Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Nucleon sigma terms with a variational analysis from Lattice QCD

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The dominant contamination of nucleon sigma-term determinations comes from transitions to a nucleon-sigma scattering state, and a variational basis containing nucleon-sigma interpolators removes it.

desk verdict A careful proof-of-concept that S-wave nucleon-sigma operators in the GEVP basis remove most excited-state contamination in scalar charges; the neglected Nσ→Nσ term is the main unresolved systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13138 v2 pith:WSG24KTL submitted 2024-12-17 hep-lat

Lorenzo Barca , Gunnar Bali , Sara Collins This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lat PACS 12.38.Gc14.20.Dh
keywords latticeQCDnucleonsigmatermsscalarcurrentexcited-statecontaminationgeneralisedeigenvalueproblemnucleon-sigmascatteringstatevariationalanalysisWilsonfermions
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 asks what contaminates lattice-QCD determinations of the nucleon $\sigma$ terms, the quark-mass contributions to the nucleon mass that set the Higgs-boson coupling to nucleons and matter for dark-matter searches. It claims that the dominant excited-state contamination in the three-point function with a scalar current comes not from pion-nucleon states but from the transition between the nucleon and an S-wave scattering state (zero relative orbital angular momentum) made of a nucleon and a scalar ($\sigma$) meson. Using a generalised eigenvalue (GEVP) analysis whose interpolator basis includes nucleon-$\sigma$ operators, the contamination is reduced enough that the scalar charges can be extracted from source-sink separations up to 1.1 fm, with plateaus setting in near 0.4 fm. On the single $N_f=3$ ensemble studied, at pion mass 429 MeV, the improved values agree with the standard method and convert to $\sigma_{\pi N} = (235 \pm 24)$ MeV and $\sigma_{sN} = (42 \pm 16)$ MeV.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalised eigenvalue problem (GEVP) for the matrix of two-point functions built from a basis of interpolating operators: the standard proton operator $O_p$ and either one SU(2) proton-$\sigma$ operator $O_{p\sigma}$ (basis B2) or the SU(3) singlet and octet versions $O_{p\sigma_0}$ and $O_{p\sigma_8}$ (basis B3). The lowest eigenvector defines an improved interpolator as a linear combination of basis operators, and the same combination builds improved two- and three-point functions whose ratios are then fitted with the summation method. The crucial omission is the transition between two nucleon-$\sigma$ states, which the paper argues is suppressed by the square of the small eigenvector component and is not expected to be enhanced relative to the nucleon-to-nucleon matrix element.

What would settle it

A direct calculation of $\langle N\sigma|S^q|N\sigma\rangle$ on this ensemble, or a GEVP basis that also includes $N\pi$ and $N\pi\pi$ operators, would settle it: if the plateau values shift by more than the quoted uncertainties, the omission is not harmless.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's finding is that the S-wave nucleon-$\sigma$ scattering state, rather than the P-wave pion-nucleon state that standard multi-state fits typically include, is the dominant source of excited-state contamination in the nucleon three-point function with a scalar current. The evidence is that the second generalised eigenvalue sits at the non-interacting sum of the nucleon and $\sigma$ masses, and that adding nucleon-$\sigma$ interpolators to the basis makes the improved ratios plateau at short times while the standard ratios still bend. From the plateaus the paper extracts lattice-scheme scalar charges $g_S^{\mathrm{lat},u+d} = 30.1 \pm 1.8$ and $g_S^{\mathrm{lat},s} = 11.7 \pm 0.7$ with the two-operator basis, consistent results with the SU(3) singlet/octet basis, and converts these to $\sigma_{\pi N} = (235 \pm 24)$ MeV and $\sigma_{sN} = (42 \pm 16)$ MeV at this unphysically large pion mass.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the second level the GEVP resolves is the non-interacting S-wave nucleon-$\sigma$ state, that the transition between two such states is no stronger than the nucleon's own scalar matrix element, and that states left out of the basis (notably $N\pi$) are not contaminating; if any of these fails, the extracted charges carry unmodelled contamination.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The scalar charges can be extracted reliably from source-sink separations up to about 1.1 fm, where the standard method still shows sizeable excited-state contamination.
  • Because the plateau sets in near 0.4 fm, the method avoids the exponential noise-over-signal growth that makes long source-sink separations expensive, with roughly 132 propagators per configuration for the whole GEVP analysis.
  • The approach may carry over to physical quark masses: although the sigma meson is unstable there, its width is comparable to its energy, so a scalar bilinear interpolator should still couple to the relevant scattering states.
  • The GEVP-improved values agree with the standard method and with other determinations at similar pion masses, so the contribution is an improved control of systematics rather than a shift in the central value.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the S-wave nucleon-sigma state is indeed the dominant contaminant, earlier variational studies that added only P-wave nucleon-pion operators to scalar matrix elements may have targeted the wrong state; nucleon-sigma operators are the natural next ingredient for other flavour-diagonal channels.
  • The one explicitly neglected term, the transition between two nucleon-sigma states, can be quantified by computing $\langle N\sigma|S^q|N\sigma\rangle$ on this ensemble, or by including it in the improved three-point function, so the assumption is directly testable.
  • If the method succeeds at the physical point, it could reduce the excited-state systematics in direct sigma-term determinations enough to sharpen the comparison between lattice and phenomenological values, with consequences for predicted dark-matter-nucleon scattering rates.
  • The same operator-selection logic, matching the basis to the flavour content of the current, could be applied to strangeness-content determinations of other baryons and to other flavour-diagonal currents.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a lattice QCD determination of the nucleon sigma terms on a single N_f=3 ensemble at M_pi=429 MeV, using a variational (GEVP) analysis with a basis of nucleon and nucleon-sigma interpolating operators. The authors find that the second GEVP level is close to the non-interacting S-wave N-sigma energy and that the GEVP-improved ratios for the scalar charges plateau at significantly smaller source-sink separations than the standard ratios. They extract the scalar charges from summed-ratio fits and compare with standard-method fits, obtaining consistent results. They conclude that the dominant excited-state contamination in the standard three-point function is due to the N to N-sigma transition and that this contamination is substantially removed by the variational approach.

Significance. The variational approach demonstrated here could be valuable for reducing excited-state contamination in nucleon matrix elements, and the consistency between the GEVP-improved and standard results on this ensemble is encouraging. The paper is clearly written and provides detailed supplementary material on the contractions and diagram topologies. However, as a proof-of-concept on a single ensemble at an unphysically large pion mass, the significance is limited; the physical-point applicability is speculative and rests on assumptions about the sigma meson width and the stability of the approach.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (14) and following paragraph] The neglect of the Nσ→Nσ diagonal contribution to the GEVP-improved three-point function is load-bearing for the central claim that the scalar charges can be reliably extracted from t=4a. The only justification given is the expectation that <Nσ|S^q|Nσ> is not enhanced relative to <N|S^q|N>, but no quantitative estimate or test is provided. Since the summed-ratio fits are assumed to be linear from t=4a, an enhanced excited-to-excited matrix element would introduce an unmodelled curvature and bias the extracted charges. Please either (i) include an excited-to-excited term in the fit ansatz for the GEVP-improved summed ratios and report the resulting constraint (even if consistent with zero), or (ii) provide a model-based estimate of <Nσ|S^q|Nσ> (e.g., via the Feynman-Hellmann relation applied to the sigma meson mass) to justify the suppression.
  2. [Abstract and Section IV] The headline claim that the dominant excited-state contamination is due to the N→Nσ transition is inferred rather than directly demonstrated. The basis B2/B3 contains no Nπ interpolators, and the transition matrix element <N|S^q|Nσ> is not extracted. The flattening of R_GEVP shows that the chosen basis removes a large excited-state contribution, but it does not by itself identify the state as Nσ or establish that the transition matrix element is intrinsically large. To support the claim, the authors could either include an Nπ operator in the basis on this ensemble or directly extract <N|S^q|Nσ> from the standard three-point functions using the GEVP eigenvectors and compare its magnitude with residual contamination. As written, the wording overstates the directness of the evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction and Supplemental Material] The value of the sigma mass is quoted as 554(49) MeV in the Introduction but 554(39) MeV in the Supplemental Material; please harmonize the quoted uncertainty.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 1] The identification of the second GEVP level with the non-interacting S-wave Nσ energy ignores the finite-volume interaction shift, which is not estimated. This does not affect the extracted charges but weakens the interpretation; a brief comment on the expected size of the shift would be helpful.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (12)] The choice of eigenvector evaluation time t'=6a and reference time t0=3a is not varied to demonstrate stability of the improved operator; a short discussion of the sensitivity to these choices would strengthen the analysis.
  4. [Table I] For the summed-ratio fits using Eq. (17), only a range of χ2/Ndf is quoted, not the fit ranges themselves; please specify the fit ranges used for each model so the results are reproducible.
  5. [Section V] The claim that the new method is 'cost effective' is not quantified; please compare the total propagator counts (or computational cost) of the GEVP analysis with the standard analysis at comparable precision.
  6. [Figure 2] The caption does not define the solid versus open symbols; please clarify which data points are used in the fits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GEVP-improved sigma terms are extracted from direct summed-ratio slope fits; the sigma mass measured in the paper is used only for spectral identification and standard-method priors, not as an input to the improved extraction.

full rationale

The paper's central extraction is self-contained. The GEVP-improved charges (Eqs. (20)-(21)) are obtained by linear fits (Eq. (18)) to the summed ratios R_sum^{GEVP}(t) over t/a = 4-11, an unforced slope extraction from correlation functions; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The sigma meson mass m_sigma = 554(39) MeV is measured in the Supplemental Material from C_{σ0σ0}, but it is used only to identify the second GEVP eigenvalue with the non-interacting Nσ level and as a prior for ΔE in the standard-method fits in Table I. Neither enters the GEVP-improved charge extraction, which uses no ΔE prior. The explicit neglect of Nσ→Nσ contributions in Sec. III (after Eq. (14)) is a modeling assumption about the small eigenvector component and the size of <Nσ|S^q|Nσ>; if wrong it would create an unmodelled systematic error, but it does not make the extraction circular because the desired charge is not assumed. Self-citations [17, 28, 52] provide scale-setting and mass parameters, a prior methodological demonstration, and smearing parameters; they are not load-bearing for the central claim, which is supported by the present data. The identification of the dominant contamination as the Nσ transition is an inference from the GEVP energy spectrum and the flattening of the improved ratios, not an input built into the improved operator. No derivation step reduces a prediction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is a measured extraction, not a derivation, so the ledger is modest. The main burden is the identification of the excited state as N sigma and the neglect of the N sigma to N sigma diagonal matrix element, both model assumptions. The sigma mass fitted in this work enters only as a prior or interpretation, not as an input to the GEVP-improved slope.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma meson mass m_sigma0 = 554(39) MeV from fit to C_sigma0_sigma0, t/a=6-12; quoted as 554(49) MeV in the introduction
    Fitted from the sigma two-point function on the same ensemble; used to identify the N sigma level and as a prior for the standard-method energy gap. The central GEVP result does not depend on it, but it supports the interpretation of the excited state.
  • energy gap prior width = 50 MeV (9% of m_sigma)
    Hand-chosen width for the Delta E prior in the standard fits; the paper reports results with and without the prior, so the impact is visible.
  • GEVP reference time t0 = 3a, chosen as best
    The GEVP reference time is chosen as t0=3a; the authors state this 'proved the best choice' for resolving the lowest two states and minimizing noise. This is an analysis choice that could affect eigenvectors.
  • eigenvector evaluation time t' = 6a
    The improved operator uses eigenvectors evaluated at t'=6a; a stability assumption, not varied systematically.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Euclidean spectral decomposition of two- and three-point functions (Eqs. 4-5) with a truncated spectrum after the first excited state in the fit ansatz.
    Standard lattice QCD methodology; used in Secs. II-IV for the summation method and ratio fits.
  • domain assumption The first excited state resolved by the GEVP is the S-wave N sigma scattering state with energy M_N + m_sigma (non-interacting approximation).
    Section III identifies alpha=2 with N sigma based on effective energies approaching the non-interacting N sigma level; used for priors and the physical interpretation of the removed contamination.
  • ad hoc to paper <N sigma|S^q|N sigma> is not enhanced relative to <N|S^q|N>, so N sigma to N sigma terms can be neglected in the improved three-point function.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. III as an expectation, not demonstrated; if false, the extracted charges have unmodelled contamination.
  • domain assumption The scalar meson masses and renormalization constants rm and mq are taken from previous RQCD work (refs. [17,33]).
    Used in Eqs. (8)-(9) to convert lattice charges to sigma terms; not re-derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nucleon sigma terms with a variational analysis from Lattice QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSG24KTL

@misc{pith2026241213138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nucleon sigma terms with a variational analysis from Lattice QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSG24KTL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13138}
}
abstract

We determine the nucleon-sigma terms from lattice QCD. We find that the dominant excited state contamination in the nucleon three-point function with a scalar current is due to the transition between the nucleon and a S-wave scattering state of a nucleon and a scalar (sigma) meson. In this proof-of-concept study, we analyse a single $N_f=3$ ensemble with the unphysically large pion mass $M_\pi=429$ MeV. Excited state contamination is substantially reduced compared to the standard method when employing nucleon-sigma type interpolating operators within a generalised eigenvector analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effective energies obtained from the GEVP with interpolator bases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results for the GEVP-improved ratios Ru+d (top) and Rs (bottom) for B2 (left) and B3 (right). The green dashed lines and bands show the central values and errors, respectively, of g lat,u+d S (top) and g lat,s S (bottom) extracted using the summation method, see Sec. IV. The standard ratios obtained using the interpolator Op are shown for comparison. The data points that are utilised in the fits (Sec. IV) are indica… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Considering the spectral decomposition given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. M. Alarcón, Brief history of the pion–nucleon sigma term, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 1609 (2021), arXiv:2205.01108 [hep-ph]. 5 For our setup, with 800 configurations employed in the analysis, this choice ensures that the covariance matrix is well determined

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Gasser, H

    J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, and M. E. Sainio, Sigma term update, Phys. Lett. B253, 252 (1991)

    work page 1991

  3. [3]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis, and U.- G. Meißner, On the role of isospin violation in the pion–nucleon σ-term, Phys. Lett. B843, 138001 (2023), arXiv:2305.07045 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    J. M. Alarcón, J. M. Camalich, and J. A. Oller, The chiral representation of theπN scattering amplitude and 7 the pion-nucleon sigma term, Phys. Rev. D85, 051503 (2012), arXiv:1110.3797 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    Chen, D.-L

    Y.-H. Chen, D.-L. Yao, and H. Q. Zheng, Analyses of pion-nucleon elastic scattering amplitudes up toO(p4) in extended-on-mass-shell subtraction scheme, Phys. Rev. D 87, 054019 (2013), arXiv:1212.1893 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis, and U.- G. Meißner, High-precision determination of the pion- nucleon σ term from Roy-Steiner equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 092301 (2015), arXiv:1506.04142 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Ruiz de Elvira, M

    J. Ruiz de Elvira, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, and U.- G. Meißner, Extracting the σ-term from low-energy pion-nucleon scattering, J. Phys. G 45, 024001 (2018), arXiv:1706.01465 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Y.-B. Yang, A. Alexandru, T. Draper, J. Liang, and K.- F. Liu (χQCD Collaboration),πN and strangeness sigma terms at the physical point with chiral fermions, Phys. Rev. D 94, 054503 (2016), arXiv:1511.09089 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    S.Bali, S

    G. S.Bali, S. Collins, D. Richtmann, A.Schäfer, W.Söld- ner, and A. Sternbeck (RQCD Collaboration), Direct de- terminations of the nucleon and pionσ terms at nearly physical quark masses, Phys. Rev. D93, 094504 (2016), arXiv:1603.00827 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Yamanaka, S

    N. Yamanaka, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, and H. Ohki (JLQCD Collaboration), Nucleon charges with dynam- ical overlap fermions, Phys. Rev. D98, 054516 (2018), arXiv:1805.10507 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Gupta, S

    R. Gupta, S. Park, M. Hoferichter, E. Mereghetti, B. Yoon, and T. Bhattacharya, Pion–nucleon sigma term from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 242002 (2021), arXiv:2105.12095 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Agadjanov, D

    A. Agadjanov, D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, H. B. Meyer, K. Ottnad, and H. Wittig, Nucleon sigma terms with Nf = 2 + 1 flavors of O(a)-improved Wilson fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 261902 (2023), arXiv:2303.08741 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, J. Finkenrath, C. Iona, G. Koutsou, Y. Li, and G. Spanoudes, Nucleon charges and σ-terms in lattice QCD, arXiv:2412.01535 [hep-lat] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Alexandrou, V

    C. Alexandrou, V. Drach, K. Jansen, C. Kallidonis, and G. Koutsou, Baryon spectrum with Nf = 2 + 1 + 1 twisted mass fermions, Phys. Rev. D90, 074501 (2014), arXiv:1406.4310 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Dürret al.(Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal Collabora- tion), Lattice computation of the nucleon scalar quark contents at the physical point, Phys

    S. Dürret al.(Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal Collabora- tion), Lattice computation of the nucleon scalar quark contents at the physical point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 172001 (2016), arXiv:1510.08013 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, L. Lellouch, K. K. Szabo, C. Torrero, and L. Varnhorst, Ab-initio calcula- tion of the proton and the neutron’s scalar couplings for new physics searches, arXiv:2007.03319 [hep-lat] (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, P. Georg, D. Jenkins, P. Korcyl, A. Schäfer, E. E. Scholz, J. Simeth, W. Söldner, and S. Weishäupl (RQCD Collaboration), Scale setting and the light baryon spectrum in Nf = 2 + 1 QCD with Wilson fermions, J. High Energy Phys.2023 (05), 035, arXiv:2211.0...

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    B. Hu, X. Jiang, K.-F. Liu, P. Sun, and Y.-B. Yang (CLQCD Collaboration), Trace anomaly contributions to baryon masses from Lattice QCD, arXiv:2411.18402 [hep-lat] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Aoki et al

    Y. Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), FLAG Review 2024, arXiv:2411.04268 [hep- lat] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    H. W. Hamber, E. Marinari, G. Parisi, and C. Rebbi, Considerations on numerical analysis of QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 225, 475 (1983)

    1983

  13. [21]

    G. P. Lepage, The analysis of algorithms for lattice field theory, in From actions to answers. Proceedings, Theor- etical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder, CO, USA, June 5–30, 1989,eds. T. A. DeGrand and D. Toussaint, World Scientific, Singapore...

    1990

  14. [22]

    B. C. Tiburzi, Time dependence of nucleon correlation functions in chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D80, 014002 (2009), arXiv:0901.0657 [hep-lat]

    2009 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bär, Nucleon-pion-state contribution in lattice calcu- lations of the nucleon chargesgA, gT and gS, Phys

    O. Bär, Nucleon-pion-state contribution in lattice calcu- lations of the nucleon chargesgA, gT and gS, Phys. Rev. D 94, 054505 (2016), arXiv:1606.09385 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bär,N π-state contamination in lattice calculations of the nucleon axial form factors, Phys

    O. Bär,N π-state contamination in lattice calculations of the nucleon axial form factors, Phys. Rev. D99, 054506 (2019), arXiv:1812.09191 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bär and H

    O. Bär and H. Colic, Nπ-state contamination in lattice calculations of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors, Phys. Rev. D103, 114514 (2021), arXiv:2104.00329 [hep- lat]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    G. S. Bali, L. Barca, S. Collins, M. Gruber, M. Löffler, A. Schäfer, W. Söldner, P. Wein, S. Weishäupl, and T. Wurm (RQCD Collaboration), Nucleon axial struc- ture from lattice QCD, J. High Energy Phys.2020 (05), 126, arXiv:1911.13150 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y.-C. Jang, R. Gupta, T. Bhattacharya, B. Yoon, and H.-W. Lin (PNDME Collaboration), Nucleon isovector axial form factors, Phys. Rev. D 109, 014503 (2024), arXiv:2305.11330 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Barca, G

    L. Barca, G. Bali, and S. Collins, Toward N to Nπ matrix elements from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D107, L051505 (2023), arXiv:2211.12278 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Alexandrou, G

    C. Alexandrou, G. Koutsou, Y. Li, M. Petschlies, and F. Pittler, Investigation of pion-nucleon contributions to nucleon matrix elements, Phys. Rev. D110, 094514 (2024), arXiv:2408.03893 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bruno et al

    M. Bruno et al. (CLS), Simulation of QCD with Nf = 2 + 1 flavors of non-perturbatively improved Wilson fermions, J. High Energy Phys.2015 (02), 043, arXiv:1411.3982 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, M. Padmanath, and S. Prelovsek, Pion-nucleon scattering in the Roper chan- nel from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D95, 014510 (2017), arXiv:1610.01422 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. L. Kiratidis, W. Kamleh, D. B. Leinweber, Z.-W. Liu, F. M. Stokes, and A. W. Thomas, Search for low-lying lattice QCD eigenstates in the Roper regime, Phys. Rev. D 95, 074507 (2017), arXiv:1608.03051 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Heitger, F

    J. Heitger, F. Joswig, P. L. J. Petrak, and A. Vladikas, Ratio of flavour non-singlet and singlet scalar density renormalisation parameters inNf = 3 QCD with Wilson quarks, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 606 (2021), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 104 (2022)], arXiv:2101.10969 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bulava, M

    J. Bulava, M. Donnellan, and R. Sommer, On the com- putation of hadron-to-hadron transition matrix elements in lattice QCD, J. High Energy Phys. 2012 (01), 140, arXiv:1108.3774 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Güsken, U

    S. Güsken, U. Löw, K. H. Mütter, R. Sommer, A. Patel, and K. Schilling, Nonsinglet axial vector couplings of the baryon octet in Lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 227, 266 (1989). 8

    1989

  28. [36]

    Güsken, A study of smearing techniques for hadron correlation functions, Nucl

    S. Güsken, A study of smearing techniques for hadron correlation functions, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.17, 361 (1990)

    1990

  29. [37]

    Falcioni, M

    M. Falcioni, M. L. Paciello, G. Parisi, and B. Taglienti, Again on SU(3) glueball mass, Nucl. Phys. B251, 624 (1985)

    1985

  30. [38]

    Maiani, G

    L. Maiani, G. Martinelli, M. L. Paciello, and B. Taglienti, Scalar densities and baryon mass differences in lattice QCD with Wilson fermions, Nucl. Phys. B 293, 420 (1987)

    1987

  31. [39]

    Sommer, Leptonic decays ofB and D mesons, Pro- ceedings, 12th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 94), Bielefeld, Germany, September 27– October 1, 1994, Nucl

    R. Sommer, Leptonic decays ofB and D mesons, Pro- ceedings, 12th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 94), Bielefeld, Germany, September 27– October 1, 1994, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.42, 186 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9411024 [hep-lat]

    1995 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Foster and C

    M. Foster and C. Michael (UKQCD Collaboration), Had- rons with a heavy color adjoint particle, Phys. Rev. D59, 094509 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9811010 [hep-lat]

    1999 arXiv

  33. [41]

    P. L. J. Petrak, G. Bali, S. Collins, J. Heitger, D. Jen- kins, and S. Weishäupl, Sigma terms of the baryon octet in Nf = 2 + 1 QCD with Wilson quarks, PoS LA T- TICE2022, 112 (2023), arXiv:2301.03871 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    R. A. Briceño, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and D. J. Wilson (for the Hadron Spectrum Collaboration), Iso- scalar ππ Scattering and the σ Meson Resonance from QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 022002 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Liuet al

    L. Liuet al. (ETM Collaboration), Isospin-0 ππ s-wave scattering length from twisted mass lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 96, 054516 (2017), arXiv:1612.02061 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Fu and X

    Z. Fu and X. Chen,I = 0 ππ s-wave scattering length from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 98, 014514 (2018), arXiv:1712.02219 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    D. Guo, A. Alexandru, R. Molina, M. Mai, and M. Döring, Extraction of isoscalar ππ phase-shifts from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 98, 014507 (2018), arXiv:1803.02897 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Blum et al

    T. Blum et al. (RBC and UKQCD Collaborations), Isospin 0 and 2 two-pion scattering at physical pion mass using all-to-all propagators with periodic boundary conditions in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 107, 094512 (2023), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 108, 039902 (2023)], arXiv:2301.09286...

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Rodas, J

    A. Rodas, J. J. Dudek, and R. G. Edwards (Hadron Spec- trum Collaboration), Quark mass dependence ofππ scat- tering in isospin 0, 1, and 2 from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 108, 034513 (2023), arXiv:2303.10701 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bruno, D

    M. Bruno, D. Hoying, T. Izubuchi, C. Lehner, A. S. Meyer, and M. Tomii, Isospin 0 and 2 two-pion scatter- ing at physical pion mass using distillation with periodic boundary conditions in lattice QCD, arXiv:2304.03313 [hep-lat] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Severt, M

    D. Severt, M. Mai, and U.-G. Meißner, Particle-dimer ap- proach for the Roper resonance in a finite volume, J. High Energy Phys.2023 (04), 100, arXiv:2212.02171 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    R. G. Edwards and B. Joó (SciDAC, LHP and UKQCD Collaborations), The Chroma software system for Lat- tice QCD, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.140, 832 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0409003 [hep-lat]

    2005 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Barca, G

    L. Barca, G. Bali, and S. Collins, Progress on nuc- leon transition matrix elements with a lattice QCD vari- ational analysis, Proc. Sci.EuroPLEx2023, 002 (2024), arXiv:2405.20875 [hep-lat]. Supplemental Material CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWO- AND THREE-POINT FUNCTIONS We aim to imp...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.