Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

First functional QCD calculation of the pion distribution amplitude reaches full saturation at large momentum and finds a second moment of 0.267, smaller than lattice-LaMET values.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 12:10 UTC pith:WUWLD2VM

load-bearing objection First functional-LaMET pion DA that actually saturates at Pz=4.5 GeV and lands ⟨ξ²⟩=0.267 with the non-lattice pack; the complex-plane Taylor step is the main unquantified piece but the pipeline is otherwise clean. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04871 v1 pith:WUWLD2VM submitted 2026-07-06 hep-ph

Pion Distribution Amplitudes from Functional QCD

Lei Chang , Wei-jie Fu , Chuang Huang , Jan M. Pawlowski , Yang-yang Tan This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords pion distribution amplitudelarge-momentum effective theoryfunctional renormalisation groupquasi-distributiondynamical chiral symmetry breakingBethe-Salpeter amplitudeparton distribution
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.

The paper claims that the pion’s light-front distribution amplitude can be computed from first principles in continuum QCD, using only the strong coupling and the current quark masses as inputs. The authors extract the quasi-distribution amplitude from self-consistently computed quark propagators and pion Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes obtained with the functional renormalisation group, then convert it to the light-cone distribution amplitude via large-momentum effective theory. By reaching pion momenta of 4.5 GeV they observe that the quasi-distribution saturates, so the remaining extrapolation error is negligible. The resulting second moment is 0.267, which is smaller than existing lattice-LaMET determinations and agrees with other non-perturbative methods. If correct, the result tightens the experimental and theoretical picture of how dynamical chiral symmetry breaking shapes the pion’s valence-quark momentum share.

Core claim

The first functional QCD calculation of the pion distribution amplitude, performed with large-momentum effective theory inside the functional renormalisation group, yields a fully saturated quasi-distribution at Pz = 4.5 GeV and a light-cone second moment ⟨ξ²⟩π = 0.267 that is significantly smaller than lattice-LaMET values and consistent with other continuum approaches.

What carries the argument

The quasi-light-front wave function constructed from the unamputated pion Bethe-Salpeter amplitude and the light-quark propagator; its transverse-momentum integral produces the quasi-distribution amplitude that is then extrapolated to infinite longitudinal momentum.

Load-bearing premise

The four-quark vertex is assumed to depend only on the three Mandelstam variables, with residual angular and higher-momentum dependence neglected at the level of a previously quoted 1.5 percent error that has not been re-checked for the complex momenta needed here.

What would settle it

A lattice-LaMET calculation that reaches Pz ≳ 4 GeV and still obtains a second moment near 0.30 would directly contradict the claim that the smaller value 0.267 is the continuum result once saturation is achieved.

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

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first computation of the pion light-cone distribution amplitude (PDA) within a functional QCD framework based on the functional renormalisation group (fRG). Using only the strong coupling and current quark masses (fixed to mπ/fπ and mK/fπ) as inputs, the authors extract the quark propagator and pion Bethe-Salpeter amplitude from a self-consistent 2+1-flavour truncation, construct the quasi-light-front wave function, and obtain the quasi-PDA up to Pz = 4.5 GeV via LaMET. They report that the quasi-PDA saturates for Pz ≳ 3.5 GeV, perform a 1/Pz² extrapolation plus an endpoint fit, and quote the second moment ⟨ξ²⟩π = 0.267 (with higher moments also given), which is narrower than existing lattice-LaMET results and consistent with lattice OPE, sum rules and DSE/BSE determinations.

Significance. If the numerical pipeline and the claimed saturation are robust, this is a genuine advance: a parameter-free, first-principles functional prediction of an x-dependent parton distribution that reaches more than twice the longitudinal momentum currently accessible on the lattice, thereby reducing (and claiming to render negligible) the infinite-momentum extrapolation error that still limits lattice-LaMET. The work also demonstrates that a modern fRG truncation containing the dominant four-quark channels can supply the full set of Euclidean correlators needed for LaMET, opening a complementary route to hadron structure. The explicit observation of a plateau in the quasi-PDA and the direct comparison of moments against multiple non-perturbative methods are valuable even if residual systematics remain.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplement S.3, Eqs. (67)–(70), Fig. 10] Supplement S.3 (Eqs. 67–70 and Fig. 10): the central claim that the quasi-PDA is fully saturated at Pz = 4.5 GeV (so that 1/Pz² extrapolation errors are negligible) rests on a fourth-order Taylor expansion of hπ and Ml into the complex p0 plane. Without that expansion the accessible Pz collapses and the plateau disappears. The manuscript asserts that fourth order is “sufficient” and shows visual convergence of the final PDA, yet supplies no residual-error estimate on the truncated series, no comparison with a higher-order or Padé continuation, and no propagation of the truncation into the quoted moment. Because the same expansion underpins the contour deformation of S.2, an uncontrolled remainder directly undermines the “negligible extrapolation error” assertion that distinguishes the result from lattice-LaMET.
  2. [Table I; Supplement S.4, Table II] Table I and main-text claim ⟨ξ²⟩π = 0.267: the second moment is reported as a single number with no uncertainty. The endpoint-fit parameters in Table II vary substantially with the chosen xEP window, the four-quark Mandelstam reduction carries a quoted 1.5 % error taken from earlier Euclidean studies (not re-validated for the complex kinematics of LaMET), and the Taylor truncation itself is unquantified. Without a propagated error budget the statement that the moment is “significantly smaller” than the lattice-LaMET value 0.300(41) cannot be assessed quantitatively.
  3. [Main text Eqs. (3)–(4); Supplement S.1] Main text after Eq. (3) and Supplement S.1: the reduction of the four-quark dressings to dependence on the three Mandelstam variables only (with residual angular and higher-momentum dependence neglected) is stated to introduce a combined error < 1.5 %. That estimate originates in the authors’ prior Euclidean works and is not re-checked for the complex-plane kinematics required by the quasi-LFWF integral. Given that the same dressings supply the BS amplitude that enters every subsequent step, a dedicated validation (or an enlarged error) for the LaMET kinematics is needed before the final PDA can be regarded as controlled at the few-percent level.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1] Figure 1 caption and main-text comparison: the lattice curve shown is from Ref. [8] (Pz ≲ 2.15 GeV); it would help the reader if the figure also indicated the maximal Pz of that lattice calculation so that the saturation advantage claimed here is immediately visible.
  2. [Supplement S.4, Eq. (71)] Eq. (71) and surrounding text: the assertion that the functional matching contains only higher-twist corrections (no perturbative matching kernel) is plausible because the integral is UV-finite and the DA is normalised, but a short explicit argument or reference showing that the one-loop matching coefficient vanishes under the present renormalisation condition would strengthen the claim.
  3. [Eqs. (8)–(9), Figs. 6 and 11] Notation: the same symbol ϕπ is used both for the quasi-PDA and (after extrapolation) for the light-cone PDA; a clearer distinction (e.g., ϕ vs φ) would avoid momentary confusion when reading Figs. 6 and 11.
  4. [Table I and bibliography] References: several recent lattice and continuum PDA studies (post-2022) that also quote higher moments are omitted; adding them would make the comparison in Table I more complete.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Mild self-citation for the input correlation functions and truncation-error estimates taken from the authors' prior fRG papers; the PDA itself and the high-Pz saturation claim are independent computations, not forced by those citations.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Main result / 2+1 flavour functional QCD (and S.1)]
    "the quark two-point function and pion BSE inputs in this work are obtained from the functional QCD approach in [3] without phenomenological parameters or model assumptions: only the fundamental parameters of (isospin-symmetric) QCD are fixed with the physical pion and kaon masses mπ/fπ and mK/fπ. … It was checked in [1––3], that the magnitude and angle dependence of four-quark dressings are well captured with the reduction … the resulting errors were studied in detail in [2, 3], which were found to be less than 1.5 %"

    All load-bearing Euclidean inputs (Ml(p), Zl(p), hπ(p, cos θ) and the four-quark dressings λα) together with the quantitative error estimate on the Mandelstam reduction are taken exclusively from the authors' own prior papers. While those papers do not compute the PDA, the present claim of a parameter-free first-principles result rests on the validity of that self-cited truncation; no independent external check of the same correlation functions in the complex kinematics required by LaMET is supplied.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: fix only αs,Λ and the two current masses to the physical ratios mπ/fπ and mK/fπ; obtain the Euclidean quark propagator and four-quark dressings (hence the BS amplitude) from the authors' earlier fRG truncation; construct the quasi-LFWF via the contour-deformed integral (S.2) plus fourth-order Taylor expansion into the complex p0 plane (S.3); integrate to the quasi-PDA; extrapolate in 1/Pz^{2} and near the endpoints. None of these steps defines the PDA in terms of itself, fits any parameter to PDA data, or imports a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives. The only self-citation burden is that the entire numerical input (and the <1.5 % error claim for the Mandelstam reduction) comes from Refs. [1––3] by the same collaboration. Those works compute independent correlation functions that do not include the PDA, so the present result remains a genuine prediction rather than a tautology. Endpoint fitting and the Taylor truncation affect numerical accuracy but are not circular. Score 2 therefore reflects one non-load-bearing self-citation chain while the central claim (saturated quasi-DA at Pz = 4.5 GeV yielding ⟨ξ^{2}⟩π = 0.267) has independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation is parameter-light: only the UV strong coupling and two current masses are fixed to physical ratios. All other content is either standard QCD or controlled truncations of the fRG effective action whose residual errors are estimated in prior works of the same group. No new dynamical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • αs,Λ = 0.179
    UV strong coupling fixed at the cutoff Λ=35.7 GeV; value 0.179 chosen so that the infrared physics reproduces physical meson ratios.
  • ml (light current mass) = 2.1 MeV
    Fixed together with ms so that mπ/fπ equals the physical ratio 137/93 MeV.
  • ms (strange current mass) = 55.9 MeV
    Fixed so that mK/fπ equals the physical ratio 494/93 MeV.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Four-quark dressings depend only on the three Mandelstam variables s,t,u (Eq. 3) and the residual error of this reduction is <1.5 %.
    Stated in the main text and justified by reference to earlier fRG papers; not re-derived for the complex kinematics of LaMET.
  • ad hoc to paper Taylor expansion of the BS amplitude and quark mass function to fourth order in the imaginary part of p0 is sufficient for convergence up to Pz=4.5 GeV.
    Introduced in Sec. S.3; higher orders are not shown and the radius of convergence is not proven.
  • domain assumption Only the classical plus two non-classical quark-gluon tensor structures and the four channels {σ,π,κ,K} dominate the infrared dynamics.
    Truncation of the effective action taken from the authors’ previous works; systematic error estimated but not eliminated.
  • domain assumption LaMET matching between quasi-DA and light-cone DA contains only higher-twist 1/Pz² corrections (no perturbative matching kernel).
    Asserted because the functional quasi-DA is UV-finite and scheme conversion is a global factor; standard lattice matching kernels are therefore omitted.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25294 in / 2813 out tokens · 26814 ms · 2026-07-11T12:10:01.447032+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present the first functional QCD calculation of the pion distribution amplitude (DA) using the large-momentum effective theory within the functional renormalisation group (fRG) approach. With only the strong coupling and current quark masses as inputs, we compute the quasi-DA from first-principles QCD correlation functions. By pushing the pion momentum up to $P_z = 4.5\ \mathrm{GeV}$, the quasi-DA becomes fully saturated, rendering the extrapolation errors to the light-cone limit negligible. The resulting second-order moment $\langle \xi^2 \rangle_\pi = 0.267$ is significantly smaller than existing lattice-LaMET determinations and lies in a range consistent with other nonperturbative approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04871 by Chuang Huang, Jan M. Pawlowski, Lei Chang, Wei-jie Fu, Yang-yang Tan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Light-front PDA of pion as a function of the mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic illustration of the four-quark vertex and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Light quark mass function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. PDA and quasi-PDA of pions as functions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Left panel: QCD strong couplings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Left panel: Dimensionless light quark-gluon vertex dressings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Quark mass function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Left panel: Non-normalised quasi-PDA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.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

59 extracted references · 48 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    (cyan points) and [47] (purple points). fort=−m 2 π with the pole massm π of the pion, the pseudoscalar channel diverges and simply reduces to the product of the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) wave function, its conjugate and the pion on-shell propagator 1/(t+m 2 π). Finally, for the computation of Eq. (7) we choose the symmetric configuration, p=−p ′ =|p|(cosθ,sinθ...

  2. [2]

    W.-j. Fu, C. Huang, J. M. Pawlowski, and Y.-y. Tan, SciPost Phys.14, 069 (2023), arXiv:2209.13120 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    W.-j. Fu, C. Huang, J. M. Pawlowski, and Y.-y. Tan, SciPost Phys.17, 148 (2024), arXiv:2401.07638 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    W.-j. Fu, C. Huang, J. M. Pawlowski, Y.-y. Tan, and L.-j. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D112, 054047 (2025), arXiv:2502.14388 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Ji, Phys

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 262002 (2013), arXiv:1305.1539 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Ji, Y.-S

    X. Ji, Y.-S. Liu, Y. Liu, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035005 (2021), arXiv:2004.03543 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Ji, J.-H

    X. Ji, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, Nucl. Phys. B924, 366 (2017), arXiv:1706.07416 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Zhang, J.-W

    J.-H. Zhang, J.-W. Chen, X. Ji, L. Jin, and H.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. D95, 094514 (2017), arXiv:1702.00008 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Huaet al.(Lattice Parton), Phys

    J. Huaet al.(Lattice Parton), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 132001 (2022), arXiv:2201.09173 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Arthur, P

    R. Arthur, P. A. Boyle, D. Brommel, M. A. Donnellan, J. M. Flynn, A. Juttner, T. D. Rae, and C. T. C. Sachra- jda, Phys. Rev. D83, 074505 (2011), arXiv:1011.5906 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

    G. S. Bali, V. M. Braun, S. B¨ urger, M. G¨ ockeler, M. Gru- ber, F. Hutzler, P. Korcyl, A. Sch¨ afer, A. Sternbeck, and P. Wein (RQCD), JHEP08, 065 (2019), [Addendum: JHEP 11, 037 (2020)], arXiv:1903.08038 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun, and A. Lenz, JHEP08, 090 (2007), arXiv:0707.1201 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    Zhong, Z.-H

    T. Zhong, Z.-H. Zhu, H.-B. Fu, X.-G. Wu, and T. Huang, Phys. Rev. D104, 016021 (2021), arXiv:2102.03989 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Chang, I

    L. Chang, I. C. Cloet, J. J. Cobos-Martinez, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 132001 (2013), arXiv:1301.0324 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    C. D. Roberts, D. G. Richards, T. Horn, and L. Chang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103883 (2021), arXiv:2102.01765 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    V. M. Braun, S. Collins, M. G¨ ockeler, P. P´ erez-Rubio, A. Sch¨ afer, R. W. Schiel, and A. Sternbeck, Phys. Rev. 6 D92, 014504 (2015), arXiv:1503.03656 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    G. S. Bali, V. M. Braun, M. G¨ ockeler, M. Gruber, F. Hut- zler, P. Korcyl, B. Lang, and A. Sch¨ afer (RQCD), Phys. Lett. B774, 91 (2017), arXiv:1705.10236 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    L¨ offler, P

    M. L¨ offler, P. Wein, T. Wurm, S. Weish¨ aupl, D. Jenkins, R. R¨ odl, A. Sch¨ afer, and L. Walter (RQCD), Phys. Rev. D105, 014505 (2022), arXiv:2108.07544 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Shi and I

    C. Shi and I. C. Clo¨ et, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 082301 (2019), arXiv:1806.04799 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Z.-F. Cui, M. Ding, F. Gao, K. Raya, D. Binosi, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero, and S. M. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1064 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    Raya, Z.-F

    K. Raya, Z.-F. Cui, L. Chang, J.-M. Morgado, C. D. Roberts, and J. Rodriguez-Quintero, Chin. Phys. C46, 013105 (2022), arXiv:2109.11686 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Eichmann, E

    G. Eichmann, E. Ferreira, and A. Stadler, Phys. Rev. D 105, 034009 (2022), arXiv:2112.04858 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Xu, Phys

    Y.-Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. D111, 114012 (2025), arXiv:2501.18085 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Chang, Y.-B

    L. Chang, Y.-B. Liu, K. Raya, and M. A. Sultan, Phys. Rev. D112, 114050 (2025), arXiv:2504.07372 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Mitter, J

    M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, Phys. Rev.D91, 054035 (2015), arXiv:1411.7978 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Braun, L

    J. Braun, L. Fister, J. M. Pawlowski, and F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev.D94, 034016 (2016), arXiv:1412.1045 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Rennecke, Phys

    F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev.D92, 076012 (2015), arXiv:1504.03585 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    A. K. Cyrol, M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, Phys. Rev.D97, 054006 (2018), arXiv:1706.06326 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Corell, A

    L. Corell, A. K. Cyrol, M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, SciPost Phys.5, 066 (2018), arXiv:1803.10092 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    W.-j. Fu, J. M. Pawlowski, and F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev. D101, 054032 (2020), arXiv:1909.02991 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Ihssen, J

    F. Ihssen, J. M. Pawlowski, F. R. Sattler, and N. Wink, (2024), arXiv:2408.08413 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    J. M. Pawlowski, F. Rennecke, and F. R. Sattler, (2025), arXiv:2512.20510 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    W.-j. Fu, C. Huang, J. M. Pawlowski, F. Rennecke, R. Wen, and S. Yin, (2026), arXiv:2603.13455 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Braun, Y.-r

    J. Braun, Y.-r. Chen, W.-j. Fu, F. Gao, C. Huang, F. Ihssen, K. Kockler, Y. Lu, J. M. Pawlowski, F. Ren- necke, F. R. Sattler, J. Stoll, Y.-y. Tan, Z.-n. Wang, R. Wen, J. Wessely, S. Yin, H.-w. Zheng, and N. Zor- bach, (2026)

    2026

  36. [36]

    Dupuis, L

    N. Dupuis, L. Canet, A. Eichhorn, W. Metzner, J. M. Pawlowski, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rept. 910, 1 (2021), arXiv:2006.04853 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Fu, Commun

    W.-j. Fu, Commun. Theor. Phys.74, 097304 (2022), arXiv:2205.00468 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Rennecke, in31st International Conference on Ultra-relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions(2025) arXiv:2510.11270 [hep-ph]

    F. Rennecke, in31st International Conference on Ultra-relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions(2025) arXiv:2510.11270 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    C. S. Fischer and J. M. Pawlowski, (2026), arXiv:2603.11135 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    F. Gao, A. S. Miramontes, J. Papavassiliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Lett. B863, 139384 (2025), arXiv:2411.19680 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    A. S. Miramontes, J. M. Morgado Chavez, J. Papavas- siliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1055 (2025), arXiv:2507.15646 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    M. N. Ferreira, A. S. Miramontes, J. M. Morgado, J. Pa- pavassiliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 325 (2026), arXiv:2512.04853 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    A. S. Miramontes, J. M. Morgado, and J. Papavassiliou, (2026), arXiv:2604.00959 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    M. N. Ferreira, A. S. Miramontes, J. M. Morgado, and J. Papavassiliou, (2026), arXiv:2604.07221 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Braun, A

    J. Braun, A. Geißel, J. M. Pawlowski, F. R. Sat- tler, and N. Wink, Annals Phys.484, 170250 (2026), arXiv:2503.05580 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Eichmann, (2026), arXiv:2603.00804 [hep-ph]

    G. Eichmann, (2026), arXiv:2603.00804 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Chang, Y.-B

    L. Chang, Y.-B. Liu, K. Raya, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero, and Y.-B. Yang, Phys. Rev. D104, 094509 (2021), arXiv:2105.06596 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    P. O. Bowman, U. M. Heller, D. B. Leinweber, M. B. Parappilly, A. G. Williams, and J.-b. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D71, 054507 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0501019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  49. [49]

    Williams, Eur

    R. Williams, Eur. Phys. J. A51, 57 (2015), arXiv:1404.2545 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Williams, C

    R. Williams, C. S. Fischer, and W. Heupel, Phys. Rev. D93, 034026 (2016), arXiv:1512.00455 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    A. C. Aguilar, J. C. Cardona, M. N. Ferreira, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D96, 014029 (2017), arXiv:1610.06158 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [52]

    F. Gao, J. Papavassiliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D103, 094013 (2021), arXiv:2102.13053 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, B. M. Oliveira, J. Pa- pavassiliou, and G. T. Linhares, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1231 (2024), arXiv:2408.15370 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Zhang, C

    D.-y. Zhang, C. Huang, and W.-j. Fu, Phys. Rev. D112, 074001 (2025), arXiv:2502.15384 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Cui, D.-y

    W. Cui, D.-y. Zhang, C. Huang, and W.-j. Fu, (2026), arXiv:2604.23739 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Boucaud, F

    P. Boucaud, F. De Soto, K. Raya, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Phys. Rev.D98, 114515 (2018), arXiv:1809.05776 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [57]

    A. C. Aguilar, D. Ibanez, V. Mathieu, and J. Papavas- siliou, Phys. Rev.D85, 014018 (2012), arXiv:1110.2633 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  58. [58]

    M. N. Ferreira and J. Papavassiliou, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.144, 104186 (2025), arXiv:2501.01080 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    X. Ji, A. Sch¨ afer, X. Xiong, and J.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D92, 014039 (2015), arXiv:1506.00248 [hep-ph]. 7 Supplemental Material We provide supplemental material about the fRG approach to QCD, Section S.1, the contour deformation used for the computation of the quasi-PDA, Section S.2, the Taylor expansion of the BSE-amplitude and the quark mass, Section ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015