Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Spectral analysis for nucleon-pion and nucleon-pion-pion states in both parity sectors using distillation with domain-wall fermions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-operator GEVP with a new Nππ operator resolves the positive-parity nucleon spectrum and shows multi-pion contamination of the nucleon mass is negligible.

desk verdict Competent exploratory distillation study; new Npi-pi GEVP analysis is plausible, but the mode-truncation systematic is real and unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17442 v1 pith:ZRZTWYYF submitted 2024-12-23 hep-lat hep-phnucl-th

Andreas Hackl , Christoph Lehner This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-phnucl-th PACS 12.38.Gc11.15.Ha
keywords latticeQCDdistillationnucleonspectrumnucleon-pionstatesnucleon-pion-piongeneralizedeigenvalueproblemdomain-wallfermionsautomaticcontractions
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 uses lattice QCD with distillation and domain-wall fermions to compute the spectrum of the nucleon together with nucleon-pion and, for the first time, nucleon-pion-pion states in the positive-parity channel, plus nucleon-pion states in the negative-parity channel. The authors build a generalized eigenvalue problem (GEVP) from these operators and automate the large number of quark contractions with a new algorithm. They find stable, well-separated energy levels on seven ensembles, the multi-hadron energies matching their non-interacting values, and they extrapolate the nucleon mass to the physical point, obtaining $M_N = 0.927(21)(05)$ GeV. The paper argues that direct $N\pi$ and $N\pi\pi$ contributions to the nucleon two-point function are negligible, consistent with chiral perturbation theory, which would justify using such operators to control excited-state contamination in future baryon matrix-element calculations. The negative-parity analysis is more limited: the same distillation truncation that works for positive parity degrades the nucleon signal, indicating a mode-truncation systematic.

What carries the argument

The machinery is distillation: smearing quark fields with the lowest $N_d$ eigenvectors of the three-dimensional lattice Laplacian (Eqs. 19–20), which converts correlation functions into contractions of perambulators, momentum insertions, and modified elementals. To handle the factorial growth of Wick contractions for $N\pi\pi$ correlation functions, the paper introduces an automatic contraction algorithm that classifies each diagram as trace-full or trace-less and generates the corresponding tensor contractions. Energies are extracted through a GEVP with a fixed time separation $t-t_0=a$, and the paper defines an “extrapolation check” $\sigma_{\tau_0-1}$ to select fit ranges where the excited-state model describes the first excluded time slice.

What would settle it

Repeat the positive-parity GEVP on ensemble C with a substantially larger mode count (for example, $N_d > 200$) or with a distillation-plus-all-to-all completion, and check whether the $N\pi$ and $N\pi\pi$ energies and the inferred nucleon mass move outside the quoted uncertainties; a systematic shift would indicate that the clean reported spectrum is a truncation artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the positive-parity sector, the central discovery is that a $3\times 3$ GEVP built from a nucleon operator, a p-wave nucleon-pion operator, and a newly introduced s-wave nucleon-pion-pion operator yields clear, stable energy levels on all ensembles: the ground state tracks the nucleon mass, and the two excited levels sit at the non-interacting $N\pi$ and $N\pi\pi$ thresholds. The difference between the nucleon two-point effective mass and the GEVP ground-state effective mass is at the per-mil level, and an exponential fit to this difference gives an energy gap consistent with the $\Delta E_{N\pi\pi}$ gap, showing that within the considered operator set $N\pi\pi$ is the dominant multi-hadronic contamination of the nucleon two-point function. The paper concludes that $N\pi$ and $N\pi\pi$ contributions to the nucleon two-point function are negligible, consistent with chiral perturbation theory, and that the distillation setup, though originally designed for the muon $g-2$ program, is well suited to baryon multi-hadron spectroscopy.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the positive-parity spectrum is clean rests on the assumption that keeping only the lowest 60 (or 120) Laplacian eigenmodes preserves the low-lying baryon states; the paper's own negative-parity results, where the same truncation degrades the nucleon signal, show this assumption is fragile.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new $N\pi\pi$ operator can be included in future GEVP analyses for form factors, such as the nucleon axial-vector charge, to remove excited-state contamination from the nucleon interpolating operator.
  • The automatic Wick-contraction algorithm generalizes to correlation functions with an arbitrary number of pions at source and sink, making multi-hadron baryon spectroscopy with many contractions feasible in distillation.
  • The physical-point nucleon mass $M_N = 0.927(21)(05)$ GeV, within $1\sigma$ of the experimental value, supports the continuum and physical-mass extrapolation strategy based on Akaike-model averaging.
  • The observation that $N\pi\pi$ contamination dominates over $N\pi$ in the nucleon two-point function, based on the energy-gap fit, provides guidance on which multi-hadron operators to prioritize in future, larger operator bases.
  • In the negative-parity channel, the significant overlap between the nucleon two-point function and the nucleon-pion states implies that multi-hadron operators are essential there, but a larger distillation-mode count or an all-to-all completion is needed first.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the positive-parity mode-truncation systematic is comparable to what the paper observes in the negative-parity sector, the reported per-mil-level contamination might be an artifact of the specific distillation mode count, and the true $N\pi$/$N\pi\pi$ contamination could be larger with more modes.
  • The same GEVP framework could be extended to resonances such as the Roper and $N(1535)$, but the negative-parity results caution that the distillation basis must be enlarged for those channels.
  • A testable extension is to compute the nucleon axial-vector form factor using the GEVP-constructed excited-state-free nucleon operator from this paper and compare the excited-state contamination with that of the plain nucleon two-point function.
  • The mode-truncation systematic could be probed directly by varying $N_d$ on a single ensemble and tracking the trend of the nucleon mass and the level splittings.
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 manuscript reports a distillation-based GEVP spectroscopy study of baryon states on seven RBC/UKQCD domain-wall fermion ensembles with pion masses from 139 to 279 MeV, two lattice spacings, and several volumes. In the positive-parity channel a 3x3 GEVP is built from nucleon, p-wave nucleon-pion, and s-wave nucleon-pion-pion interpolating operators; in the negative-parity channel a 3x3 GEVP uses a nucleon and two nucleon-pion operators. The authors introduce an automated Wick-contraction algorithm for nucleon-plus-multipion correlation functions, apply All Mode Averaging, and use Wigner-Eckart relations to reduce the number of contractions. The central results are stable positive-parity GEVP plateaus with energies close to non-interacting N, Npi, and Npipi benchmarks, a per-mil difference between GEVP mode 0 and the nucleon two-point function, a finite-volume-corrected nucleon mass extrapolated to the physical point as M_N = 0.927(21)(05) GeV, and a negative-parity analysis in which the multi-hadron states are resolved but the nucleon two-point function suffers from signal degradation attributed to insufficient distillation modes.

Significance. If the identification of the three positive-parity GEVP modes as N, Npi, and Npipi is accepted, the paper provides the first Npipi baryon operator in a distillation GEVP analysis and an explicit demonstration that multi-hadron contaminations in the nucleon two-point function are at the per-mil level, validating a workflow for excited-state-free nucleon operators in future form-factor calculations. The automatic contraction tool and the Wigner-Eckart reduction are useful methodological contributions, and the physical-point nucleon mass obtained from AIC model averaging is a nontrivial cross-check. However, the central demonstration is not yet quantitative: the distillation-mode truncation is shown by the paper's own negative-parity results to be a limiting systematic, and the positive-parity multi-hadron levels are compared only with non-interacting energies without a direct truncation control. Several preferred fits also violate the paper's stated extrapolation-check criterion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Sec. VI, Figs. 3, 6, 12] The central claim that the positive-parity GEVP cleanly separates N, Npi, and Npipi states depends on the unquantified effect of truncating the distillation Laplacian to Nd=60 (or 120) modes. The paper's own negative-parity analysis (Sec. V; Fig. 15) shows that the same truncation is insufficient for the nucleon two-point function, with the authors explicitly attributing the degradation to missing high modes (Sec. VI: "the number of distillation modes is too small for most ensembles to perform sophisticated analyses"). Because the positive-parity Npi and Npipi levels are tested only against non-interacting energies, a mode-truncation shift comparable to the level spacing cannot currently be excluded. I request a concrete control, for example repeating the positive-parity GEVP with a larger Nd on at least one ensemble, or comparing the GEVP ground-state mass with a conventional smeared or point-source nucleon mass, together with an estimate of the resulting shift in the Npi and Npipi energies.
  2. [Sec. III E, Table V, Eq. (49)] The paper states that fits are selected with an extrapolation-check tension sigma_{tau0-1} < 2, but several preferred fits in Table V violate this criterion. Positive-parity examples include Ensemble-4 GEVP0 with sigma_{tau0-1}=2.23, Ensemble-9 GEVP2 with -3.28, and Ensemble-3 GEVP0 with 2.15 and N2N with 2.17; negative-parity entries show many more violations. Since Table V reports the fits used in the analysis, either these fits should be replaced by ranges satisfying the stated criterion, or the criterion and its application should be revised and documented. As written, the selection rule is not consistently enforced, which weakens the fit-quality argument for the preferred mass estimates.
  3. [Sec. IV B, Sec. IV A, Figs. 6 and 7] The finite-volume correction is applied only to the nucleon masses; the Npi and Npipi energies are compared with non-interacting finite-volume energies without an estimate of the finite-volume interaction shift. For ensemble 9 both multi-hadron energies lie about 2 sigma below the non-interacting benchmarks, and the discussion in Sec. VI treats this as a marginal fluctuation. Since the assignment of GEVP modes 1 and 2 to Npi and Npipi is part of the central claim, the size of the missing finite-volume corrections for the multi-hadron states should be estimated or explicitly argued to be negligible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (28)] The phase factor in the definition of the momentum insertion P^{nm}(t,p) is written as e^{ix·y}, but y is not defined and the momentum variable should appear in the exponent; presumably e^{ix·p} is intended.
  2. [Fig. 5 and Sec. IV A] The caption of Fig. 5 states that eigenvectors are shown at t/a = 12, while the text discusses the eigenvectors at t/a = 8; the caption should be corrected to match the actual time slice.
  3. [Eq. (49), Sec. III E] The tension is defined as sigma[X]/E[X], which is the inverse of the usual standardized residual; the values reported in Table V suggest that E[X]/sigma[X] is meant, so the definition should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. IV heading] The heading "POSITVE PARITY RESULTS" contains a typo and should read "POSITIVE PARITY RESULTS".
  5. [Table I and Fig. 6] The ensemble naming is inconsistent: Table I uses the label "4" while the text and Fig. 6 refer to "Ens 4"; a uniform naming convention would improve readability.
  6. [Sec. III F and Table V] The sentence in Sec. III F describes a normalization of GEVP eigenvectors, but the figure captions and table headers use different notations for the same objects; a single definition and consistent notation across Secs. IV, V, and the appendix would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the positive-parity spectral extraction is a self-contained GEVP analysis checked against external non-interacting and chiral benchmarks; the self-citations concern data/tool reuse and are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is independent of its own outputs. The nucleon mass is extracted from a 3x3 GEVP of correlation functions built directly from distillation perambulators, with no parameter fitted from the target nucleon-mass result. The non-interacting Npi and Npipi energies used as comparison lines are computed from the extracted nucleon mass, the independently known pion mass, and lattice momenta; they are benchmarks, not predictions forced by construction, and the agreement with the separately fitted GEVP energy levels is a genuine consistency test. The claim that Npi/Npipi contamination of the nucleon two-point function is negligible follows from the smallness of Delta_m_eff between the GEVP mode 0 and the two-point function, which is a data-dependent observation rather than an identity. The finite-volume correction uses SU(2) BChPT constants taken from the external Bali et al. 2013 analysis, and the continuum/physical-point extrapolation uses external physical pion and kaon masses with AIC model averaging; none of these steps fit the target prediction. The self-citations to the RBC/UKQCD g-2 distillation data, AMA methodology, GPT, and the AutoWick contraction code are reuse of computational infrastructure and data generation, not load-bearing evidence for the physics claims. The acknowledged difficulty in the negative-parity sector is a limitation or systematic-risk statement about distillation mode truncation, not a circular argument. The paper is therefore best characterized as having, at most, a minor non-load-bearing self-citation rather than any reduction of a prediction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard lattice-QCD machinery (GEVP, distillation, BχPT finite-volume corrections) plus the authors' nine-model phenomenological extrapolation. No parameter is introduced to force the target result: the physical-point nucleon mass emerges from an AIC model average and agrees with experiment. The main unverified premise is the fixed distillation mode count, which the negative-parity sector shows is not universally sufficient.

free parameters (4)
  • Continuum extrapolation coefficients (MN, c0, c1, c2, c3 per model) = e.g., MN = 0.924(21) GeV for π(1)K(0) model; see Table IV
    Nine phenomenological model functions (Table III) are fitted to seven ensemble points; model averaging via AIC gives MN = 0.927(21)(05) GeV. These are fitting parameters, not first-principles inputs.
  • BχPT low-energy constants for finite-volume correction = gA = 1.256, fπ = 92.4 MeV, c2 = 3.3(2) GeV^-1, c3 = -4.7(1.3) GeV^-1, m0 = 0.89(3) GeV, c1 = -0.78(8) GeV^-1
    Taken from external BχPT fit (Ref. [45]); used in Eqs. (54)-(56) to correct the nucleon mass for finite-volume effects. The correction is validated by volume-pair agreement, but the central mass estimate depends on these prior fit values.
  • Excited-state fit parameters A and aEex = listed per fit in Table V (A omitted due to asymmetric jackknife)
    Fit form Eq. (48) used for all effective mass extractions; extraction of the ground-state masses depends on these fitted nuisance parameters.
  • Distillation smearing and mode count (ρ = 0.1, N = 30, Nd = 60 or 120) = ρ = 0.1, N = 30, Nd = 60 (ensembles 4, D, 9, L, 1, 3) or 120 (C)
    Chosen in the prior g-2 program, not optimized for baryons. The mode count directly affects the negative-parity signal and is a candidate systematic for the positive-parity multi-hadron energies.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math GEVP spectral decomposition: correlation matrices are a sum over a finite tower of states with energies En (Eq. 13), and the GEVP eigenvalues approach e^{-En(t-t0)} with corrections suppressed for t0 >= t/2 (Eqs. 14-17).
    Standard assumption in lattice spectroscopy; invoked in Sec. II B.
  • domain assumption Distillation truncation: the first Nd eigenmodes of the 3D Laplacian (Eq. 20) dominate the low-lying hadron states; high-mode truncation does not bias extracted energies.
    Invoked in Sec. II C; the paper's own negative-parity analysis (Sec. V, VI) shows the truncation degrades the nucleon signal, making this assumption load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Finite-volume correction from SU(2) BχPT: mN(L) - mN(∞) = Δa(L) + Δb(L) (Eq. 54), with LECs from an external fit.
    Used in Sec. IV B; validated indirectly by volume-pair agreement, but the correction is a model input.
  • ad hoc to paper Set of nine continuum-extrapolation models (Table III) covers the pion-mass, kaon-mass, and lattice-spacing dependence; AIC model averaging gives unbiased estimate.
    The model set is chosen by the authors; only three pion masses and two lattice spacings are available, so the extrapolation is model-dependent.
  • domain assumption Configurations in each ensemble are statistically independent, so no binning is needed.
    Stated in Sec. III A without quantitative autocorrelation analysis.
  • domain assumption Back-to-back momentum Nπ and s-wave Nππ operators project onto the intended non-interacting energy levels; inter-hadron interactions are small enough that comparison to free energies identifies the states.
    Used for mode identification in Figs. 3, 6, 10; the 2σ deviations in ensemble 9 indicate residual interactions or systematics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral analysis for nucleon-pion and nucleon-pion-pion states in both parity sectors using distillation with domain-wall fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRZTWYYF

@misc{pith2026241217442,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral analysis for nucleon-pion and nucleon-pion-pion states in both parity sectors using distillation with domain-wall fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRZTWYYF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17442}
}
abstract

We present a study using the distillation method to analyze the spectra of nucleon, nucleon-pion, and nucleon-pion-pion states in the positive-parity sector, as well as nucleon and nucleon-pion states in the negative-parity sector. The study uses seven domain-wall fermion ensembles with varying pion masses ($m_\pi = 139 - 279~\text{MeV}$), lattice spacings ($a^{-1} = 1.730~\text{GeV}$ and $a^{-1}=2.359~\text{GeV}$) and volumes ($m_\pi L = 3.8 - 7.5$). To address the large number of contractions in this project, we implemented an algorithm to automate the contraction of nucleon-pion correlation functions that contain an arbitrary number of pions. In the positive parity sector, we extrapolate the nucleon mass to the physical point. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of the distillation method for baryonic quantities with a focus on multi-hadronic states and establishes a foundation for future work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17442 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The profile Ψ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Exemplary diagram illustrating the fact that every baryon and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Plot of the effective energy of the three GEVP modes compared with the effective mass of the nucleon 2-point function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The data points of the left plot show the difference ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. GEVP eigenvectors at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Overview of the energies of the individual ensembles. The data points describe the states’ energy obtained from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Finite volume (FV) correction of the nucleon masses for the different ensembles. The empty and filled data points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Plot of the fit results of the physical point extrapolation. Each subplot shows the fitted model’s dependency for one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. On the left are the probabilities of the different models using the Akaike information criterion. On the right, an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Effective mass curves of the GEVP eigenstates (GEVP mode 0, GEVP mode 1, GEVP mode 2) in the negative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Negative parity GEVP eigenvectors at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Overview plots of the remaining ensembles showing the same results as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Overview plots of the remaining ensembles showing the same results as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Overview plot of all GEVP eigenvectors. The plots depict the same eigenvectors as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Overview over the GEVP effective masses of the remaining ensembles in the negative parity sector. The plots are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Overview plot of all negative parity GEVP eigenvectors. The plots depict the same eigenvectors as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Overview of the linear models for the continuum and physical point extrapolation. The plots are similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Overview of the quadratic models for the continuum and physical point extrapolation. The plots are similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Overview of the quadratic models with a cubic term for the continuum and physical point extrapolation. The plots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_19.png]

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

  1. The Neutron Electric Dipole Moment from Lattice QCD using a Background Electric Field

    hep-lat 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Using background electric fields, local topological charge, and non-Hermitian GEVP, lattice QCD yields dn = -0.0050(4)stat(8)sys θ-bar e fm at the physical point.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE), (2015), arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande), (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1307 (2012), arXiv:1305.7513 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    A. S. Kronfeld, D. G. Richards, W. Detmold, R. Gupta, H.-W. Lin, K.-F. Liu, A. S. Meyer, R. Sufian, and S. Syritsyn (USQCD), Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 196 (2019), arXiv:1904.09931 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    A. S. Meyer, A. Walker-Loud, and C. Wilkinson, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 72, 205 (2022), arXiv:2201.01839 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    L. A. Ruso et al. , (2022), arXiv:2203.09030 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    B¨ ar, Physical Review D92 (2015), 10.1103/physrevd.92.074504

    O. B¨ ar, Physical Review D92 (2015), 10.1103/physrevd.92.074504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.074504 2015

  8. [8]

    B¨ ar, Physical Review D97 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.97.094507

    O. B¨ ar, Physical Review D97 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.97.094507

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.094507 2018

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, M. Gruber, A. Sch¨ afer, P. Wein, and T. Wurm, Phys. Lett. B 789, 666 (2019), arXiv:1810.05569 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    G. S. Bali, L. Barca, S. Collins, M. Gruber, M. L¨ offler, A. Sch¨ afer, W. S¨ oldner, P. Wein, S. Weish¨ aupl, and T. Wurm (RQCD), JHEP 05, 126 (2020), arXiv:1911.13150 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Y.-C. Jang, R. Gupta, B. Yoon, and T. Bhattacharya, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 072002 (2020), arXiv:1905.06470 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. Park, R. Gupta, B. Yoon, S. Mondal, T. Bhattacharya, Y.-C. Jang, B. Jo´ o, and F. Winter (Nucleon Matrix Elements (NME)), Phys. Rev. D 105, 054505 (2022), arXiv:2103.05599 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Djukanovic, G

    D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, J. Koponen, H. B. Meyer, K. Ottnad, T. Schulz, and H. Wittig, Phys. Rev. D 106, 074503 (2022), arXiv:2207.03440 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    He et al

    J. He et al. , Phys. Rev. C 105, 065203 (2022), arXiv:2104.05226 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Barca, G

    L. Barca, G. Bali, and S. Collins, Physical Review D 107 (2023), 10.1103/physrevd.107.l051505

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Alexandrou, G

    C. Alexandrou, G. Koutsou, Y. Li, M. Petschlies, and F. Pittler, PoS LA TTICE2023, 080 (2024), arXiv:2312.15737 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Alexandrou, G

    C. Alexandrou, G. Koutsou, Y. Li, M. Petschlies, and F. Pittler, (2024), arXiv:2408.03893 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. V. Grebe and M. Wagman, (2023), arXiv:2312.00321 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Simons, N

    D. Simons, N. Steinberg, A. Lovato, Y. Meurice, N. Rocco, and M. Wagman, (2022), arXiv:2210.02455 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Peardon, J

    M. Peardon, J. Bulava, J. Foley, C. Morningstar, J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, B. Jo´ o, H.-W. Lin, D. G. Richards, and K. J. Juge, Physical Review D 80 (2009), 10.1103/physrevd.80.054506

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    Bruno, T

    M. Bruno, T. Izubuchi, C. Lehner, and A. S. Meyer, PoS LA TTICE2019, 239 (2019), arXiv:1910.11745 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bruno, D

    M. Bruno, D. Hoying, T. Izubuchi, C. Lehner, A. S. Meyer, and M. Tomii, (2023), arXiv:2304.03313 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Blum et al

    T. Blum et al. (RBC, UKQCD), (2024), arXiv:2410.20590 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    AutoWick,

    A. Hackl, “AutoWick,” (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    C. B. Lang and V. Verduci, Physical Review D 87 (2013), 10.1103/physrevd.87.054502

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    C. Lang, L. Leskovec, M. Padmanath, and S. Prelovsek, Physical Review D 95 (2017), 10.1103/physrevd.95.014510

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Egerer, D

    C. Egerer, D. Richards, and F. Winter, Physical Review D 99 (2019), 10.1103/physrevd.99.034506

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    DeGrand and S

    T. DeGrand and S. Schaefer, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 140, 296–298 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, and A. Sch¨ afer, Computer Physics Communications 181, 1570–1583 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, and E. Shintani, Physical Review D 88 (2013), 10.1103/physrevd.88.094503

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Shintani, R

    E. Shintani, R. Arthur, T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, C. Jung, and C. Lehner, Physical Review D 91 (2015), 10.1103/phys- revd.91.114511

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Prelovsek, U

    S. Prelovsek, U. Skerbis, and C. B. Lang, JHEP 01, 129 (2017), arXiv:1607.06738 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    collaboration, B

    A. collaboration, B. Blossier, M. D. Morte, G. v. Hippel, T. Mendes, and R. Sommer, Journal of High Energy Physics 2009, 094–094 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    L¨ uscher and U

    M. L¨ uscher and U. Wolff, Nuclear Physics B339, 222 (1990)

    1990

  27. [35]

    T. Blum, P. A. Boyle, M. Bruno, D. Hoying, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, C. Kelly, C. Lehner, A. S. Meyer, A. Soni, and M. Tomii, Physical Review D 107 (2023), 10.1103/physrevd.107.094512

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    The m¨ obius domain wall fermion algorithm,

    R. C. Brower, H. Neff, and K. Orginos, “The m¨ obius domain wall fermion algorithm,” (2014), arXiv:1206.5214

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Shamir, Nuclear Physics B 406, 90–106 (1993)

    Y. Shamir, Nuclear Physics B 406, 90–106 (1993)

    1993

  30. [38]

    Furman and Y

    V. Furman and Y. Shamir, Nuclear Physics B 439, 54–78 (1995)

    1995

  31. [39]

    T. Blum, P. Boyle, N. Christ, J. Frison, N. Garron, R. Hudspith, T. Izubuchi, T. Janowski, C. Jung, A. J¨ uttner, C. Kelly, R. Kenway, C. Lehner, M. Marinkovic, R. Mawhinney, G. McGlynn, D. Murphy, S. Ohta, A. Portelli, C. Sachrajda, and A. Soni, Physical Review D 93 (2016), 1...

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Grid Python Toolkit (GPT), 2024-10,

    C. Lehner, M. Bruno, D. Richtmann, M. Schlemmer, R. Lehner, D. Kn¨ uttel, T. Wurm, L. Jin, S. B¨ urger, A. Hackl, and A. Klein, “Grid Python Toolkit (GPT), 2024-10,” (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Detmold and K

    W. Detmold and K. Orginos, Phys. Rev. D 87, 114512 (2013), arXiv:1207.1452 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Barca, Nucleon form factors from Lattice QCD for neutrino oscillation experiments , Ph.D

    L. Barca, Nucleon form factors from Lattice QCD for neutrino oscillation experiments , Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at Regens- burg, Regensburg U. (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Ali Khan, T

    A. Ali Khan, T. Bakeyev, M. G¨ ockeler, T. Hemmert, R. Horsley, A. Irving, B. Jo´ o, D. Pleiter, P. Rakow, G. Schierholz, and H. St¨ uben, Nuclear Physics B689, 175–194 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    Procura, T

    M. Procura, T. R. Hemmert, and W. Weise, Physical Review D 69 (2004), 10.1103/physrevd.69.034505

    2004 doi

  37. [45]

    G. Bali, P. Bruns, S. Collins, M. Deka, B. Gl¨ aßle, M. G¨ ockeler, L. Greil, T. Hemmert, R. Horsley, J. Najjar, Y. Nakamura, A. Nobile, D. Pleiter, P. Rakow, A. Sch¨ afer, R. Schiel, G. Schierholz, A. Sternbeck, and J. Zanotti, Nuclear Physics B 21 866, 1–25 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Quark mass dependence of baryon properties,

    U.-G. Meißner, “Quark mass dependence of baryon properties,” (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0509029 [hep-lat]

    2005 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle,

    H. Akaike, “Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle,” in Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike, edited by E. Parzen, K. Tanabe, and G. Kitagawa (Springer New York, New York, NY, 1998) pp. 199–213

    1998

  40. [48]

    Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716 (1974)

    H. Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716 (1974)

    1974

  41. [49]

    New lessons from the nucleon mass, lattice qcd and heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory,

    A. Walker-Loud, “New lessons from the nucleon mass, lattice qcd and heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory,” (2008), arXiv:0810.0663 [hep-lat]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Knechtli, T

    F. Knechtli, T. Korzec, M. Peardon, and J. A. Urrea-Ni˜ no, Phys. Rev. D 106, 034501 (2022), arXiv:2205.11564 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Boyle et al., “Grid,”

    P.A. Boyle et al., “Grid,”

  45. [53]

    P. A. Boyle, G. Cossu, A. Yamaguchi, and A. Portelli, PoS LA TTICE2015, 023 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Yamaguchi, P

    A. Yamaguchi, P. Boyle, G. Cossu, G. Filaci, C. Lehner, and A. Portelli, PoS LA TTICE2021, 035 (2022), arXiv:2203.06777 [hep-lat]. 22 Appendix A: Interpolating operator construction For interpolating operators with back-to-back momentum, the projection to the irreducible repre...

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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