Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 114 references

Quark Propagator at one-loop in the Refined Gribov-Zwanziger framework

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Minimal quark coupling transmits Refined Gribov-Zwanziger effects at one loop, yielding a lattice-matching quark mass function.

desk verdict A genuine one-loop RGZ quark calculation with an honest Curci-Ferrari limit check, but the advertised 'prediction' of the quark mass function is softened by scanning g0 and mu against the quark data. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10602 v1 pith:CQMQKYZU submitted 2025-05-15 hep-th hep-lathep-ph

Gustavo P. de Brito , Philipe De Fabritiis , Antonio D. Pereira This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-lathep-ph
keywords quarkpropagatorrefinedGribov-ZwanzigerLandaugaugeone-loopmassfunctionunquenchedgluonminimalcouplingGribovcopies
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 claims that the non-perturbative effects encoded in the Refined Gribov-Zwanziger (RGZ) gluon propagator reach the quark sector at one loop through ordinary minimal coupling: no extra horizon-like matter term is needed. The authors compute the one-loop quark propagator in Landau gauge, fit the unquenched gluon propagator to lattice data to fix the RGZ mass parameters, and then use those parameters unchanged to predict the quark mass function $M(p)$, finding good agreement with lattice results. The quark dressing function $Z(p)$ fails to reproduce lattice data in the infrared, a failure the authors expect a two-loop computation to cure by analogy with the CF model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tree-level RGZ gluon propagator form factor $D_0(p)=\frac{p^2+M^2}{(p^2+M^2)(p^2+m^2)+\lambda^4}$, whose complex poles and finite infrared value carry the information about Gribov-copy elimination and condensate formation. Feeding this propagator into the standard one-loop quark self-energy diagram, together with a renormalization scheme that pins propagators to their tree-level form at a scale $\mu$, produces the one-loop quark mass and dressing functions; the mass parameters $\{\lambda, m, M\}$ are fixed by the gluon fit, not by the quark data.

What would settle it

Fix the renormalization scale and coupling before looking at quark data (for example, $\mu = 2$ GeV and $g_0 = 4$), fit only the unquenched gluon-lattice data, and then compare the resulting one-loop $M(p)$ against lattice points without further adjustment; if agreement disappears or the mass function develops the wrong infrared sign, the claimed prediction is an artifact of the selection. A second falsifier is to compute the two-loop quark dressing function in the RGZ framework: if $Z(p)$ still fails to reproduce the infrared shape, the analogy with the CF model breaks down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the Refined Gribov-Zwanziger framework, the one-loop quark propagator inherits non-perturbative information from the gauge sector through a single gluonic loop containing the RGZ-modified gluon propagator. With the RGZ parameters fixed by fitting the unquenched gluon propagator to lattice data, the quark mass function $M(p)$ emerges as a parameter-free prediction and agrees reasonably with the lattice, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The same computation predicts a quark dressing function $Z(p)$ that is qualitatively wrong in the deep infrared, mirroring the one-loop CF model result; the paper argues that two-loop corrections, again following the CF development, are likely to repair this.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the quark mass function is predicted rests on transferring RGZ parameters fixed from gluon data to the quark sector without re-tuning, but in practice the paper scans over coupling and renormalization scale and selects the pair that minimizes the quark-data discrepancy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, minimal coupling alone is sufficient to transmit infrared gluonic effects to the quark mass function at one loop, so no additional matter horizon term is required for this observable.
  • The same fixed RGZ parameters can be reused to predict other matter-sector correlators, such as quark-gluon vertices, without introducing new free parameters.
  • The one-loop failure of the quark dressing function singles out two-loop corrections as the next decisive test of the minimal coupling prescription.
  • The unquenched RGZ gluon propagator remains finite at zero momentum and fits the unquenched lattice data, extending the established quenched success to the case with dynamical quarks.
  • In the limit where the Gribov parameter vanishes, the one-loop results reduce exactly to the CF model expressions, providing a consistency check across the two frameworks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if a future two-loop computation indeed restores the infrared shape of $Z(p)$, the minimal coupling prescription would become a parameter-free bridge from gluon physics to quark physics, strengthening the case that no non-minimal matter coupling is needed.
  • Editorial inference: the reported agreement for $M(p)$ rests partly on a scan over the coupling and renormalization scale that selects the pair minimizing the discrepancy with quark lattice data; a stricter test would fix these quantities before inspecting the quark sector.
  • Editorial inference: the same one-loop machinery could be applied to different quark masses or to finite temperature to test whether the RGZ parameters remain universal across flavors and environments.
  • Editorial inference: a direct one-loop comparison between the minimal and non-minimal couplings would quantify what the extra mass parameters in the non-minimal proposal actually buy, and whether the horizon-like matter term is phenomenologically distinguishable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the one-loop quark propagator in the Refined Gribov-Zwanziger (RGZ) framework with quarks minimally coupled to the gauge sector, extending the authors' earlier one-loop gluon computation. After deriving the analytic one-loop expressions (Appendix A), the authors fit the unquenched RGZ gluon propagator to lattice data [91], treating the RGZ masses {lambda^2, m^2, M^2} as free parameters for each choice of g0 and the renormalization scale mu, with a toy running coupling defined in Eq. (24). Using the fitted parameters, they compare the quark mass function M(p) and dressing function Z(p) with lattice data [5], reporting good agreement for M(p) at the selected point g0=7, mu=4 GeV, while Z(p) fails qualitatively in the infrared. They also compare their results with the Curci-Ferrari model limit and with a non-minimal matter coupling proposal. The central claim is that the RGZ non-perturbative gluon effects, transmitted through minimal coupling at one loop, suffice to predict the quark mass function once the gluon propagator is fitted.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a nontrivial demonstration that minimal coupling transmits the RGZ non-perturbative gluon dynamics to the quark sector at one loop, without invoking additional matter-sector horizon terms. The analytic computation is explicit and self-contained, with a clear and verified limit lambda -> 0 reproducing the Curci-Ferrari expressions of Ref. [92]; the appendix contains the complete one-loop integrals. The paper also honestly discloses the failure of the one-loop dressing function and attributes it to missing two-loop effects, consistent with the known Curci-Ferrari experience. However, the significance of the 'prediction' of M(p) is substantially tempered by the fitting methodology in Sec. IV: the pair (g0, mu) is selected by minimizing chi^2 to the very quark data being compared, and the quark input mass m_psi is taken from the same lattice data, so the agreement is not parameter-free. The toy running coupling of Eq. (24) is also ad hoc and, at the selected point, gives an expansion parameter approaching 0.93 at p=0, making the one-loop truncation in the deep IR questionable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV] The claim that M(p) is 'predicted' after fixing parameters to the gluon data is weakened by the selection procedure. For each g0 in steps of 0.05 and each mu in {1,2,3,4} GeV, the RGZ masses are refitted to the gluon lattice data, and the pair (g0, mu) is then chosen by minimizing chi^2_M against the quark mass function data. Consequently, the final comparison is a two-parameter scan selected on the quark observable, and the mass parameters are not fully fixed before the quark sector is used. The authors should either present the full chi^2_M landscape to show that the agreement is not a sharp minimum, or determine g0 and mu from the gluon fit alone (or from another criterion independent of the quark data).
  2. [Sec. IV; Eq. (24)] The toy running coupling in Eq. (24) is an ad hoc prescription with the IR regulator Lambda placed at the would-be Landau pole. At the selected parameters g0=7, mu=4 GeV, the value of N_c g^2/(4 pi)^2 is 0.257 at the renormalization point but grows to roughly 0.93 as p -> 0, so the one-loop expansion is not manifestly under control in the deep infrared, where the mass function comparison is performed. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of the M(p) agreement to this running prescription, for instance by comparing with the fixed-coupling limit Lambda -> infinity and with other choices of Lambda.
  3. [Sec. III; Sec. IV] The quark mass input m_psi is set to the lattice mass function at the renormalization point, m_psi = M_Lt(p=mu), using the same lattice data set [5] that is later used to assess agreement. This means the analytical M(p) is forced to match the lattice data at one point by construction, and the comparison is not fully independent. The authors should clarify how much of the agreement in Fig. 4 is driven by this matching condition and, ideally, test the sensitivity to varying m_psi around the lattice value.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, below Eq. (13)] There is a typo in the sentence preceding Eq. (13): it reads 'is given by e Eq. (13)' and should be 'is given by Eq. (13)'.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. V] The phrase 'This is agreement with the analogue computation' is grammatically awkward; it should read 'This is in agreement with the analogous computation in the Curci-Ferrari model.'
  3. [Footnote 1, Sec. IV] The chi^2_M definition normalizes by the lattice value M_Lt(p_i) rather than by the lattice statistical error; the authors should state whether the quoted agreement accounts for the uncertainties of the quark lattice data, and if not, should acknowledge that the chi^2 value is not a statistical measure.
  4. [Sec. IV, Figs. 3-5] The captions of Figs. 3-5 would benefit from stating whether the curves include the global multiplicative factors A_D and A_Z, and from specifying units for the horizontal axis (GeV) to match the text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The quark mass function 'prediction' is partly constructed: (g0, µ) are selected by minimizing χ2 against the quark lattice data, and mψ is taken from the same target data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, methodology paragraph and χ2 selection; echoed in the abstract and conclusions]
    "We systematically repeat the procedure described below for different values of g0 ranging from 0 to 9 with 0.05-sized steps. We also consider different values for the renormalization point, taken as µ= 1, 2, 3, 4 GeV. The quark mass mψ is fixed by the lattice value of the quark mass function at the corresponding scale, i.e., mψ = MLt(p = µ). ... Finally, we evaluate the error associated with the comparison between our result and the lattice data for M(p) using a χ2-type test, ... selecting the one that minimizes χ2."

    The claimed prediction of M(p) is not made with all parameters fixed before the quark comparison: (g0, µ) are scanned and the pair minimizing χ2_M against the quark lattice data is selected, and mψ is set equal to the lattice mass function at µ. Thus the selected point (g0=7, µ=4 GeV) is effectively a fit to the quark mass function, not an input fixed by the gluon fit alone. The sentence 'we are not fitting any free parameter' applies only to the RGZ masses {λ,m,M} for a given (g0, µ); the model selection over g0 and µ is itself a fit to the predicted quantity. This does not trivialize the one-loop shape, but it means the abstract's statement 'use the fixed parameters to predict the quark mass function' overstates the independence of the comparison.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuine one-loop computation with explicit analytic expressions; the limit λ→0 correctly reproduces the Curci-Ferrari expression, and the failure of Z(p) is honestly reported, which supports the internal consistency of the calculation. The central claim, however, is the prediction of the quark mass function with parameters 'fixed' by the gluon propagator. The methodology shows that while {λ,m,M} are fit to gluon data for each candidate, the pair (g0, µ) is subsequently chosen by minimizing χ2 to the quark mass function, and mψ is borrowed from the same lattice data being predicted. The good agreement of M(p) is therefore not a parameter-free confirmation; it is a partially selection-fitted comparison. The self-citation to the authors' earlier one-loop gluon computation [87] is a normal citation to a published calculation and is not itself load-bearing circularity. Overall, the derivation is not equivalent to its inputs, but the headline predictive claim reduces in part to a fit, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation uses the RGZ action as given, with its mass parameters promoted to free fit parameters. The genuinely new input is the minimal quark coupling and the one-loop integrals; everything else is prior framework, lattice data, or ad hoc modeling choices.

free parameters (8)
  • lambda (Gribov parameter) = lambda^2 = 2.817 GeV^2
    Fitted to the unquenched gluon propagator lattice data in Sec. IV; treated as free instead of solved from the gap equation.
  • m (refinement condensate parameter) = m^2 = -0.935 GeV^2
    Fitted to the unquenched gluon propagator; negative value is accepted as a condensate parameter.
  • M (auxiliary field condensate parameter) = M^2 = 7.299 GeV^2
    Fitted to the unquenched gluon propagator.
  • g0 (gauge coupling at p=0) = 7 (optimized over scan 0 to 9)
    The pair (g0, mu) is chosen to minimize the quark mass function discrepancy, so this is effectively tuned to the target data.
  • mu (renormalization scale) = 4 GeV (optimized over 1,2,3,4 GeV)
    Selected together with g0 by minimizing the quark mass function chi-square.
  • m_psi (quark mass) = 0.037 GeV
    Taken from the lattice mass function at mu=4 GeV, so the mass function is anchored to lattice data at one scale.
  • AD (gluon global normalization) = 0.747
    Global multiplicative factor fitted to account for lattice normalization of the gluon propagator.
  • AZ (dressing global normalization) = 1.016
    Global factor adjusted when comparing Z(p) with lattice data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The RGZ action is a local, renormalizable effective description after restriction to the Gribov region and inclusion of condensates.
    The whole calculation assumes this framework and treats the mass parameters as free fit parameters rather than solutions of gap equations.
  • domain assumption Quarks are minimally coupled to the RGZ gluons through the standard gauge coupling.
    This is the specific coupling prescription under investigation; the paper tests whether it suffices at one loop.
  • ad hoc to paper The toy running coupling of Eq. (24), with the IR regulator Lambda placed at the would-be Landau pole, mimics the full RG running.
    Introduced explicitly because full RGZ RG analysis is not available; it is a modeling choice and affects the numerical results.
  • domain assumption One-loop perturbation theory with expansion parameter N_c g^2/(4 pi)^2 approximately 0.257 at mu=4 GeV is reliable for the mass function.
    The authors rely on this to trust the one-loop result; the Z(p) failure suggests the approximation is not uniformly good.
  • domain assumption The lattice data of refs. [5] and [91] provide reliable external benchmarks for SU(3) with Nf=2.
    All fits and comparisons are anchored to these published lattice results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quark Propagator at one-loop in the Refined Gribov-Zwanziger framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQMQKYZU

@misc{pith2026250510602,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quark Propagator at one-loop in the Refined Gribov-Zwanziger framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQMQKYZU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10602}
}
read the original abstract

The Refined Gribov-Zwanziger scenario is a local and renormalizable setup in which infinitesimal Gribov copies are eliminated and further non-perturbative effects are accounted for. The gluon propagator that arises from this framework fits lattice data very well in the Landau gauge. We investigate the coupling of quarks to this setting at one-loop order by computing the quark propagator. The fermionic sector is introduced by a minimal coupling and the non-perturbative effects are transmitted to the matter sector through gluonic loops which, in this case, carry information from the elimination of infinitesimal Gribov copies and the formation of condensates. We compare our findings with available lattice data both for the unquenched gluon propagator as well as for the quark propagator in the Landau gauge. Our results are comparable with those obtained in the Curci-Ferrari model at one-loop order. In particular, we are able to fit the unquenched gluon propagator and use the fixed parameters to predict the quark mass function and find good agreement with lattice data. However, the quark dressing function does not agree, even at a qualitative level, with lattice data in the infrared. This is agreement with the analogue computation in Curci-Ferrari model. Inspired by the developments in the Curci-Ferrari results, such a disagreement is likely to be cured by the inclusion of two-loops corrections. Finally, we compare the present minimal coupling with a non-perturbative matter coupling proposed in the Refined Gribov-Zwanziger literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10602 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. One-loop correction to the quark propagator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Gluon propagator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Quark mass function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Quark dressing function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [92]

    M. A. L. Capri, D. Fiorentini, A. D. Pereira, and S. P. Sorella, A non-perturbative study of matter field prop- agators in Euclidean Yang–Mills theory in linear covari- ant, Curci–Ferrari and maximal Abelian gauges, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 546 (2017), arXiv:1703.03264 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [91]

    Confinement and dynamical chiral symmetry breaking in a non-perturbative renormalizable quark model

    D. Dudal, M. S. Guimaraes, L. F. Palhares, and S. P. Sorella, Confinement and dynamical chiral symmetry breaking in a non-perturbative renormalizable quark model, Annals Phys. 365, 155 (2016), arXiv:1303.7134 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  3. [5]

    Jovem Cientista do Nosso Estado

    for SU (3) with Nf = 2 and Mπ = 422 MeV. agreement with lattice data. The qualitative behavior of the unquenched gluon propagator is very similar to the quenched one, and it also achieves a finite value at p= 0. Next to that we consider the quark mass function M(p), exhibited in Fig. 4. We emphasize that in this case, we are not fitting any free parameter...

    2022

  4. [1]

    The ghost propagator in the unquenched case, at one-loop order, is the same as in the pure RGZ limit since a quark-ghost vertex does not exist

    For concreteness, we choose Λ to be sitting at the would-be Landau pole of the standard run- ning in YM theory, that is, Λ =µ exp[− 1 2β0g2 0 ], where we have defined β0 = 1 16π2 ( 11 3Nc− 2 3Nf). The ghost propagator in the unquenched case, at one-loop order, is the same as in the pure RGZ limit since a quark-ghost vertex does not exist. However, the gho...

  5. [2]

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Ultraviolet Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 (1973)

    1973

  6. [3]

    H. D. Politzer, Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 (1973)

    1973

  7. [4]

    Brambilla et al., QCD and Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories: Challenges and Perspectives, Eur

    N. Brambilla et al., QCD and Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories: Challenges and Perspectives, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2981 (2014), arXiv:1404.3723 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [6]

    Greensite, An introduction to the confinement prob- lem, Vol

    J. Greensite, An introduction to the confinement prob- lem, Vol. 821 (2011)

    2011

Show all 114 references
  1. [7]

    Oliveira, P

    O. Oliveira, P. J. Silva, J.-I. Skullerud, and A. Stern- beck, Quark propagator with two flavors of O(a)- improved Wilson fermions, Phys. Rev. D 99, 094506 (2019), arXiv:1809.02541 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [8]

    von Smekal, R

    L. von Smekal, R. Alkofer, and A. Hauck, The In- frared behavior of gluon and ghost propagators in Lan- dau gauge QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3591 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9705242

    1997 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Alkofer and L

    R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, The Infrared behav- ior of QCD Green’s functions: Confinement dynam- ical symmetry breaking, and hadrons as relativistic bound states, Phys. Rept. 353, 281 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0007355 [hep-ph]

    2001

  4. [10]

    A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Gluon and ghost propagators in the Landau gauge: Deriving lattice results from Schwinger-Dyson equations, Phys. Rev. D 78, 025010 (2008), arXiv:0802.1870 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Alkofer, M

    R. Alkofer, M. Q. Huber, and K. Schwenzer, Infrared singularities in Landau gauge Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Rev. D 81, 105010 (2010), arXiv:0801.2762 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Binosi and J

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Pinch Technique: The- ory and Applications, Phys. Rept. 479, 1 (2009), arXiv:0909.2536 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [13]

    M. Q. Huber, Nonperturbative properties of Yang–Mills theories, Phys. Rept. 879, 1 (2020), arXiv:1808.05227 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [14]

    J. M. Pawlowski, D. F. Litim, S. Nedelko, and L. von Smekal, Infrared behavior and fixed points in Lan- dau gauge QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 152002 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0312324

    2004 arXiv

  9. [15]

    C. S. Fischer, A. Maas, and J. M. Pawlowski, On the infrared behavior of Landau gauge Yang-Mills theory, Annals Phys. 324, 2408 (2009), arXiv:0810.1987 [hep- ph]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Dupuis, L

    N. Dupuis, L. Canet, A. Eichhorn, W. Metzner, J. M. Pawlowski, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, The nonperturbative functional renormalization group and its applications 10.1016/j.physrep.2021.01.001 (2020), arXiv:2006.04853 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [17]

    A. K. Cyrol, L. Fister, M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, Landau gauge Yang-Mills cor- relation functions, Phys. Rev. D94, 054005 (2016), arXiv:1605.01856 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [18]

    A. K. Cyrol, J. M. Pawlowski, A. Rothkopf, and N. Wink, Reconstructing the gluon, SciPost Phys. 5, 065 (2018), arXiv:1804.00945 [hep-ph]. 12

    2018 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Ihssen, J

    F. Ihssen, J. M. Pawlowski, F. R. Sattler, and N. Wink, Towards quantitative precision in functional QCD I, (2024), arXiv:2408.08413 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Siringo, Analytical study of Yang–Mills theory in the infrared from first principles, Nucl

    F. Siringo, Analytical study of Yang–Mills theory in the infrared from first principles, Nucl. Phys. B 907, 572 (2016), arXiv:1511.01015 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Comitini and F

    G. Comitini and F. Siringo, QCD phase diagram from the gluon propagator at finite temperature and den- sity, Phys. Rev. D111, 054012 (2025), arXiv:2412.15414 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Tissier and N

    M. Tissier and N. Wschebor, Infrared propagators of Yang-Mills theory from perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 82, 101701 (2010), arXiv:1004.1607 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Tissier and N

    M. Tissier and N. Wschebor, An Infrared Safe pertur- bative approach to Yang-Mills correlators, Phys. Rev. D 84, 045018 (2011), arXiv:1105.2475 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Pelaez, M

    M. Pelaez, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Three-point correlation functions in Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Rev. D 88, 125003 (2013), arXiv:1310.2594 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Reinosa, J

    U. Reinosa, J. Serreau, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, How nonperturbative is the infrared regime of Landau gauge Yang-Mills correlators?, Phys. Rev. D 96, 014005 (2017), arXiv:1703.04041 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Pel´ aez, U

    M. Pel´ aez, U. Reinosa, J. Serreau, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Small parameters in infrared quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 96, 114011 (2017), arXiv:1703.10288 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [27]

    J. A. Gracey, M. Pel´ aez, U. Reinosa, and M. Tissier, Two loop calculation of Yang-Mills propagators in the Curci-Ferrari model, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034023 (2019), arXiv:1905.07262 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Barrios, M

    N. Barrios, M. Pel´ aez, U. Reinosa, and N. Wschebor, The ghost-antighost-gluon vertex from the Curci-Ferrari model: Two-loop corrections, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114016 (2020), arXiv:2009.00875 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Pel´ aez, U

    M. Pel´ aez, U. Reinosa, J. Serreau, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in the massive Landau gauge: realistic running coupling, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094035 (2021), arXiv:2010.13689 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Barrios, J

    N. Barrios, J. A. Gracey, M. Pel´ aez, and U. Reinosa, Two-loop corrections to the QCD propagators within the Curci-Ferrari model, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094019 (2021), arXiv:2103.16218 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Pel´ aez, U

    M. Pel´ aez, U. Reinosa, J. Serreau, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, A window on infrared QCD with small expansion parameters, Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, 124202 (2021), arXiv:2106.04526 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Pel´ aez, U

    M. Pel´ aez, U. Reinosa, J. Serreau, and N. Wsche- bor, Small parameters in infrared QCD: The pion decay constant, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054025 (2023), arXiv:2212.10089 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Barrios, P

    N. Barrios, P. De Fabritiis, and M. Pel´ aez, Four-gluon vertex from the Curci-Ferrari model at one-loop order, Phys. Rev. D 109, L091502 (2024), arXiv:2403.17056 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Comitini, T

    G. Comitini, T. De Meerleer, D. Dudal, and S. P. Sorella, Dynamically massive linear covariant gauges: Setup and first results, Phys. Rev. D 109, 014037 (2024), arXiv:2312.07608 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Faddeev and V

    L. Faddeev and V. Popov, Feynman Diagrams for the Yang-Mills Field, Phys. Lett. B 25, 29 (1967)

    1967

  30. [36]

    V. N. Gribov, Quantization of Nonabelian Gauge The- ories, Nucl. Phys. B139, 1 (1978), [1(1977)]

    1978

  31. [37]

    Singer, Some Remarks on the Gribov Ambiguity, Commun

    I. Singer, Some Remarks on the Gribov Ambiguity, Commun. Math. Phys. 60, 7 (1978)

    1978

  32. [38]

    Vandersickel and D

    N. Vandersickel and D. Zwanziger, The Gribov prob- lem and QCD dynamics, Phys. Rept. 520, 175 (2012), arXiv:1202.1491 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Sobreiro and S

    R. Sobreiro and S. Sorella, Introduction to the Gribov ambiguities in Euclidean Yang-Mills theories, in 13th Jorge Andre Swieca Summer School on Particle and Fields (2005) arXiv:hep-th/0504095

    2005 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Vandersickel, A Study of the Gribov-Zwanziger ac- tion: from propagators to glueballs , Other thesis (2011), arXiv:1104.1315 [hep-th]

    N. Vandersickel, A Study of the Gribov-Zwanziger ac- tion: from propagators to glueballs , Other thesis (2011), arXiv:1104.1315 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Zwanziger, Local and Renormalizable Action From the Gribov Horizon, Nucl

    D. Zwanziger, Local and Renormalizable Action From the Gribov Horizon, Nucl. Phys. B323, 513 (1989)

    1989

  36. [42]

    Zwanziger, Nonperturbative Landau gauge and in- frared critical exponents in QCD, Phys

    D. Zwanziger, Nonperturbative Landau gauge and in- frared critical exponents in QCD, Phys. Rev. D 65, 094039 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0109224

    2002 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Lerche and L

    C. Lerche and L. von Smekal, On the infrared exponent for gluon and ghost propagation in Landau gauge QCD, Phys. Rev. D 65, 125006 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0202194

    2002 arXiv

  38. [44]

    C. S. Fischer and H. Gies, Renormalization flow of Yang-Mills propagators, JHEP 10, 048, arXiv:hep- ph/0408089

  39. [45]

    C. S. Fischer and J. M. Pawlowski, Uniqueness of in- frared asymptotics in Landau gauge Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Rev. D 75, 025012 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0609009

    2007 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Cucchieri and T

    A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, What’s up with IR gluon and ghost propagators in Landau gauge? A puzzling answer from huge lattices, PoS LA TTICE2007, 297 (2007), arXiv:0710.0412 [hep-lat]

    2007 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Cucchieri and T

    A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, Constraints on the IR be- havior of the gluon propagator in Yang-Mills theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 241601 (2008), arXiv:0712.3517 [hep-lat]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Sternbeck, L

    A. Sternbeck, L. von Smekal, D. B. Leinweber, and A. G. Williams, Comparing SU(2) to SU(3) gluodynam- ics on large lattices, PoS LA TTICE2007, 340 (2007), arXiv:0710.1982 [hep-lat]

    2007 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Cucchieri and T

    A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, Constraints on the IR be- havior of the ghost propagator in Yang-Mills theories, Phys. Rev. D 78, 094503 (2008), arXiv:0804.2371 [hep- lat]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [50]

    V. G. Bornyakov, V. K. Mitrjushkin, and M. Muller- Preussker, Infrared behavior and Gribov ambiguity in SU(2) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 79, 074504 (2009), arXiv:0812.2761 [hep-lat]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [51]

    I. L. Bogolubsky, E. M. Ilgenfritz, M. Muller-Preussker, and A. Sternbeck, Lattice gluodynamics computation of Landau gauge Green’s functions in the deep infrared, Phys. Lett. B676, 69 (2009), arXiv:0901.0736 [hep-lat]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Oliveira and P

    O. Oliveira and P. J. Silva, The lattice Landau gauge gluon propagator: lattice spacing and volume depen- dence, Phys. Rev. D 86, 114513 (2012), arXiv:1207.3029 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Dudal, S

    D. Dudal, S. P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel, and H. Ver- schelde, New features of the gluon and ghost prop- agator in the infrared region from the Gribov- Zwanziger approach, Phys. Rev. D77, 071501 (2008), arXiv:0711.4496 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Dudal, J

    D. Dudal, J. A. Gracey, S. P. Sorella, N. Vander- sickel, and H. Verschelde, A Refinement of the Gribov- Zwanziger approach in the Landau gauge: Infrared propagators in harmony with the lattice results, Phys. Rev. D78, 065047 (2008), arXiv:0806.4348 [hep-th]. 13

    2008 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Dudal, O

    D. Dudal, O. Oliveira, and N. Vandersickel, Indirect lat- tice evidence for the Refined Gribov-Zwanziger formal- ism and the gluon condensate ⟨A2⟩ in the Landau gauge, Phys. Rev. D 81, 074505 (2010), arXiv:1002.2374 [hep- lat]

    2010 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Cucchieri, D

    A. Cucchieri, D. Dudal, T. Mendes, and N. Van- dersickel, Modeling the Gluon Propagator in Lan- dau Gauge: Lattice Estimates of Pole Masses and Dimension-Two Condensates, Phys. Rev. D 85, 094513 (2012), arXiv:1111.2327 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Dudal, O

    D. Dudal, O. Oliveira, and P. J. Silva, High precision statistical Landau gauge lattice gluon propagator com- putation vs. the Gribov–Zwanziger approach, Annals Phys. 397, 351 (2018), arXiv:1803.02281 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Dudal, S

    D. Dudal, S. P. Sorella, and N. Vandersickel, The dynamical origin of the refinement of the Gribov- Zwanziger theory, Phys. Rev. D 84, 065039 (2011), arXiv:1105.3371 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Dudal, C

    D. Dudal, C. P. Felix, L. F. Palhares, F. Rondeau, and D. Vercauteren, The BRST-invariant vacuum state of the Gribov–Zwanziger theory, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 731 (2019), arXiv:1901.11264 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [60]

    Maggiore and M

    N. Maggiore and M. Schaden, Landau gauge within the Gribov horizon, Phys. Rev. D 50, 6616 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9310111

    1994 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Baulieu and S

    L. Baulieu and S. P. Sorella, Soft breaking of BRST invariance for introducing non-perturbative infrared ef- fects in a local and renormalizable way, Phys. Lett. B 671, 481 (2009), arXiv:0808.1356 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [62]

    Dudal, S

    D. Dudal, S. P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel, and H. Ver- schelde, Gribov no-pole condition, Zwanziger horizon function, Kugo-Ojima confinement criterion, boundary conditions, BRST breaking and all that, Phys. Rev. D 79, 121701 (2009), arXiv:0904.0641 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  57. [63]

    S. P. Sorella, Gribov horizon and BRST symmetry: A Few remarks, Phys. Rev. D 80, 025013 (2009), arXiv:0905.1010 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [64]

    S. P. Sorella, Gluon confinement, i-particles and BRST soft breaking, J. Phys. A 44, 135403 (2011), arXiv:1006.4500 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  59. [65]

    M. A. L. Capri, A. J. Gomez, M. S. Guimaraes, V. E. R. Lemes, S. P. Sorella, and D. G. Tedesco, A remark on the BRST symmetry in the Gribov-Zwanziger theory, Phys. Rev. D 82, 105019 (2010), arXiv:1009.4135 [hep- th]

    2010 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Serreau and M

    J. Serreau and M. Tissier, Lifting the Gribov ambiguity in Yang-Mills theories, Phys. Lett. B 712, 97 (2012), arXiv:1202.3432 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  61. [67]

    Serreau, M

    J. Serreau, M. Tissier, and A. Tresmontant, Covariant gauges without Gribov ambiguities in Yang-Mills theo- ries, Phys. Rev. D 89, 125019 (2014), arXiv:1307.6019 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  62. [68]

    Dudal and S

    D. Dudal and S. P. Sorella, The Gribov horizon and spontaneous BRST symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D 86, 045005 (2012), arXiv:1205.3934 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [69]

    A. D. Pereira and R. F. Sobreiro, On the elimina- tion of infinitesimal Gribov ambiguities in non-Abelian gauge theories, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2584 (2013), arXiv:1308.4159 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [70]

    A. D. Pereira, Jr. and R. F. Sobreiro, Gribov ambi- guities at the Landau-maximal Abelian interpolating gauge, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2984 (2014), arXiv:1402.3477 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  65. [71]

    M. A. L. Capri, M. S. Guimaraes, I. F. Justo, L. F. Palhares, and S. P. Sorella, Properties of the Faddeev- Popov operator in the Landau gauge, matter confine- ment and soft BRST breaking, Phys. Rev. D 90, 085010 (2014), arXiv:1408.3597 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  66. [72]

    Cucchieri, D

    A. Cucchieri, D. Dudal, T. Mendes, and N. Van- dersickel, BRST-Symmetry Breaking and Bose-Ghost Propagator in Lattice Minimal Landau Gauge, Phys. Rev. D 90, 051501 (2014), arXiv:1405.1547 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  67. [73]

    Schaden and D

    M. Schaden and D. Zwanziger, Living with sponta- neously broken BRST symmetry. I. Physical states and cohomology, Phys. Rev. D 92, 025001 (2015), arXiv:1412.4823 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  68. [74]

    Schaden and D

    M. Schaden and D. Zwanziger, Living with sponta- neously broken BRST symmetry. II. Poincar´ e invari- ance, Phys. Rev. D 92, 025002 (2015), arXiv:1501.05974 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  69. [75]

    M. A. L. Capri, D. Dudal, D. Fiorentini, M. S. Guimaraes, I. F. Justo, A. D. Pereira, B. W. Mintz, L. F. Palhares, R. F. Sobreiro, and S. P. Sorella, Ex- act nilpotent nonperturbative BRST symmetry for the Gribov-Zwanziger action in the linear covariant gauge, Phys. Rev. D 92,...

    2015 arXiv

  70. [76]

    M. A. L. Capri, D. Fiorentini, M. S. Guimaraes, B. W. Mintz, L. F. Palhares, S. P. Sorella, D. Dudal, I. F. Justo, A. D. Pereira, and R. F. Sobreiro, More on the nonperturbative Gribov-Zwanziger quantization of lin- ear covariant gauges, Phys. Rev. D 93, 065019 (2016), arXiv:1...

    2016 arXiv

  71. [77]

    M. A. L. Capri, D. Dudal, D. Fiorentini, M. S. Guimaraes, I. F. Justo, A. D. Pereira, B. W. Mintz, L. F. Palhares, R. F. Sobreiro, and S. P. Sorella, Local and BRST-invariant Yang-Mills theory within the Gribov horizon, Phys. Rev. D 94, 025035 (2016), arXiv:1605.02610 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  72. [78]

    M. A. L. Capri, D. Dudal, A. D. Pereira, D. Fiorentini, M. S. Guimaraes, B. W. Mintz, L. F. Palhares, and S. P. Sorella, Nonperturbative aspects of Euclidean Yang- Mills theories in linear covariant gauges: Nielsen iden- tities and a BRST-invariant two-point correlation func- ...

    2017 arXiv

  73. [79]

    M. A. L. Capri, D. Fiorentini, A. D. Pereira, and S. P. Sorella, Renormalizability of the refined Gribov- Zwanziger action in linear covariant gauges, Phys. Rev. D 96, 054022 (2017), arXiv:1708.01543 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  74. [80]

    M. A. L. Capri, D. Dudal, M. S. Guimaraes, A. D. Pereira, B. W. Mintz, L. F. Palhares, and S. P. Sorella, The universal character of Zwanziger’s horizon function in Euclidean Yang–Mills theories, Phys. Lett. B 781, 48 (2018), arXiv:1802.04582 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [81]

    A. D. Pereira, R. F. Sobreiro, and S. P. Sorella, Non-perturbative BRST quantization of Euclidean Yang–Mills theories in Curci–Ferrari gauges, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 528 (2016), arXiv:1605.09747 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  76. [82]

    B. W. Mintz, L. F. Palhares, G. Peruzzo, and S. P. Sorella, Infrared massive gluon propagator from a BRST-invariant Gribov horizon in a family of co- variant gauges, Phys. Rev. D 99, 034002 (2019), arXiv:1812.03166 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [83]

    Dudal, M

    D. Dudal, M. S. Guimaraes, and S. P. Sorella, Glueball masses from an infrared moment problem and nonper- turbative Landau gauge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 062003 (2011), arXiv:1010.3638 [hep-th]. 14

    2011 arXiv

  78. [84]

    Canfora and L

    F. Canfora and L. Rosa, Casimir energy in the Gribov- Zwanziger approach to QCD, Phys. Rev. D 88, 045025 (2013), arXiv:1308.1582 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  79. [85]

    M. A. L. Capri, D. Dudal, A. J. Gomez, M. S. Guimaraes, I. F. Justo, S. P. Sorella, and D. Ver- cauteren, Semiclassical analysis of the phases of 4d SU(2) Higgs gauge systems with cutoff at the Gribov horizon, Phys. Rev. D 88, 085022 (2013), arXiv:1212.1003 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  80. [86]

    M. A. L. Capri, D. Dudal, M. S. Guimaraes, I. F. Justo, S. P. Sorella, and D. Vercauteren, The (IR-)relevance of the Gribov ambiguity in SU(2) x U(1) gauge theories with fundamental Higgs matter, Annals Phys. 343, 72 (2014), arXiv:1309.1402 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  81. [87]

    B. W. Mintz, L. F. Palhares, S. P. Sorella, and A. D. Pereira, Ghost-gluon vertex in the presence of the Gribov horizon, Phys. Rev. D 97, 034020 (2018), arXiv:1712.09633 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  82. [88]

    Barrios, M

    N. Barrios, M. Pel´ aez, M. S. Guimaraes, B. W. Mintz, and L. F. Palhares, Ghost-gluon vertex in the presence of the Gribov horizon: General kinematics, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094039 (2024), arXiv:2402.17534 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [89]

    G. P. de Brito and A. D. Pereira, Infrared gluon prop- agator in the refined Gribov-Zwanziger scenario at one- loop order in the Landau gauge, Phys. Rev. D 110, 074005 (2024), arXiv:2405.07779 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [90]

    G. P. de Brito, P. De Fabritiis, and A. D. Pereira, Re- fined Gribov-Zwanziger theory coupled to scalar fields in the Landau gauge, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114006 (2023), arXiv:2302.04827 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Sternbeck, K

    A. Sternbeck, K. Maltman, M. Muller-Preussker, and L. von Smekal, Determination of LambdaMS from the gluon and ghost propagators in Landau gauge, PoS LA TTICE2012, 243 (2012), arXiv:1212.2039 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Pel´ aez, M

    M. Pel´ aez, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Two-point cor- relation functions of QCD in the Landau gauge, Phys. Rev. D 90, 065031 (2014), arXiv:1407.2005 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Alkofer, W

    R. Alkofer, W. Detmold, C. S. Fischer, and P. Maris, Analytic properties of the Landau gauge gluon and quark propagators, Phys. Rev. D 70, 014014 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309077

    2004 arXiv

  88. [96]

    C. S. Fischer, Infrared properties of QCD from Dyson- Schwinger equations, J. Phys. G 32, R253 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605173

    2006 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Alkofer, C

    R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, and K. Schwenzer, The Quark-gluon vertex in Landau gauge QCD: Its role in dynamical chiral symmetry breaking and quark confinement, Annals Phys. 324, 106 (2009), arXiv:0804.3042 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  90. [98]

    A. C. Aguilar and J. Papavassiliou, Chiral symmetry breaking with lattice propagators, Phys. Rev. D 83, 014013 (2011), arXiv:1010.5815 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  91. [99]

    A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Unquenching the gluon propagator with Schwinger- Dyson equations, Phys. Rev. D 86, 014032 (2012), arXiv:1204.3868 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  92. [100]

    A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Gluon mass generation in the presence of dynamical quarks, Phys. Rev. D 88, 074010 (2013), arXiv:1304.5936 [hep- ph]

    2013 arXiv

  93. [101]

    A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, D. Iba˜ nez, and J. Papavassil- iou, New method for determining the quark-gluon ver- tex, Phys. Rev. D 90, 065027 (2014), arXiv:1405.3506 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Braun, L

    J. Braun, L. Fister, J. M. Pawlowski, and F. Rennecke, From Quarks and Gluons to Hadrons: Chiral Symmetry Breaking in Dynamical QCD, Phys. Rev. D 94, 034016 (2016), arXiv:1412.1045 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Siringo, Analytic structure of QCD propagators in Minkowski space, Phys

    F. Siringo, Analytic structure of QCD propagators in Minkowski space, Phys. Rev. D 94, 114036 (2016), arXiv:1605.07357 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  96. [104]

    A. K. Cyrol, M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, Nonperturbative quark, gluon, and me- son correlators of unquenched QCD, Phys. Rev. D 97, 054006 (2018), arXiv:1706.06326 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  97. [105]

    A. C. Aguilar, J. C. Cardona, M. N. Ferreira, and J. Papavassiliou, Quark gap equation with non-abelian Ball-Chiu vertex, Phys. Rev. D 98, 014002 (2018), arXiv:1804.04229 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Comitini, D

    G. Comitini, D. Rizzo, M. Battello, and F. Siringo, Screened massive expansion of the quark propagator in the Landau gauge, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074020 (2021), arXiv:2108.00417 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  99. [107]

    F. Gao, J. Papavassiliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, Fully coupled functional equations for the quark sec- tor of QCD, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094013 (2021), arXiv:2102.13053 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Alkofer, Dynamical Chiral Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Chromo Dynamics: Delicate and Intricate, Symmetry 15, 1787 (2023), arXiv:2309.09679 [hep-ph]

    R. Alkofer, Dynamical Chiral Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Chromo Dynamics: Delicate and Intricate, Symmetry 15, 1787 (2023), arXiv:2309.09679 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  101. [109]

    W.-j. Fu, C. Huang, J. M. Pawlowski, Y.-y. Tan, and L.-j. Zhou, Four-quark scatterings in QCD III, (2025), arXiv:2502.14388 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Dell’Antonio and D

    G. Dell’Antonio and D. Zwanziger, Every gauge orbit passes inside the Gribov horizon, Commun. Math. Phys. 138, 291 (1991)

    1991

  103. [111]

    van Baal, More (thoughts on) Gribov copies, Nucl

    P. van Baal, More (thoughts on) Gribov copies, Nucl. Phys. B369, 259 (1992)

    1992

  104. [112]

    M. A. L. Capri, D. Fiorentini, and S. P. Sorella, Study of the all orders multiplicative renormalizability of a lo- cal confining quark action in the Landau gauge, Annals Phys. 356, 320 (2015), arXiv:1411.5073 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  105. [113]

    M. A. L. Capri, S. P. Sorella, and R. C. Terin, All order renormalizable refined Gribov-Zwanziger model with BRST invariant fermionic horizon function in lin- ear covariant gauges, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054048 (2021), arXiv:2107.08569 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  106. [114]

    M. B. Parappilly, P. O. Bowman, U. M. Heller, D. B. Leinweber, A. G. Williams, and J. B. Zhang, Scaling behavior of quark propagator in full QCD, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054504 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0511007

    2006 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.