Lattice QCD study of color correlations between static quarks with gluonic excitations

Toru T. Takahashi; Yoshiko Kanada-En'yo

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Lattice QCD study of color correlations between static quarks with gluonic excitations

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 Hybrid quark–antiquark pairs begin as color octets and lose color correlation exponentially as they separate.

desk verdict A useful new lattice measurement of color screening in hybrid q-qbar channels, with a credible qualitative picture but a screening-mass hierarchy that rests on a fitted offset in the highest channel. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13833 v2 pith:66Q4APXI submitted 2024-11-21 hep-lat

Toru T. Takahashi , Yoshiko Kanada-En'yo This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-lat MSC 81V0581T25 PACS 12.38.Gc11.15.Ha

keywords latticeQCDstaticquark-antiquarkpaircolordensitymatrixgluonicexcitationhybridhadronscreeningfluxtubequenchedapproximation

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 asks how the color of a static quark–antiquark pair changes when the gluon field between them is excited, and it computes the reduced density matrix in color space from quenched lattice QCD in six channels: the ground-state $\Sigma_g^+$ and five hybrid channels ($\Sigma_g^+{}'$, $\Pi_u$, $\Pi_u'$, $\Delta_g$, $\Delta_g'$). The central finding is that in every hybrid channel the pair is a pure color octet at short separation, and that as the separation grows the color correlation is exponentially screened toward the completely random mixture in which singlet and octet components appear in the ratio $1:8$. The paper extracts a screening mass $B(\Gamma)$ for each channel and finds the pattern $B(\Sigma_g^+)\sim B(\Pi_u) < B(\Pi_u')\sim B(\Delta_g) < B(\Delta_g') < B(\Sigma_g^+{}')$. A sympathetic reader should care because this gives a quantitative, gauge-invariant picture of how color leaks from quarks into the flux tube, and it supports the constituent-gluon picture of hybrid hadrons.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reduced two-body color density matrix $\rho_{ij,kl}(R)$ for a static $q\bar q$ pair, obtained by integrating out gluon degrees of freedom, together with the one-parameter ansatz $\rho^{\rm ansatz}(R)=F(R)\hat\rho_{\rm initial}+(1-F(R))\hat\rho_{\rm rand}$, where $\hat\rho_{\rm rand}=\frac{1}{N_c^2}\hat I$ is the maximally mixed color state. A single fraction $F(R;\Gamma)$ carries all the separation dependence, and the screening mass $B(\Gamma)$ is extracted from the exponential slope of $F$. Numerically, the machinery is quenched lattice QCD in Coulomb gauge at $\beta=5.8$ on a $32^3\times 32$ lattice, with operators $O_\Gamma^{(n)}(R,T)$ carrying the channel quantum numbers and a generalized eigenvalue problem used to isolate excited-state signals.

What would settle it

On the same $32^3$ ensemble at $\beta=5.8$, compute the off-diagonal color matrix element $\rho_{s,a_i}$ for the $\Pi_u$ channel from the un-normalized $L^{(n)}_{ij,kl}$ correlators; if any such element is nonzero beyond noise, the one-parameter diagonal ansatz fails for the excited channels and the quoted $B(\Gamma)$ values are not the screening masses of the paper's model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper extends the color-density-matrix ansatz of its earlier work to excited $q\bar q$ channels. In the ansatz, $\rho(R)$ is a convex combination of an initial color configuration and the random configuration $\frac{1}{N_c^2}\hat I$; for the ground state the initial configuration is color singlet, while for each hybrid channel it is color octet. The lattice data show that at $R\to0$ the excited channels are indeed pure octet, consistent with a constituent gluon bound to an octet $q\bar q$ pair. As $R$ grows, all channels lose correlation: $F(R;\Gamma)$, the fraction of the initial state, decays as $A(\Gamma)\exp(-B(\Gamma)R)$, with fitted values in lattice units such as $B(\Sigma_g^+)=0.200(5)$ and $B(\Pi_u)=0.211(2)$, and with the ordering $B(\Sigma_g^+)\sim B(\Pi_u) < B(\Pi_u')\sim B(\Delta_g) < B(\Delta_g') < B(\Sigma_g^+{}')$. The $\Sigma_g^+{}'$ channel requires an additional constant offset $\delta=0.2043$ before the exponential falloff appears. In addition, a thermal density matrix built from the six zero-temperature channels reproduces the finite-temperature lattice data for $R<0.8$ fm.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the quark and antiquark colors are described at every separation by a single number, the fraction of color singlet or color octet, so that all mixing between different color states and all differences among the eight octet possibilities are assumed absent; the paper tests this for the ground state but not directly for the excited channels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Hybrid $q\bar q$ systems are color octets at short range, so their constituent-gluon interpretation is supported by direct color-space measurement.
Color screening by the flux tube is not special to the singlet ground state: every excited channel also flows to the random $1:8$ singlet-to-octet mixture.
The close screening masses of $\Sigma_g^+$ and $\Pi_u$ suggest the $\Pi_u$ mode is a simple fundamental gluonic excitation that does not accelerate color leak, while higher excitations randomize quark color faster.
The zero-temperature six-channel density matrix predicts finite-temperature color correlation up to $R\approx0.8$ fm, so low-lying $T=0$ physics accounts for the sub-$T_c$ behavior.
The same reduced-density-matrix construction transfers to multiquark systems, which the authors identify as the next target.

Reading between the lines

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

If the ansatz survives a direct test, the screening mass $B(\Gamma)$ could be connected quantitatively to gluelump masses, giving a spectroscopic interpretation of why higher channels screen faster; the paper only raises this as a possibility.
A direct lattice computation of off-diagonal color matrix elements would determine where the one-parameter ansatz breaks; the current paper validates the diagonal form only for the ground-state channel.
The constant offset $\delta$ in the $\Sigma_g^+{}'$ channel could be either a finite-volume artifact or a sign of a second, nearly degenerate state; a volume scan would distinguish these.
Continuum and dynamical-fermion extrapolations would show whether the hierarchy of screening masses persists beyond the quenched, single-lattice-spacing setting studied here.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The new thing here is the extension of your reduced-density-matrix method to five excited gluonic channels, and that part is genuinely worth having. The data clearly show the excited q-qbar pairs sitting in a color-octet configuration at short distance and relaxing toward the random 1:8 singlet-to-octet mixture at large R. That qualitative picture is solid and matches the constituent-gluon intuition. The comparison with your earlier finite-T results is a nice consistency check, and the paper is honest about the single lattice spacing and finite volume.

The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test flags. The screening-mass hierarchy in Eq. (29) puts B(Σ_g^+') at the top, but that value comes from F(R) corrected by an additive offset δ=0.2043 that has no quoted uncertainty and no physical origin in the ansatz. You can see in Fig. 8 that the raw Σ_g^+' data do not follow the exponential form, so you modify the quantity before fitting. That makes the largest screening mass the least reliable number in the table, and if δ is even moderately uncertain the separation from B(Δ_g') probably disappears. The fix is straightforward: quote a correlated fit of F(R) = A exp(-BR) − δ with all parameters and errors, or show that the ordering survives different treatments of the offset.

The ansatz itself is a separate, lesser concern. You validated it for the ground state in Ref. [6], but for the excited channels you do not directly test whether off-diagonal color matrix elements vanish. I think the diagonal form is plausible and probably protected by the color-symmetry arguments, but because the screening masses are extracted from this single function, a direct check on the excited-state density matrix would strengthen the quantitative claims.

Bottom line: the paper deserves a serious referee. The qualitative conclusions are supported by the plots, and the new quantitative information is useful for hybrid meson studies. But the specific hierarchy, especially the top end, should be treated as provisional until the offset is handled more carefully. I would send this to review and ask for a more systematic treatment of the fitting systematics before publication.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the reduced color density matrix ρ(R) of a static quark-antiquark pair in quenched lattice QCD on a 32^3×32 lattice at β=5.8, for the ground-state channel Σ_g^+ and five channels with gluonic excitations (Σ_g^+', Π_u, Π_u', Δ_g, Δ_g'). From the singlet and octet components of ρ, the authors define F(R;Γ), the fraction of the initial color configuration remaining at separation R, and fit F(R;Γ)=A(Γ)exp(−B(Γ)R) to extract channel-dependent screening masses B(Γ). They report that all six channels approach the random 1:8 singlet-to-octet mixture at large R, that all excited channels start from an octet configuration at small R, and that the screening masses satisfy B(Σ_g^+)≈B(Π_u)<B(Π_u')≈B(Δ_g)<B(Δ_g')<B(Σ_g^+'). A comparison with finite-temperature results from a previous work is also presented.

Significance. The qualitative finding that color correlation leaks into the gluon field and flows to the random color configuration in every channel, including excited channels, is clearly supported by the lattice data and is a useful, physically appealing result. The small-R octet dominance in all excited channels is consistent with the constituent-gluon picture and with earlier hybrid-potential calculations. The construction of a reduced density matrix for excited static q-qbar systems is a natural and valuable extension of the authors' earlier work. However, the quantitative screening-mass hierarchy, which is the main new quantitative claim, rests on one channel whose extraction requires an ad hoc offset, and the quoted B values are not accompanied by fit-range or systematic uncertainties. With those caveats addressed, the paper would be a solid contribution; in its present form the quantitative claim is not yet fully supported.

major comments (2)

[Sec. III.C, Eq. (28), Table I] The top of the claimed hierarchy in Eq. (29), namely B(Σ_g^+')=0.489(21), is obtained by fitting F(R;Σ_g^+')+δ with δ=0.2043. This offset is introduced ad hoc: no uncertainty is quoted for δ, no physical origin is given, and no stability test of B(Σ_g^+') with respect to δ is reported. Since Σ_g^+' shares quantum numbers with the much lighter Σ_g^+ ground state, a constant contamination from imperfect isolation of the excited state is a concrete and plausible mechanism for such an offset. A moderate uncertainty in δ could change B(Σ_g^+') enough to erase the separation from B(Δ_g')=0.418(1). Please provide a correlated fit that includes δ with an uncertainty, or a variational check of the operator overlap, or a systematic scan over δ, and state explicitly how the ordering in Eq. (29) changes as δ is varied within its uncertainty.
[Sec. III.C, Fig. 10] The screening masses B(Γ) are extracted from the range 4≤R≤7 lattice units, chosen because the log plot appears linear there. No fit-range systematics are given for any channel, and the Σ_g^+' data turn upward for R>1.2 fm after the offset correction. Because the quoted B values cover only a factor of about 2.5 and several entries are close, e.g., B(Δ_g)=0.322(2) and B(Π_u')=0.338(5), a table varying R_min and R_max for every channel (and δ for Σ_g^+') is needed to establish that the hierarchy in Eq. (29) is not an artifact of the chosen fitting window.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. II.B] The one-parameter form of the reduced density matrix in Eqs. (10)-(17) can be justified more directly than by citing the earlier fits: for a total color-singlet q-qbar-gluon state, the reduced density matrix is invariant under simultaneous color rotations of the quark indices, and hence, by Schur's lemma, it must be a linear combination of the singlet and octet projectors. This makes the diagonal form with equal octet entries exact at every R, and stating it would preempt concerns about the ansatz.
[Sec. IV] There are typographical errors: 'quar ks' appears in the title, 'matirices' appears in Sec. IV, and 'Fig. 11 in Ref. [6]' should be 'Fig. 11 of Ref. [6]'.
[Sec. II.C] The construction of O(n)_Γ is only shown explicitly for Γ=Σ_g^+; for the excited channels the reader is referred to Refs. [9,10]. A brief sentence or a small appendix listing the operator shapes for Π_u, Δ_g, and the primed channels would improve reproducibility.
[Sec. III.D, Fig. 12] The temperature in Eq. (30) is set to T=250 MeV, but the lattice data shown are at T=220, 244, and 275 MeV. The choice of 250 MeV should be justified, or the comparison should be reframed as a qualitative consistency check between two interpolated values.
[Table I] Table I lists only B(Γ); the fitted amplitudes A(Γ) and the offset δ for Σ_g^+' are not quoted. Reporting all fitted parameters with uncertainties would allow readers to reproduce the curves in Fig. 10 and to assess the quality of the exponential description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity by construction: the screening masses are exponential fits to raw lattice color density matrices; the Sigma_g^+' offset delta is a model-dependent correction creating a systematic risk for the top of the hierarchy, and the ansatz/thermal checks cite the authors' own prior work, but no result is identical to its input.

full rationale

The central output, the channel-dependent screening masses of Table I and the ordering of Eq. (29), is obtained by computing the color density matrix from quenched lattice Wilson-link correlators and then fitting the measured fraction F(R;Gamma) to A(Gamma) exp(-B(Gamma) R). This is an empirical fit of measured data, not a result derived from the fit parameters by construction. The ansatz of Eqs. (7)-(17) is explicitly introduced as an ansatz, and its singlet/octet diagonal structure is the most general SU(3)-invariant reduced density matrix for a color-singlet q-qbar-plus-glue state; the citation of Ref. [6] is supportive, and the present paper also re-examines the Sigma_g^+ channel on its own lattice. The finite-temperature comparison in Sec. III D reconstructs F(R) via Eq. (30) and compares it with the independent 24^3 lattice results of Ref. [7]; although these are the same authors, this is a consistency check between different ensembles, not a definitional identity. The main caveat is the Sigma_g^+' channel: the quoted value B(Sigma_g^+') = 0.489(21) comes from fitting tilde-F(R) = F(R) + delta after a numerical offset fit delta = 0.2043 with no quoted uncertainty (Sec. III C), and the log-linearity is improved by that subtraction. This makes the top of the hierarchy model-dependent and is a genuine systematic/correctness risk, but the screening mass is still a slope fitted to (corrected) lattice data rather than a quantity equal to the fitted input by construction. No circular step satisfying the quoted-reduction standard was found, so the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims rest on one ad hoc fitted offset (δ for Σ_g^+'), the one-parameter ansatz, the assumed exponential decay, and the random-limit baseline. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

δ offset for Σ_g^+' channel = 0.2043
Ad hoc constant subtracted from F(R;Σ_g^+') to make the log plot linear before the exponential fit (Sec. III C). Not derived from the formalism; changes the extracted B(Σ_g^+').

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Quenched approximation: sea quark effects are neglected.
Standard Wilson gauge action on 32^3 x 32 at beta=5.8; all dynamical fermions omitted, so the results are pure gauge.
domain assumption Coulomb gauge fixing is used to define the color components of the density matrix.
Color singlet and octet probabilities are gauge-dependent; the physical interpretation of color leak and random limit is made in the Coulomb gauge.
ad hoc to paper The reduced density matrix has the one-parameter form of Eq. (10) or (17): diagonal, equal octet entries, zero off-diagonals.
This ansatz is assumed and validated against the ground-state calculation in the authors' previous work, but not directly tested for the excited channels.
domain assumption F(R) decays exponentially: F(R;Γ) = A(Γ) exp(−B(Γ) R).
The fit form is imposed and fitted over the range 4 to 7 lattice units; no derivation from QCD is given.
domain assumption At R to infinity the color configuration is the totally random mixture ρ_rand = I/9.
Assumed complete decoherence; used as the baseline for extracting F(R).
standard math The generalized eigenvalue problem isolates the n-th excited state overlap.
Standard Lüscher-Wolff and Perantonis-Michael methodology, cited as Refs. [19,20].
domain assumption Finite-temperature F(R) is a Boltzmann average of the six T=0 channel density matrices, Eq. (30).
Used for the comparison in Sec. III D; reproduces previous lattice data only for R < 0.8 fm.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lattice QCD study of color correlations between static quarks with gluonic excitations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/66Q4APXI

@misc{pith2026241113833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lattice QCD study of color correlations between static quarks with gluonic excitations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/66Q4APXI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13833}
}

abstract

We study the color correlation between static quark and antiquark ($q\bar q$) that is accompanied by gluonic excitations in the confined phase at $T=0$ by constructing reduced density matrices $\rho$ in color space. We perform quenched lattice QCD calculations with the Coulomb gauge adopting the standard Wilson gauge action, and the spatial volume is $L^3 = 32^3$ at $\beta = 5.8$, which corresponds to the lattice spacing $a=0.14$ fm and the system volume $L^3=4.5^3$ fm$^3$. We evaluate the color density matrix $\rho$ of static $q\bar q$ pairs in 6 channels (${\Sigma_g^+}$, ${{\Sigma_g^+}'}$, ${\Pi_u}$, ${\Pi_u'}$, ${\Delta_g}$, ${\Delta_g'}$), and investigate the interquark-distance dependence of color correlations. We find that as the interquark distance increases, the color correlation quenches because of color leak into the gluon field and finally approaches the random color configuration in the $q\bar q$ systems with and without gluonic excitations. For this color screening effect, we evaluate the "screening mass" to discuss its dependence on channels, the quantum number of the gluonic excitations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13833 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Singlet and octet components ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Singlet and octet components ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Singlet and octet components ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Singlet and octet components ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. The logarithmic plot of the fractions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Singlet and octet components ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: ρa,a(R; Σ+ g ′ ) clearly starts from a smaller value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. A comparison of the octet components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. The logarithmic plot of the fractions of the ini [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: , we show the F(R) reconstructed using Eq.(30) as well as the F(R)’s shown in Ref. [7]. Here, the temperature T in Eq.(30) is chosen to be 250 MeV. F(R) reconstructed using Eq.(30) is shown by open squares, and filled squares denote F(R) at T = 0. Other symbols repr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Lattice QCD study of color correlations between quarks in static multiquark systems
hep-lat 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Color correlations of quark pairs in static 2Q, 3Q, and 4Q systems all decay along the same universal curve when plotted against the assumed flux-tube path length, approaching random color at large separation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[6]

T. T. Takahashi and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.11, 114502 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.114502 [arXiv:1910.00859 [hep-lat]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[1]

An Introduction to the Conﬁnement Problem,

J. Greensite, “An Introduction to the Conﬁnement Problem,” Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer, 2011) doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14382-3, and references therein

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14382-3 2011
[2]

G. S. Bali, K. Schilling and C. Schlichter, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5165 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.5165 [hep-lat/9409005]

arXiv 1995
[3]

V. G. Bornyakov et al. [DIK Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 70, 054506 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.054506 [hep-lat/0401026]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[4]

Tiktopoulos, Phys

G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Lett. 66B, 271 (1977). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90878-4

doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90878-4 1977
[5]

Gluon Chain Model of the Confining Force

J. Greensite and C. B. Thorn, JHEP 0202, 014 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/02/014 [hep-ph/0112326]

work page Pith review arXiv 2002
[7]

T. T. Takahashi and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.3, 034504 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.034504 [arXiv:2011.10950 [hep-lat]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[8]

Amorosso, S

R. Amorosso, S. Syritsyn and R. Venugopalan, [arXiv:2410.00112 [hep-lat]]

arXiv

Show all 26 references

[9]

K. J. Juge, J. Kuti and C. Morningstar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 161601 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.161601 [arXiv:hep-lat/0207004 [hep-lat]]

2003 arXiv
[10]

M¨ uller, O

L. M¨ uller, O. Philipsen, C. Reisinger and M. Wag- ner, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.5, 054503 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.054503 [arXiv:1907.01482 [hep-lat]]

2019 arXiv
[11]

Bicudo, N

P. Bicudo, N. Cardoso and A. Shariﬁan, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.5, 054512 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.054512 [arXiv:2105.12159 [hep-lat]]

2021 arXiv
[12]

Horn and J

D. Horn and J. Mandula, Phys. Rev. D 17, 898 (1978) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.17.898

1978 doi
[13]

Ishida, H

S. Ishida, H. Sawazaki, M. Oda and K. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D 47, 179-198 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.179

1993 doi
[14]

W. S. Hou, C. S. Luo and G. G. Wong, Phys. Rev. D 64, 014028 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.014028 [arXiv:hep-ph/0101146 [hep-ph]]

2001 arXiv
[15]

Giacosa, T

F. Giacosa, T. Gutsche and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C 71, 025202 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.71.025202 [arXiv:hep-ph/0408085 [hep-ph]]

2005 arXiv
[16]

Boulanger, F

N. Boulanger, F. Buisseret, V. Mathieu and C. Semay, Eur. Phys. J. A 38, 317-330 (2008) doi:10.1140/epja/i2008-10675-5 [arXiv:0806.3174 [hep- ph]]

2008 arXiv
[17]

Berwein, N

M. Berwein, N. Brambilla, J. Tarr´ us Castell` a and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.11, 114019 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.114019 [arXiv:1510.04299 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[18]

Farina, H

C. Farina, H. Garcia Tecocoatzi, A. Giachino, E. San- topinto and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.1, 014023 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.014023 [arXiv:2005.10850 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[19]

Luscher and U

M. Luscher and U. Wolﬀ, Nucl. Phys. B 339, 222-252 (1990) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90540-T

1990 doi
[20]

Perantonis and C

S. Perantonis and C. Michael, Nucl. Phys. B 347, 854- 868 (1990) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90386-R

1990 doi
[21]

Foster et al

M. Foster et al. [UKQCD], Phys. Rev. D 59, 094509 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.094509 [arXiv:hep-lat/9811010 [hep-lat]]

1999 arXiv
[22]

Marsh and R

K. Marsh and R. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.1, 014502 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.014502 [arXiv:1309.1627 [hep-lat]]

2014 arXiv
[23]

J. Herr, C. Schlosser and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.3, 034516 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.034516 [arXiv:2306.09902 [hep-lat]]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Brambilla, M

N. Brambilla, M. A. Escobedo, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.7, 074009 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.074009 [arXiv:1711.04515 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[25]

Bazavov et al

A. Bazavov et al. [TUMQCD], Phys. Rev. D 98, no.5, 054511 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.054511 [arXiv:1804.10600 [hep-lat]]

2018 arXiv
[26]

Brambilla, M

N. Brambilla, M. ´A. Escobedo, A. Islam, M. Strickland, A. Tiwari, A. Vairo and P. Vander Griend, JHEP 08, 303 10 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)303 [arXiv:2205.10289 [hep-ph]]

2022

Pith tools

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

[1] [6]

T. T. Takahashi and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.11, 114502 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.114502 [arXiv:1910.00859 [hep-lat]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[2] [1]

An Introduction to the Conﬁnement Problem,

J. Greensite, “An Introduction to the Conﬁnement Problem,” Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer, 2011) doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14382-3, and references therein

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14382-3 2011

[3] [2]

G. S. Bali, K. Schilling and C. Schlichter, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5165 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.5165 [hep-lat/9409005]

arXiv 1995

[4] [3]

V. G. Bornyakov et al. [DIK Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 70, 054506 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.054506 [hep-lat/0401026]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004

[5] [4]

Tiktopoulos, Phys

G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Lett. 66B, 271 (1977). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90878-4

doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90878-4 1977

[6] [5]

Gluon Chain Model of the Confining Force

J. Greensite and C. B. Thorn, JHEP 0202, 014 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/02/014 [hep-ph/0112326]

work page Pith review arXiv 2002

[7] [7]

T. T. Takahashi and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.3, 034504 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.034504 [arXiv:2011.10950 [hep-lat]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[8] [8]

Amorosso, S

R. Amorosso, S. Syritsyn and R. Venugopalan, [arXiv:2410.00112 [hep-lat]]

arXiv