Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Center vortices in the novel phase of staggered fermions

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 Center vortices carry the staggered-fermion artifact phase's broken shift symmetry, down to individual plaquette orientations.

desk verdict A useful, honest diagnostic paper: vortex-only fields reproduce the broken shift symmetry at the individual-plaquette level, though the quantitative sub-claims need error bars and the missing vortex-removal control leaves the carrier question open. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05807 v2 pith:FCOIFCQS submitted 2025-06-06 hep-lat hep-phhep-thnucl-th

Jackson A. Mickley , Derek B. Leinweber , Daniel Nogradi This is my paper
classification hep-lathep-phhep-thnucl-th MSC 81T2581T8081V05 PACS 11.15.Ha12.38.Gc
keywords centervorticesstaggeredfermionsshiftsymmetrybreakingunphysicallatticephasemaximalgaugebranchingpointsSU(3)theoryvortexdensity
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

Staggered fermions on the lattice develop an unphysical phase at strong coupling in which the single-site shift symmetry of the action is broken, and the paper asks whether the center-vortex degrees of freedom—the thin $\mathbb{Z}_3$-quantized flux tubes extracted by maximal center gauge projection—can see that phase. The answer is yes: on vortex-only fields the standard order parameter for the broken shift symmetry grows as $\beta$ decreases into the artifact phase, just as it does on the untouched gauge fields, and the signal is roughly an order of magnitude stronger because center-projected plaquettes are discrete. Decomposing the order parameter by plaquette orientation shows that only plaquettes spanning the broken dimension develop the even-odd asymmetry, and those plaquettes are pierced by vortices slightly more often, with a corresponding excess of branching points in three-dimensional slices that span the broken dimension. If the claim holds, the artifact phase is captured by the simplest center degrees of freedom, giving a new diagnostic for mapping and avoiding this unphysical region.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the orientation-resolved shift-symmetry order parameter $\Delta_\mu P_{\mu\nu} = \langle P_{\mu\nu}(x)-P_{\mu\nu}(x+\hat\mu)\rangle$ evaluated on even sites, with $P_{\mu\nu}$ the real part of the traced plaquette. On center-projected fields this quantity has a sharp meaning: a projected plaquette is either trivial or carries center charge $\pm1$, so a nonzero average difference between adjacent plaquettes is exactly a parity preference for vortex piercings along direction $\mu$. The other central ingredient is maximal center gauge, the gauge fixing that maximizes $\sum_{x,\mu}|\mathrm{Tr}\,U^\Omega_\mu(x)|^2$ and then projects each link to the nearest $\mathbb{Z}_3$ element, which is what turns thick physical vortices into thin vortex sheets whose pierced plaquettes can be counted.

What would settle it

Recompute the per-orientation order parameter on vortex-only fields after fixing to a different center gauge, such as Laplacian center gauge, or after locating thick vortices without projection; if the asymmetry in plaquettes spanning the broken dimension disappears or flips sign, the claim would be refuted. As a cross-check, run the same measurement for $N_f=8$ or $10$ across the phase boundary: the orientation-resolved signal should appear only in the dimensions where $\Delta_\mu P$ is nonzero and should vanish on the physical side.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that center vortices inherit the broken single-site shift symmetry that defines the unphysical phase of staggered fermions. For six degenerate flavors at bare mass $m=0.015$, the order parameter $\Delta_\mu P = \langle P(x)-P(x+\hat\mu)\rangle$ on even sites rises from near zero at $\beta=2.9$ to clearly nonzero values as $\beta$ decreases through the phase boundary, and the same trend appears on the maximal-center-gauge projected vortex fields. At the individual-plaquette level, when the symmetry is broken along $z$, the orientation-resolved order parameters $\Delta_z P_{xz}$, $\Delta_z P_{yz}$, and $\Delta_z P_{zt}$ are nonzero while $\Delta_z P_{xy}$, $\Delta_z P_{xt}$, and $\Delta_z P_{yt}$ are consistent with zero; the same pattern holds for untouched and vortex-only configurations. Vortex statistics mirror the asymmetry: plaquettes spanning the broken dimension have a slightly higher piercing density, branching point density is higher in slices spanning that dimension, and the ratio of odd to even pierced plaquettes reaches roughly 1.1. Chain-length distributions and the vortex correlation measure show no visible dependence, so the broken symmetry is a subtle parity preference in vortex piercing rather than a large-scale rearrangement of vortex geometry.

Load-bearing premise

Maximal center gauge projection preserves the physical vortex locations and the even-odd plaquette asymmetry of the unphysical phase; if the projection distorts or partially erases that asymmetry, the vortex-based characterization does not follow from the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The unphysical phase can be studied through vortex-only fields, since the broken shift symmetry survives maximal center gauge projection with the same qualitative behavior as on untouched configurations.
  • Any observable built from plaquettes spanning the broken dimension is the most sensitive probe of the phase; orientation-averaged quantities dilute the signal.
  • The small even-odd preference in vortex piercing (about 10% in the best case) means total vortex and branching-point densities are only weakly affected, so bulk density studies are unlikely to be contaminated by the artifact phase.
  • The drift of the broken dimension with Monte Carlo time, reproduced on vortex fields, identifies the symmetry breaking as spontaneous rather than explicit, with the direction set by finite-volume fluctuations.
  • The absence of change in chain-length statistics and the vortex correlation measure shows the phase transition does not restructure the large-scale vortex cluster, only its local even-odd orientation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to track the orientation-resolved asymmetry across the full $(\beta,m)$ phase diagram for other flavor numbers, such as $N_f=8$ or $10$; the magnitude of the even-odd preference should trace the phase boundary shape and vanish outside it.
  • If the vortex guiding-center interpretation is right, the same asymmetry should be visible in thick vortices identified without projection, for example through eigenmodes of the link matrix; testing that would separate the physics from the gauge-fixing prescription.
  • The 10% asymmetry is too small for visual inspection, but tuning closer to the phase boundary's interior or using anisotropic lattices might amplify it enough for direct visualization of even-odd vortex piercing.
  • The orientation-specific excess of pierced plaquettes resembles an anisotropic surface tension on vortex sheets; a simple vortex model with a preferred direction could test whether the observed branching-point excess follows from the piercing asymmetry alone.
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 paper studies center vortices in the novel unphysical phase of staggered fermions with six degenerate flavors. Using maximal center gauge (MCG) fixing and center projection, the authors compute the order parameter (Delta_mu P)^2 on untouched and vortex-only fields for beta in [2.5, 2.9] on 16^4 and 24^4 lattices. They find similar qualitative behavior in both cases, decompose the order parameter by plaquette orientation, and report that only plaquettes spanning the broken dimension are affected. They further report a slight preference for vortex piercing of those plaquettes and a larger branching-point density in three-dimensional slices that span the broken dimension. The paper concludes that center vortices capture the broken shift symmetry of the unphysical phase.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a novel characterization of the unphysical staggered-fermion phase in terms of center degrees of freedom, with a clean per-plaquette-orientation signature that has not been studied before. The qualitative trend in (Delta_mu P)^2 and the per-orientation pattern on vortex-only fields are visually consistent and the use of established MCG/center-projection techniques with two lattice volumes is a strength. The authors are also candid about the smallness of the effects and about the difficulty of visualizing the asymmetry. However, the new quantitative claims rest on differences of order 10^-3 in densities and ~10% in ratios that are presented without statistical uncertainties, and the absence of a vortex-removal control leaves an alternative projection-artifact interpretation for the central conclusion. These are load-bearing issues, but they are addressable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Figs. 2-5 and Sec. V] The central claim that center vortices capture the broken shift symmetry is supported only by comparing untouched fields with vortex-only (center-projected) fields. Because MCG projection is a nonlinear thresholding operation, it could in principle amplify an even/odd plaquette asymmetry that is not intrinsic to the vortex degrees of freedom. The standard control is vortex removal: multiply the MCG-fixed links by the inverse of the center-projected links and re-measure the order parameter on the vortex-removed fields. Without a demonstration that Delta_mu P is approximately zero after vortex removal, the observed vortex-only asymmetry does not uniquely establish that the vortex degrees of freedom are the carriers; it establishes only that the projection preserves or amplifies the asymmetry. This point is load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion and should be addressed with the missing control.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Figs. 8-11; Sec. IV.B, Fig. 14] The quantitative claims of a slight preference for vortex piercing of plaquettes spanning the broken dimension and of a greater branching-point density in slices spanning that dimension rest on very small differences: roughly 0.0005-0.0010 in vortex density and about 10% in the ratio R_z ~ 1.1. These results are presented as moving averages without any statistical uncertainties or significance tests. Moreover, the moving-average windows overlap, so the effective number of independent samples is unclear. The authors should provide bootstrap or jackknife uncertainties (or otherwise quantify significance) for the per-orientation vortex densities, the ratios R_mu, and the branching-point split; without this, the 'slight preference' and 'greater branching point density' claims are not quantitatively supported.
  3. [Sec. III, Figs. 6-8] The claim that only plaquettes spanning the broken dimension are affected is based on visual inspection of moving averages without error bars. For the null part of the claim (xy, xt, yt orientations consistent with zero), statistical uncertainties are essential. Please add uncertainties to Figs. 6 and 7 and to the ratio plot in Fig. 8, or provide a quantitative test that the spanning and non-spanning groups are significantly different.
  4. [Sec. II, MCG fixing paragraph] The manuscript does not report details of the MCG fixing procedure beyond the functional in Eq. (3): no information is given about the number of gauge-fixing iterations, stopping criteria, or treatment of Gribov copies. Since the central results depend on the projection, these details are needed for reproducibility and for assessing the sensitivity of the vortex-only asymmetry to the gauge-fixing scheme.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 captions] The word 'Probability' is misspelled as 'Pobability' in both captions.
  2. [Sec. III, beta=2.55 ensemble] The ensemble at beta=2.55 used for the per-plaquette decomposition and the ratio R_z is not identified as 16^4 or 24^4; please state the volume and the number of configurations used for those figures.
  3. [Eq. (6)] The notation (Delta_mu P)(Delta_mu P) is redundant; once the square (Delta_mu P)^2 is introduced in the text, define it clearly and use it consistently.
  4. [Sec. V, vortex correlation measure] The statement that the vortex correlation measure of Ref. [43] shows no difference in the unphysical phase is not accompanied by any figure or quantitative result; please provide the data or remove the claim.
  5. [Sec. III, 'first time' statement] The sentence 'This is the first time that the broken symmetry has been studied at this level' should be either substantiated with a citation or softened, since the paper does not provide a systematic literature search for per-plaquette decompositions of this order parameter.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the vortex-only order parameter is an independent measurement, with no fitted parameter and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical correlation: the same order parameter Δ_μ P measured on center-projected (vortex-only) links inherits the even/odd plaquette asymmetry seen in the untouched fields. No parameter is fitted to the order parameter; maximal center gauge (Eq. 3) and center projection (Eq. 4) are fixed procedures applied independently of Δ_μ P. The vortex-only result is not defined in terms of the untouched result—Eq. (6)'s P(x) is evaluated on Z_μ(x) rather than U_μ(x), and the two quantities are not algebraically or statistically forced to match. The ratio R_μ in Eq. (8) is explicitly acknowledged to be equivalent to the sign content of Δ_μP, but this is an internal consistency check, not a fitted prediction. The only external load-bearing assumption is the guiding-center property of MCG, cited to Refs. [15,29,46,47], which are not by the present authors and are independent of the present measurement. The absence of a vortex-removal control is a legitimate systematic/correctness concern (the projection could in principle amplify a small even/odd link asymmetry), but it is an alternative explanation, not a circular derivation. Self-citations [43,44,45,56,57] are used only for tools, conventions, and context, not to justify the central claim. Hence no circular step is present.

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

The central claim rests on the MCG projection assumption and on the established order parameter; no free parameters are fitted. No new entities are introduced. The phase's location is inherited from Ref [5] but verified behaviorally.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Maximal center gauge (MCG) projection identifies the physical 'guiding centers' of thick center vortices, so vortex-only fields capture relevant long-distance physics.
    Invoked in Sec. II, after Eq. (5): 'numerical evidence indicates that the projected vortex locations correspond to the physical guiding centers of thick vortices in the original fields [15, 29, 46, 47]'. The central comparison of untouched vs vortex-only fields depends on this.
  • domain assumption The order parameter Delta_mu P of Eq. (6) correctly detects the single-site shift symmetry breaking of the staggered-fermion action.
    Introduced in Sec. III via Eq. (6), following Refs [3-5]. The paper's identification of the phase boundary relies on this quantity taking zero in the physical phase and nonzero in the artifact phase.
  • domain assumption The unphysical phase exists for Nf=6 with the given action (two stout smearing steps with rho=0.12, tree-level Symanzik gauge action) in the beta range 2.5-2.9 at m=0.015.
    The ensemble setup is stated in Sec. II to be identical to Refs [5,54,55]; Fig. 1 is adapted from Ref [5]. The paper confirms the order parameter behavior but does not independently map the full phase boundary.
  • standard math In the center-projected field, a nontrivial plaquette has Re Tr P_mu_nu = -3/2, which is negative, enabling the even/odd asymmetry interpretation.
    Used in Sec. III-V analysis: for center phase exp(2 pi i m / 3) with m = +/- 1, the real part of the trace is negative. This is a direct computation from the center projection definition in Eq. (5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Center vortices in the novel phase of staggered fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FCOIFCQS

@misc{pith2026250605807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Center vortices in the novel phase of staggered fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FCOIFCQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05807}
}
abstract

The geometry of center vortices is studied in the novel lattice-artefact phase that appears with staggered fermions to elucidate any insight provided by the center-vortex degrees of freedom. For various numbers of fermion flavors, the single-site shift symmetry of the staggered-fermion action is broken in a finite region of the $(\beta, m)$ phase space. Simulations are performed with six degenerate fermion flavors and a range of $\beta$ values that span the phase boundary. Center vortices are demonstrated to capture the broken shift symmetry that manifests in the unphysical phase. This persists at the level of each individual plaquette orientation, where it is revealed that only the plaquettes that span the broken dimension are affected. Several bulk center-vortex quantities, including the vortex and branching point densities, are considered to highlight other aspects of vortex geometry sensitive to the unphysical phase. A slight preference for the plaquettes affected by the broken shift symmetry to be pierced by a vortex is observed. This translates also to a greater branching point density in three-dimensional slices that span the broken dimension. Combined, these findings provide a novel characterization of the unphysical phase in terms of the fundamental center degrees of freedom.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05807 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. for various flavor numbers. The unphysical phase has also been studied within the framework of chiral per￾turbation theory in Ref. [6]. Interestingly, there is cur￾rently no convincing evidence for the presence of the un￾physical phase with unimproved, unsmeared staggered fermions. There is a symmetry breaking associated with the phase transition. In the unphysical phase the follow￾ing single-site shift symmetry of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The square (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A moving average of ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The density of plaquettes pierced by a vortex for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Schematic of a monopole vertex ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The branching point densities for fixed- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Histograms of branching point chain lengths, accu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_16.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lee and S

    W.-J. Lee and S. R. Sharpe, Partial flavor symmetry restoration for chiral staggered fermions, Phys. Rev. D 60, 114503 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9905023

    arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    A Possible Aoki Phase for Staggered Fermions

    C. Aubin and Q.-h. Wang, Possible Aoki phase for staggered fermions, Phys. Rev. D 70, 114504 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0410020

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Cheng, A

    A. Cheng, A. Hasenfratz, and D. Schaich, Novel phase in SU(3) lattice gauge theory with 12 light fermions, Phys. Rev. D 85, 094509 (2012), arXiv:1111.2317 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Hasenfratz, Y

    A. Hasenfratz, Y. Shamir, and B. Svetitsky, Taming lat- tice artifacts with Pauli-Villars fields, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074509 (2021), arXiv:2109.02790 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    A. Y. Kotov, D. Nogradi, K. K. Szabo, and L. Szikszai, More on the flavor dependence of mϱ/fπ, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 202, [Erratum: J. High Energy Phys. 06, 032 (2022)], arXiv:2107.05996 [hep-lat]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Unphysical phases in staggered chiral perturbation theory

    C. Aubin, K. Colletti, and G. Davila, Unphysical phases in staggered chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D93, 085009 (2016), arXiv:1512.01254 [hep-lat]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    M. F. L. Golterman and J. Smit, Self-energy and flavor interpretation of staggered fermions, Nucl. Phys. B 245, 61 (1984)

    work page 1984

  8. [8]

    ’t Hooft, On the phase transition towards permanent quark confinement, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, On the phase transition towards permanent quark confinement, Nucl. Phys. B 138, 1 (1978)

    work page 1978

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    ’t Hooft, A property of electric and magnetic flux in non-Abelian gauge theories, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, A property of electric and magnetic flux in non-Abelian gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B 153, 141 (1979)

    1979

  2. [10]

    H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, A quantum liquid model for the QCD vacuum: Gauge and rotational invariance of domained and quantized homogeneous color fields, Nucl. Phys. B 160, 380 (1979)

    1979

  3. [11]

    Greensite, The confinement problem in lattice gauge theory, Prog

    J. Greensite, The confinement problem in lattice gauge theory, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 1 (2003), arXiv:hep- lat/0301023

    2003

  4. [12]

    Del Debbio, M

    L. Del Debbio, M. Faber, J. Greensite, and ˇS. Olejn ´ ık, Center dominance and Z2 vortices in SU(2) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 55, 2298 (1997), arXiv:hep- lat/9610005

    1997

  5. [13]

    Del Debbio, M

    L. Del Debbio, M. Faber, J. Greensite, and ˇS. Olejn ´ ık, Center vortices and the asymptotic string tension, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 63, 552 (1998), arXiv:hep- lat/9709032

    1998

  6. [14]

    Langfeld, H

    K. Langfeld, H. Reinhardt, and O. Tennert, Confine- ment and scaling of the vortex vacuum of SU(2) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Lett. B 419, 317 (1998), arXiv:hep- lat/9710068

    1998

  7. [15]

    Del Debbio, M

    L. Del Debbio, M. Faber, J. Giedt, J. Greensite, and ˇS. Olejn ´ ık, Detection of center vortices in the lattice Yang-Mills vacuum, Phys. Rev. D 58, 094501 (1998), arXiv:hep-lat/9801027

    1998 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Faber, J

    M. Faber, J. Greensite, and ˇS. Olejn ´ ık, Casimir scaling from center vortices: Towards an understanding of the adjoint string tension, Phys. Rev. D 57, 2603 (1998), arXiv:hep-lat/9710039

    1998 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Faber, J

    M. Faber, J. Greensite, and ˇS. Olejn ´ ık, Evidence for a center vortex origin of the adjoint string tension, Acta Phys. Slov. 49, 177 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9807008

    1999 arXiv

  10. [18]

    T. G. Kov´ acs and E. T. Tomboulis, Vortices and confine- ment at weak coupling, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4054 (1998), arXiv:hep-lat/9711009

    1998 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Langfeld, O

    K. Langfeld, O. Tennert, M. Engelhardt, and H. Rein- hardt, Center vortices of Yang-Mills theory at finite tem- peratures, Phys. Lett. B 452, 301 (1999), arXiv:hep- lat/9805002

    1999

  12. [20]

    Engelhardt, K

    M. Engelhardt, K. Langfeld, H. Reinhardt, and O. Ten- nert, Interaction of confining vortices in SU(2) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Lett. B 431, 141 (1998), arXiv:hep- lat/9801030

    1998

  13. [21]

    Bertle, M

    R. Bertle, M. Faber, J. Greensite, and ˇS. Olejn ´ ık, The structure of projected center vortices in lattice gauge theory, J. High Energy Phys. 03, 019, arXiv:hep- lat/9903023

  14. [22]

    Engelhardt, K

    M. Engelhardt, K. Langfeld, H. Reinhardt, and O. Ten- nert, Deconfinement in SU(2) Yang-Mills theory as a center vortex percolation transition, Phys. Rev. D 61, 054504 (2000), arXiv:hep-lat/9904004

    2000 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Engelhardt and H

    M. Engelhardt and H. Reinhardt, Center vortex model for the infrared sector of Yang-Mills theory — confine- ment and deconfinement, Nucl. Phys. B 585, 591 (2000), arXiv:hep-lat/9912003

    2000 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Faber, J

    M. Faber, J. Greensite, and ˇS. Olejn ´ ık, First evidence for center dominance in SU(3) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Lett. B 474, 177 (2000), arXiv:hep-lat/9911006

    2000 arXiv

  17. [25]

    de Forcrand and M

    P. de Forcrand and M. D’Elia, Relevance of Center Vortices to QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4582 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9901020

    1999 arXiv

  18. [26]

    de Forcrand and M

    P. de Forcrand and M. Pepe, Center vortices and monopoles without lattice Gribov copies, Nucl. Phys. B 598, 557 (2001), arXiv:hep-lat/0008016

    2001 arXiv

  19. [27]

    T. G. Kov´ acs and E. T. Tomboulis, Computation of the Vortex Free Energy in SU(2) Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 704 (2000), arXiv:hep-lat/0002004

    2000 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Langfeld, H

    K. Langfeld, H. Reinhardt, and J. Gattnar, Gluon prop- agator and quark confinement, Nucl. Phys. B 621, 131 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0107141

    2002 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Langfeld, Vortex structures in pure SU(3) lattice gauge theory, Phys

    K. Langfeld, Vortex structures in pure SU(3) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D69, 014503 (2004), arXiv:hep- lat/0307030

    2004

  22. [30]

    Engelhardt, M

    M. Engelhardt, M. Quandt, and H. Reinhardt, Center vortex model for the infrared sector of SU (3) Yang-Mills theory—confinement and deconfinement, Nucl. Phys. B 685, 227 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0311029

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gattnar, C

    J. Gattnar, C. Gattringer, K. Langfeld, H. Reinhardt, A. Sch¨ afer, S. Solbrig, and T. Tok, Center vortices and Dirac eigenmodes in SU(2) lattice gauge theory, Nucl. Phys. B 716, 105 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0412032

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    V. G. Bornyakov, E. M. Ilgenfritz, B. V. Martemyanov, S. M. Morozov, M. Muller-Preussker, and A. I. Veselov, Interrelation between monopoles, vortices, topological charge and chiral symmetry breaking: Analysis using overlap fermions for SU (2), Phys. Rev. D 77, 074507 (2008), ...

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    P. O. Bowman, K. Langfeld, D. B. Leinweber, A. O’ Cais, A. Sternbeck, L. von Smekal, and A. G. Williams, Center vortices and the quark propagator in SU(2) gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 78, 054509 (2008), arXiv:0806.4219 [hep- lat]

    2008 arXiv

  26. [34]

    P. O. Bowman, K. Langfeld, D. B. Leinweber, A. Stern- beck, L. von Smekal, and A. G. Williams, Role of center vortices in chiral symmetry breaking in SU(3) gauge the- ory, Phys. Rev. D 84, 034501 (2011), arXiv:1010.4624 [hep-lat]. 11

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    O’Malley, W

    E.-A. O’Malley, W. Kamleh, D. Leinweber, and P. Moran, SU (3) centre vortices underpin confinement and dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D 86, 054503 (2012), arXiv:1112.2490 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    H¨ ollwieser, T

    R. H¨ ollwieser, T. Schweigler, M. Faber, and U. M. Heller, Center vortices and chiral symmetry breaking in SU (2) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 88, 114505 (2013), arXiv:1304.1277 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    H¨ ollwieser, M

    R. H¨ ollwieser, M. Faber, T. Schweigler, and U. M. Heller, Chiral Symmetry Breaking from Center Vortices, PoS LA TTICE2013, 505 (2014), arXiv:1410.2333 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Trewartha, W

    A. Trewartha, W. Kamleh, and D. Leinweber, Evidence that centre vortices underpin dynamical chiral symmetry breaking in SU(3) gauge theory, Phys. Lett. B 747, 373 (2015), arXiv:1502.06753 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Greensite, Confinement from Center Vortices: A re- view of old and new results, EPJ Web Conf

    J. Greensite, Confinement from Center Vortices: A re- view of old and new results, EPJ Web Conf. 137, 01009 (2017), arXiv:1610.06221 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Trewartha, W

    A. Trewartha, W. Kamleh, and D. Leinweber, Centre vortex removal restores chiral symmetry, J. Phys. G 44, 125002 (2017), arXiv:1708.06789 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. C. Biddle, W. Kamleh, and D. B. Leinweber, Static quark potential from center vortices in the presence of dynamical fermions, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054505 (2022), arXiv:2206.00844 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. C. Biddle, W. Kamleh, and D. B. Leinweber, Impact of dynamical fermions on the center vortex gluon propaga- tor, Phys. Rev. D 106, 014506 (2022), arXiv:2206.02320 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. A. Mickley, W. Kamleh, and D. B. Leinweber, Center vortex geometry at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. D110, 034516 (2024), arXiv:2405.10670 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. A. Mickley, C. Allton, R. Bignell, and D. B. Leinweber, Center vortex evidence for a second finite-temperature QCD transition, Phys. Rev. D 111, 034508 (2025), arXiv:2411.19446 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. A. Mickley, D. B. Leinweber, and D. Nogradi, Center vortices and the SU(3) conformal window, Phys. Rev. D 111, 034516 (2025), arXiv:2501.11279 [hep-lat]

    2025

  38. [46]

    Montero, Study of SU(3) vortex-like configurations with a new maximal center gauge fixing method, Phys

    A. Montero, Study of SU(3) vortex-like configurations with a new maximal center gauge fixing method, Phys. Lett. B 467, 106 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9906010

    1999 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Faber, J

    M. Faber, J. Greensite, ˇS. Olejn ´ ık, and D. Yamada, The vortex-finding property of maximal center (and other) gauges, J. High Energy Phys. 12, 012, arXiv:hep- lat/9910033

  40. [48]

    Duane, A

    S. Duane, A. D. Kennedy, B. J. Pendleton, and D. Roweth, Hybrid Monte Carlo, Phys. Lett. B 195, 216 (1987)

    1987

  41. [49]

    M. A. Clark and A. D. Kennedy, Accelerating Dynamical- Fermion Computations Using the Rational Hybrid Monte Carlo Algorithm with Multiple Pseudofermion Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 051601 (2007), arXiv:hep- lat/0608015

    2007

  42. [50]

    Morningstar and M

    C. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Analytic smearing of SU(3) link variables in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 69, 054501 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0311018

    2004 arXiv

  43. [51]

    S. Durr, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, T. Kurth, L. Lellouch, T. Lippert, K. K. Szabo, and G. Vulvert (BMW), Lattice QCD at the physical point: Simulation and analysis details, J. High Energy Phys.08, 148, arXiv:1011.2711 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Symanzik, Continuum limit and improved action in lattice theories: (I)

    K. Symanzik, Continuum limit and improved action in lattice theories: (I). Principles and ϕ4 theory, Nucl. Phys. B226, 187 (1983)

    1983

  45. [53]

    Symanzik, Continuum limit and improved action in lattice theories: (II)

    K. Symanzik, Continuum limit and improved action in lattice theories: (II). O(N ) non-linear sigma model in perturbation theory, Nucl. Phys. B226, 205 (1983)

    1983

  46. [54]

    Nogradi, D

    D. Nogradi, D. Nogradi, L. Szikszai, and L. Szikszai, The flavor dependence of mϱ/fπ, J. High Energy Phys. 05, 197, [Erratum: J. High Energy Phys. 06, 031 (2022)], arXiv:1905.01909 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Nogradi and L

    D. Nogradi and L. Szikszai, The model depen- dence of mϱ/fπ, PoS LA TTICE2019, 237 (2019), arXiv:1912.04114 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    roughness

    has developed the tools necessary to visualize cen- ter vortices. A three-dimensional cross section of the full four-dimensional lattice is taken by holding one of the coordinates fixed. For each plaquette in the three- dimensional slice, this leaves one orthogonal direction t...

  49. [57]

    J. C. Biddle, W. Kamleh, and D. B. Leinweber, Visu- alization of center vortex structure, Phys. Rev. D 102, 034504 (2020), arXiv:1912.09531 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. C. Biddle, W. Kamleh, and D. B. Leinweber, Center vortex structure in the presence of dynamical fermions, Phys. Rev. D 107, 094507 (2023), arXiv:2302.05897 [hep- lat]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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