Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Blind Spots of the Zwanziger Horizon Function

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 A zero mode can occur at the first loss of Faddeev-Popov positivity without making the horizon function diverge, when the critical direction is annihilated by the source.

desk verdict A clean conceptual separation—FP zero mode vs. source-sandwiched pole—proved for explicit hedgehog families; the visibility-operator classification is new and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12413 v1 pith:T4L7X4X7 submitted 2026-08-11 hep-lat hep-thmath-phmath.MP

Daniel G. Tedesco This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords GribovhorizonFaddeev-PopovoperatorfunctionsourcevisibilityhedgehogbackgroundLandaugaugezeromodesYang-Mills
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

The paper establishes a separation between two notions that are often conflated: the first Gribov horizon, where the Faddeev-Popov operator gains a zero mode, and the divergence of the nonlocal horizon function that probes the inverse operator through background-dependent sources. Its central claim is that a configuration can sit on the first Gribov boundary, with an $L^2$ zero mode and spectral infimum zero, while the horizon function remains finite, because the critical eigenvector is orthogonal to every source column entering the trace. This is shown explicitly for radial $SU(2)$ hedgehog backgrounds in three and four Euclidean dimensions: rotational symmetry confines the source to angular momentum $L=1$ (or hyperspherical degree $n=1$), while smooth narrow-shell profiles place the first crossing in a higher, source-dark channel. A sympathetic reader should care because spectral proximity to the Gribov boundary and source sensitivity to the critical direction are independent data, so eigenvalue-based diagnostics of horizon singularities can misread symmetric configurations. The paper restricts itself to configurationwise spectral statements and does not change the statistical weighting of backgrounds in the Yang-Mills integral.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the source map $T_A$, defined by $(T_A e_{\mu d})^a(x)=g f^{a\ell d} A^\ell_\mu(x)$, and the finite-rank visibility operator $V_A=T_A T_A^*$ whose range is the source-accessible subspace of the ghost Hilbert space. The horizon function is the trace of $M^{-1/2} V_A M^{-1/2}$, so a crossing is singular only when the spectral projector at zero has nontrivial compression against $V_A$; the rank of $P_c V_A P_c$ gives the dark, partially visible, or fully visible classification. For hedgehog backgrounds, exact rotational symmetry separates the two inputs: the angular structure fixes the source sector ($L=1$ in three dimensions, $n=1$ in four), while the radial profile orders thresholds through the variational functional $\mu_L[\varphi]=\inf Q_L[u]/\int u^2\,d\varphi$ for a measure-supported shell. Theorems 4.5 and 5.2 show that smooth narrow shells minimize $\mu_L/L$ or $\mu_n/n$ in a source-dark channel, and finite-volume estimates of order $O(R^{-2L-1})$ control the box corrections.

What would settle it

Take a smooth shell profile at $r_0=10$, $w/r_0=0.04$ in three dimensions and compute the lowest negative-amplitude zero mode; if the overlap $|\langle\psi_c, m_{\mu d}\rangle|^2$ of that mode with any source column is nonzero, or if the $L=1$ threshold is actually below the $L\ge 2$ threshold, then the dark-first-crossing claim for that profile fails, and the paper's own variational formulas make this a directly checkable calculation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a degeneracy-safe classification of Faddeev-Popov crossings by the rank of the compressed visibility operator $P_c V_A P_c$. When this rank is zero the crossing is dark: the horizon function $H(A)$ stays bounded even though $M[A]$ has a zero mode; when it is intermediate the horizon diverges but sees only part of the critical subspace; when it is full the crossing is a genuine pole. For the three-dimensional hedgehog the source map $T_A$ has range in $L=1$, and the paper proves that smooth narrow shells have their first negative-amplitude threshold in a channel with $L\ge 2$, so $V_c=0$ exactly along the ray. In four dimensions the source occupies degree $n=1$ and both amplitude branches can have their first crossings in degree $n\ge 2$ because the degree-one channel is exceptional; the horizon function then remains finite at the boundary. A separate result treats the regular-gauge instanton background, where the physical amplitude is the exact Hardy-critical point in the visible degree-one channel, and both the generalized zero-energy solutions and the source columns fail to be square-integrable on $\mathbb{R}^4$, so a full-space horizon trace requires an additional domain or regularization prescription.

Load-bearing premise

The dark-first-crossing conclusions rely on the exact hedgehog rotational symmetry of the backgrounds: only that symmetry confines the source to $L=1$ or $n=1$, and if it is broken the source can acquire components in the critical sector, so the first crossing can become visible and the horizon function can diverge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Along these symmetric rays the first Gribov-boundary crossing is invisible to the horizon probe, so the no-pole condition is not activated there even though the Faddeev-Popov operator has lost positivity.
  • The rank classification governs degenerate crossings: at the three-dimensional critical width where the $L=1$ quintet and $L=2$ septet cross together ($r=12$), the horizon diverges with $\mathrm{rank}\,V_c=5$, and full visibility is impossible because the source-label space has dimension 9.
  • The finite-volume thresholds converge to half-line values with relative corrections of order $(b/R)^{2L+1}$, so the dark-first-crossing ordering is not a box artifact and can be checked in lattice or finite-ball calculations.
  • For the regular-gauge instanton background, the full-space $L^2$ horizon trace is undefined at the physical amplitude; any finite answer requires a weighted-space, finite-volume, or density prescription, and the paper shows why the naive trace fails.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the exact hedgehog symmetry is perturbed, the darkness should become approximate rather than exact: source components leak into the critical sector with amplitude proportional to the symmetry-breaking overlap, so the horizon function should develop a large but finite value; this is the natural quantitative version of the paper's stated open question.
  • The inequality $\mathrm{rank}\,V_c \le \dim K$ extends beyond these families: whenever the critical degeneracy of the Faddeev-Popov operator exceeds the number of independent source labels, a crossing cannot be fully visible, so horizon-function divergences systematically undercount singular directions at highly degenerate boundaries.
  • A lattice test is directly available: on configurations with near-degenerate lowest Faddeev-Popov modes, compute the overlap of the lowest eigenvector with the momentum source; the prediction is that configurations sharing the same lowest eigenvalue can disagree sharply in the horizon functional.
  • In four dimensions, the instanton's Hardy-critical degree-one channel suggests that a weighted $L^2$ space with a logarithmically softer norm at infinity might restore square integrability of the source columns and yield a finite horizon trace; this is a concrete spectral calculation not performed in the paper.
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. The paper addresses the configurationwise relation between the first Gribov horizon, defined by loss of positivity of the Faddeev-Popov operator M[A], and Zwanziger's horizon function H(A), which probes M[A]^{-1} through background-dependent sources. It introduces a source map T_A and a finite-rank visibility operator V_A = T_A T_A^* (Sec. 2), and proves a visibility criterion (Prop. 2.2) classifying crossings as dark, partially visible, or fully visible according to the rank of P_c V_{A_c} P_c. For radial SU(2) hedgehog backgrounds in three and four dimensions (Secs. 3 and 5), angular selection rules confine the source to orbital sector L=1 or hyperspherical degree n=1. Using variational threshold estimates for smooth narrow shells (Sec. 4), the paper constructs profiles for which the first negative-branch crossing in 3D lies in L>=2 and both first crossings in 4D lie in n>=2, so the critical subspace is annihilated by the source and H remains finite even though M develops a zero mode. The regular-gauge BPST background is analyzed separately (Sec. 6): its positivity threshold is determined exactly, the degree-one form is Hardy-critical at the physical amplitude, and the full-space source columns are not L^2, so a full-space horizon trace requires a further prescription. The paper explicitly restricts its claims to configurationwise spectral properties and states in Sec. 7 that stability under symmetry-breaking perturbations remains open.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper establishes a clean conceptual point: the first Gribov horizon and the singular response of the horizon functional are independent data, and the compressed visibility operator P_c V_{A_c} P_c is a degeneracy-safe diagnostic that separates the two. The analytic machinery is a strength: Prop. 2.1 and Prop. 2.2 are proved in detail; the angular selection rules in Thms. 3.2 and 5.1 are exact; Lemma 4.1 and Prop. 4.4 give variational control with explicit bounds; and Prop. 6.1 is an exact threshold with a constructive test function. The result is a genuine existence statement for exactly hedgehog-symmetric backgrounds, not a statistical statement about the Yang-Mills measure, and the authors are careful not to overclaim. The significance is primarily conceptual and methodological, and the explicit finite-width thresholds in Tables 2 and 3 are concrete and checkable.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1, Theorem 4.5 proof (inequality following Eq. (66))] The displayed lower bound µ_1[φ_w] ≥ (3/r0)(1 + sqrt(3w/r0))^2 is not what Theorem 4.4 supplies: the two-sided bound (64) gives µ_L[φ_w] ≥ µ_L (1 + sqrt(µ_L w))^{-2}, so for L=1 the correct bound is (3/r0)(1 + sqrt(3w/r0))^{-2}. As written, the inequality is false for small w and is actually larger than the upper bound from (64). Since this comparison is what excludes the visible L=1 channel and yields L_*(w)≥2, the proof of part (ii) is invalid as it stands. The stated threshold w/r0 < 5.2×10^{-4} is consistent with the corrected reciprocal bound, so the theorem is recoverable, but the display and the comparison need to be fixed.
  2. [§5.2, Theorem 5.2 proof (Eq. (100))] The same reciprocal error occurs in the four-dimensional comparison: the proof states µ_1^(4)[φ_w] ≥ (4/r0)(1+2s)^2, whereas Theorem 4.4 gives (4/r0)(1+2s)^{-2}. The displayed lower bound is false, and because it is the bound used to exclude n=1 on both amplitude branches, the proof of Theorem 5.2 as written is invalid. The condition (99) matches the comparison using the corrected reciprocal bound, so this is a fixable error, but it must be corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.7, Prop. 4.7 proof] The reference to 'theorem 4.1' should be to Lemma 4.1, which is the variational characterization used for µ_1[φ].
  2. [§4.1, Theorem 4.5 and Lemma 4.2] The sentence 'On a Dirichlet ball this endpoint belongs to the first Gribov boundary' should specify that the box radius R must be taken sufficiently large, since Lemma 4.2 controls the finite-volume correction only asymptotically.
  3. [§3, notation after Eq. (31)] The symbol h is reused for g times the original profile after Eq. (31); the switch is easy to miss in Eqs. (36), (48), and (49). Please introduce a separate symbol, such as ilde h = g h, or state the convention explicitly.
  4. [§2, Prop. 2.2 proof] The sentence about the remainder in (27) being only o(τ^{-1}) is confusing because the preceding display already states the limiting statement (27); consider deleting or rephrasing it.
  5. [§7, Conclusion] The final sentence acknowledges that the suppression mechanism is not shown to be stable under symmetry-breaking perturbations. This is an honest scope limitation, but because the main theorems require exact hedgehog symmetry, the abstract or introduction should state even more prominently that the dark-crossing results are existence statements for exactly symmetric rays.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the dark first-crossing construction is self-contained within the stated hedgehog symmetry; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim—that a zero mode can occur at the first loss of positivity without a pole in the source-sandwiched inverse—is derived in the paper from explicit assumptions rather than imported from a fit or from self-citation. Proposition 2.1 derives the finiteness criterion via monotone convergence and the spectral theorem, and Proposition 2.2 derives the visibility classification from norm-resolvent convergence and spectral projectors. The source-support restrictions (L=1 in Eq. 36 and n=1 in Eq. 85) follow algebraically from the hedgehog ansaetze, while the threshold orderings that realize dark first crossings are established by variational estimates and two-sided bounds (Theorem 4.5 and Theorem 5.2), with derived width thresholds (w/r0 < 5.2e-4 and about 1.0e-3) rather than fitted parameters. The numerical threshold tables are illustrative and are not used to force the central existence statements. The paper explicitly avoids relying on the earlier threshold structure: it states that the selection analysis is done 'without invoking the complete threshold structure of this family worked out in [22]', and the self-citations [21,22] are contextual rather than load-bearing. The acknowledged limitation is robustness: the paper states in Section 7 that 'How this suppression is modified by perturbations that break the underlying symmetry remains an open question,' which is a scope boundary, not a circular step. Overall no circularity is present; at most there is a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation, so the score is 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physically new particles, forces, or dimensions are postulated. The visibility operator V_A is a defined mathematical diagnostic, not a physical entity. The only free parameters are the profile shape parameters used for numerical illustration; the analytical theorems cover ranges of these parameters rather than fitting them to data.

free parameters (1)
  • profile center r0 and width w = r0=10, w/r0=0.04 for representative tables; arbitrary in theorems
    Chosen by hand for numerical illustrations of smooth shells. The existence theorems are proven for any profile satisfying the stated width bound, so these choices do not feed the central claim as fitted values.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Spectral theorem and KLMN theorem for self-adjoint operators.
    Used to define the Friedrichs realizations of the reduced radial operators and the inverse square roots in Prop. 2.1 and Lemma 4.1.
  • standard math Hardy inequality on the half-line: integral of |u'|^2 is at least one quarter of integral of |u|^2/r^2.
    Controls the critical Hardy term in the BPST quadratic form in Prop. 6.1.
  • standard math Angular momentum decompositions for adjoint SU(2) fields, J=L+S in 3D and K=T+J_+ in 4D.
    Used to derive the normal forms in Eq. (33) and Eq. (81); this is standard representation theory, not a new postulate.
  • domain assumption The radial profile is differentiable or compactly supported so that source columns are L2 and the Faddeev-Popov operator has a positive self-adjoint realization.
    This is Eq. (6) and the setup of Section 2. Compact profiles guarantee admissible sources; the BPST profile violates it, hence the separate treatment in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Along the amplitude rays considered, the hypotheses of Prop. 2.2, namely a uniform spectral gap and norm-resolvent convergence, hold at critical amplitudes.
    Stated before Prop. 2.2 and invoked for the divergence and residue statements. The dark statements in Sections 4 and 5 are proved by exact annihilation and do not need the gap.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blind Spots of the Zwanziger Horizon Function." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4L7X4X7

@misc{pith2026260812413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blind Spots of the Zwanziger Horizon Function},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4L7X4X7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12413}
}
read the original abstract

We examine the configurationwise relation between the first Gribov horizon, defined by loss of positivity of the Faddeev-Popov operator, and Zwanziger's horizon function, which probes the inverse operator through background-dependent sources. The analysis focuses on whether the spectral directions associated with the onset of the Gribov horizon are necessarily accessible to the sources entering the horizon function, including situations in which the critical subspace is degenerate. This question is studied for radial SU(2) hedgehog backgrounds in three and four Euclidean dimensions, where angular symmetry constrains the source sector while the radial profile controls the ordering of Faddeev-Popov thresholds. Variational estimates and finite-volume calculations are used to characterize the threshold structure for smooth radial profiles. The regular-gauge BPST background is treated separately because of domain issues associated with zero-energy behavior and the horizon source in the full-space setting. The discussion is restricted to configurationwise spectral properties and does not address the statistical weighting of these backgrounds in the Yang-Mills functional integral.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12413 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three-dimensional dark ordering beyond the sufficient narrow-shell regime. Panel (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Four-dimensional dark ordering and domain check. Panel (a) shows the representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, A. S. Schwartz and Yu. S. Tyupkin,Pseudoparticle solutions of the Yang-Mills equations, Phys. Lett. B59, 85–87 (1975), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(75)90163-X

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(75)90163-x 1975

  2. [2]

    M. A. L. Capri, M. S. Guimaraes, S. P. Sorella and D. G. Tedesco,A study of the zero modes of the Faddeev-Popov operator in Euclidean Yang-Mills theories in the Landau gauge in d = 2, 3, 4dimensions, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1939 (2012), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1939-8, arXiv:1201.2445 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    M. A. L. Capri, D. Dudal, M. S. Guimaraes, L. F. Palhares and S. P. Sorella,An all-order proof of the equivalence between Gribov’s no-pole and Zwanziger’s horizon conditions, Phys. Lett. B 719, 448–453 (2013), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.01.039, arXiv:1212.2419 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Numerical Study of the Fundamental Modular Region in the Minimal Landau Gauge

    A. Cucchieri,Numerical study of the fundamental modular region in the minimal Landau gauge, Nucl. Phys. B521, 365–379 (1998), doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00235-1, arXiv:hep-lat/9711024

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Constraints on the IR behavior of the ghost propagator in Yang-Mills theories

    A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes,Constraints on the IR behavior of the ghost propagator in Yang-Mills theories, Phys. Rev. D78, 094503 (2008), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.094503, arXiv:0804.2371 [hep-lat]. 23

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Ghost sector and geometry in minimal Landau gauge: further constraining the infinite-volume limit

    A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes,Ghost sector and geometry in minimal Landau gauge: further constraining the infinite-volume limit, Phys. Rev. D88, 114501 (2013), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.114501, arXiv:1308.1283 [hep-lat]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Crossing the Gribov horizon: an unconventional study of geometric properties of gauge-configuration space in Landau gauge

    A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes,Crossing the Gribov horizon: an unconventional study of geometric properties of gauge-configuration space in Landau gauge, PoS(LATTICE 2013)367(2014), doi:10.22323/1.187.0367, arXiv:1311.4699 [hep-lat]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Dell’Antonio and D

    G. Dell’Antonio and D. Zwanziger,Every gauge orbit passes inside the Gribov horizon, Commun. Math. Phys.138, 291–299 (1991), doi:10.1007/BF02099494

    doi:10.1007/bf02099494 1991

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Dudal, J

    D. Dudal, J. A. Gracey, S. P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel and H. Verschelde,A refinement of the Gribov-Zwanziger approach in the Landau gauge: infrared propagators in harmony with the lattice results, Phys. Rev. D78, 065047 (2008), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.065047, arXiv:0806.4348 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C. S. Fischer, A. Maas and J. M. Pawlowski,On the infrared behavior of Landau gauge Yang- Mills theory, Ann. Phys.324, 2408–2437 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.aop.2009.07.009, arXiv:0810.1987 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [11]

    V. N. Gribov,Quantization of non-Abelian gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B139, 1–19 (1978), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(78)90175-X

    1978 doi

  4. [12]

    M. S. Guimaraes and S. P. Sorella,A few remarks on the zero modes of the Faddeev-Popov operator in the Landau and maximal Abelian gauges, J. Math. Phys.52, 092302 (2011), doi:10.1063/1.3641892, arXiv:1106.3944 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    F. S. Henyey,Gribov ambiguity without topological charge, Phys. Rev. D20, 1460–1462 (1979), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.1460

    1979 doi

  6. [14]

    ’t Hooft,Computation of the quantum effects due to a four-dimensional pseudoparticle, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft,Computation of the quantum effects due to a four-dimensional pseudoparticle, Phys. Rev. D14, 3432–3450 (1976), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3432; Erratum, Phys. Rev. D 18, 2199–2200 (1978), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.18.2199.3

    1976 doi

  7. [15]

    Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, 2nd ed., corrected printing (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980); SpringerLink reprint

    T. Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, 2nd ed., corrected printing (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980); SpringerLink reprint

    1980

  8. [16]

    Maas,On the spectrum of the Faddeev-Popov operator in topological background fields, Eur

    A. Maas,On the spectrum of the Faddeev-Popov operator in topological background fields, Eur. Phys. J. C48, 179–192 (2006), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-006-0003-y, arXiv:hep-th/0511307

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Serreau and M

    J. Serreau and M. Tissier,Lifting the Gribov ambiguity in Yang-Mills theories, Phys. Lett. B 712, 97–103 (2012), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.04.041, arXiv:1202.3432 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    I. M. Singer,Some remarks on the Gribov ambiguity, Commun. Math. Phys.60, 7–12 (1978), doi:10.1007/BF01609471

    1978 doi

  11. [19]

    Sternbeck, E.-M

    A. Sternbeck, E.-M. Ilgenfritz and M. M”uller-Preussker,Spectral properties of the Lan- dau gauge Faddeev-Popov operator in lattice gluodynamics, Phys. Rev. D73, 014502 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.014502, arXiv:hep-lat/0510109

    2006 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Sternbeck and M

    A. Sternbeck and M. M”uller-Preussker,Lattice evidence for the family of decoupling solutions of Landau gauge Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Lett. B726, 396–403 (2013), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.08.017, arXiv:1211.3057 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    D. G. Tedesco,Birman-Schwinger formulation of the Faddeev-Popov zero-mode problem, arXiv:2607.14425 [hep-th] (2026), arXiv:2607.14425 [hep-th]. 24

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. G. Tedesco,Some remarks on the spectral geometry of the Gribov horizon, arXiv:2607.13228 [hep-th] (2026), arXiv:2607.13228 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    van Baal,More (thoughts on) Gribov copies, Nucl

    P. van Baal,More (thoughts on) Gribov copies, Nucl. Phys. B369, 259–275 (1992), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(92)90386-P

    1992 doi

  16. [24]

    Vandersickel and D

    N. Vandersickel and D. Zwanziger,The Gribov problem and QCD dynamics, Phys. Rep.520, 175–251 (2012), doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.07.003, arXiv:1202.1491 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zwanziger,Action from the Gribov horizon, Nucl

    D. Zwanziger,Action from the Gribov horizon, Nucl. Phys. B321, 591–604 (1989), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90263-0

    1989 doi

  18. [26]

    Zwanziger,Local and renormalizable action from the Gribov horizon, Nucl

    D. Zwanziger,Local and renormalizable action from the Gribov horizon, Nucl. Phys. B323, 513–544 (1989), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90122-3

    1989 doi

  19. [27]

    Zwanziger,Renormalizability of the critical limit of lattice gauge theory by BRS invariance, Nucl

    D. Zwanziger,Renormalizability of the critical limit of lattice gauge theory by BRS invariance, Nucl. Phys. B399, 477–513 (1993), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90506-K. 25

    1993 doi

Pith tools

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