Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Probing how bright the quark-gluon plasma glows in lattice QCD

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lattice QCD measures the quark-gluon plasma's hard-photon emissivity without an inverse problem and finds 0.193(74) for the two-moment difference.

desk verdict A careful lattice determination of the n=2 photon-spectral moment, but the AMY comparison ignores the isospin-to-EM normalization factor of 2/3, so the claimed compatibility does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10295 v1 pith:S456TGFA submitted 2025-05-15 hep-lat hep-ph

Ardit Krasniqi , Marco Cè , Tim Harris , Renwick J. Hudspith , Harvey B. Meyer This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-ph MSC 81V0581T2581T80
keywords latticeQCDthermalphotonemissivityquark-gluonplasmaspectralfunctionmomentsdirectpuzzlescreeningcorrelatorsinverseproblemWilsonfermions
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 aims to establish that the hard-photon part of the quark-gluon plasma's thermal photon spectrum can be computed directly from lattice QCD, without solving an ill-posed inverse problem. At $T\approx 254\,\mathrm{MeV}$ it evaluates the second Matsubara moment of the photon spectral function and combines it with the previously determined first moment. The difference, $-[H_E(\omega_2)-H_E(\omega_1)]/T^2$, is $0.193(74)$; it suppresses soft photons, isolates energies $\omega\gtrsim\pi T\approx 1\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and is $2.6\sigma$ away from zero. It lies below the leading-order weak-coupling interval $[0.25,0.30]$, and if correct it gives heavy-ion phenomenology a non-perturbative anchor for thermal photon emission, where the direct photon puzzle currently forces models to stretch.

What carries the argument

The central object is the difference of two spectral-function moments, $H_E(\omega_2)-H_E(\omega_1)$, where $H_E(\omega_n)$ is the fixed-lightlike-virtuality correlation function of the vector current defined by Eq.~(2). On the lattice these moments are expressed as sums over transverse static and non-static screening correlators, with a kernel $\Omega_n$ chosen (via a one-parameter family and lattice perturbation theory) to suppress $O(a^2)$ artifacts. The $n=2$ integrand's exponentially deteriorating signal-to-noise ratio is handled with stochastic wall sources and a truncated solver, reducing integrand errors by up to a factor of about 6.5, and by fitting the long-distance tail as a sum of exponentials with positive prefactors (Eq.~(9)) in order to extend the integrand beyond $x_1=\beta$. Akaike-weighted model averaging over continuum extrapolations and kernel choices sets the central value and error, and subtracting the precisely known first moment removes the soft-photon contribution.

What would settle it

Measure the $n=2$ transverse screening correlators at separations far beyond $x_1=\beta$ with sufficient precision to see the tail directly; if the ground-state mass gap disagrees with Eqs.~(10)--(13) by more than the quoted errors, or a negative-amplitude state is required, then $-[H_E(\omega_2)-H_E(\omega_1)]/T^2$ will move outside $0.193(74)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is Eq.~(18): at $T\approx 254\,\mathrm{MeV}$ the difference of the $n=2$ and $n=1$ moments of the photon spectral function is $-[H_E(\omega_2)-H_E(\omega_1)]/T^2 = 0.193(74)$, computed directly from the lattice with two flavors of $O(a)$-improved Wilson fermions. The paper argues this is the first such moment computation free of the systematic uncertainties of an inverse-problem spectral reconstruction, and that the positive value constitutes $2.6\sigma$ evidence that the quark-gluon plasma emits hard photons at this temperature. The quoted value is lower than, but compatible with, the leading-order weak-coupling kinetic-theory result, which lies in $[0.25,0.30]$ for $\alpha_s\in[0.25,0.31]$.

Load-bearing premise

All quoted numbers rest on the assumption that, beyond $x_1=\beta$, the static and non-static screening correlators are exactly described by a finite sum of exponentials with positive prefactors (Eq.~(9)), so replacing the measured tail by the fitted tail does not bias the moment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hard-photon emissivity of quark-gluon plasma near $T\approx 1.2T_c$ is now pinned from first principles, so thermal-photon predictions in heavy-ion models no longer need to rely solely on weak-coupling input.
  • Because the result sits below the leading-order weak-coupling band and the next-to-leading-order correction is positive, improving the perturbative comparison at this temperature widens rather than closes the gap.
  • The moment-difference method gives a route to other transport quantities such as electric conductivity with controlled systematic errors and no inverse problem.
  • The non-zero value provides a concrete target for hydrodynamic calculations of direct-photon yield and azimuthal anisotropy at RHIC and the LHC.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same two moments were computed at a second temperature, for instance near the crossover, the change in the difference would test whether hard-photon emission strengthens as $T$ approaches $T_c$, as the first moment alone already hints.
  • A third moment, obtained by the same no-inversion route, would begin to constrain the shape of the hard-photon spectrum rather than only its normalization.
  • The gap between the with-prior and without-prior tail treatments suggests that a direct, high-precision measurement of the $n=2$ screening correlators beyond $x_1=\beta$ is the fastest way to shrink the dominant systematic uncertainty.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper computes two moments of the thermal photon spectral function, specifically the difference -[H_E(ω2)-H_E(ω1)]/T², at T≈254 MeV using lattice QCD with Nf=2 O(a)-improved Wilson fermions. The calculation is performed by evaluating the screening correlators in the second Matsubara sector and extending them beyond the reference distance x1=β with a finite-exponential ansatz, thereby avoiding a numerically ill-posed inverse problem. The central result is -[H_E(ω2)-H_E(ω1)]/T² = 0.193(74), which the authors describe as lower than, but compatible with, the leading-order AMY weak-coupling prediction of 0.25–0.30, and as 2.6σ evidence for a non-zero photon emissivity. The paper also presents a detailed error budget separating statistical, continuum-extrapolation, and tail-systematic uncertainties, with model averaging over twelve continuum fits and with/without-prior tail analyses.

Significance. If the computation is correct, this is a significant methodological advance: it provides a first-principles lattice constraint on hard-photon emission from the quark-gluon plasma without solving an inverse problem, with high statistics and a transparent systematic error budget. The direct comparison with the leading-order weak-coupling spectrum is an important benchmark for the direct-photon puzzle in heavy-ion phenomenology. The paper deserves credit for the improved statistical precision, the model-averaged continuum extrapolation, and the explicit treatment of the tail extension. However, the headline comparison with the AMY spectrum is affected by a normalization inconsistency between the lattice isospin current and the electromagnetic current, as detailed below; this changes the conclusion about compatibility but does not invalidate the numerical calculation or the evidence for a non-zero emissivity.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results (Eq. (18)) and footnote 2] The comparison with the AMY interval is made with inconsistent current normalizations. The lattice quantity in Eq. (18) is computed with the isospin current jμ=(ūγμu−d̄γμd)/√2, whose charge-squared sum is one, whereas the AMY spectral function entering Eq. (1) is for the electromagnetic current with charge-squared sum 2/3 for three flavors. Footnote 2 itself states σ_em≃(2/3)σ_iso. Thus the physical photon-spectrum moment corresponding to Eq. (18) is (2/3)×0.193(74)=0.129(49), which is 2.5σ–3.5σ below the quoted AMY interval [0.25,0.30], not compatible with it. Equivalently, comparing the isospin moment with 3/2 times the AMY interval gives [0.375,0.45], again about 2.5σ above the lattice value. The abstract and conclusion must be revised: the lattice result is significantly lower than the leading-order weak-coupling prediction once the normalization is applied. The 2.6σ evidence for a non-zero moment is unaffected because it is a test against zero.
  2. [Results (Eq. (9)) and End Matter 'Correlator fits'] The tail systematic is taken as the full difference between the with-prior and without-prior results, but both analyses employ the same finite-sum ansatz Eq. (9) with at most three states. This difference therefore reflects sensitivity to priors and fit ranges, not the error incurred if the true large-x1 correlator contains additional states or a continuum contribution. Since the tail extension beyond x1=β contributes directly to H_E(ω2), the authors should either bound the omitted higher-state contribution using the fitted amplitudes and masses, or enlarge the tail systematic to cover the model uncertainty. The one-, two-, and three-state comparison in Fig. 6 checks the ground-state mass, not the tail integral, so it does not by itself close this gap.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (19) and Fig. 4] The interpolation parameters xw and d are not fully specified in the text or the figure caption; the text mentions d≈0.15 fm but not the value of xw. Please state explicitly that the transition is centered at x1=β or give the numerical value.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'two moments of that spectrum' is imprecise because the quoted result in Eq. (18) is the difference of two moments, not the moments themselves; please rephrase for precision.
  3. [References] Reference [17] is missing the publication year; please add it.
  4. [Results, final paragraph] The statement that the calculation is 'free of systematic uncertainties associated with an inverse problem' is potentially too strong, since the tail extension in Eq. (9) is a modeling assumption; consider saying 'free of an inverse-problem reconstruction' or similar.
  5. [End Matter, Table I] The columns for the number of inversions would be clearer with explicit subscripts ω1 and ω2 in the header rather than the current formatting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lattice moments are computed from first-principles correlators and the AMY comparison is an external benchmark, not an input to any fit.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (18), is obtained by evaluating the lattice definition of H_E(omega_n), Eq. (4), using directly simulated current-current correlators and a controlled tail extension based on the exponential fit ansatz Eq. (9). The tail parameters are fitted to the same screening correlators, but the quantity being reported is a weighted integral of those correlators, not one of the fitted parameters renamed as a prediction. The systematic variation between with-prior and without-prior analyses is used to estimate the tail uncertainty, and the final number is not tuned to match any external value. The comparison with the AMY leading-order weak-coupling spectral function is explicitly a benchmark: the paper states that the AMY result lies in [0.25, 0.30] and that the lattice result is 'on the low side of but compatible' with it. Nothing in the derivation of H_E(omega_2) or of H_E(omega_1) uses the AMY integral as a constraint, fit target, or selection criterion. The same-author citations to Refs. [22], [23], and [26] provide the lattice framework, the expression Eq. (4), and kernel regularizations, but those are methodological inputs that are varied and model-averaged rather than assertions equivalent to the final moment difference. No equation in the paper reduces Eq. (18) to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation. Any concern about the isospin-to-electromagnetic normalization in the AMY comparison would be a correctness or interpretation issue, not circularity, because the lattice quantity is independently computed. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to its own inputs, and no circular step is present.

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

The lattice moments are first-principles numbers, so the physical free parameters are few: the analysis choices for the kernel (k, d) and the screened fit parameters used for the tail. The main domain assumptions are the leading-order photon relation, the lightlike-virtuality spectral representation, the isospin-current approximation for the electromagnetic current, the finite-state tail ansatz, and the continuum-limit behavior of the modified kernels. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Screening masses and amplitudes in fit ansatz Eq. (9) = m0,fit_st(ω2)/T=14.73(26), m0,fit_ns(ω2)/T=15.72(31); ratio priors 14.07(18) and 14.99(21)
    Fitted to the lattice screening correlators and used to extend the integrand for HE(ω2) beyond x1=β; their uncertainty enters the quoted tail systematic.
  • Kernel parameter k in Ωn(k) = 2 and 3/2 primary; 1, 1.25 and ∞ in variations
    An analysis choice for the modified sine kernel; not a physics constant, but it changes the integrand and the continuum extrapolation, so it acts as a hand-selected parameter subject to model averaging.
  • Interpolation width d in Eq. (19) = ≈ 0.15 fm
    The smooth transition between the standard and k=1 kernels is set to d≈0.15 fm because this yields a flat continuum extrapolation; the value is empirical and covered by systematic variations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Leading-order relation between photon emission rate and σem(ω), Eq. (1).
    Standard thermal field theory result (McLerran-Toimela [24]); the comparison with AMY inherits the same leading-order normalization.
  • standard math Spectral representation for HE(ωn) at fixed lightlike virtuality, Eq. (3).
    Taken from Meyer [25]; used to relate the lattice correlator to the photon spectral function.
  • domain assumption The isospin current jμ=(ūγμu−d̄γμd)/√2 approximates the electromagnetic current, with σem ≃ (4/9+1/9+1/9)σ, neglecting SU(3)-flavor breaking.
    Footnote 2; load-bearing for interpreting the lattice result as the photon emissivity of the plasma.
  • domain assumption Long-distance screening correlators are sums of exponentials with positive prefactors, Eq. (9), truncated to l=0..2.
    Used to extend the tail beyond x1=β; consistency checks with 1-, 2- and 3-state fits are shown in End Matter Fig. 6.
  • domain assumption The modified kernels Ωn(k), Eq. (5), and the interpolation Eq. (19) preserve the continuum limit of HE(ωn).
    The k modification is O(a^2)-suppressed compared with lattice artifacts; this is verified in leading-order lattice perturbation theory, not non-perturbatively.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing how bright the quark-gluon plasma glows in lattice QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S456TGFA

@misc{pith2026250510295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing how bright the quark-gluon plasma glows in lattice QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S456TGFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10295}
}
abstract

Determining the spectrum of photons emitted by the quark-gluon plasma non-perturbatively remains an open computational challenge. In this letter we calculate two moments of that spectrum at a temperature $T\approx 254\,$MeV, employing lattice QCD with two flavors of $\mathrm{O}(a)$-improved Wilson fermions, without facing an inverse problem. Our central value for the difference of these two moments, which is sensitive to photon energies $\omega\gtrsim \pi T$, is lower than, but compatible with that obtained by integrating the leading-order weak-coupling photon spectrum. This study informs the $\textit{direct photon puzzle}$ in heavy-ion collision phenomenology, where it has proved difficult to simultaneously explain the yield and azimuthal anisotropy of photons not originating from final-state hadronic decays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10295 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Integrands [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Effective masses (see Eq. (14)) for the ratios of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlator fits: varying the number of states.— As a consistency check, we have fitted the static and non-static correlators in sector ω2 with various numbers of states included in the ansatz Eq. (9). The impact of these vari￾ations on the lowest screening mass is illu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fit results along with the ratio prediction [finite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Draine, Physics of the interstellar and intergalac- tic medium (Princeton University Press, United States, 2010)

    B. Draine, Physics of the interstellar and intergalac- tic medium (Princeton University Press, United States, 2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Z2SEMWall

    The specific expression used in the lattice calculation is [23] HE(ωn) =a4X x eiωnx0−eiωnx2 e−Ωnx1 D j3(x)j† 3(0) E = a 2 ∞X x1=−∞ hE(ωn,x 1), (4) hE(ωn,x 1) = 2 GT ns(ωn,x 1)−GT st(ωn,x 1) cosh(Ωnx1), where GT ns and GT st denote non-static and static trans- verse screening correlators with momentum insertions along the temporal and spatial directions, r...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Adareet al

    A. Adareet al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 122302 (2012), arXiv:1105.4126 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Adareet al

    A. Adareet al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 132301 (2010), arXiv:0804.4168 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C 91, 064904 (2015), arXiv:1405.3940 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Afanasiev et al

    S. Afanasiev et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 152302 (2012), arXiv:1205.5759 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    N. J. Abdulameer et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C109, 044912 (2024), arXiv:2203.17187 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C 94, 064901 (2016), arXiv:1509.07758 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Lett. B 770, 451 (2017), arXiv:1607.01447 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    N. J. Abdulameer et al. (PHENIX), (2025), arXiv:2504.02955 [nucl-ex]

    2025

  3. [11]

    (ALICE),Phys.Lett.B 789,308(2019), arXiv:1805.04403 [nucl-ex]

    S.Acharya et al. (ALICE),Phys.Lett.B 789,308(2019), arXiv:1805.04403 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Adamet al

    J. Adamet al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B754, 235 (2016), arXiv:1509.07324 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    David, Rept

    G. David, Rept. Prog. Phys. 83, 046301 (2020), arXiv:1907.08893 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gale, J.-F

    C. Gale, J.-F. Paquet, B. Schenke, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014909 (2022), arXiv:2106.11216 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gale (2025) arXiv:2502.13938 [nucl-th]

    C. Gale (2025) arXiv:2502.13938 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chatterjee and P

    R. Chatterjee and P. Dasgupta, MDPI Physics 6, 674 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP12, 009, arXiv:hep-ph/0111107

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    B. B. Brandt, A. Francis, H. B. Meyer, O. Philipsen, D. Robaina, and H. Wittig, JHEP 12, 158, arXiv:1608.06882 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    M.Cè, T.Harris, H.B.Meyer, A.Steinberg,andA.Toni- ato, Phys. Rev. D102, 091501 (2020), arXiv:2001.03368 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ghiglieri, O

    J. Ghiglieri, O. Kaczmarek, M. Laine, and F. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D94, 016005 (2016), arXiv:1604.07544 [hep- lat]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. Ali, D. Bala, A. Francis, G. Jackson, O. Kaczmarek, J. Turnwald, T. Ueding, and N. Wink (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D 110, 054518 (2024), arXiv:2403.11647 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M. Cè, T. Harris, A. Krasniqi, H. B. Meyer, and C. Török, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054501 (2022), arXiv:2205.02821 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    ratio method

    whilst having a smaller uncertainty. The vastly- improved statistical precision, up to a factor 6.5 in the integrand at separations ofx1 ≈ β [see Fig. 5 in End Matter], has enabled us to make a comprehensive study of the systematic uncertainties due to the large-x1 con- tribut...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Török, M

    C. Török, M. Cè, T. Harris, A. Krasniqi, H. B. Meyer, and S. Ruhl, PoSLA TTICE2022, 193 (2023), arXiv:2212.05622 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. Cè, T. Harris, A. Krasniqi, H. B. Meyer, and C. Török, Phys. Rev. D 109, 014507 (2024), arXiv:2309.09884 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    L. D. McLerran and T. Toimela, Phys. Rev. D31, 545 (1985)

    1985

  19. [27]

    H. B. Meyer, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 192 (2018), arXiv:1807.00781 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H. B. Meyer, M. Cè, T. Harris, A. Toniato, and C. Török, PoS LA TTICE2021, 269 (2022), arXiv:2112.00450 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    P. A. Boyle, A. Juttner, C. Kelly, and R. D. Kenway, JHEP 08, 086, arXiv:0804.1501 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Boucaudet al

    P. Boucaudet al. (ETM), Phys. Lett. B650, 304 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0701012

    2007 arXiv

  23. [31]

    McNeile and C

    C. McNeile and C. Michael (UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D73, 074506 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0603007

    2006 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Gockeler, R

    M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, H. Oelrich, H. Perlt, D. Petters, P.E.L.Rakow, A.Schafer, G.Schierholz,andA.Schiller, Nucl. Phys. B544, 699 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9807044

    1999 arXiv

  25. [33]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, and A. Schafer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1570 (2010), arXiv:0910.3970 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Luscher, JHEP07, 081, arXiv:0706.2298 [hep-lat]

    M. Luscher, JHEP07, 081, arXiv:0706.2298 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Akaike, Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle (Springer Sci- 6 ence+Business Media, New York, 1998)

    H. Akaike, Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle (Springer Sci- 6 ence+Business Media, New York, 1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

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

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kuberski, M

    S. Kuberski, M. Cè, G. von Hippel, H. B. Meyer, K. Ottnad, A. Risch, and H. Wittig, JHEP 03, 172, arXiv:2401.11895 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Madras and A

    N. Madras and A. D. Sokal, J. Statist. Phys. 50, 109 (1988)

    1988

  31. [39]

    Wolff (ALPHA), Comput

    U. Wolff (ALPHA), Comput. Phys. Commun. 156, 143 (2004), [Erratum: Comput.Phys.Commun. 176, 383 (2007)], arXiv:hep-lat/0306017

    2004 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ramos, Comput

    A. Ramos, Comput. Phys. Commun. 238, 19 (2019), arXiv:1809.01289 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Joswig, S

    F. Joswig, S. Kuberski, J. T. Kuhlmann, and J. Neuen- dorf, Comput. Phys. Commun. 288, 108750 (2023), arXiv:2209.14371 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    B. B. Brandt, A. Francis, M. Laine, and H. B. Meyer, JHEP 05, 117, arXiv:1404.2404 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ghiglieri, J

    J. Ghiglieri, J. Hong, A. Kurkela, E. Lu, G. D. Moore, and D. Teaney, JHEP05, 010, arXiv:1302.5970 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Krasniqi, M

    A. Krasniqi, M. Cè, T. Harris, R. J. Hudspith, H. B. Meyer, and C. Török, PoSLA TTICE2023, 180 (2024), arXiv:2401.05951 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    van Hees, C

    H. van Hees, C. Gale, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C84, 054906 (2011), arXiv:1108.2131 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Lüscher and S

    M. Lüscher and S. Schaefer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 519 (2013), arXiv:1206.2809 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

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

    2005

  40. [48]

    Dalla Brida, T

    M. Dalla Brida, T. Korzec, S. Sint, and P. Vilaseca, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 23 (2019), arXiv:1808.09236 [hep-lat]. End Matter Simulation parameters & algorithmic aspects.—Sim- ulations were performed at a fixed temperature ofT ≈ 254 MeVand aspect ratioL/β = 4, withL (β) denoting t...

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.