Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Computing $1/m_Q$ and $1/m_Q^2$ corrections to the static potential with lattice gauge theory using gradient flow

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tree-level improvement removes the dominant lattice and flow-time errors from the Wilson loops behind the 1/m_Q^2 corrections to the static potential.

desk verdict A solid, clearly preliminary proceedings paper showing tree-level improvement works for the static potential and plausibly extends to field-strength correlators; the main open question is whether the improvement coefficient transfers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11640 v1 pith:NSNCLG34 submitted 2024-11-18 hep-lat hep-ph

Michael Eichberg , Marc Wagner This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-ph PACS 11.15.Ha12.38.Gc
keywords staticpotentialheavyquarkmasscorrectionsgradientflowtreelevelimprovementgeneralizedWilsonloopslatticegaugetheoryNRQCDGromesrelation
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

These proceedings describe a way to compute the $O(1/m_Q)$ and $O(1/m_Q^2)$ corrections to the static quark-antiquark potential that appear in heavy-quark effective theories. The corrections are encoded in generalized Wilson loops with two field-strength insertions, which are difficult because the insertions require renormalization and the correlators have large fluctuations. The authors use gradient flow to make the field-strength operators finite without extra renormalization, and then apply tree-level improvement: for each quantity they subtract the difference between its lattice and continuum tree-level expressions at finite flow time. After this subtraction the static potential from three lattice spacings and four flow times agrees down to $r \approx 0.05$ fm, and a chromoelectric-field correlator shows almost no flow-time dependence at small times. The paper concludes that tree-level improvement is a successful strategy for combined continuum and zero-flow-time extrapolations of the potential and of its mass corrections.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized Wilson loop with two field-strength insertions, Eq. (3), whose ground-state limit yields the correlator of clover-defined chromoelectric or chromomagnetic fields in the flux tube of a static quark-antiquark pair. The argument is carried by tree-level improvement. For the static potential the ansatz (7) adds the correction term $\tilde c^{(0)}(4\pi G(r,t_f)-1/r)$, with $G(r,t_f)$ the lattice tree-level gluon propagator at flow time $t_f$; subtracting this term and the fitted $r$-independent shift $V_c(t_f,a)$ removes most of the discretization and flow dependence. For two-field-strength correlators the same idea enters through Eq. (12), where $\tilde c (4\pi/C_F g^2)(C^{\mathrm{lattice}}_{\mathrm{tree\ level}} - C^{\mathrm{continuum}}_{\mathrm{tree\ level}})$ is subtracted from the numerical correlator, with the coefficient $\tilde c$ taken from the static-potential fit. Gradient flow is the enabling regulator: flowed correlators need no extra renormalization, and the flow time $t_f$ regulates the logarithmic divergence of chromomagnetic insertions.

What would settle it

Compute the tree-level-improved correlator (12) on a fourth lattice ensemble with roughly half the lattice spacing of the coarsest ensemble used here at the same physical $r$ and $t_f$; if the small-$t$ data still shift by more than the statistical errors when $a$ and $t_f$ are reduced, the tree-level subtraction is not capturing the dominant artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dominant finite-lattice-spacing and finite-flow-time artifacts in generalized Wilson loops with two field-strength insertions are tree-level effects, and that subtracting the difference between the lattice and continuum tree-level results removes them. For the static potential the paper fits the ansatz (7), $V^{(0)}(r,t_f) = -c^{(0)}/r + \sigma r + V_c(t_f,a) + \tilde c^{(0)}(4\pi G(r,t_f) - 1/r)$, where $G(r,t_f)$ is the flowed lattice tree-level propagator; removing the shift $V_c$ and the correction term collapses data from three ensembles and four flow times onto one curve down to $r \approx 0.05$ fm. The same strategy is applied to the two-chromoelectric-field correlator $\langle \Sigma^+_{g,r}|E_z(t,0)E_z(0,0)|\Sigma^+_{g,r}\rangle_c$ via Eq. (12), producing improved correlators whose small-$t$ behavior is essentially independent of flow time. The paper also reports that the Gromes and first BBMP relations are satisfied within statistical errors at finite flow time, in contrast to an earlier multilevel computation that used an approximate multiplicative renormalization; this supports the interpretation that the earlier violations came mostly from the renormalization prescription rather than from lattice artifacts.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the dominant finite-lattice-spacing and finite-flow-time artifacts are exactly the tree-level lattice-versus-continuum difference, with the remaining deviation absorbed by one r-independent shift and a single fitted coefficient that is the same for the static potential and for the two-field-strength correlators.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The static potential can be extrapolated to $a \to 0$ and $t_f \to 0$ while including data at $r \approx 0.05$ fm, where unimproved data are dominated by flow effects.
  • The tree-level improved $\langle E_z E_z \rangle_c$ correlators agree across flow times at small $t$, so the integrals defining the potential corrections can be evaluated reliably at short separations.
  • The Gromes and first BBMP relations, which need no matching coefficients, are satisfied within statistical errors at finite flow time, indicating that earlier violations came mostly from the approximate renormalization prescription.
  • Spin-independent $1/m_Q^2$ corrections can be obtained directly from a combined continuum and zero-flow-time extrapolation, while spin-dependent corrections still require NLO matching coefficients to convert from the gradient-flow scheme to the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the fitted coefficient $\tilde c^{(0)}$ is genuinely transferable from the static potential to every two-field-strength correlator, the same subtraction can be applied to the chromomagnetic correlators that enter the spin-dependent potentials, extending the method beyond the $\langle E_z E_z \rangle_c$ example shown.
  • The agreement of improved data at $r \approx 0.05$ fm suggests the residual nonperturbative lattice artifacts are subleading at surprisingly short distances; a test would be to check whether $\tilde c^{(0)}$ stays constant when computed on a finer lattice.
  • Because gradient-flow regularization avoids the leftover $O(g^4)$ and $O(g^6)$ terms of the earlier multiplicative renormalization, the Gromes and BBMP relations could be promoted from consistency checks to constraints used in the fits that determine the spin-dependent potentials.
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 reports preliminary lattice QCD results for the spin-dependent and spin-independent O(1/m_Q^2) corrections to the static potential, obtained from generalized Wilson loops with two field-strength insertions renormalized via gradient flow. The main methodological content is a tree-level improvement prescription: for the static potential, the lattice data are fitted with the Cornell ansatz plus a correction term proportional to the difference between lattice and continuum tree-level expressions, Eq. (7); for field-strength correlators, an analogous subtraction is proposed in Eq. (12), with the coefficient \tilde c either fitted globally or identified with the static-potential parameter \tilde c^{(0)}. The static-potential improvement is demonstrated on three ensembles and four flow times. For the 1/m_Q^2 potentials, the paper shows fits for four selected contributions on one ensemble (and, for one of them, all ensembles and flow times) and checks the Gromes and BBMP relations at one flow time. The authors explicitly state that the results are preliminary and that continuum and zero-flow-time extrapolations of the potential corrections are still ongoing.

Significance. If the tree-level improvement program works as claimed, it would provide a practical route to controlled small-r and small-t data for the 1/m_Q and 1/m_Q^2 static-potential corrections, addressing a long-standing difficulty with renormalization and signal-to-noise in field-strength correlators. The static-potential demonstration in Sec. 4.2, where flow-time dependence is visibly reduced after the subtraction, is encouraging and is supported by data on three ensembles. The use of gradient flow also avoids the approximate Huntley-Michael renormalization that was a concern in earlier work. However, the central new step for the correlators, Eq. (12), rests on an assumption about the transferability of the coefficient \tilde c from the static potential to the field-strength correlators, and the manuscript does not yet provide the quantitative evidence needed to validate that assumption. As it stands, this is a promising proceedings contribution rather than a completed validation of the method.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.4, Eq. (12)] The identification of the correlator-improvement coefficient \tilde c with the static-potential fit parameter \tilde c^{(0)} from Eq. (7) is not demonstrated. The text states that using \tilde c = \tilde c^{(0)} leads to improved correlators of 'similar quality' to a global fit of \tilde c, but it reports neither the fitted value of \tilde c, its uncertainty, nor a quantitative comparison with \tilde c^{(0)}. Since Eq. (12) is an exact relation only at tree level, and the flowed field-strength insertions carry their own flow-time and renormalization dependence, the equality \tilde c = \tilde c^{(0)} is a load-bearing assumption for the claim that the improved small-t correlator data are trustworthy. Please report the global correlator fit for \tilde c and compare it with \tilde c^{(0)} explicitly, or recast the improved-correlator results as conditional on this transferability assumption.
  2. [Sec. 4.4, first paragraph] The statement that NRQCD matching coefficients 'differ from 1 at O(α2)' appears inconsistent with the cited NLO matching calculation of Ref. [19], which computes one-loop, i.e. O(α_s), corrections to the relevant matching coefficients. If the sentence is intended to justify ignoring matching coefficients in a tree-level improvement, it should be phrased as a tree-level statement; as written, it is a statement about the matching coefficients themselves and is inaccurate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 3] The paper claims that the long-range parameter g_Λ' is 'determined quite accurately' and that the long-range term is 'crucial' for V_LS^(1,1), but it does not report the fitted parameter values, uncertainties, or χ²/DOF for any of the ansaetze in Fig. 3. Please provide these numbers in a table or in the text so that the claims can be checked.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 4 and surrounding text] The conclusion that violations of the Gromes relation in Ref. [14] 'were mostly caused by approximations in the Huntley-Michael renormalization prescription' goes beyond what can be concluded from a single ensemble and a single flow time without continuum extrapolation. The authors correctly note the lack of extrapolation, but the interpretive statement should be softened or accompanied by a controlled comparison.
  3. [Sec. 4.4, Fig. 5] The tree-level improved correlator data are shown for only one spatial separation, r ≈ 0.24 fm, and the claim about reliable data at 'significantly smaller r and t' is explicitly deferred to future work. It would be helpful to state clearly in Sec. 4.4 that the small-r part of the claim is not yet demonstrated in this paper.
  4. [Sec. 4.2 and Fig. 2] The two-step fitting procedure involving first a fit with fixed c~(0) = 0 (Fig. 2, left) and then the full ansatz with c~(0) free (Fig. 2, right) is described only briefly. A more explicit description of how c~(0) is determined and whether the small-r points are included in that determination would help the reader assess the significance of the collapse shown in the right panel.
  5. [Throughout] There are minor typographical errors, e.g. 'apprroximately' in Sec. 4.3, and the caption of Fig. 2 refers to a vertical grey line without defining its meaning in the caption; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the tree-level improvement is fit-based, but no predicted quantity is defined by its own fit input, and the c~ transfer to correlators is an untested assumption rather than a tautology.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Eq. (7) is a fit ansatz for the static potential in which c~(0) is a nuisance parameter fitted together with c(0), sigma, and V_c. The resulting collapse of the improved static-potential data is therefore partly a consequence of the fit, but the paper does not present that collapse as an independent prediction, and the central claim is checked against external relations (Gromes and BBMP relations, and the tree-level result c(0)/4r^3 at intermediate r). Eq. (12) defines the tree-level improved field-strength correlator by subtracting the lattice-minus-continuum tree-level difference with a coefficient c~; using c~=c~(0) from the static-potential fit is a transferability assumption. It is not circular by construction because the correlator data are not used to fix c~(0), and the potential corrections extracted from these correlators are separate targets. The only self-citation, Ref. [15] for the fitting strategy of the integrals in Eq. (2), is not load-bearing for the new tree-level improvement claim and does not close a definitional loop. No equation defines its target in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The unquantified transferability of c~ in Sec. 4.4 is a potential systematic-error concern, but it is not a circularity. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation rests on the pNRQCD potential expansion and on the renormalization properties of gradient flow, both taken from the cited literature. The tree-level improvement is the paper's own modeling assumption, and its coefficient is fitted rather than derived. No fundamentally new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • c^(0) = not quoted
    Coulomb coefficient in Eq. (7), fitted globally to V^(0) data across ensembles and flow times; used later for tree-level comparison and in the coefficient c~ for correlator improvement.
  • sigma = not quoted
    String tension in Eq. (7), fitted to V^(0) data.
  • V_c(t_f,a) = one value per ensemble and flow time
    r-independent shift in Eq. (7), fitted to absorb flow-time-dependent self-energy.
  • c~(0) = not quoted
    Coefficient of the tree-level correction term in Eq. (7), fitted; reused as c~ in Eq. (12) for field-strength correlators.
  • g_Lambda' = not quoted
    Long-range parameter in the fit ansatz for V_LS^(1,1); the authors claim an accurate determination but do not state the value.
  • additional f(r) fit coefficients for r V_LS^(2,0), r V_LS^(1,1), V_p2^(1,1), V_S12^(1,1) = unknown
    The ansaetze are provided only in Figure 3; coefficient values are not listed in the text.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The heavy-quark potential admits the 1/m_Q expansion of Eq. (1), and V^(1), V^(2)_SD and V^(2)_SI can be obtained from Wilson-loop correlators via Eqs. (2)-(3).
    Taken from pNRQCD Refs. [3-5]; the paper does not re-derive this expansion.
  • domain assumption Gradient-flowed gauge fields produce correlators that need no additional renormalization for t_f > 0 and have a well-defined small-flow-time continuum limit.
    Invoked from Refs. [16,17] in Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption The ground state |Sigma+_g,r> dominates the large-Delta_t limit in Eq. (3), so the generalized Wilson-loop ratio isolates the desired correlator.
    Standard static-quark effective theory assumption, implicit in Sec. 2.
  • ad hoc to paper Tree-level lattice perturbation theory expressions, Eq. (8) and Ref. [32], capture the dominant finite-a and finite-t_f artifacts, so the correction terms in Eqs. (7) and (12) remove most systematic errors.
    This is the paper's own modeling assumption; no non-perturbative check that residual artifacts are small is provided.
  • domain assumption Physical units are set by r_0 = 0.5 fm.
    Standard lattice convention used to convert lattice spacings to fm in Table 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Computing $1/m_Q$ and $1/m_Q^2$ corrections to the static potential with lattice gauge theory using gradient flow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSNCLG34

@misc{pith2026241111640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Computing $1/m_Q$ and $1/m_Q^2$ corrections to the static potential with lattice gauge theory using gradient flow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSNCLG34}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11640}
}
abstract

We present selected preliminary lattice gauge theory results for $O(1/m_Q)$ and $O(1/m_Q^2)$ corrections to the static potential. These results are based on Wilson loops with two field strength insertions, which we renormalize using gradient flow. We explore tree level improvement to reduce systematic errors in the Wilson loops due to the finite lattice spacing and flow time, in particular at small temporal and spatial separations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11640 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Generalized Wilson loop with two field strength insertions 𝑊𝑟× (𝑡+2Δ𝑡) (𝐹2 (𝑡, 𝑟2), 𝐹1 (0, 0)). The flow radius 𝑟𝑓 = √︁ 8𝑡 𝑓 is indicated by a red circle. 3. Gradient flow, renormalization and tree level improvement When computing potential corrections, one has to face the following problems: 1. Generalized Wilson loops with field strength insertions exhibit poor signal-to-noise ratios. 2. Field strength insertions … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Static potential data points with mass shift 𝑉𝑐 (𝑎, 𝑡 𝑓 ) subtracted, as obtained by a fit with the ansatz (7) with fixed 𝑐˜ (0) = 0 (the vertical grey line indicates the lower bound of the fitting range). Flow effects are very prominent for 𝑟 < ∼ 2𝑟𝑓 ,max ≈ 0.24 fm. Right: Tree level corrected potential data points, i.e. both 𝑉𝑐 (𝑎, 𝑡 𝑓 ) and 𝑐˜ (0) (4𝜋𝐺(𝒓, 𝑡 𝑓 ) − 1/𝑟) have been subtracted. Flow effects are … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top left, top right and bottom left: 𝑟𝑉(2,0) 𝐿𝑆 , 𝑟𝑉(1,1) 𝐿𝑆 and 𝑉 (1,1) 𝑝 2 from ensemble B at 𝑟𝑓 = √︁ 8𝑡 𝑓 ≈ 0.119 fm. Yellow lines and error bands represent fits of the ansätze 𝑓 (𝑟) provided in the plots. Bottom right: 𝑉 (1,1) 𝑆12 from all ensembles and flow times. The grey curve represents the tree level result. of field strength insertions was successful. The Gromes relation and the first BBMP relation are 𝑉 (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Numerical check of the Gromes relation (9) (left plots) and the first BBMP relation (10) (right plots) for ensemble B and flow radius 𝑟𝑓 = √︁ 8𝑡 𝑓 ≈ 0.119 fm. As an example we separate the heavy quarks along the 𝑧 axis und consider the field strength correlator ⟨Σ + 𝑔 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results for the correlator ⟨Σ + 𝑔 , 𝑟|𝐸𝑧 (𝑡, 0)𝐸𝑧 (0, 0)|Σ + 𝑔 , 𝑟⟩𝑐 from all three ensembles and for several flow times for 𝑟 ≈ 0.24 fm. Top left: Unimproved data. Top right: Tree level improved data according to Eq. (12). Bottom: Unimproved data (transparent) and tre…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Hybrid spin-dependent and hybrid-quarkonium mixing potentials at order $(1 /m_Q)^1$ from SU(3) lattice gauge theory

    hep-lat 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First SU(3) lattice computation of the four order-(1/m_Q)^1 hybrid spin-dependent and hybrid-quarkonium mixing potentials at a single lattice spacing.

  2. Spectra of light and heavy mesons with $J \le 5$ in a relativistic Bethe-Salpeter approach

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    First J=4,5 meson Bethe-Salpeter tensor bases plus exploratory rainbow-ladder spectra and Regge trajectories from light through bottom quarkonia.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [19]

    Brambilla and X

    N. Brambilla and X. P. Wang, JHEP06, 210 (2024) [arXiv:2312.05032 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Eichten and F

    E. Eichten and F. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. D23, 2724 (1981)

    work page 1981

  3. [2]

    A.Barchielli,E.MontaldiandG.M.Prosperi,Nucl.Phys.B 296,625(1988)[erratum: Nucl. Phys. B303, 752 (1988)]

    work page 1988

  4. [3]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Nucl. Phys. B566, 275 (2000) [arXiv:hep- ph/9907240 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2000

  5. [4]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D63, 014023 (2001) [arXiv:hep- ph/0002250 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2001

  6. [5]

    Pineda and A

    A. Pineda and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D63, 054007 (2001) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D64, 039902 (2001)] [arXiv:hep-ph/0009145 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2001

  7. [6]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 1423 (2005) [arXiv:hep- ph/0410047 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2005

  8. [7]

    Berwein, N

    M. Berwein, N. Brambilla, A. Mohapatra and A. Vairo, [arXiv:2408.04719 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Anzai, D

    C. Anzai, D. Moreno and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. D98, 114034 (2018) [arXiv:1810.11031 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Peset, A

    C. Peset, A. Pineda and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D98, 094003 (2018) [arXiv:1809.09124 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    de Forcrand and J

    P. de Forcrand and J. D. Stack, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 1254 (1985)

    1985

  4. [11]

    Campostrini, K

    M. Campostrini, K. Moriarty and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 44 (1986)

    1986

  5. [12]

    G. S. Bali, K. Schilling and A. Wachter, Phys. Rev. D56, 2566-2589 (1997) [arXiv:hep- lat/9703019 [hep-lat]]

    1997

  6. [13]

    G. S. Bali and P. Boyle, Phys. Rev. D59, 114504 (1999) [arXiv:hep-lat/9809180 [hep-lat]]

    1999 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Koma and M

    Y. Koma and M. Koma, Nucl. Phys. B769, 79-107 (2007) [arXiv:hep-lat/0609078 [hep-lat]]

    2007 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Eichberg and M

    M. Eichberg and M. Wagner, PoSLATTICE2023, 068 (2024) [arXiv:2311.06560 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Lüscher, JHEP08, 071 (2010) [erratum: JHEP03, 092 (2014)] [arXiv:1006.4518 [hep- lat]]

    M. Lüscher, JHEP08, 071 (2010) [erratum: JHEP03, 092 (2014)] [arXiv:1006.4518 [hep- lat]]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Luscher and P

    M. Luscher and P. Weisz, JHEP02, 051 (2011) [arXiv:1101.0963 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Brambilla, V

    N. Brambilla, V. Leino, J. Mayer-Steudte and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D109, 114517 (2024) [arXiv:2312.17231 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. M. Eller and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. D97, 114507 (2018) [arXiv:1802.04562 [hep-lat]]. 9 Computing 1/𝑚𝑄 and 1/𝑚2 𝑄 corrections to the static potential Michael Eichberg

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Rev.D105, 054503(2022)[arXiv:2111.00741[hep-lat]]

    C.Schlosserand M.Wagner, Phys. Rev.D105, 054503(2022)[arXiv:2111.00741[hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sciarra, C

    A. Sciarra, C. Pinke, M. Bach, F. Cuteri, L. Zeidlewicz, C. Schäfer, T. Breitenfelder, C. Cza- ban, S. Lottini, P.F. Depta, CL2QCD (v1.1), Zenodo (2021),https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.5121917

    2021

  15. [23]

    Joswig, S

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

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Wolff [ALPHA], Comput

    U. Wolff [ALPHA], Comput. Phys. Commun.156, 143-153 (2004) [erratum: Comput. Phys. Commun.176, 383 (2007)] [arXiv:hep-lat/0306017 [hep-lat]]

    2004 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ramos, Comput

    A. Ramos, Comput. Phys. Commun.238, 19-35 (2019) [arXiv:1809.01289 [hep-lat]]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Barchielli, N

    A. Barchielli, N. Brambilla and G. M. Prosperi, Nuovo Cim. A103, 59 (1990)

    1990

  19. [27]

    Brambilla, M

    N. Brambilla, M. Groher, H. E. Martinez and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D90, 114032 (2014) [arXiv:1407.7761 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Oncala and J

    R. Oncala and J. Soto, Phys. Rev. D96, 014004 (2017) [arXiv:1702.03900 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Brambilla, D

    N. Brambilla, D. Gromes and A. Vairo, Phys. Lett. B576, 314-327 (2003) [arXiv:hep- ph/0306107 [hep-ph]]

    2003

  22. [30]

    Gromes, Z

    D. Gromes, Z. Phys. C26, 401 (1984)

    1984

  23. [31]

    Huntley and C

    A. Huntley and C. Michael, Nucl. Phys. B286, 211-230 (1987)

    1987

  24. [32]

    Fritzsch and A

    P. Fritzsch and A. Ramos, JHEP10, 008 (2013) [arXiv:1301.4388 [hep-lat]]. 10

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.