Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Flavor mixing in charmonium and light mesons with optimal distillation profiles

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Flavor-singlet scalar mesons, charmonium, and the gluonic operator mix onto shared energy eigenstates, and a two-pion operator uncovers a state the one-particle basis misses.

desk verdict Exploratory but honest Lattice proceedings on scalar mixing; the spectrum findings are plausible, but the headline off-diagonal correlations lack error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04977 v1 pith:CHL6V7LA submitted 2025-02-07 hep-lat hep-ph

Juan Andrés Urrea-Niño , Jacob Finkenrath , Roman Höllwieser , Francesco Knechtli , Tomasz Korzec , Michael Peardon This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-ph PACS 12.38.Gc
keywords latticeQCDcharmoniumscalarglueballflavormixingdisconnecteddiagramsdistillationgeneralizedeigenvalueproblemtwo-pionoperators
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 reports a lattice QCD calculation of the scalar ($J^{PC}=0^{++}$) sector in which the same energy eigenstates are probed by four kinds of operators at once: flavor-singlet light meson operators, charmonium operators, a purely gluonic operator, and a two-pion operator. The central finding is that these operators create states with overlapping energy eigenstates: the off-diagonal correlations between light mesons and charmonium, and between mesons and the gluonic operator, are statistically non-zero. When the gluonic operator is added to the basis, the low-lying spectrum is unchanged, which the authors read as evidence that the physical eigenstates are mixtures of gluonic and mesonic constituents rather than pure glueball or pure quark states. When a two-pion operator is added, by contrast, an extra state appears that the one-particle operators barely see, showing that one-particle bases miss genuine states in this energy region. If these results hold, the scalar spectrum cannot be divided into separate meson and glueball sectors, and multi-particle operators are required to map it at all.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the $4\times4$ mixing correlation matrix $C_{ij}(t)$ built from flavor-singlet light meson, charmonium, gluonic, and two-pion operators; its off-diagonal entries measure explicit flavor mixing (light–charm cross-correlations) and meson–glueball mixing (cross-correlations with the gluonic operator). The meson operators are constructed with optimal distillation profiles, which select a small set of Laplacian eigenvectors to maximize overlap onto the states of interest, while the gluonic operator is the sum of Laplacian eigenvalues and the two-pion operator is a flavor-singlet combination built with standard distillation. Energies are extracted with a generalized eigenvalue problem (GEVP) applied to a partially pruned, normalized version of the matrix, and the GEVP eigenvectors supply the normalized overlaps between each operator's created state and each resolved energy eigenstate — the tool that shows the two-pion operator couples almost exclusively to the newly found state.

What would settle it

Compute the cross-correlation of the gluonic operator with a flavor non-singlet meson operator or with the two-pion operator at large time separation: a non-zero result would show the operator is not pure, and the unchanged-spectrum inference would no longer follow. Alternatively, repeat the calculation at physical pion mass, where the two-pion threshold sits near the quenched glueball mass (about 1800 MeV); if the two-pion operator then pulls a level down across the threshold or the gluonic operator changes the spectrum, the saturation and purity assumptions would both be checkable against data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the mixing correlation matrix for the scalar channel has non-zero off-diagonal entries linking physically different operator types, and that these correlations carry observable consequences for the spectrum. Three observations support this. First, charmonium operators that include the charm-quark disconnected diagram see a state well below the connected-only charmonium ground state but consistent with the light scalar meson states; when light and charmonium operators are combined in one GEVP, that state is taken over by the light operators, while the level compatible with the connected-only result survives as the likely charmonium ground state. Second, the low-lying spectrum is left unchanged when the gluonic operator is included; on the assumption that this operator couples only to pure glueball states, the authors take this as support for meson–glueball mixing. Third, a flavor-singlet two-pion operator produces an additional state with large overlap onto the two-pion operator and negligible overlap onto the one-particle operators, so the low-lying scalar spectrum is not saturated unless multi-particle operators are present.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that the unchanged low-lying spectrum is evidence of meson–glueball mixing rests on the assumption that the gluonic operator creates only pure glueball states; if that operator also overlaps non-glueball states, the unchanged spectrum would prove nothing about mixing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Explicit light–charm flavor mixing is non-negligible in the scalar channel and must be included: the charmonium operators only see the light scalar ground state through the charm-disconnected contribution.
  • Because adding the gluonic operator adds no new low-lying level, the low-lying eigenstates must be superpositions of gluonic and mesonic constituents; no state in that region can be labelled a pure glueball.
  • One-particle operator bases miss real states: without the two-pion operator the spectrum below the charmonium region is incomplete, so future scalar-spectroscopy calculations must include multi-hadron operators to claim saturation.
  • The non-zero mixing correlations provide a finite-volume energy spectrum that is the prerequisite input for a scattering analysis of two-pion phase shifts, in particular for the scalar glueball's decay into two pions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mixing is as strong as the off-diagonal correlations suggest, phenomenological classifications of the scalar mesons as 'mostly glueball' or 'mostly quark' are approximations: the lattice pattern implies each physical state carries fractions of light-quark, charm-quark, and gluonic content, so mixing analyses should include the charm sector even at energies where charm is not naively expecte
  • The new two-pion-dominated state is a natural scattering-state candidate; extending the calculation with back-to-back momentum and a finite-volume phase-shift analysis could decide whether the scalar glueball couples to two pions as a resonance or merely as a threshold level.
  • A test the authors did not run directly checks their central assumption: measure the gluonic operator's overlap with a flavor non-singlet meson operator, which a pure glueball operator cannot touch; a non-zero result would change the interpretation of the unchanged spectrum.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This proceedings paper studies flavor-singlet scalar (J^PC=0++) mixing among light meson, charmonium, gluonic, and two-pion operators on two N_f=3+1 ensembles with pion masses of about 420 and 800 MeV. The authors construct all entries of a 4x4 mixing correlation matrix using improved distillation and compute GEVP spectra from various sub-blocks of this matrix. They report three main qualitative findings: non-zero off-diagonal correlations between different operator types, in particular between light mesons and charmonium and between mesons and the gluonic operator; a low-lying state seen by charmonium operators that is absorbed when light meson operators are added; and an additional state appearing when a two-pion operator is included, which does not couple significantly to the one-particle operators. They interpret the absence of a new low-lying state upon adding the gluonic operator as support for meson-glueball mixing, under the stated assumption that the gluonic operator couples only to pure glueball states.

Significance. If the reported mixing correlations and the additional two-pion state are statistically robust, the paper provides a useful step toward a first-principles description of scalar meson, charmonium, and glueball mixing, and it demonstrates that multi-particle operators are needed to saturate the low-lying scalar spectrum. The use of optimal distillation profiles, the explicit construction of all Wick-contraction topologies via FORM, and the calculation of GEVP overlaps are concrete methodological contributions. However, the central quantitative evidence is currently presented without error bars or significance tests, so the strength of the conclusions is substantially weaker than the text suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Figs. 1 and 2] The claim that non-zero off-diagonal correlations are observed is not supported by a statistical test. Figures 1 and 2 show only the normalized correlation matrix at t=a, with no error bars and no comparison against the null hypothesis that a given entry vanishes. The off-diagonal entries receive disconnected-diagram contributions, which are the noisiest parts of the calculation, so a positive central value at one time slice is not evidence of a genuine signal. Please provide errors for each matrix element, ideally as a function of t, and state the significance of the deviations from zero.
  2. [Section 3, Figs. 5 and 6 captions] The statement 'We only show points with reasonable error bars' is not a well-defined selection criterion and can bias the apparent spectrum, including the newly claimed magenta state. Please define the criterion, show all points with their errors, and demonstrate that the additional state is stable under changes of the GEVP reference time t0 and the fitting/plateau window.
  3. [Section 4, last paragraph] The interpretation of the gluonic-operator results as evidence for meson-glueball mixing relies on the explicitly stated assumption that the gluonic operator couples only to pure glueball states. This assumption is load-bearing and is not tested. If the operator also has overlap with non-glueball states, the absence of a new low-lying state does not imply that physical eigenstates are mixtures of pure glueball and mesonic constituents. Please provide a test of this assumption, for example by computing its overlap with mesonic states in a model or by comparing the operator's effective mass in pure gauge theory, or explicitly weaken the conclusion.
  4. [Section 3, upper panels of Figs. 5 and 6] The additional state attributed to the two-pion operator is presented without a quantitative assessment of its significance or its dependence on the GEVP setup. The overlaps shown in the lower panels are normalized by the sum over resolved eigenstates, so they do not by themselves establish that the state is weakly coupled to one-particle operators. Please provide errors on the effective masses and overlaps, and show that the state persists for different time windows and reference times.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] The notation for the pruned correlation matrix would be clearer if the dimensions of V_c and V_l were repeated in the text immediately after Eq. (2), since these dimensions are part of the GEVP input and affect the number of resolvable states.
  2. [Section 3, lower panels of Figs. 5 and 6] The bar colors are claimed to correspond to the same energy eigenstate, but the captions do not define the color legend. Please add a legend or a textual description of the eigenstate ordering, and consider a colorblind-safe palette.
  3. [Section 1, Introduction] References [22-27] are cited as indicating meson-glueball mixing, but several of these are phenomenological rather than lattice studies; a sentence distinguishing lattice evidence from model-based expectations would help the reader.
  4. [Section 3, first paragraph] The phrase 'Non-zero off-diagonal correlations are observed' is repeated in the conclusions and abstract; please align these statements with the actual statistical significance once error bars are provided.
  5. [Section 3, Figs. 3 and 4] The effective-mass plots appear to show points without visible error bars in the preprint version. If errors are present, they should be clearly visible; if not, the text should not describe quantitative agreement with the connected-only charmonium result without errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mixing correlations and spectra are direct lattice measurements, with no fitted target result or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central observations are direct entries of a measured correlation matrix (Eq. 1) and standard GEVP extractions; the off-diagonal mixing signals and the 2-pion state are not obtained by fitting a parameter to the quantity they are said to predict. The normalization and pruning in Eq. (2) are linear transformations fixed by diagonal blocks, so non-zero off-diagonal entries remain independent measurements. Comparisons such as the quenched glueball mass ([6]) and the connected-only charmonium plateau are external or independently defined benchmarks. The conclusions rely on an explicitly stated assumption ('Assuming this type of operators couples only to pure glueball states') which is a physics assumption, not a circular definition. The same-collaboration references [3,4,9] supply ensemble details and the distillation methodology but do not themselves constitute the derivation of the mixing claim; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the source of the predicted spectrum. Statistical limitations (no error bars in Figs. 1-2 and the undefined 'reasonable error bars' criterion) are uncertainties, not circularity. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its claims, and no specific circular step can be quoted.

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

This lattice calculation introduces no physical free parameters or invented entities. The listed parameters are numerical analysis choices (distillation truncation, GEVP pruning, reference time) that affect which states are resolved. The assumptions are standard lattice QCD domain assumptions plus one explicitly stated interpretive assumption about glueball operator content.

free parameters (3)
  • GEVP pruning dimensions V_c and V_l = 3 and 5
    Chosen by hand in Section 2 to stabilize the GEVP; these dimensions determine how many states the pruned matrix can resolve.
  • Laplacian eigenvector truncation = 200 (A1h), 100 light and 200 charm (A1)
    Truncation of the distillation space affects the operator basis; the authors argue this is not a major concern due to improved distillation.
  • GEVP reference time t0 = Not stated in the paper
    The GEVP energies and overlap normalization in Section 3 depend on t0, but the paper does not report its value, leaving the energy extraction under-specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard lattice QCD with N_f = 3+1 flavors and the Lüscher-Weisz/clover action correctly describes the strong interaction.
    The entire calculation assumes the validity of the lattice QCD framework; implicit throughout the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The gluonic operator (sum of Laplacian eigenvalues) couples only to pure glueball states.
    Explicitly stated in Section 4: 'Assuming this type of operators couples only to pure glueball states'. This assumption is load-bearing for the interpretation that the lack of a new low-lying state implies meson-glueball mixing.
  • domain assumption The GEVP with the pruned and normalized correlation matrix yields reliable energies and overlaps for the chosen operator basis.
    Invoked via references [14,15]; depends on choices of t0, t range, and basis saturation, which are not fully specified in this proceedings paper.
  • domain assumption The two-pion operator at zero spatial momentum with standard distillation creates a state with genuine overlap onto two-pion scattering states.
    The interpretation of the additional state as reflecting two-pion content relies on this; the paper uses standard distillation for this operator and plans improved distillation in future work.
  • domain assumption The quenched glueball mass estimate of about 1800 MeV from reference [6] is a valid reference for estimating decay thresholds.
    Used in Section 1 to argue which decay channels are open at the two pion masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flavor mixing in charmonium and light mesons with optimal distillation profiles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CHL6V7LA

@misc{pith2026250204977,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flavor mixing in charmonium and light mesons with optimal distillation profiles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CHL6V7LA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04977}
}
abstract

We study the light meson - charmonium - glueball mixing using flavor-singlet meson operators built from optimal distillation profiles together with purely gluonic operators in different $J^{PC}$ channels at two different pion masses ($\approx$ $420$, $800$ MeV) in two $N_{\rm f} = 3 + 1$ ensembles at close to physical charm quark mass. We observe non-zero mixing correlations between the different types of operators and quantify the overlaps between states created by them and the energy eigenstates by means of a GEVP formulation. We are particularly interested in the scalar glueball and its possible decay into two pions so we also include two-pion operators in our calculation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04977 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Normalized mixing correlation matrix at time 𝑡 = 𝑎 in the ensemble A1. c l 2 g c l 2 g 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effective masses for 𝐽 𝑃𝐶 = 0 ++ calculated from the different GEVPs involving the mixing between different types of 1-particle operators in ensemble A1. Horizontal lines serve as reference for 2 and 4 times the pion mass together with the quenched scalar glueball prediction. The horizontal magenta line corresponds to the plateau average of the ground-state scalar charmonium calculated neglecting the disconnected co… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Effective masses for 𝐽 𝑃𝐶 = 0 ++ calculated from the different GEVPs involving the mixing between different types of 1-particle operators in ensemble A1h. Horizontal lines serve as reference for 2 times the pion mass together with the quenched scalar glueball prediction. The horizontal magenta line corresponds to the plateau average of the ground-state scalar charmonium calculated neglecting the disconnected contrib… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panel: Effective masses for 𝐽 𝑃𝐶 = 0 ++ from the GEVP involving all operators from the mixing matrix in ensemble A1. We only show points with reasonable error bars. The connecting lines are drawn to guide the eye. Lower panel: Normalized overlaps between the stat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper panel: Effective masses for 𝐽 𝑃𝐶 = 0 ++ from the GEVP involving all operators from the mixing matrix in ensemble A1h. We only show points with reasonable error bars. The connecting lines are drawn to guide the eye. Lower panel: Normalized overlaps between the sta…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Scale setting for QCD with Nf=3+1 dynamical quarks

    R. Höllwieser, F. Knechtli and T. Korzec,Scale setting for QCD with𝑁𝑓 = 3+ 1dynamical quarks, inProceedings of 37th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory — PoS(LATTICE2019), 2019, https://doi.org/10.22323/1.363.0025 [1907.04309v2]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [3]

    Charmonium spectroscopy with optimal distillation profiles

    J.A. Urrea-Niño, J. Finkenrath, R. Höllwieser, F. Knechtli, T. Korzec and M.J. Peardon, Charmonium spectroscopy with optimal distillation profiles, inProceedings of The 40th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory — PoS(LATTICE2023), 2024, https://doi.org/10.22323/1.453.0061 [2312.16740v2]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [4]

    Optimising creation operators for charmonium spectroscopy on the lattice

    F. Knechtli, T. Korzec, M. Peardon and J.A. Urrea-Niño,Optimizing creation operators for charmonium spectroscopy on the lattice,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 034501 [2205.11564v2]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [5]

    Peardon, J

    M. Peardon, J. Bulava, J. Foley, C. Morningstar, J. Dudek, R.G. Edwards et al.,Novel quark-field creation operator construction for hadronic physics in lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 054506 [0905.2160v1]

    arXiv 2009

  5. [6]

    Morningstar and M

    C.J. Morningstar and M. Peardon,Glueball spectrum from an anisotropic lattice study,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 034509 [hep-lat/9901004v2]

    arXiv 1999

  6. [7]

    Albanese, F

    M. Albanese, F. Costantini, G. Fiorentini, F. Flore, M. Lombardo, R. Tripiccione et al., Glueball masses and string tension in lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B192 (1987) 163

    work page 1987

  7. [8]

    openQCD: simulation programs for lattice QCD

    M. Lüscher and S. Schaefer, “openQCD: simulation programs for lattice QCD.” http://luscher.web.cern.ch/luscher/openQCD

    work page

  8. [9]

    Urrea-Niño, F

    J.A. Urrea-Niño, F. Knechtli and M. Peardon,Optimal creation operators for charmonium spectroscopy on the lattice, Ph.D. thesis, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 30 references
  1. [10]

    G.S. Bali, H. Neff, T. Düssel, T. Lippert and K. Schilling,Observation of string breaking in QCD, Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 114513 [hep-lat/0505012v2]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Morningstar, J

    C. Morningstar, J. Bulava, B. Fahy, J. Foley, Y.C. Jhang, K.J. Juge et al.,Extended hadron and two-hadron operators of definite momentum for spectrum calculations in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 014511 [1303.6816v2]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [12]

    P.McNamee,S.J.andF.Chilton, TablesofClebsch-Gordancoefficientsof 𝑆𝑈(3),Rev.Mod. Phys. 36(1964) 1005

    1964

  4. [13]

    Vermaseren, “FORM.” https://www.nikhef.nl/~form/

    J. Vermaseren, “FORM.” https://www.nikhef.nl/~form/

  5. [14]

    Lüscher and U

    M. Lüscher and U. Wolff,How to calculate the elastic scattering matrix in two-dimensional quantum field theories by numerical simulation,Nucl. Phys. B339 (1990) 222 . 9 Flavor mixing in charmonium and light mesons with optimal distillation profilesJuan Andrés Urrea-Niño

    1990

  6. [15]

    Blossier, M.D

    B. Blossier, M.D. Morte, G. von Hippel, T. Mendes and R. Sommer,On the generalized eigenvalue method for energies and matrix elements in lattice field theory, JHEP 2009 (2009) 094 [0902.1265v2]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Balog, M

    J. Balog, M. Niedermaier, F. Niedermayer, A. Patrascioiu, E. Seiler and P. Weisz, Comparison of the o(3) bootstrap𝜎 model with lattice regularization at low energies,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 094508 [hep-lat/9903036v1]

    1999 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Niedermayer, P

    F. Niedermayer, P. Rüfenacht and U. Wenger,Fixed point gauge actions with fat links: scaling and glueballs, Nucl. Phys. B597 (2001) 413 [hep-lat/0007007v1]

    2001 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Joswig, S

    F. Joswig, S. Kuberski, J.T. Kuhlmann and J. Neuendorf,pyerrors: A python framework for error analysis of monte carlo data, Comp. Phys. Comm.(2023) 108750 [2209.14371v2]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Wolff,Monte Carlo errors with less errors,Comp

    U. Wolff,Monte Carlo errors with less errors,Comp. Phys. Comm.156 (2004) 143 [hep-lat/0306017v4]

    2004 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Schaefer, R

    S. Schaefer, R. Sommer and F. Virotta,Critical slowing down and error analysis in lattice QCD simulations, Nucl. Phys. B845 (2011) 93 [1009.5228v1]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Ramos,Automatic differentiation for error analysis of Monte Carlo data, Comp

    A. Ramos,Automatic differentiation for error analysis of Monte Carlo data, Comp. Phys. Comm. 238 (2019) 19 [1809.01289v2]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [22]

    R.Zhang, W.Sun, Y.Chen, M.Gong, L.-C.GuiandZ.Liu, Theglueballcontentof 𝜂𝑐,Phys. Lett. B827 (2022) 136960 [2107.12749v2]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Jiang, W

    X. Jiang, W. Sun, F. Chen, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu et al.,𝜂-glueball mixing from𝑁𝑓 = 2 lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 094510 [2205.12541v2]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Frère and J

    J.-M. Frère and J. Heeck,Scalar glueballs: Constraints from the decays into𝜂 or𝜂′, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 114035 [1506.04766v3]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua and K.-F. Liu,Scalar glueball, scalar quarkonia, and their mixing, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 094005 [hep-ph/0607206v2]

    2006 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua and K.-F. Liu,Revisiting scalar glueballs,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 094006 [1503.06827v3]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Janowski, F

    S. Janowski, F. Giacosa and D.H. Rischke,Is 𝑓0(1710) a glueball?,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 114005 [1408.4921v1]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Brett, J

    R. Brett, J. Bulava, D. Darvish, J. Fallica, A. Hanlon, B. Hörz et al.,Spectroscopy from the lattice: The scalar glueball, AIP Conference Proceedings2249 (2020) 030032 [arXiv:1909.07306v1]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Dudek, R.G

    J.J. Dudek, R.G. Edwards, N. Mathur and D.G. Richards,Charmonium excited state spectrum in lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 034501 [0707.4162v2]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Morningstar,Update on glueballs, 2502.02547

    C. Morningstar,Update on glueballs, 2502.02547. 10 Flavor mixing in charmonium and light mesons with optimal distillation profilesJuan Andrés Urrea-Niño

    arXiv

  22. [31]

    Barca, S

    L. Barca, S. Schaefer, F. Knechtli, J.A. Urrea-Niño, S. Martins and M. Peardon,Exponential error reduction for glueball calculations using a two-level algorithm in pure gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 054515 [2406.12656v1]. 11

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.