Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Adjoint chromoelectric correlators for heavy quarkonium diffusion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First lattice data show adjoint chromoelectric correlators are leading-order-scaled copies of the fundamental correlator, linking quarkonium diffusion to heavy-quark diffusion.

desk verdict First lattice data on adjoint chromoelectric correlators, plausibly showing the 5/4 and C_A/C_F scaling with the fundamental correlator, but the continuum extrapolation of the octet correlator rests on a questionable exclusion of the coarsest ensemble. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20549 v1 pith:CAQDNQIL submitted 2025-05-26 hep-lat

Julian Mayer-Steudte This is my paper
classification hep-lat MSC 81T2581V0581T80 PACS 11.15.Ha12.38.Gc12.38.Mh
keywords quarkoniumtransportadjointchromoelectriccorrelatorlatticeQCDgradientflowheavyquarkdiffusionquark-gluonplasmaPolyakovloopSU(3)gaugetheory
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 reports the first lattice measurements of adjoint chromoelectric correlators at finite temperature, the quantities that encode how quarkonium diffuses through the quark-gluon plasma. Its central claim is that these adjoint correlators are multiples of the fundamental chromoelectric correlator that governs heavy-quark diffusion, with the factors fixed by leading-order perturbation theory: $G_{\rm oct} = (5/4)G_{\rm fund}$ and $G_{\rm sym} = (C_A/C_F)G_{\rm fund}$. If the claim holds, the quarkonium diffusion coefficients can be obtained by rescaling the heavy-quark diffusion coefficient rather than by a separate non-perturbative calculation. The result is obtained in quenched SU(3) gauge theory using gradient flow, continuum and zero-flow-time extrapolations, and it also shows that the high-temperature correlators agree with the perturbative form.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three ingredients: the gradient flow, which regulates the chromoelectric field insertions and improves the signal; the renormalization condition built from the adjoint Polyakov loop (the thermal Wilson line that wraps the imaginary-time direction, normalized by its trace), which removes the exponential mass divergence $e^{-\delta m \tau}$; and the tree-level improvement factor that corrects for lattice discretization effects in the field operators. The central objects are the correlators defined in Eqs. (1)-(4) with adjoint Wilson lines, and the load-bearing identities are the leading-order scaling relations (17)-(18), which fix the ratios $5/4$ and $C_A/C_F$ that are then compared with the lattice data at $T=1.5\,T_c$ and $T=10^4\,T_c$. The zero-flow-time limit is taken as a linear extrapolation over the range $a \le \sqrt{8\tau_F} \le \tau/3$.

What would settle it

Measure $G^{\rm oct}_E$ and $G^{\rm sym}_E$ at an intermediate temperature such as $T=3\,T_c$ using a different flow-time window or a different renormalization scheme; if the extrapolated ratios to $G^{\rm fund}_E$ deviate from $5/4$ and $C_A/C_F$ by more than the quoted statistical and systematic errors, the claimed universal scaling is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a proportionality relation between the three chromoelectric correlators computed on the lattice after the continuum limit and zero-flow-time extrapolation: the octet-octet correlator $G^{\rm oct}_E(\tau)$ equals $(5/4)G^{\rm fund}_E(\tau)$ and the symmetric adjoint correlator $G^{\rm sym}_E(\tau)$ equals $(C_A/C_F)G^{\rm fund}_E(\tau)$, where $G^{\rm fund}_E$ is the correlator describing heavy-quark diffusion. Because the momentum diffusion coefficient is the infrared limit of the spectral function associated with each correlator, the paper concludes $\kappa_{\rm oct} = (5/4)\kappa_{\rm fund}$ and $\kappa_{\rm sym} = (C_A/C_F)\kappa_{\rm fund}$. The non-symmetric singlet-octet correlator $G^r_E(\tau)$ is also measured and compared with multilevel results; it is not symmetric in $\tau T$, which the paper notes prevents the established extraction methods from being applied directly to it.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the gradient-flow-time dependence is linear over the window $a \le \sqrt{8\tau_F} \le \tau/3$ and that the renormalization condition in Eqs. (11)-(13) removes all divergent contributions; if either fails, the continuum correlators and the extracted scaling ratios would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quarkonium diffusion coefficients can be obtained by rescaling the existing heavy-quark diffusion coefficient, bypassing a separate lattice extraction of adjoint spectral functions.
  • The Lindblad-equation approach to quarkonium in the quark-gluon plasma can use $\kappa_{\rm oct} = (5/4)\kappa_{\rm fund}$ and $\kappa_{\rm sym} = (C_A/C_F)\kappa_{\rm fund}$ as input without new non-perturbative computations.
  • The observed agreement with the perturbative form at high temperature supports using the leading-order correlator shape in model calculations of quarkonium suppression.
  • The same correlator ratios provide direct constraints on octet-octet transition rates that enter dissociation and recombination in the plasma.
  • The result gives a benchmark for future 2+1 flavor lattice calculations of the adjoint chromoelectric correlators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling survives in dynamical-fermion calculations and at lower temperatures, it would suggest the ratios are fixed by color kinematics rather than by medium details; a direct test would be to check the same ratios for the chromomagnetic correlator.
  • The proportionality could be exploited by measuring the fundamental correlator with high statistics and using only short-distance adjoint data to determine the scaling factor, improving the signal for $\kappa_{\rm oct}$.
  • The paper computes Euclidean correlators, so the proportionality for $\kappa$ follows only if the same proportionality holds in the spectral functions; a spectral-function reconstruction of the adjoint correlators would settle this intermediate step.
  • The near-unity multiplicative factor relating gradient-flow and multilevel results at $T=10^4 T_c$ suggests the methods converge at asymptotically high temperature; repeating the multilevel comparison at $T=1.5 T_c$ would test the low-temperature scaling.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This proceedings paper reports the first lattice calculation of adjoint chromoelectric correlators at finite temperature in quenched SU(3) gauge theory. Using Wilson gauge configurations at T = 1.5 Tc and T = 10^4 Tc, the author applies gradient flow with clover and two-plaquette discretizations, renormalizes the nonsymmetric correlator through the Polyakov loop, applies a tree-level improvement, and performs continuum and zero-flow-time extrapolations. The central result is that the adjoint correlators G_oct and G_sym are scaled versions of the fundamental correlator, with the leading-order perturbative scaling factors 5/4 and C_A/C_F, respectively, leading to the predictions kappa_oct = (5/4) kappa_fund and kappa_sym = (C_A/C_F) kappa_fund. The nonsymmetric correlator G_E is compared with multilevel calculations, and its asymmetry is noted as a obstacle to extracting kappa_non-sym by standard methods.

Significance. If the scaling observation is robust, it is a valuable nonperturbative result: it would allow quarkonium diffusion coefficients to be obtained by rescaling the heavy-quark diffusion coefficient, and it would constitute the first lattice measurement of adjoint chromoelectric correlators at finite temperature. The paper has clear strengths: the gradient-flow pipeline is state of the art, the data are displayed at each stage, the scaling claim is compared against independent leading-order predictions rather than fitted, and the result is a falsifiable prediction for future unquenched calculations. The main caveats are that the central scaling comparison rests on a continuum extrapolation that excludes the coarsest ensemble, and that the comparison with multilevel results uses unexplained rescaling factors; both need to be addressed before the claim is fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 2] The continuum extrapolation for G_oct at T = 1.5 Tc excludes the N_tau = 16 ensemble, and the stated reason is 'to keep chi^2/dof close to 1'. This is a goodness-of-fit criterion rather than a physical or data-quality criterion, and it directly affects the headline result: the intercept of the 1/N_tau^2 fit determines the continuum G_oct used in Fig. 4 and therefore the comparison with (5/4) G_fund. The paper does not report the fit with N_tau = 16 included, the resulting change in the continuum value, or the associated systematic uncertainty, and it does not state whether the same exclusion was applied to G_sym. Please include the full fit, quantify the sensitivity of the scaling ratios to this choice, and justify any exclusion by an objective criterion that does not rely on the target chi^2/dof.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 5] The comparison of G_E^r with multilevel results multiplies the multilevel data by unexplained factors 0.74 at T = 1.5 Tc and 0.90 at T = 10^4 Tc. The text uses the closeness of these factors to 1 and the agreement of shapes as evidence of convergence of the nonperturbative lattice results to perturbative results, but no derivation, definition, or uncertainty is given for the rescaling. Without this information, the agreement shown in Fig. 5 cannot be interpreted. The rescaling should either be explained (e.g., as a known normalization or renormalization of the multilevel operator) or removed, and the comparison should be reported transparently with the uncertainties of the rescaling factors.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (14)] The tree-level improvement divides each measured correlator by the lattice tree-level expectation and multiplies by the continuum tree-level expectation. Because the improvement factors use the same leading-order expressions (15)-(18) that define the claimed scaling ratios, the procedure can in principle imprint the leading-order ratios onto the data, especially if the lattice artifact is not purely multiplicative. The authors should demonstrate that the observed 5/4 and C_A/C_F scaling survives when the improvement is omitted or varied, for example by comparing ratios of raw correlators before improvement or by using an alternative discretization.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (20), Fig. 3] The zero-flow-time limit is taken as a linear extrapolation in the window a <= sqrt(8 tau_F) <= tau/3. At the smallest tau T shown, this window contains only a few flow-time values, and the linearity is asserted rather than demonstrated quantitatively. Please provide the chi^2/dof of the linear fits, the number of flow-time points per tau, and at least one alternative extrapolation (e.g., quadratic or a restricted flow-time window) as a systematic check, since a nonlinear flow-time dependence would bias all final correlators and hence the scaling ratios.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The claim of measuring adjoint chromoelectric correlators 'for the first time' should be stated together with the companion papers [28] and [35] so that readers understand the proceedings status and where the full error analysis appears.
  2. [Section 2] The notation for the nonsymmetric correlator switches between G_E in Eq. (1), G_E^r in Eq. (12), and G_E in Fig. 5 without a consistent naming convention; please unify the notation and define each symbol where it is first used.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (14)] The notation G_p^E(0, tau T)|_LO is ambiguous: clarify what the '0' argument denotes (flow time equal to zero?) and define all variables appearing in Eq. (19), especially the lattice momenta and the meaning of the CLO and 2PL expressions.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 5] The multiplicative factors 0.74 and 0.90 in the figure legend are not explained in the text or caption; at minimum, the caption should state whether these factors are fitted, prescribed, or part of a renormalization convention.
  5. [Section 4] The conclusion defers the error analysis and the comparison with perturbation theory to Ref. [28]; the proceedings should either quote the final uncertainties of the scaling ratios or explicitly state that these uncertainties are not yet available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LO scaling factors are external predictions tested against independently measured lattice correlators; the only self-citations are minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is tested, not fitted. In Sec. 3, Fig. 4, the adjoint correlators are compared with the LO scaling factors 5/4 and C_A/C_F from Eqs. (17)-(18), which come from external perturbative calculations [30]; these constants are not determined from the lattice data. The tree-level improvement in Eq. (14) uses the same LO expressions for all three correlators, but because the color factors multiply both numerator and denominator, the improvement factor reduces to f(tau)|LO_cont / f(tau)|lat_LO, common to all representations; it therefore cannot generate the octet-to-fundamental ratio by construction. The zero-flow-time window in Eq. (20) is motivated by [17] (external) for the upper bound and by the author's earlier [34] for the lower bound; this is a minor self-citation, but the linearity of the extrapolation is checked in Fig. 3, so the argument does not reduce to that citation. The exclusion of N_tau=16 points from the continuum fit, 'to keep chi^2/dof close to 1', is a statistical selection that could affect the extrapolated intercepts, but it is not a constructional identity: the scaling ratios are not defined in terms of that fit, and the paper does not use the scaling factors as fit parameters. No fitted input is renamed a prediction. The proceedings explicitly defers final error analysis and comparison with perturbation theory to the full study [28], which is a scientific limitation but not circularity. Overall, the observed multiplicative scaling is an independent check against an external leading-order prediction, not a consequence of the paper's own definitions or fits.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the gradient-flow renormalization and extrapolation assumptions, the quenched approximation, and the pNRQCD interpretation. The only plainly hand-fitted parameter in this paper is the multilevel rescaling factor used in a comparison figure; the scaling factors themselves are leading-order perturbative predictions, not fitted constants.

free parameters (1)
  • multilevel rescaling factor = 0.74 at T=1.5 Tc; 0.90 at T=10^4 Tc.
    Hand-chosen multiplicative constants applied to the multilevel data in Figure 5 to bring them into agreement with the gradient-flow results; no derivation is provided in this proceedings.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The quenched approximation, pure gluon plasma with no dynamical quarks, is adequate for extracting quarkonium transport coefficients from the lattice.
    The simulations use pure SU(3) gauge configurations; the physical connection to quarkonium in the quark-gluon plasma assumes this approximation is valid at the studied temperatures.
  • domain assumption Gradient flow regularizes the chromoelectric field insertions and its zero-flow-time limit recovers the physical correlator.
    The entire analysis relies on gradient flow (Refs. [18-20]) to improve the signal; the zero-flow-time extrapolation in Fig. 3 assumes a linear flow-time dependence in the chosen window.
  • domain assumption The renormalization condition of Ref. [29] in Eqs. (11)-(13) fully cancels the exponential mass divergence of G_E^r.
    The renormalized non-symmetric correlator is defined by rescaling with the renormalized Polyakov loop; this relies on the external renormalization condition being valid at finite flow time.
  • ad hoc to paper A linear continuum extrapolation in 1/N_tau^2 is valid after excluding the coarsest ensemble for G_oct.
    The Wilson action has O(a^2) errors, but excluding N_tau=16 to keep chi2/dof near 1 is a data-dependent choice specific to this analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The tree-level improvement in Eq. (14) removes the dominant discretization errors without biasing the result toward the leading-order perturbative form.
    The measured correlators are divided by the lattice tree-level correlator and multiplied by the continuum tree-level one, which assumes lattice perturbation theory captures the discretization ratio.
  • domain assumption The pNRQCD open quantum system framework connects these Euclidean correlators to the quarkonium diffusion coefficients in the Lindblad equation.
    The physical interpretation of the correlators as encoding quarkonium diffusion is taken from Refs. [9,10,23-27].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adjoint chromoelectric correlators for heavy quarkonium diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CAQDNQIL

@misc{pith2026250520549,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adjoint chromoelectric correlators for heavy quarkonium diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CAQDNQIL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20549}
}
read the original abstract

We here measure, for the first time, adjoint chromoelectric correlators at finite temperatures that encode the diffusion of quarkonium in the medium. Understanding the dynamics of quarkonium in the QGP plays an essential role in understanding quarkonium suppression and the QGP in general. We perform SU(3) gauge theory calculations and use gradient flow to improve the signal-to-noise ratio and chromoelectric field discretizations. The continuum limit and the zero-flow-time extrapolation are performed, and the final result is compared with perturbative results. We observe that the correlators at a high temperature are well described by the perturbative form; furthermore, we observe multiplicative scaling of the adjoint correlators with respect to the fundamental correlator describing heavy quark diffusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20549 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 𝐺 𝑟 𝐸 and 𝐺 oct 𝐸 with the 2PL operator, normalized with 𝑓 (𝜏), at a fixed flow time ratio at 𝑇 = 1.5𝑇𝑐 for all five lattice spacings. 𝑓 (𝜏)|lat = 1 3𝑎 4 ∫ 𝜋 −𝜋 𝑑 3𝑞 (2𝜋) 3 cosh[𝑞𝑁¯ 𝜏 ( 1 2 − 𝜏𝑇)] sinh(𝑞𝑁¯ 𝜏/2) 1 sinh(𝑞¯)     1 + 𝑞˜ 2 4  𝑞˜ 2 − (𝑞˜ 2 ) 2 8 + 𝑞˜ 4 8  (CLO)  𝑞˜ 2 + 𝑞˜ 4−(𝑞˜ 2 ) 2 8  (2PL) . (19) with 𝑞¯ = 2 arcsin √︁ 𝑞˜ 2/2  , 𝑞˜ 𝑛 = Í3 𝑖=1 2 𝑛 sin𝑛 (𝑞𝑖/2), 𝑁 = 3, 𝐶𝐹 = ( (𝑁 2 − 1)𝑇𝑓 )… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of the continuum limit of 𝐺 𝑟 𝐸 and 𝐺 oct 𝐸 with the 2PL operator at 𝑇 = 1.5𝑇𝑐. Dimmed data points are excluded from the continuum limit. continuum limit at 𝑇 = 1.5𝑇𝑐 to keep 𝜒 2 /dof close to 1, while for 𝑇 = 104𝑇𝑐 all ensembles are included while delivering a good value for 𝜒 2 /dof. In the next step, we perform the zero-flow-time limit by a linear in-flow-time extrapolation. We have shown in [34] that fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of the zero-flow-time limit of 𝐺 𝑟 𝐸 and 𝐺 oct 𝐸 with the 2PL operator at 𝑇 = 1.5𝑇𝑐. Dimmed data points are excluded from the zero-flow-time limit. 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0 τT 1 2 3 4 5 GE(τ ) f(τ ) Goct|1.5 Tc Goct|104 Tc 5/4 · Gfund|1.5 Tc 5/4 · Gfund|104 Tc 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0 τT 2 4 6 8 GE(τ ) f(τ ) Gsym|1.5 Tc Gsym|104 Tc CA/CF · Gfund|1.5 Tc CA/CF · Gfund|104 Tc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Final result of the symmetrized correlators (oct and symm) normalized with Eq. (15). We compare the result with the fundamental correlator scaled with the factor at LO given in Eqs. (16), (17), and (18). 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 τT 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Gr E (τ ) f(τ ) T…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Final result of the non-symmetric correlator normalized with Eq. (15). We compare the result with results from multilevel calculations. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Datta, M. Janer, V. Leino, J. Mayer-Steudte, P. Petreczky et al.,Lattice study of correlators of chromoelectric fields for heavy quarkonium dynamics in the quark-gluon plasma,2505.16603

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Matsui and H

    T. Matsui and H. Satz,𝐽/𝜓Suppression by Quark-Gluon Plasma Formation,Phys. Lett. B 178(1986) 416

    work page 1986

  3. [2]

    Aarts et al.,Heavy-flavor production and medium properties in high-energy nuclear collisions - What next?,Eur

    G. Aarts et al.,Heavy-flavor production and medium properties in high-energy nuclear collisions - What next?,Eur. Phys. J. A53(2017) 93 [1612.08032]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [3]

    J. Zhao, K. Zhou, S. Chen and P. Zhuang,Heavy flavors under extreme conditions in high energy nuclear collisions,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.114(2020) 103801 [2005.08277]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [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. C74(2014) 2981 [1404.3723]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [5]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo,Potential NRQCD: An Effective theory for heavy quarkonium,Nucl. Phys. B566(2000) 275 [hep-ph/9907240]. 8 Adjoint chromoelectric correlators for heavy quarkonium diffusionJulian Mayer-Steudte

    arXiv 2000

  7. [6]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo,Effective Field Theories for Heavy Quarkonium,Rev. Mod. Phys.77(2005) 1423 [hep-ph/0410047]

    arXiv 2005

  8. [7]

    Caswell and G.P

    W.E. Caswell and G.P. Lepage,Effective Lagrangians for Bound State Problems in QED, QCD, and Other Field Theories,Phys. Lett. B167(1986) 437

    work page 1986

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    Thacker and G.P

    B.A. Thacker and G.P. Lepage,Heavy quark bound states in lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 196

    1991

  2. [9]

    Brambilla, M.A

    N. Brambilla, M.A. Escobedo, J. Soto and A. Vairo,Quarkonium suppression in heavy-ion collisions: an open quantum system approach,Phys. Rev.D96(2017) 034021 [1612.07248]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Brambilla, M.A

    N. Brambilla, M.A. Escobedo, J. Soto and A. Vairo,Heavy quarkonium suppression in a fireball,Phys. Rev.D97(2018) 074009 [1711.04515]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Moore and D

    G.D. Moore and D. Teaney,How much do heavy quarks thermalize in a heavy ion collision?, Phys. Rev.C71(2005) 064904 [hep-ph/0412346]

    2005 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Caron-Huot and G.D

    S. Caron-Huot and G.D. Moore,Heavy quark diffusion in QCD and N=4 SYM at next-to-leading order,JHEP02(2008) 081 [0801.2173]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Bouttefeux and M

    A. Bouttefeux and M. Laine,Mass-suppressed effects in heavy quark diffusion,JHEP12 (2020) 150 [2010.07316]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Banerjee, S

    D. Banerjee, S. Datta, R. Gavai and P. Majumdar,Heavy Quark Momentum Diffusion Coefficient from Lattice QCD,Phys. Rev.D85(2012) 014510 [1109.5738]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Francis, O

    A. Francis, O. Kaczmarek, M. Laine, T. Neuhaus and H. Ohno,Nonperturbative estimate of the heavy quark momentum diffusion coefficient,Phys. Rev.D92(2015) 116003 [1508.04543]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Brambilla, V

    N. Brambilla, V. Leino, P. Petreczky and A. Vairo,Lattice QCD constraints on the heavy quark diffusion coefficient,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 074503 [2007.10078]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Altenkort, A.M

    L. Altenkort, A.M. Eller, O. Kaczmarek, L. Mazur, G.D. Moore and H.-T. Shu,Heavy quark momentum diffusion from the lattice using gradient flow,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 014511 [2009.13553]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Narayanan and H

    R. Narayanan and H. Neuberger,Infinite N phase transitions in continuum Wilson loop operators,JHEP03(2006) 064 [hep-th/0601210]

    2006 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Lüscher,Trivializing maps, the Wilson flow and the HMC algorithm,Commun

    M. Lüscher,Trivializing maps, the Wilson flow and the HMC algorithm,Commun. Math. Phys.293(2010) 899 [0907.5491]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Lüscher,Properties and uses of the Wilson flow in lattice QCD,JHEP08(2010) 071 [1006.4518]

    M. Lüscher,Properties and uses of the Wilson flow in lattice QCD,JHEP08(2010) 071 [1006.4518]. 9 Adjoint chromoelectric correlators for heavy quarkonium diffusionJulian Mayer-Steudte [21]TUMQCDcollaboration,Heavy quark diffusion coefficient with gradient flow,Phys. Rev. D 107(...

    2010 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Yao and T

    X. Yao and T. Mehen,Quarkonium Semiclassical Transport in Quark-Gluon Plasma: Factorization and Quantum Correction,JHEP02(2021) 062 [2009.02408]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Scheihing-Hitschfeld and X

    B. Scheihing-Hitschfeld and X. Yao,Real time quarkonium transport coefficients in open quantum systems from Euclidean QCD,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 054024 [2306.13127]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Binder, K

    T. Binder, K. Mukaida, B. Scheihing-Hitschfeld and X. Yao,Non-Abelian electric field correlator at NLO for dark matter relic abundance and quarkonium transport,JHEP01 (2022) 137 [2107.03945]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Brambilla, T

    N. Brambilla, T. Magorsch, M. Strickland, A. Vairo and P. Vander Griend,Bottomonium suppression from the three-loop QCD potential,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 114016 [2403.15545]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Brambilla, M.A

    N. Brambilla, M.A. Escobedo, A. Islam, M. Strickland, A. Tiwari, A. Vairo et al.,Heavy quarkonium dynamics at next-to-leading order in the binding energy over temperature, JHEP08(2022) 303 [2205.10289]

    2022

  19. [29]

    Gupta, K

    S. Gupta, K. Huebner and O. Kaczmarek,Renormalized Polyakov loops in many representations,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 034503 [0711.2251]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Caron-Huot, M

    S. Caron-Huot, M. Laine and G.D. Moore,A Way to estimate the heavy quark thermalization rate from the lattice,JHEP04(2009) 053 [0901.1195]

    2009 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Francis, O

    A. Francis, O. Kaczmarek, M. Laine, T. Neuhaus and H. Ohno,Critical point and scale setting in SU(3) plasma: An update,Phys. Rev.D91(2015) 096002 [1503.05652]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Fritzsch and A

    P. Fritzsch and A. Ramos,The gradient flow coupling in the Schrödinger Functional,JHEP 10(2013) 008 [1301.4388]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Bazavov and T

    A. Bazavov and T. Chuna,Efficient integration of gradient flow in lattice gauge theory and properties of low-storage commutator-free Lie group methods,2101.05320

    arXiv

  24. [34]

    Brambilla, V

    N. Brambilla, V. Leino, J. Mayer-Steudte and A. Vairo,Static force from generalized Wilson loops on the lattice using the gradient flow,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 114517 [2312.17231]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Brambilla, P

    N. Brambilla, P. Panayiotou, S. Säppi and A. Vairo,The chromoelectric adjoint correlators in Euclidean space at next-to-leading order,2505.16604. 10

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.