Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Adding at least one tetraquark operator to the correlation matrix is necessary before the finite-volume spectrum in the a0(980) and kappa channels can be trusted; without it, an energy level is missed in the K-eta subsystem below threshold.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 17:48 UTC pith:UDWLLMKD

load-bearing objection A useful but not yet airtight demonstration that omitting tetraquark operators can distort the extracted spectrum in the a0 and κ channels; the selection protocol and the threshold claim need scrutiny. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.19192 v2 pith:UDWLLMKD submitted 2026-03-19 hep-lat

Investigating the role of tetraquark operators in lattice QCD studies of the a₀(980) and kappa resonances

Andrew D. Hanlon , Daniel Darvish , Sarah Skinner , John Meneghini , Ruair\'i Brett , John Bulava , Jacob Fallica , Colin Morningstar
show 2 more authors
Fernando Romero-L\'opez Andr\'e Walker-Loud
This is my paper
classification hep-lat PACS 12.38.Gc
keywords lattice QCDtetraquark operatorsscalar mesonsa0(980)kappa resonancefinite-volume spectrumK-matrixinterpolating operators
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks whether lattice QCD can reliably extract the finite-volume spectrum relevant for the light scalar mesons a0(980) and kappa using only standard single-meson and two-meson operators. The answer it gives is no: in both channels, the spectrum determination is unreliable unless at least one tetraquark operator is added to the correlator matrix. In the isospin-1/2, strangeness-1 channel, adding a single tetraquark operator uncovers an additional energy level in the K-eta subsystem below the K-eta threshold that is entirely missed otherwise. Since the quantization condition converts finite-volume energies into scattering K-matrix parameters, a missed level can distort resonance parameters. The authors conclude that tetraquark operators are crucial for the a0(980) and for future studies of the K0*(1430), while the kappa resonance itself, decaying mainly to K-pi, is less affected.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that tetraquark interpolating operators are not optional add-ons but essential elements of a reliable operator basis in these scalar channels. Working at m_pi ≈ 230 MeV and m_pi L ≈ 4.4, the authors compare spectra extracted with eleven or twelve meson operators (single-meson and meson-meson) to those obtained after adding a carefully selected tetraquark operator. In the kappa channel, the tetraquark operator resolves a previously hidden level at 2.139(62) m_K, below the K-eta threshold at 2.172 m_K, and changes the number and pattern of levels in the 1.8–2.3 m_K region. In the a0(980) channel, the added operator does not introduce a new level but substantially r

What carries the argument

The central objects are the tetraquark interpolating operators: local and extended four-quark operators constructed from two quarks and two antiquarks, in either of two color-singlet couplings (the symmetric and antisymmetric contractions of color indices). Built with various spin, displacement, and flavor structures, they provide an extra row in the temporal correlation matrix that couples to stationary states invisible to single-meson and two-meson operators. The paper scans hundreds of these operators on 25 gauge configurations and picks the one that most strongly changes the low-lying spectrum; that selected operator then resolves the previously missed level.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the selected tetraquark operator, chosen for its large effect on 25 of the same 412 configurations, genuinely coupling to a QCD stationary state rather than to noise, and on that state lying below the K-eta threshold.

What would settle it

Remove the 25 configurations used in the operator-selection scan and recompute the kappa-channel spectrum; if the extra level below the K-eta threshold disappears or shifts by more than its quoted uncertainty, the selection was overfit. Or add a second, independently chosen tetraquark operator from the same dozen that showed large effects; if the level is not recovered, the single-operator result is not robust.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Lattice QCD extractions of the a0(980) resonance parameters that used only single- and two-meson operators may have used an incomplete finite-volume spectrum, so their K-matrix results are suspect.
  • Studies of the K0*(1430), which decays into K-eta, must include tetraquark operators or risk missing a low-lying state that changes the coupled-channel analysis.
  • The kappa resonance itself, decaying primarily to K-pi, appears to be less affected: the K-pi energies change only slightly when the tetraquark operator is added.
  • The new level below the K-eta threshold, if confirmed, could indicate a weakly bound or virtual K-eta state in this volume, a prediction that can be tested with more energy levels and moving frames.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The operator-selection procedure is the paper's main fragility: the chosen tetraquark operator was selected because it produced a dramatic change on the same 25 configurations later used in the final analysis. Repeating the selection on a training subset and confirming on a hold-out set would distinguish a genuine state from an overfit.
  • A natural, testable extension is to include several of the dozen similarly-behaved tetraquark operators simultaneously; if the extra level persists with stable energy, the claim that it is a real QCD state is strengthened.
  • The same scanning approach could identify analogous missing levels in other light scalar channels, such as the isoscalar sigma, where disconnected diagrams and tetraquark content are expected to matter.
  • If the additional K-eta level is real, the paper's qualitative quantization-condition analysis predicts a bound K-eta state in this volume; a fully coupled multichannel fit with multiple total momenta would turn that suggestion into a falsifiable prediction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the role of tetraquark operators in finite-volume spectrum extraction for the isodoublet strange (κ) and isotriplet nonstrange (a0(980)) channels on an N_f=2+1 anisotropic clover ensemble with m_π≈230 MeV and m_π L≈4.4. Using stochastic LapH with all disconnected contributions, the authors construct single-meson, two-meson, and hundreds of tetraquark operators, select one tetraquark operator per channel from a 25-configuration low-statistics run, and then extract the lowest energies from 412-configuration correlation matrices with and without that operator. In the I=1/2, S=1 channel they find that inclusion of the tetraquark operator resolves an additional level near the Kη threshold; in the I=1, S=0 channel the extracted spectrum above the ground state changes dramatically. The paper concludes that spectrum determinations without at least one tetraquark operator are unreliable in these channels and discusses the consequences for Lüscher-style K-matrix parameterizations.

Significance. If correct, the result is an important caution for lattice studies of light scalar mesons: a missing operator type can cause a missed finite-volume level, with direct consequences for K-matrix analyses based on the quantization condition. The paper has real strengths: it includes all disconnected contributions, uses a systematic and flexible tetraquark operator construction, checks GEVP parameter stability (Fig. 4), and quantifies level overlaps with all operators. The K-matrix part is appropriately labeled qualitative, and the paper explicitly notes the limitations of zero-total-momentum data. However, the central claim rests on a single tetraquark operator selected in-sample from 25 of the 412 configurations used in the final analysis, and the additional level is only about 0.5σ below the Kη threshold. The result is therefore plausible and worth publishing only after the selection issue is addressed and the bound-state wording is made commensurate with the statistical evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II E and Tables VII-X] The central claim is not validated out of sample. The tetraquark operators are chosen because, in a 25-configuration subset, they produce 'a dramatic change in the low-lying energies'; the final 412-configuration analysis uses the same 25 configurations. Under the null hypothesis that the hundreds of tried operators couple mainly to noise, selecting the operator that maximizes the spectral change on 25/412 configurations will tend to produce a spectral change in the full sample because the full sample contains the selection configurations. No holdout split, no blinded analysis, and no test with a second, equally plausible tetraquark operator is reported. To support the conclusion that at least one tetraquark operator is necessary, the authors should either perform the selection without using the final data (e.g., on a different subset or ensemble) or demonstrate robustness by repeating t
  2. [Sec. III B and Sec. IV A (Table VIII, Fig. 11)] The additional level that carries the main message is not quantitatively below the Kη threshold. Using the numbers in Table VIII, level 3 is at 2.139(62) m_K while the Kη threshold is about 2.172 m_K, i.e., about 0.5σ below threshold; its separation from level 2 (1.951(69) m_K) is about 2σ. Thus the evidence for a bound Kη state is weak even before accounting for the look-elsewhere effect from the many operator trials in Sec. II E. The abstract's 'below the Kη threshold' and Sec. IV A's 'suggest the existence of a bound Kη state' are therefore stronger than the data support. These statements should be softened, or the authors should provide a global significance that includes the operator search and fit variations.
  3. [Sec. II E and Table VI] The exact definition of the selected tetraquark operators is not given: the text states that superposition coefficients and the 'SS2' construction details are available upon request. Since the entire result is tied to the specific operators used, this is not a presentation detail. The group-theoretical coefficients, spin contractions, displacement patterns, and the exact SS2 operator should appear in the paper or in an appendix; otherwise the result cannot be independently reproduced or tested with a closely related but different operator.
  4. [Sec. IV A, Fig. 11] The no-tetraquark comparison in the Kη channel is not quantitative. The paper shows that constant and linear forms of K^{-1} can be tuned to intersect the box matrix at energies consistent with the with-tetraquark red points, but no goodness-of-fit is reported for the no-tetraquark orange points, and no model comparison or likelihood ratio between the 'missed level' and 'no missed level' hypotheses is made. The statement that omitting the tetraquark operator 'would make it difficult' to find a suitable K^{-1} is an assertion; a simple χ² comparison for the two hypotheses would make the argument concrete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II C, Eq. (14)] The text says q and q-bar are defined in Eq. (4) of Ref. [23], but the definitions appear in Eq. (5) of this paper; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. III A] The η′ is approximated as stable; this is reasonable for the stated masses but should be listed explicitly as a systematic approximation alongside the exclusion of four-meson operators.
  3. [Figs. 6 and 9] The figure captions use physical η and φ for non-interacting energies while the operator labels use η̃ and φ̃. This distinction is described in the text but easily missed; a brief clarification in each caption would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. II E] The phrase 'the operator yielding the effective energy with the smallest statistical errors and least excited-state contamination' should include a concrete measure of 'least excited-state contamination', since this selection criterion is otherwise not reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the central result is a numerically extracted spectrum, not an identity derived from its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that including a tetraquark operator changes or adds finite-volume energy levels in the a0(980) and kappa channels. This is a numerical spectrum extraction, not a derived identity, so it does not reduce to an input by construction. The closest concern is the operator selection in Sec. II E: hundreds of tetraquark operators are screened on 25 configurations, and the operator producing a 'dramatic change' is retained, while the final spectrum uses all 412 configurations including the same 25. That is an in-sample selection effect and a legitimate statistical worry, but it is not circularity: the paper does not fit a parameter to data and then rename it a prediction; it transparently reports the selection procedure and then extracts the spectrum with a larger ensemble. The additional level at 2.139(62) m_K is only mildly below the K-eta threshold, which is a statistical strength issue, not a circularity issue. No load-bearing self-citation chain is used, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' previous work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation as a substitute for derivation. The Lüscher analysis uses the same extracted energies, but the paper explicitly labels it exploratory and qualitative, and the conclusion is conditional on the extracted spectrum. The lack of full operator definitions in the paper ('available from the authors upon request') hinders reproducibility but is not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity test.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or forces. Its load-bearing 'inputs' are a single gauge ensemble, a hand-selected tetraquark operator, and standard lattice QCD analysis choices. The main non-standard free choice is the operator selection from the screening procedure, which is the primary source of circularity/selection risk. The axioms are the standard toolkit of lattice spectroscopy; the least certain is the GEVP/operator-completeness assumption, which is exactly what the paper interrogates.

free parameters (4)
  • Selected tetraquark operator (discrete choice) = κ: T[suss]SS2(−); a0: T[(uu+dd)du]SS2(+)
    Chosen from hundreds of candidates because it produced the largest dramatic change in the low-lying spectrum on 25 configurations (Sec. II E); the selection criterion is the effect being claimed.
  • GEVP diagonalization time τ_D = 12 (κ), 7 (a0)
    Hand-tuned to balance noise and diagonalization; insensitivity shown in Fig. 4, but it is a free analysis choice affecting all extracted energies.
  • Two-exponential fit windows (τ_min, τ_max) = Per level, Tables VII–X (e.g., (7,26), (8,26), ...)
    Chosen per level as the range where fits are stable; standard practice but hand-selected and not fully automated.
  • K-matrix ansatz coefficients in Sec. IV = constant, linear, quadratic forms shown in Figs. 10–13
    Illustrative fits to the finite-volume energies; the paper does not use them for quantitative resonance claims, but they are fitted to data.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The stochastic LapH estimates of the correlators are unbiased and the employed noise dilution schemes (TF/SF/LI8 and TI16/SF/LI8) are sufficient for the precision needed here.
    Stated in Sec. II D; no convergence tests for the stochastic estimates are shown.
  • domain assumption The Lüscher quantization condition (Eq. 19) with ℓ≤0 truncation and negligible channel mixing is valid for these zero-total-momentum channels below three-particle thresholds.
    Used in Sec. IV; truncation and decoupling are justified by overlap factors and PDG branching ratios, not by a direct test.
  • domain assumption The η and η′ mesons may be treated as stable on this ensemble.
    Sec. III A: m_η is below the three-pion threshold and η′ decays are suppressed; this fixes the two-particle thresholds used in the K-matrix analysis.
  • standard math Isospin symmetry with m_u=m_d and no electromagnetic/weak effects.
    Stated in Sec. III A; standard lattice QCD approximation.
  • domain assumption The single-pivot GEVP with the chosen τ_N, τ_0, τ_D cleanly separates the relevant finite-volume states.
    The paper checks τ_D insensitivity (Fig. 4) but only on a single ensemble and for two choices of τ_0; the possibility of missed states due to insufficient operator overlap is the very subject of the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29504 in / 16221 out tokens · 151765 ms · 2026-08-02T17:48:53.041698+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The role of tetraquark operators in studying the isodoublet strange $\kappa$ and isovector nonstrange $a_0(980)$ scalar mesons in lattice QCD is examined using an ensemble with $m_\pi\approx230$ MeV and spatial extent $L$ such that $m_\pi L\approx4.4$. Hermitian correlation matrices using both single-meson, meson-meson, and tetraquark interpolating operators are used to extract the spectrum of finite-volume stationary states in the appropriate symmetry channels. Hundreds of local and extended tetraquark operators are explored. Determinations of the spectrum in each channel are found to be unreliable without the inclusion of at least one tetraquark operator. For example, the inclusion of tetraquark operators with isospin 1/2 and strangeness 1 quantum numbers reveals the existence of an additional energy level in the $K\eta$ sub-system below the $K\eta$ threshold. The implications of this on parametrizing the scattering $K$-matrix through a well-known quantization condition to extract properties of the $\kappa$ and $a_0(980)$ scalar meson resonances are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.19192 by Andr\'e Walker-Loud, Andrew D. Hanlon, Colin Morningstar, Daniel Darvish, Fernando Romero-L\'opez, Jacob Fallica, John Bulava, John Meneghini, Ruair\'i Brett, Sarah Skinner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Our tetraquark operators consist of two gauge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Effective energies for the at-rest pion (left), kaon (center), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Effective energies for the lowest six levels in the isodoublet, strangeness 1, zero-momentum, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Determinations of the spectrum in the isodoublet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Each plot shows the factors for a single operator, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Overlap factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Left) Estimate of isodoublet, strangeness 1, zero [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Effective energies for the lowest six levels in the isotriplet, non-strange, zero-momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Overlap factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Left) Estimate of isotriplet, strangeness 0, zero [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Study of the L¨uscher quantization condition for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Study of the L¨uscher quantization condition for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 22 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    box matrix

    This state is mainly created by the K(0)K(0) op- erator, so level 1 can be interpreted as a kaon-antikaon state with residual interactions. Levels 2 and 3 are pro- duced mainly by the tetraquark and ˜ϕ(0)π(0) operators, with small overlap factors from the ˜η(0)π(0) and ROT 0 operators. This leads to an identification of level 2 as predominantly a tetraqua...

  2. [2]

    Rupp and E

    G. Rupp and E. Van Beveren, Scalar mesons: fifty years of challenging the quark model, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 11, 455 (2018), arXiv:1806.00364 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Mesons in a Relativized Quark Model with Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D32, 189 (1985)

    1985

  4. [4]

    An inspection of the overlap factors in Fig

    The tetraquark operator is observed to impact levels 2 and 3 mostly. An inspection of the overlap factors in Fig. 5 shows thatKπoperators produce states with very little overlaps on levels 2 and 3. These facts indicate that the tetraquark operator is having an effect mainly in the Kηdecay channel and not in theKπchannel. We conclude that the tetraquark op...

    2047

  5. [5]

    Jaffe, Exotica, Nucl

    R. Jaffe, Exotica, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.142, 343 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    Amsler and N

    C. Amsler and N. Tornqvist, Mesons beyond the naive quark model, Phys. Rept.389, 61 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    F. E. Close and N. A. Tornqvist, Scalar mesons above and below 1-GeV, J. Phys. G28, R249 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0204205

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Maiani, F

    L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. Polosa, and V. Riquer, A New look at scalar mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 212002 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0407017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  9. [9]

    Stump and J

    A. Stump and J. R. Green, Position-space sampling for local multiquark operators in lattice QCD using distil- lation and the importance of tetraquark operators for Tcc(3875)+ (2025), arXiv:2510.26459 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Prelovsek, E

    S. Prelovsek, E. Ortiz-Pacheco, S. Collins, L. Leskovec, M. Padmanath, and I. Vujmilovic, Doubly heavy tetraquarks from lattice QCD: Incorporating diquark- antidiquark operators and the left-hand cut, Phys. Rev. D112, 014507 (2025), arXiv:2504.03473 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Alharazin, A

    H. Alharazin, A. B. Raposo, J. Bulava, S. Dawid, J. R. Green, C. Morningstar, F. Romero-L´ opez, M. Salg, S. R. Sharpe, and A. Stump, Three-body study of the Tcc(3875)+ from lattice QCD, in42th International Sym- posium on Lattice Field Theory(2026) arXiv:2602.17204 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Prelovsek, T

    S. Prelovsek, T. Draper, C. B. Lang, M. Limmer, K.-F. Liu, N. Mathur, and D. Mohler, Lattice study of light scalar tetraquarks with I=0,2,1/2,3/2: Areσ andκtetraquarks?, Phys. Rev. D82, 094507 (2010), arXiv:1005.0948 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [13]

    Alexandrou, J

    C. Alexandrou, J. O. Daldrop, M. Dalla Brida, M. Grav- ina, L. Scorzato, C. Urbach, and M. Wagner, Lattice in- vestigation of the scalar mesonsa 0(980) andκusing four- quark operators, JHEP04, 137, arXiv:1212.1418 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Alexandrou, J

    C. Alexandrou, J. Berlin, M. Dalla Brida, J. Finkenrath, T. Leontiou, and M. Wagner, Lattice QCD investigation of the structure of thea 0(980) meson, Phys. Rev. D97, 034506 (2018), arXiv:1711.09815 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    F.-K. Guo, L. Liu, U.-G. Meissner, and P. Wang, Tetraquarks, hadronic molecules, meson-meson scatter- ing and disconnected contributions in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D88, 074506 (2013), arXiv:1308.2545 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    Morningstar, J

    C. Morningstar, J. Bulava, J. Foley, K. J. Juge, D. Lenkner, M. Peardon, and C. H. Wong, Improved stochastic estimation of quark propagation with Lapla- cian Heaviside smearing in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 83, 114505 (2011), arXiv:1104.3870 [hep-lat]. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  17. [17]

    Luscher, Two particle states on a torus and their re- lation to the scattering matrix, Nucl

    M. Luscher, Two particle states on a torus and their re- lation to the scattering matrix, Nucl. Phys.B354, 531 (1991)

    1991

  18. [18]

    Rummukainen and S

    K. Rummukainen and S. A. Gottlieb, Resonance scatter- ing phase shifts on a nonrest frame lattice, Nucl. Phys. B450, 397 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9503028 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  19. [19]

    C. H. Kim, C. T. Sachrajda, and S. R. Sharpe, Finite- volume effects for two-hadron states in moving frames, Nucl. Phys.B727, 218 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0507006 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  20. [20]

    R. A. Briceno, Two-particle multichannel systems in a fi- nite volume with arbitrary spin, Phys. Rev.D89, 074507 (2014), arXiv:1401.3312 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    G. Fox, R. Gupta, O. Martin, and S. Otto, Monte Carlo Estimates of the Mass Gap of the O(2) and O(3) Spin Models in (1+1)-dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B205, 188 (1982)

    1982

  22. [22]

    Michael and I

    C. Michael and I. Teasdale, Extracting Glueball Masses From Lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys.B215, 433 (1983)

    1983

  23. [23]

    L¨ uscher and U

    M. L¨ uscher and U. Wolff, How to Calculate the Elastic Scattering Matrix in Two-dimensional Quantum Field Theories by Numerical Simulation, Nucl. Phys. B339, 222 (1990)

    1990

  24. [24]

    Basak, R

    S. Basak, R. Edwards, G. Fleming, U. Heller, C. Morn- ingstar, D. Richards, I. Sato, and S. Wallace, Group- theoretical construction of extended baryon operators in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D72, 094506 (2005), arXiv:hep- lat/0506029

    arXiv 2005

  25. [25]

    Morningstar, J

    C. Morningstar, J. Bulava, B. Fahy, J. Foley, Y. Jhang, K. Juge, D. Lenkner, and C. Wong, Extended hadron and two-hadron operators of definite momentum for spectrum calculations in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D88, 014511 (2013), arXiv:1303.6816 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    Morningstar and M

    C. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Analytic smearing of SU(3) link variables in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D69, 054501 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0311018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    R. G. Edwards, B. Joo, and H.-W. Lin, Tuning for Three-flavors of Anisotropic Clover Fermions with Stout-link Smearing, Phys. Rev. D78, 054501 (2008), arXiv:0803.3960 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    Linet al.(Hadron Spectrum), First results from 2+1 dynamical quark flavors on an anisotropic lattice: Light-hadron spectroscopy and setting the strange-quark mass, Phys

    H.-W. Linet al.(Hadron Spectrum), First results from 2+1 dynamical quark flavors on an anisotropic lattice: Light-hadron spectroscopy and setting the strange-quark mass, Phys. Rev. D79, 034502 (2009), arXiv:0810.3588 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    Brett, J

    R. Brett, J. Bulava, J. Fallica, A. Hanlon, B. H¨ orz, and C. Morningstar, Determination ofs- andp-waveI= 1/2 Kπscattering amplitudes inN f = 2 + 1 lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys. B932, 29 (2018), arXiv:1802.03100 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Bulava, B

    J. Bulava, B. Fahy, B. H¨ orz, K. J. Juge, C. Morningstar, and C. H. Wong,I= 1 andI= 2π−πscattering phase shifts fromN f = 2 + 1 lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys. B910, 842 (2016), arXiv:1604.05593 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    D. J. Wilson, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas, Resonances in coupledπK, ηKscatter- ing from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D91, 054008 (2015), arXiv:1411.2004 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Rendon, L

    G. Rendon, L. Leskovec, S. Meinel, J. Negele, S. Paul, M. Petschlies, A. Pochinsky, G. Silvi, and S. Syritsyn, I= 1/2S-wave andP-waveKπscattering and theκ andK ∗ resonances from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D102, 114520 (2020), arXiv:2006.14035 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas (Hadron Spectrum), Energy dependence of theρresonance in ππelastic scattering from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 87, 034505 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 099902 (2014)], arXiv:1212.0830 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and D. J. Wilson (Hadron Spectrum), Ana 0 resonance in strongly coupledπη,K K scattering from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D93, 094506 (2016), arXiv:1602.05122 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Morningstar, J

    C. Morningstar, J. Bulava, B. Singha, R. Brett, J. Fal- lica, A. Hanlon, and B. H¨ orz, Estimating the two-particle K-matrix for multiple partial waves and decay chan- nels from finite-volume energies, Nucl. Phys. B924, 477 (2017), arXiv:1707.05817 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Stanzione, J

    D. Stanzione, J. West, R. Evans, T. Minyard, O. Ghat- tas, and D. Panda, Frontera: The evolution of leadership computing at the national science foundation, inProceed- ings of Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing (PEARC ’20)(2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    R. G. Edwards and B. Joo (SciDAC), The Chroma soft- ware system for lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 140, 832 (2005)

    2005