Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 81 references

The spectrum of open confining strings in the large-Nc limit

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A massive axion-like particle rides the open QCD string and persists in the large-Nc limit.

desk verdict First large-Nc open flux-tube spectra with a plausible but over-claimed axion signal; the missing Arvis-baseline test is the deciding issue. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16342 v2 pith:NJYVDQ2A submitted 2025-06-19 hep-lat hep-th

Alireza Sharifian , Andreas Athenodorou , Pedro Bicudo This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-th PACS 11.15.Pg12.38.Gc
keywords large-Nclimitlatticegaugetheoryconfiningstringflux-tubespectrumworldsheetaxionNambu-GotoArvispotentialSU(Nc)Yang-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

This paper reports the first systematic lattice computation of the spectrum of the open confining string (the flux-tube between a static quark and antiquark) in $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory in 3+1 dimensions, for $N_c = 3,4,5,6$, at two lattice spacings each. The central claim is that the lightest levels in the $\Sigma^-_u$ and $\Sigma^-_g$ channels do not behave like Nambu-Goto string states: instead of following the Arvis potential's $N=3$ or $N=4$ energy bands, each level sits a constant mass above the ground string state, the signature of a massive 'worldsheet axion'. After a linear extrapolation in $1/N_c^2$, the lightest $\Sigma^-_u$ axion mass is $m_{\mathrm{axion}}/\sqrt{\sigma} = 1.721(46)$ ($\xi=2$) and $1.694(34)$ ($\xi=4$), compatible with the mass $m_{\mathrm{axion}}/\sqrt{\sigma} = 1.65(2)$ measured on closed flux-tubes. The authors conclude that the axion is an intrinsic property of the QCD-string worldsheet, not a glueball coupled to the string, because it survives the large-$N_c$ limit where hadron-hadron couplings are suppressed. The paper does not perform a continuum extrapolation (it compares two anisotropies) and relies on a one-loop perturbative renormalized anisotropy to set the scale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'Axionic String Ansatz': a massive pseudoscalar world-sheet field $\phi$ with action $S_\phi = \int d^2\sigma \sqrt{-h} \left[ -\frac{1}{2}(\partial\phi)^2 - \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2 + \frac{Q}{4} h^{\alpha\beta} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho} \partial_\alpha t_{\mu\nu} \partial_\beta t_{\lambda\rho} \phi \right]$, where the last term couples $\phi$ to the extrinsic curvature of the string world-sheet. On the lattice side, energies come from solving a generalized eigenvalue problem for Wilson-loop correlation matrices built from symmetry-projected smeared staple operators, with effective masses extracted from eigenvalue ratios; the scale is set by fitting the Cornell potential to the $\Sigma^+_g$ ground state and by a one-loop perturbative renormalized anisotropy. The diagnostic that carries the argument is the subtracted potential $\Delta V(R) = V(R) - V_{\Sigma^+_g}(R)$: a flat plateau in $R$ signals a state that is the ground string plus a constant mass, and that plateau value is extrapolated in $1/N_c^2$ to obtain the axion mass.

What would settle it

Measure the $\Sigma^-_u$ and $\Sigma^-_g$ levels at larger separations, $R\sqrt{\sigma} \gtrsim 6$–8, with higher statistics, and fit $\Delta V(R)$ against both a constant and the Arvis $N=3$ and $N=4$ forms; a $\Delta V(R)$ that decreases toward zero with $R$ would kill the axion interpretation. Alternatively, a continuum extrapolation at fixed $N_c$ from more than two lattice spacings that moves the $\Sigma^-_u$ plateau mass outside the 1.65–1.72 range would break the claimed agreement with the closed-string axion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the open QCD string carries massive states with quantum numbers $\Sigma^-_u$ ($\Lambda=0$, odd charge-conjugation-parity, odd reflection) and $\Sigma^-_g$, which appear as the absolute ground state (the $\Sigma^+_g$ string) plus a constant mass shift and cannot be accounted for by the Nambu-Goto/Arvis tower. The extracted large-$N_c$ masses are $m_{\mathrm{axion}}/\sqrt{\sigma} = 2.058(6)$ and $2.065(15)$ for the lightest $\Sigma^-_g$ state ($\xi=2$ and $4$), $1.721(46)$ and $1.694(34)$ for the lightest $\Sigma^-_u$ state, and $3.054(293)$ for the first excited $\Sigma^-_u$ state at $\xi=2$. The lightest $\Sigma^-_u$ mass agrees within errors with the closed flux-tube axion mass $1.65(2)$, and the $\Sigma^-_u$ quantum numbers map onto the closed-string $0^{--}$ assignment. Because the states persist at large $N_c$ with masses tending to finite values, the paper argues that they are intrinsic world-sheet degrees of freedom; by contrast, glueballs coupled to the flux-tube would be suppressed by powers of $1/N_c$. This 'worldsheet axion' is a pseudoscalar massive mode of the effective string, not the QCD axion of particle physics.

Load-bearing premise

In Section IV.3 the paper introduces these states as 'ground states with an additional constant mass term'; that is the load-bearing step. The argument assumes the $\Sigma^-_u$ and $\Sigma^-_g$ levels are genuinely the ground string plus a constant mass (a flat $\Delta V$ plateau), rather than the $N=3$ and $N=4$ Arvis string levels whose $1/R$ fall-off could mimic a constant over the probed range, and the paper does not fit those Arvis baselines. The largest separation studied is about $R\sqrt{\sigma} \approx 5$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The lightest world-sheet axion mass is $N_c$-independent within errors, so the axion is a large-$N_c$ property of the confining string rather than a finite-$N_c$ lattice artifact.
  • The match between the open-string $\Sigma^-_u$ plateau mass and the closed-string $0^{--}$ axion mass (1.65(2)) indicates the same world-sheet degree of freedom appears in both geometries.
  • The persistence at large $N_c$ rules out the glueball-hybrid interpretation, since hadron-hadron couplings to the flux-tube are suppressed by powers of $1/N_c$.
  • All other probed channels ($\Sigma^+_g$, $\Pi_u$, $\Pi_g$, $\Delta_g$, $\Delta_u$, and most of $\Sigma^+_u$) are well described by Nambu-Goto/Arvis levels at long distance, so the phonon picture survives there.
  • The boundary coefficient $\bar{b}_2$ of the $O(1/R^4)$ effective-string correction is consistent with zero within current precision in the $\Sigma^+_g$ and $\Pi_u$ ground states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test is an open-string Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz analysis: if the axion is the same world-sheet field, the full distance dependence of the $\Sigma^-_u$ and $\Sigma^-_g$ levels, not just the plateau value, should be reproduced with the same mass and coupling as in the closed string.
  • The present study compares only two lattice spacings; a genuine continuum extrapolation at fixed $N_c$, using additional spacings or a non-perturbative anisotropy, could shift the quoted masses enough to test the 1.65–1.72 agreement.
  • The observation of one clean $\Sigma^-_g$ level and two clean $\Sigma^-_u$ levels hints at a tower of massive world-sheet modes; a multi-state analysis could determine whether these are excitations of one axion field or several fields.
  • Extending the measurements to $R\sqrt{\sigma} \gtrsim 6$ would separate the constant-mass ansatz from the Arvis $N=3$ and $N=4$ baselines more cleanly, since at the current longest distance the two forms are only marginally distinct.
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 paper reports a lattice study of the open flux-tube spectrum in 3+1 dimensional SU(N_c) gauge theory for N_c = 3, 4, 5, 6, using anisotropic lattices, smearing, and a GEVP analysis. Spectra are computed for eight irreducible representations at two lattice spacings and compared with the Nambu-Goto/Arvis predictions. The central claim is that the states in the Sigma^-_u and Sigma^-_g channels behave as the string ground state plus a constant massive excitation; the lightest such mass is extrapolated to the large-N_c limit, giving m_axion/sqrt(sigma)=1.721(46) for xi=2 and 1.694(34) for xi=4 in the lightest Sigma^-_u channel, which is compared with the closed flux-tube value 1.65(2). The paper interprets this as evidence for a worldsheet axion that persists in the large-N_c limit and is intrinsic to the QCD string.

Significance. If the identification is correct, this is the first systematic large-N_c study of the open flux-tube spectrum and the first evidence that the worldsheet axion seen in closed flux-tubes also appears on open strings, with a mass consistent with the closed-string value. The paper has real strengths: it covers many irreps and radial excitations, checks topological ergodicity, uses two lattice spacings, and builds on publicly available GPU code. The main caveat is that the axion interpretation rests on a model-dependent constant-shift assumption that is not tested against the Arvis N=3 and N=4 baselines, and the comparison with the closed-string axion is made against a value from a paper with overlapping authorship, so it is a cross-check rather than a fully independent confirmation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.3, Fig. 11, Eq. (3)] The load-bearing identification of the Sigma^-_u and Sigma^-_g states as ground states plus a constant mass rests on the statement that "these states resemble ground states with an additional constant mass term." The paper never fits the same Delta V data to the N=3 and N=4 Arvis forms of Eq. (3), which are the natural string-only alternatives; Table I assigns Sigma^-_u to the N=3 level and Sigma^-_g to the N=4 level. At the largest probed R sqrt(sigma) ~ 5, the N=3 and N=4 Arvis offsets are close to the fitted constants (roughly 1.6 and 2.1 in the Sigma^-_u plot), so the asymptotic plateau alone cannot discriminate between the two interpretations. An explicit fit of both Ansatze over the full R range, with a model-selection criterion, is needed before the claim of "undoubted evidence" can be supported.
  2. [Sec. IV, introductory paragraph; Table II] The quoted axion masses are not continuum-extrapolated. The paper explicitly says it performs a straightforward comparison of two lattice spacings rather than a continuum extrapolation, but those two spacings are both coarse (as sqrt(sigma) ~ 0.3 and ~0.4), and the conclusion states that the results "closely approximate both the large-N_c and continuum limits." To support an absolute mass in string-tension units and a meaningful comparison with the closed-string axion, the authors should either perform a continuum extrapolation or quantify the O(a^2) systematic error and state its effect on the final mass.
  3. [Fig. 12 and Sec. IV.3] The large-N_c extrapolation is only partially convincing. The Sigma^-_u lambda=1 fit has chi2/dof = 31.03, and the lambda=2 state is acknowledged to lack a clear plateau at the largest N_c; presenting these as well-defined axion-like masses is not supported by the data. The statements "undoubted evidence" (abstract) and "well-defined plateaus" (Sec. IV.3) are also too strong for a fit-dependent extraction with these caveats and should be softened.
minor comments (6)
  1. [References] Several references omit publication years or journal information, e.g. Refs. [3], [4], [9], [10], [21], [22], [35], and [36]; also, Ref. [14] is duplicated as Ref. [48].
  2. [Fig. 11] The fit ranges used for the constant plateaus in Fig. 11 are not stated; the reader cannot tell which R range defines each Delta V value.
  3. [Sec. V] The conclusion contains a typo: "implemention" should be "implementation."
  4. [Figs. 6-9] The N,lambda legend is dense and not explained in the captions; panels with many overlapping curves would benefit from separate tables or a clearer marker/color scheme.
  5. [Sec. III.C] Topological-charge histories are shown only for N_c=3 and N_c=6; displaying histories for N_c=4 and N_c=5 would strengthen the ergodicity claim.
  6. [Sec. III.A] The physical scale relies on the one-loop perturbative renormalized anisotropy of Ref. [38]; a non-perturbative check of xi_r, even for one ensemble, would reduce a potentially important systematic uncertainty in the mass calibration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the open-string axion mass is a fresh lattice measurement; the closed-string value is used only as an external cross-check.

full rationale

The central derivation is the extraction of a constant mass shift in the Sigma^-u and Sigma^-g channels by subtracting the Sigma+g ground state and identifying plateaus (Section IV.3, Fig. 11). This is an operational definition of the axion mass from new lattice data for Nc=3,...,6, not a fit to the closed-string value. The comparison with maxion/sqrt(sigma)=1.65(2) from Ref. [5] is a cross-check against an independent measurement on closed flux-tubes; although one author overlaps, the closed-string result comes from different simulations and is externally falsifiable. The Axionic String Ansatz is inherited from prior literature (Refs. [11,12,5]), but the paper's evidence - the plateaus and large-Nc extrapolation - does not reduce to that ansatz or to any self-citation. The renormalized anisotropy from Ref. [38] is an external perturbative input, not fitted to the axion mass. The main vulnerability, that the Delta V data are not explicitly compared with the Arvis N=3/N=4 baselines, is a scientific/model-selection concern, not a circularity, because the paper does not define the axion mass in terms of the closed-string mass or of its own conclusions. No equation is used both as input and output by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted mass constants extracted from plateaus in Delta V(R), extrapolated to large Nc with a 1/Nc^2 ansatz. The benchmark for comparison is the closed flux-tube axion mass from Ref. [5], which shares an author with this paper, so the confirmation is not fully independent. The worldsheet axion action and the Nambu-Goto baseline are inherited assumptions rather than derived results. The identification of the observed odd-parity states with ground-state-plus-mass is the main interpretive step and is not tested against the alternative Arvis assignment.

free parameters (4)
  • axion mass from Sigma^-g ground state = 2.058(6) sqrt(sigma) (xi=2), 2.065(15) sqrt(sigma) (xi=4)
    Fitted constant mass shift relative to Sigma^+_g ground state, extrapolated to large Nc via A + B/Nc^2.
  • axion mass from Sigma^-u ground state = 1.721(46) sqrt(sigma) (xi=2), 1.694(34) sqrt(sigma) (xi=4)
    Fitted constant mass shift; compared to closed flux-tube value 1.65(2) sqrt(sigma).
  • axion mass from Sigma^-u first excited state = 3.054(293) sqrt(sigma) (xi=2 only)
    Fitted constant; chi2/dof = 31.0, poor fit, quoted with large error.
  • large-Nc slope B = varies (e.g., 3.00(101) for Sigma^-g xi=2)
    Slope of 1/Nc^2 extrapolation, fitted to Nc=3 to 6 points.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The worldsheet axion ansatz action S_phi (Eq. 12) describes the coupling of a massive pseudoscalar to the string.
    Inherited from closed flux-tube TBA analysis (Ref [5]); used to motivate looking for constant mass shifts in the open string spectrum.
  • domain assumption The Nambu-Goto and Arvis potential (Eq. 3) is the correct baseline for the open flux-tube spectrum at large R.
    Used as the null model against which deviations are measured.
  • domain assumption The renormalized anisotropy xi_r from one-loop perturbation theory (Ref [38]) is accurate to the needed precision.
    Used to set the physical scale a_s sqrt(sigma); a non-perturbative determination is left to future work.
  • domain assumption The large-Nc extrapolation is linear in 1/Nc^2 for Nc=3 to 6.
    The fit form A + B/Nc^2 is assumed; no justification beyond leading-order large-Nc counting.
  • domain assumption The Sigma^-u quantum numbers (Lambda=0, CoP=-, epsilon=-) correspond to the closed flux-tube 0^-- state.
    Used to identify the open and closed axion states; a group-theory mapping asserted in Section IV.3.
invented entities (1)
  • Massive worldsheet axion-like state on the open flux-tube independent evidence
    purpose: Explains constant mass shifts observed in Sigma^-u and Sigma^-g channels relative to the ground state.
    The entity is inherited from the closed flux-tube TBA conjecture; the open-string mass (about 1.7 sqrt(sigma)) is compared with the closed-string value 1.65(2) sqrt(sigma) as an external falsifiable handle, though both come from lattice data of the same theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The spectrum of open confining strings in the large-Nc limit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NJYVDQ2A

@misc{pith2026250616342,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The spectrum of open confining strings in the large-Nc limit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NJYVDQ2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16342}
}
abstract

In this study, we conduct a thorough examination of the spectrum of the open confining string in 3+1 dimensions, commonly referred to as the open flux-tube, across various gauge groups of $SU(N_c)$. Our primary objective is to explore its behaviour as we approach the large-$N_c$ limit and the identification of possible world-sheet axion states. Specifically, we undertake a detailed analysis of the associated spectrum for $N_c=3, 4, 5, 6$. This marks the first systematic investigation of the open flux-tube spectrum within the context of the large-$N_c$ limit. More specifically, we analyse the spectra of flux-tubes that form between a static quark-antiquark pair, considering a significant number of radial excitations and eight irreducible representations characterized by the quantum numbers of angular momentum $\Lambda$, charge conjugation and parity $\eta_{CP}$ and the reflection symmetry $\epsilon$ for $\Lambda=0$. To this purpose we employ a diverse set of suitable operators, an anisotropic action, smearing techniques, and solve the generalized eigenvalue problem. We compare our findings with predictions from the Nambu-Goto string model to assess potential tensions indicative of novel phenomena such as the existence of axion-like state along the flux-tube world-sheet. Notably, we provide undoubted evidence of the existence of a massive axion-like particle with the same mass as the corresponding axion extracted within the context of closed flux-tube. This strengthens the conjecture that the axion is a property of the world-sheet of the QCD string.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16342 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Symmetries describing irreducibly the energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Operators are built using the staples above [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: A closed loop corresponding to the entry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Effective mass determination using fits to Eq. 21. The fitted curve is shown as a solid line, while the dotted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The history of the topological charge for the ensembles produced for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The spectrum for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The spectrum for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The spectrum for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The spectrum for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Searching for effective string theory parameters in the 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: In the above plots we subtract the ground state potential to find evidence for massive resonances, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Comparing axion’s masses for different ensembles and their extrapolations as a function of 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Significant progress has been made over the past decade in understanding the effective string-theoretical description of the closed flux-tube [2–5]

    are investing significant effort into unravelling this behaviour. Significant progress has been made over the past decade in understanding the effective string-theoretical description of the closed flux-tube [2–5]. In particular, the dynamics of the worldsheet theory have been ex- tracted from lattice data in a model-independent man- ner. This involves co...

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    This projection is denoted by Λ

    Angular Momentum Projection (Λ): The first symmetry corresponds to the projection of angu- lar momentum J onto the charge axis, represented by J · ˆR, where ˆR is the unit vector along the charge axis. This projection is denoted by Λ. It is conventional to use Greek letters to label these states, with Σ , Π, ∆, Φ, . . .corresponding to Λ = 0, 1, 2, 3, . ....

  3. [3]

    This combined operation, denoted as CoP, has eigenvalues ηCP , which are labeled as g or u, corresponding to +1 (even) or −1 (odd) eigenval- ues, respectively

    Charge Conjugation and Parity ( ηCP ): The second symmetry involves the combination of charge conjugation ( C) and spatial inversion ( P) about the midpoint between the quark and the an- tiquark. This combined operation, denoted as CoP, has eigenvalues ηCP , which are labeled as g or u, corresponding to +1 (even) or −1 (odd) eigenval- ues, respectively. 5

    work page

  4. [4]

    These eigenvalues are labeled as + for even and − for odd reflection symmetry

    Reflection Symmetry for Σ States (ϵ): For Σ states (Λ = 0), an additional quantum number ϵ is defined, representing the eigenvalue of the reflec- tion operator with respect to any plane containing the charge axis. These eigenvalues are labeled as + for even and − for odd reflection symmetry. It is important to note that for states with Λ ≥ 1, the reflecti...

    work page

  5. [5]

    6: The spectrum for SU (3) and the eight irreducible representations Σ + g , Σ− g , Σ+ u , Σ− u , Πg, Πu, ∆g, and ∆ u as these appear above each individual plot

    The ground and first excited states We begin the investigation, with the absolute ground state which corresponds to the Σ+ g irreducible representa- 10 1 2 3 4 5 R√σ 0 2 4 6 8 V (R)/√σ SU (3), Σ+ g N, λ 10, 5 8, 4 6, 3 4, 2 2, 1 0, 0 1 2 3 4 5 R√σ 0 2 4 6 8 10 V (R)/√σ SU (3), Σ− g N, λ 12, 4 10, 3 8, 2 6, 1 4, 0 0, Σ + g 1 2 3 4 5 R√σ 0 2 4 6 8 V (R)/√σ ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    A general observation is that deviations from the Nambu-Goto predictions be- 16 come more pronounced as the energy increases

    The N = 2 excited states We now turn our attention to the study of higher ex- cited states of the open flux-tube. A general observation is that deviations from the Nambu-Goto predictions be- 16 come more pronounced as the energy increases. The next relevant string excitation corresponds to N = 2. We expect to encounter such states in the following irreduc...

    work page

  7. [7]

    EuroCC” project funded by the “Deputy Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digital Policy and the Cyprus Research and Innova- tion Foundation

    The N = 3, N = 4 excited states and the axion We now turn to the next string excitation correspond- ing to N = 3. According to Table I, this energy level is expected to be six-fold degenerate. The first irreducible representation in which we expect to encounter such a state is Σ + u . Indeed, we observe a state in this chan- nel that shows minor deviation...

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Simons Collaboration on Confinement and QCD Strings, https://simonsconfinementcollaboration.org/

    work page

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Athenodorou, B

    A. Athenodorou, B. Bringoltz, and M. Teper, Phys. Lett. B 656, 132 (2007), arXiv:0709.0693 [hep-lat]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Athenodorou, B

    A. Athenodorou, B. Bringoltz, and M. Teper, JHEP 02, 030, arXiv:1007.4720 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Athenodorou, B

    A. Athenodorou, B. Bringoltz, and M. Teper, JHEP 05, 042, arXiv:1103.5854 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Athenodorou, S

    A. Athenodorou, S. Dubovsky, C. Luo, and M. Teper, (2024), arXiv:2411.03435 [hep-th]

    2024

  5. [13]

    Nambu, Phys

    Y. Nambu, Phys. Lett. B 80, 372 (1979)

    1979

  6. [14]

    Goto, Prog

    T. Goto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 46, 1560 (1971)

    1971

  7. [15]

    Zwiebach, A First Course in String Theory (Cam- bridge University Press, 2004)

    B. Zwiebach, A First Course in String Theory (Cam- bridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    Aharony and E

    O. Aharony and E. Karzbrun, JHEP 06, 012, arXiv:0903.1927 [hep-th]

    1927 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Luscher and P

    M. Luscher and P. Weisz, JHEP 07, 014, arXiv:hep- th/0406205

  10. [18]

    Dubovsky, R

    S. Dubovsky, R. Flauger, and V. Gorbenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 062006 (2013), arXiv:1301.2325 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Athenodorou and M

    A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, PoS LA TTICE2021, 103 (2022), arXiv:2112.11213 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Morningstar, Nucl

    C. Morningstar, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 53, 914 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9608019

    1997 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Lucini and M

    B. Lucini and M. Panero, Phys. Rept. 526, 93 (2013), arXiv:1210.4997 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [23]

    A. V. Manohar, in Les Houches Summer School in Theo- retical Physics, Session 68: Probing the Standard Model of Particle Interactions (1998) pp. 1091–1169, arXiv:hep- ph/9802419

    1998

  15. [24]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 72, 461 (1974)

    1974

  16. [25]

    Dromard and M

    A. Dromard and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 90, 074505 (2014), arXiv:1404.0247 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Athenodorou and M

    A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, JHEP 12, 082, arXiv:2106.00364 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  18. [27]

    Bonanno, M

    C. Bonanno, M. D’Elia, B. Lucini, and D. Vadacchino, Phys. Lett. B 833, 137281 (2022), arXiv:2205.06190 [hep- lat]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Capitani, O

    S. Capitani, O. Philipsen, C. Reisinger, C. Riehl, and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 99, 034502 (2019)

    2019

  20. [29]

    M¨ uller, O

    L. M¨ uller, O. Philipsen, C. Reisinger, and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054503 (2019), arXiv:1907.01482 [hep- lat]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Blossier, M

    B. Blossier, M. Della Morte, G. von Hippel, T. Mendes, and R. Sommer, JHEP 04, 094, arXiv:0902.1265 [hep- lat]

    arXiv

  22. [31]

    Deser and B

    S. Deser and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B 65, 369 (1976)

    1976

  23. [32]

    Brink, P

    L. Brink, P. Di Vecchia, and P. S. Howe, Phys. Lett. B 65, 471 (1976)

    1976

  24. [33]

    A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 103, 207 (1981)

    1981

  25. [34]

    A. M. Polyakov, Gauge Fields and Strings , Vol. 3 (1987)

    1987

  26. [35]

    Arvis, Phys

    J. Arvis, Phys. Lett. B 127, 106 (1983)

    1983

  27. [36]

    K. J. Juge, J. Kuti, and C. Morningstar, in Proceed- ings of Wako 2003, Color Confinement and Hadrons in Quantum Chromodynamics (2004), 221 , arXiv:hep- lat/0312019

    2004

  28. [37]

    L¨ uscher, K

    M. L¨ uscher, K. Symanzik, and P. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B 173, 365 (1980)

    1980

  29. [38]

    Polchinski and A

    J. Polchinski and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1681 (1991)

    1991

  30. [39]

    H. B. Meyer, JHEP 05, 066, arXiv:hep-th/0602281

    arXiv

  31. [40]

    J. M. Drummond, (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0411017

    2004 arXiv

  32. [41]

    N. D. Hari Dass, P. Matlock, and Y. Bharadwaj, (2009), arXiv:0910.5615 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Aharony and M

    O. Aharony and M. Field, JHEP 01, 065, arXiv:1008.2636 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  34. [43]

    Aharony and N

    O. Aharony and N. Klinghoffer, JHEP 12, 058, arXiv:1008.2648 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  35. [44]

    Atkins, J

    P. Atkins, J. De Paula, and J. Keeler, Atkins’ Physical Chemistry, 11th ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2017)

    2017

  36. [45]

    Garcia Perez and P

    M. Garcia Perez and P. van Baal, Phys. Lett. B 392, 163 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9610036

    1997 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Athenodorou and M

    A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, JHEP 01, 063, arXiv:1811.06280 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  38. [47]

    Athenodorou, S

    A. Athenodorou, S. Dubovsky, C. Luo, and M. Teper, JHEP 05, 082, arXiv:2301.00034 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  39. [48]

    Dubovsky, R

    S. Dubovsky, R. Flauger, and V. Gorbenko, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 120, 399 (2015), arXiv:1404.0037 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [49]

    C. Chen, P. Conkey, S. Dubovsky, and G. Hern´ andez- Chifflet, Phys. Rev. D 98, 114024 (2018), arXiv:1808.01339 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [50]

    K. J. Juge, J. Kuti, and C. Morningstar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 161601 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0207004

    2003 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Karbstein, A

    F. Karbstein, A. Peters, and M. Wagner, JHEP 09, 114, arXiv:1407.7503 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  43. [52]

    Schlosser and M

    C. Schlosser and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 105, 054503 (2022), arXiv:2111.00741 [hep-lat]. 19

    2022 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Schlosser and M

    C. Schlosser and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 111, 074504 (2025), arXiv:2501.08844 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Cardoso and P

    N. Cardoso and P. Bicudo, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 509 (2013), arXiv:1112.4533 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Sharifian, N

    A. Sharifian, N. Cardoso, and P. Bicudo, Phys. Rev. D 107, 10.1103/physrevd.107.114507 (2023), arXiv:2303.15152 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Lucini, M

    B. Lucini, M. Teper, and U. Wenger, JHEP 06, 012, arXiv:hep-lat/0404008

    arXiv

  48. [57]

    Karsch, Nucl

    F. Karsch, Nucl. Phys. B 205, 285 (1982)

    1982

  49. [58]

    T. R. Klassen, Nucl. Phys. B 533, 557 (1998), arXiv:hep- lat/9803010

    1998

  50. [59]

    Amado, N

    A. Amado, N. Cardoso, and P. Bicudo, (2013), arXiv:1309.3859 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [60]

    I. T. Drummond, A. Hart, R. R. Horgan, and L. C. Storoni, Phys. Rev. D 66, 094509 (2002), arXiv:hep- lat/0208010

    2002

  52. [61]

    Albanese et al

    C. Albanese et al. (APE), Phys. Lett. B 192, 163 (1987)

    1987

  53. [62]

    Morningstar and M

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

    2004 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Huntley and C

    A. Huntley and C. Michael, Nucl. Phys. B 270, 123 (1986)

    1986

  55. [64]

    Bicudo, N

    P. Bicudo, N. Cardoso, and M. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 98, 114507 (2018), arXiv:1808.08815 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [65]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, M. J. Peardon, D. G. Richards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 262001 (2009), arXiv:0909.0200 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  57. [66]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, M. J. Peardon, D. G. Richards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 82, 034508 (2010), arXiv:1004.4930 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Bicudo, A

    P. Bicudo, A. Peters, S. Velten, and M. Wagner, (2021), arXiv:2101.00723 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Alexandrou, A

    C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, K. Cichy, A. Dromard, E. Garcia-Ramos, K. Jansen, U. Wenger, and F. Zimmer- mann, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 424 (2020), arXiv:1708.00696 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [69]

    B. B. Brandt, JHEP 07, 008, arXiv:1705.03828 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  61. [70]

    Gonzalez-Arroyo and M

    A. Gonzalez-Arroyo and M. Okawa, Phys. Lett. B 718, 1524 (2013), arXiv:1206.0049 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  62. [71]

    B. B. Brandt, JHEP 02, 040, arXiv:1010.3625 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  63. [72]

    B. B. Brandt, PoS EPS-HEP2013, 540 (2013), arXiv:1308.4993 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [73]

    B. B. Brandt and M. Meineri, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, 1643001 (2016), arXiv:1603.06969 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  65. [74]

    B. B. Brandt, PoS Confinement2018, 039 (2018), arXiv:1811.11779 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Billo, M

    M. Billo, M. Caselle, F. Gliozzi, M. Meineri, and R. Pel- legrini, JHEP 05, 130, arXiv:1202.1984 [hep-th]

    1984 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Caselle, E

    M. Caselle, E. Cellini, and A. Nada, JHEP 02, 090, arXiv:2409.15937 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  68. [77]

    Caselle, N

    M. Caselle, N. Magnoli, A. Nada, M. Panero, D. Panfalone, and L. Verzichelli, JHEP 08, 198, arXiv:2407.10678 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  69. [78]

    Baffigo and M

    A. Baffigo and M. Caselle, Phys. Rev. D 109, 034520 (2024), arXiv:2306.06966 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [79]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bursa, L. Castagnini, S. Collins, L. Del Debbio, B. Lucini, and M. Panero, JHEP 06, 071, arXiv:1304.4437 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  71. [80]

    R. C. Brower, C.-I. Tan, and E. Thompson, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 20, 4508 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0503223

    2005 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Athenodorou, E

    A. Athenodorou, E. Bennett, G. Bergner, D. Elander, C. J. D. Lin, B. Lucini, and M. Piai, JHEP 06, 114, arXiv:1605.04258 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  73. [82]

    Athenodorou, B

    A. Athenodorou, B. Bringoltz, and M. Teper, JHEP 05, 019, arXiv:0812.0334 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.