mass, and Bjorken sum rule.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [35]

    G. M. von Hippel, V. Leino and S. Steinbeißer,One loop improvement of the static potential with HISQ quarks,In preparation: TUM-EFT 171/22(2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    G. S. Bali,QCD forces and heavy quark bound states,Phys. Rept.343(2001) 1 [hep-ph/0001312]

    arXiv 2001

  3. [2]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo,The infrared behavior of the static potential in perturbative QCD,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 091502 [hep-ph/9903355]

    arXiv 1999

  4. [3]

    Pineda and J

    A. Pineda and J. Soto,The renormalization group improvement of the QCD static potentials, Phys. Lett. B495 (2000) 323 [hep-ph/0007197]

    arXiv 2000

  5. [4]

    Brambilla, X

    N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, J. Soto and A. Vairo,The logarithmic contribution to the QCD static energy at N4LO, Phys. Lett. B647 (2007) 185 [hep-ph/0610143]

    arXiv 2007

  6. [5]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Vairo, X. Garcia i Tormo and J. Soto,The QCD static energy at N3LL, Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 034016 [0906.1390]

    arXiv 2009

  7. [6]

    Anzai, Y

    C. Anzai, Y. Kiyo and Y. Sumino,Static QCD potential at three-loop order,Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 112003 [0911.4335]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [7]

    A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser,Three-loop static potential,Phys. Rev. Lett. 104(2010) 112002 [0911.4742]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Brambilla, X

    N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, J. Soto and A. Vairo,Precision determination of𝑟0ΛMS from the QCD static energy,Phys. Rev. Lett.105 (2010) 212001 [1006.2066]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Husung, M

    N. Husung, M. Koren, P. Krah and R. Sommer,SU(3) Yang Mills theory at small distances and fine lattices, EPJ Web Conf.175 (2018) 14024 [1711.01860]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Brambilla, V

    N. Brambilla, V. Leino, J. Mayer-Steudte and A. Vairo,Static force from generalized Wilson loops on the lattice using the gradient flow,Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 114517 [2312.17231]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Jansen, F

    ETM collaboration, K. Jansen, F. Karbstein, A. Nagy and M. Wagner,ΛMS from the static potential for QCD with𝑛𝑓 = 2 dynamical quark flavors,JHEP 01 (2012) 025 [1110.6859]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Karbstein, A

    F. Karbstein, A. Peters and M. Wagner,Λ (𝑛 𝑓=2) MS from a momentum space analysis of the quark-antiquark static potential,JHEP 09 (2014) 114 [1407.7503]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Karbstein, M

    F. Karbstein, M. Wagner and M. Weber,Determination ofΛ (𝑛 𝑓=2) MS and analytic parametrization of the static quark-antiquark potential, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 114506 [1804.10909]. 8 Strong coupling in (2+1+1)-flavor QCD Viljami Leino

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bazavov, N

    A. Bazavov, N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, P. Petreczky, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Determination of𝛼𝑠 from the QCD static energy,Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 114031 [1205.6155]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Bazavov, N

    A. Bazavov, N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, P. Petreczky, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Determination of𝛼s from the QCD static energy: An update, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 074038 [1407.8437]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Takaura, T

    H. Takaura, T. Kaneko, Y. Kiyo and Y. Sumino,Determination of𝛼s from static QCD potential: OPE with renormalon subtraction and lattice QCD,JHEP 04 (2019) 155 [1808.01643]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Bazavov, N

    TUMQCDcollaboration, A. Bazavov, N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, P. Petreczky, J. Soto, A. Vairo et al.,Determination of the QCD coupling from the static energy and the free energy,Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 114511 [1907.11747]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Ayala, X

    C. Ayala, X. Lobregat and A. Pineda,Determination of𝛼(𝑀𝑍) from an hyperasymptotic approximation to the energy of a static quark-antiquark pair,JHEP 09 (2020) 016 [2005.12301]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Blossier, P

    ETMcollaboration, B. Blossier, P. Boucaud, M. Brinet, F. De Soto, V. Morenas, O. Pene et al.,High statistics determination of the strong coupling constant in Taylor scheme and its OPE Wilson coefficient from lattice QCD with a dynamical charm, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 014507 [1310.3763]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Chakraborty, C

    HPQCDcollaboration, B. Chakraborty, C. T. H. Davies, B. Galloway, P. Knecht, J. Koponen, G. C. Donald et al.,High-precision quark masses and QCD coupling from𝑁f= 4 lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 054508 [1408.4169]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Aoki et al.,FLAG Review 2024, 2411.04268

    Flavour Lattice A veraging Group (FLAG)collaboration, Y. Aoki et al.,FLAG Review 2024, 2411.04268

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    d’Enterria et al.,The strong coupling constant: State of the art and the decade ahead,J

    D. d’Enterria et al.,The strong coupling constant: State of the art and the decade ahead,J. Phys. G51 (2024) 090501 [2203.08271]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Garcia i Tormo,Review on the determination of𝛼s from the QCD static energy, Mod

    X. Garcia i Tormo,Review on the determination of𝛼s from the QCD static energy, Mod. Phys. Lett. A28(2013) 1330028 [1307.2238]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Recksiegel and Y

    S. Recksiegel and Y. Sumino,Perturbative QCD potential, renormalon cancellation and phenomenological potentials,Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 054018 [hep-ph/0109122]

    2002 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Brambilla, V

    N. Brambilla, V. Leino, O. Philipsen, C. Reisinger, A. Vairo and M. Wagner,Lattice gauge theory computation of the static force,Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 054514 [2106.01794]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Brambilla, J

    TUMQCDcollaboration, N. Brambilla, J. Komijani, A. S. Kronfeld and A. Vairo,Relations between heavy-light meson and quark masses, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 034503 [1712.04983]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Komijani,A discussion on leading renormalon in the pole mass, JHEP 08(2017) 062 [1701.00347]

    J. Komijani,A discussion on leading renormalon in the pole mass, JHEP 08(2017) 062 [1701.00347]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    A. S. Kronfeld,Factorial growth at low orders in perturbative QCD: control over truncation uncertainties, JHEP 12(2023) 108 [2310.15137]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Bazavov et al.,Scaling studies of QCD with the dynamical HISQ action,Phys

    MILCcollaboration, A. Bazavov et al.,Scaling studies of QCD with the dynamical HISQ action,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 074501 [1004.0342]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Bazavov et al.,Lattice QCD ensembles with four flavors of highly improved staggered quarks,Phys

    MILCcollaboration, A. Bazavov et al.,Lattice QCD ensembles with four flavors of highly improved staggered quarks,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 054505 [1212.4768]. 9 Strong coupling in (2+1+1)-flavor QCD Viljami Leino

    2013 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Bazavov et al.,𝐵- and𝐷-meson leptonic decay constants from four-flavor lattice QCD, Phys

    Fermilab Lattice, MILC collaboration, A. Bazavov et al.,𝐵- and𝐷-meson leptonic decay constants from four-flavor lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 074512 [1712.09262]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Follana, Q

    HPQCDcollaboration, E. Follana, Q. Mason, C. Davies, K. Hornbostel, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu et al.,Highly improved staggered quarks on the lattice, with applications to charm physics,Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 054502 [hep-lat/0610092]

    2007 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Brambilla, R

    TUMQCD collaboration, N. Brambilla, R. L. Delgado, A. S. Kronfeld, V. Leino, P. Petreczky, S. Steinbeißer et al.,Static energy in (2+ 1+ 1)-flavor lattice QCD: Scale setting and charm effects, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 074503 [2206.03156]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    C. W. Bernard, T. Burch, K. Orginos, D. Toussaint, T. A. DeGrand, C. E. DeTar et al.,Static quark potential in three-flavor QCD,Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 034503 [hep-lat/0002028]

    2000 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A. Hart, G. M. von Hippel, R. R. Horgan and E. H. Muller,Automated generation of lattice QCD feynman rules,Comput. Phys. Commun.180(2009) 2698 [0904.0375]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hasenfratz and F

    A. Hasenfratz and F. Knechtli,Flavor symmetry and the static potential with hypercubic blocking,Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 034504 [hep-lat/0103029]

    2001 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Herren and M

    F. Herren and M. Steinhauser,Version 3 ofRunDec and CRunDec,Comput. Phys. Commun. 224 (2018) 333 [1703.03751]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    W. I. Jay and E. T. Neil,Bayesian model averaging for analysis of lattice field theory results, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 114502 [2008.01069]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Petreczky and J

    P. Petreczky and J. H. Weber,in preparation, private communication(2025) . 10

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.