Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Scalar glueball and strange-quark meson mix at 41 degrees in lattice QCD.

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

2026-08-01 18:26 UTC pith:NW3VMWMZ

load-bearing objection First dynamical N_f=1 lattice measurement of scalar glueball–s sbar mixing; the large angle is supported by three internally consistent methods, but the extraction leans on an untested operator-purity assumption. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17294 v2 pith:NW3VMWMZ submitted 2026-07-19 hep-lat hep-exhep-ph

Scalar glueball-sbar{s} mixing in one flavor lattice QCD

Long-Cheng Gui , Wei Sun , Ying Chen , Ming Gong , Geng Li , Zhaofeng Liu This is my paper
classification hep-lat hep-exhep-ph PACS 12.38.Gc
keywords scalar glueballglueball-meson mixinglattice QCDN_f=1s-bar s mesonmixing angleGEVPscalar mesons
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 aims to determine how strongly the lowest scalar glueball mixes with the strange-quark–antiquark (s̄s) scalar meson in QCD. From a lattice calculation with one dynamical strange quark, it extracts a mixing angle |θ| ≈ 40.7(2.7)° and a mixing energy x_s = 239(24) MeV, which place the two mass eigenstates at 1.290(20) and 1.777(49) GeV. These values indicate that the physical scalar mesons in the 1.3–1.8 GeV region are not pure quark-model states but contain substantial glueball components. If the result holds, it provides a non-perturbative anchor for interpreting the isoscalar scalar mesons f0(1370), f0(1500), and f0(1710) and for modeling glueball–quark mixing in full QCD.

Core claim

On a 16^3×128 anisotropic lattice with a single flavor of dynamical strange quark, the authors solve a two-operator generalized eigenvalue problem (GEVP) in the 0++ channel using an optimized gluonic operator and a smeared s̄s operator. They find two low-lying eigenstates with masses m1 = 1.290(20) GeV and m2 = 1.777(49) GeV. From the couplings of these states to the glueball and s̄s operators they derive a mixing angle |θ| = 40.7(2.7)°, and from an independent two-state Hamiltonian analysis a mixing energy x_s = 239(24) MeV. The unmixed s̄s mass is 1.486(2) GeV and the unmixed glueball mass is 1.581(53) GeV, so the mixing shifts the eigenmasses by roughly 200 MeV. The large mixing angle is

What carries the argument

The central object is the 2×2 correlation matrix C(t) = ⟨O_X(t)O_Y†(0)⟩ built from an optimized gluonic operator O_G and a smeared strange quark bilinear O_s. O_G is obtained from a 24-operator GEVP over gluonic Wilson loops, and the correlation matrix is evaluated in a moving frame to avoid vacuum-subtraction constants. The mixing angle is extracted from the ratio of couplings Z_X^i = ⟨0|O_X|i⟩ via |tan θ|² = −(Z_s₂ Z_G₁)/(Z_s₁ Z_G₂), using the assumption ⟨0|O_X|Y⟩ ≈ Z_X δ_XY. A second step uses a two-state mass matrix with mixing energy x_s to cross-check the angle.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes the optimized gluonic operator couples only to the glueball state and the s̄s operator only to the s̄s meson, with negligible cross-overlap; in N_f=1 QCD sea-quark loops give gluonic operators a direct quark–antiquark component, and the paper does not quantify how much this biases the mixing angle.

What would settle it

Directly measure the off-diagonal matrix element ⟨0|O_G|s̄s⟩ on the same ensemble. If this overlap is a sizable fraction of Z_G, then the mixing-angle formula overestimates the true mixing. Alternatively, a finer-lattice calculation of x_s that extrapolates to a value near 40 MeV—the old quenched estimate—rather than around 240 MeV would contradict the claim of strong mixing.

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

If this is right

  • The scalar meson f0(1710), which couples strongly to gluonic J/ψ radiative decays, is likely to carry a large glueball component, consistent with the large mixing angle.
  • The unmixed scalar glueball mass is pushed to about 1.58 GeV, sitting near the f0(1710) region after mixing with s̄s.
  • If the same quark–gluon coupling holds for u and d quarks, the mixing energy for a flavor-singlet q̄q state in three-flavor QCD would be about 414 MeV, roughly √3 times the s̄s value.
  • The large mixing energy means the scalar glueball is spread over a wide mass range, aligning with coupled-channel analyses that distribute glueball strength among several f0 states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If x_s ≈ 240 MeV, the two-state description of the scalar sector is itself a simplification; at this coupling strength, multi-hadron and higher-state contributions likely become relevant below 2 GeV, so the extracted 'mixing angle' may represent an effective rather than fundamental parameter.
  • The N_f=1 ensemble provides a controlled testbed: repeating the same GEVP extraction at multiple strange-quark masses would map out the quark-mass dependence of x_s and test whether the large mixing persists toward the chiral limit or is a finite-mass artifact.
  • The same operator construction could be applied to scalar charmonium-glueball mixing; a comparison of x_s and x_c would test whether the gluon–q̄q transition amplitude scales with constituent quark mass as the paper's qualitative argument suggests.

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 investigates 0++ scalar glueball-s̄s mixing in N_f=1 lattice QCD on a 16^3×128 anisotropic ensemble with a_s≈0.148 fm. Using a GEVP-optimized gluonic operator built from 24 Wilson-loop prototypes and a distillation-smeared scalar quark bilinear, the authors compute a 2×2 correlation matrix in a moving frame, extract two eigen-energies, and convert them to masses m_1=1.290(20) GeV and m_2=1.777(49) GeV. They then extract a mixing angle from ratios of operator-state overlaps, obtaining |θ|=40.7(2.7)°, with rest-frame and two-state Hamiltonian cross-checks giving |θ|=34.7(4.4)° and |θ|=39.4(2.8)°, respectively, and a mixing energy x_s=239(24) MeV. On this basis they argue for strong glueball-s̄s mixing as a non-perturbative input for scalar meson phenomenology.

Significance. If the result holds, this is among the first direct dynamical-lattice estimates of scalar glueball-quarkonium mixing and provides a concrete non-perturbative anchor for a long-standing phenomenological question. The paper is methodologically transparent, benefits from large statistics and all-to-all quark propagation, and reports two internal cross-checks that agree with the primary extraction. It also makes a falsifiable prediction for N_f=3 mixing. The central numerical claims, however, rely on an operator-purity assumption that is neither tested nor quantified, and the whole calculation is at a single lattice spacing with statistical errors only. The result is therefore best regarded as an interesting, arguably pioneering, but currently model-dependent estimate rather than a final quantitative determination.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B, Eq. (10)] The central extraction assumes ⟨0|O_X|Y⟩≈Z_X δ_XY, i.e. that O_G overlaps only with the bare glueball and O_s only with the bare s̄s state. In N_f=1 QCD this is not guaranteed: O_G can couple to s̄s states through sea-quark loops, and O_s can have gluonic Fock components. The 24-operator GEVP of Sec. II only optimizes within the gluonic operator subspace; it does not establish quark-content purity. Consequently, Eq. (12) is a ratio of four independent amplitudes and equals |tanθ| only under the untested orthogonality condition Z_s^1 Z_G^1+Z_s^2 Z_G^2=0. The data from the rest-frame joint fit in Sec. III.C are sufficient to test this condition; the authors should report it and propagate the resulting systematic uncertainty into θ.
  2. [III.A / III.D] The second extracted state, m_2=1.777(49) GeV, lies above the η(1)η(1) threshold (2×0.783 GeV≈1.57 GeV), so it is in principle a resonance, not a stable bound state. The GEVP uses only O_G and O_s and includes no two-meson interpolating operators. The eigenvalue E_2 may therefore be a finite-volume scattering level or be contaminated by multi-hadron states, and its identification as the second mixed glueball-s̄s eigenstate is not warranted without further analysis. This affects not only m_2 but also the Hamiltonian estimate of x_s in Eq. (19)-(20), which uses m_1+m_2. The authors should include, or at least quantitatively estimate the effect of, ηη scattering operators in the 0++ channel.
  3. [II / V] All central numbers are obtained at a single lattice spacing a_s≈0.148 fm and are quoted with statistical errors only. The statement in Sec. V that the mixing energy is not expected to change much in the continuum limit because improved actions are used is an expectation, not a controlled estimate. Since the abstract itself calls for a continuum limit, the quantitative claims (especially x_s=239(24) MeV and θ≈40°) should be labeled with a systematic uncertainty for discretization effects, or supported by a second lattice spacing, before they can be used as precise phenomenological inputs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III.B, notation] The notation Z_s^i and Z_i^X is overloaded: Z_s in Eq. (10) is an operator-state overlap, while Z_i in Eq. (11) is a different overlap ⟨0|O^(i)|i⟩. Please use distinct symbols to avoid confusion.
  2. [III.D, Eq. (19)] In the sentence before Eq. (19), 'm_s + m_G' should presumably be 'm_s̄s + m_G'; the subscript is misleading. Also, the use of the connected-only mass as the bare s̄s mass deserves an explicit discussion of its partially-quenched interpretation.
  3. [IV] The N_f=3 extrapolation x_s(N_f=3)=√3 x_s(N_f=1) in Sec. IV is an ad hoc symmetry assumption and should be explicitly flagged as highly model-dependent, not as a prediction of the lattice calculation itself.
  4. [General] There are a few typos and small omissions, e.g. 'f0(137)' in the discussion of Ref. [50], and 'the the' in Sec. V. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No material circularity: the mixing angle is extracted from lattice correlation-function ratios (Eqs. 8-12), not fitted to a target; the two-state checks are same-data consistency relations. Score 2 reflects routine overlapping-author citations for the ensemble and scale.

full rationale

The central derivation is a direct lattice measurement rather than a circular fit. The optimized gluonic operator O_G is obtained from a 24-operator GEVP in Eq. (2) without reference to the sbar-s sector, and O_s is a smeared quark bilinear; the 2x2 correlation matrix in Eq. (3) is then analyzed by a second GEVP. The mixing angle in Eq. (12) is a ratio of measured matrix elements Z_s^i Z_G^i, following algebraically from the spectral decomposition Eq. (8) under the explicitly stated overlap assumption Eq. (10). No parameter is tuned to force |theta| around 40.7 degrees; the ratio in Fig. 3 is fit only after being read off the lattice data. The two 'self-consistent checks' reuse the same correlation data, so they are consistency relations rather than independent confirmations, but they are not circular predictions: the primary mixing angle is not an input to them. The second check solves the two-state Hamiltonian using the independently measured m1, m2 and the connected-only m_sbar-s = 1.486(2) GeV, yielding x_s and theta by algebra rather than by construction. The only notable self-citations are routine and non-load-bearing: the N_f=1 ensemble and scale a_t^{-1}=6.66(5) GeV are taken from Refs. [22,28] by overlapping authors, and the quenched glueball mass 1.56 GeV [3] is used only as a comparison. The overlap-purity assumption Eq. (10) is a genuine correctness risk in N_f=1 QCD, but an assumption being potentially wrong is not circularity: the paper does not define the result into existence. Overall, no material circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central quantities (masses and mixing angle) are measured from lattice correlation functions rather than fitted, so the free-parameter count is limited to calibration and analysis choices: one tuned quark mass, scale-setting, fit windows, and the connected s̄s mass used in the Hamiltonian model. The key assumptions are two-state truncation and operator purity; the N_f=3 extrapolation is an ad hoc model. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Bare strange quark mass (a_t m_s) = tuned via m_phi/m_eta_s = 1.487; value not quoted
    The N_f=1 gauge ensemble is generated at one sea-quark mass; the central mixing result has no quark-mass dependence controlled. This is a simulation input, not a fitted output.
  • Scale a_t^{-1} = 6.66(5) GeV
    Set by external m_phi and HPQCD m_eta_s so that m_phi^2 - m_eta_s^2 ≈ 0.57 GeV^2 (Sec. II); all physical units inherit its uncertainty, which is excluded from the quoted statistical errors.
  • GEVP reference time t0 and fit windows = t0 = 8 a_t; energy fit t/a_t in [9,17], angle fit t/a_t in [9,19]
    Analysis choices that affect the extracted energies and mixing angle; AIC averaging partially mitigates the dependence, but they are not derived from first principles.
  • Connected s̄s scalar mass m_s̄s = 1.486(2) GeV
    Used as the unmixed s̄s mass in the two-state Hamiltonian model (Sec. IIID). It is a lattice measurement on the same ensemble, not an external benchmark.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Only two states contribute to the scalar 0++ correlation matrix in the chosen time window; multi-hadron and excited states are negligible.
    The spectral decomposition in Eq. (8) uses exactly two exponentials; single-state fits and GEVP rely on this truncation.
  • domain assumption The optimized gluonic operator O_G has no direct overlap with s̄s states, and O_s has no direct overlap with the glueball.
    Eq. (10) uses ⟨0|O_X|Y⟩ ≈ Z_X δ_XY; sea-quark loops in N_f=1 QCD can induce q̄q overlap for gluonic operators, so this is an approximation.
  • domain assumption The GEVP eigenvector with largest eigenvalue of the 24-operator gluonic basis gives an operator coupling mainly to the lowest continuum scalar glueball (J=0 component of A1++).
    Sec. II; J=4 contamination and q̄q contamination are assumed small.
  • domain assumption The continuum dispersion relation E_i^2 = m_i^2 + p^2 holds with the anisotropy ξ≈5.
    Used to convert (1.380, 1.844) GeV energies to masses (1.290, 1.777) GeV in Sec. IIIA; lattice dispersion artifacts are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The N_f=3 mixing energy scales as x_s(N_f=3) = sqrt(3) x_s(N_f=1) and m_{f0^8} ≈ 2 m_{eta8}.
    Used in Sec. IV to estimate physical N_f=3 masses; this is a phenomenological model assumption, not a lattice result.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15858 in / 22331 out tokens · 213970 ms · 2026-08-01T18:26:34.262689+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the mixing between the lowest-lying scalar glueball and the $s\overline{s}$ meson in $N_f=1$ lattice quantum chromodynamics (QCD) utilizing an anisotropic $16^3 \times 128$ lattice ensemble at a lattice spacing $a_s\approx 0.148\,\rm{fm}$. By solving a generalized eigenvalue problem (GEVP) for the optimized glueball and $s\overline{s}$ scalar operators in the $J^\text{PC} = 0^{++}$ channel, the masses of the two lowest-lying eigenstates are determined to be $m_1 = 1.290(20)\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $m_2 = 1.777(49)\,\mathrm{GeV}$. By extracting the couplings of these mass eigenstates to the glueball and $s\bar{s}$ operators, we determine a substantial mixing angle $|\theta| \approx 40.7(2.7)^\circ$ and a large mixing energy $x_s = 239(24)$ MeV. These results indicate a strong glueball-$s\bar{s}$ mixing in the scalar sector, providing important non-perturbative inputs for understanding the nature of the experimental isoscalar scalar mesons. The continuum limit of the mixing energy and its quark mass dependence need to be investigated in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17294 by Geng Li, Long-Cheng Gui, Ming Gong, Wei Sun, Ying Chen, Zhaofeng Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The effective energies extracted from the two-point correlation function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The effective energies calculated by eigenvalue as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.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

55 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    C. J. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Efficient glueball simulations on anisotropic lattices, Phys. Rev. D56, 4043 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9704011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  2. [2]

    C. J. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, The Glueball spectrum from an anisotropic lattice study, Phys. Rev. D60, 034509 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9901004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Chenet al., Glueball spectrum and matrix elements on anisotropic lattices, Phys

    Y. Chenet al., Glueball spectrum and matrix elements on anisotropic lattices, Phys. Rev. D73, 014516 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0510074

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    C. M. Richards, A. C. Irving, E. B. Gregory, and C. McNeile (UKQCD), Glueball mass measurements from improved staggered fermion simulations, Phys. Rev. D82, 034501 (2010), arXiv:1005.2473 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Gregory, A

    E. Gregory, A. Irving, B. Lucini, C. McNeile, A. Rago, C. Richards, and E. Rinaldi, Towards the glueball spec- trum from unquenched lattice QCD, JHEP10, 170, arXiv:1208.1858 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Sun, L.-C

    W. Sun, L.-C. Gui, Y. Chen, M. Gong, C. Liu, Y.-B. Liu, Z. Liu, J.-P. Ma, and J.-B. Zhang, Glueball spectrum fromN f = 2 lattice QCD study on anisotropic lattices, Chin. Phys. C42, 093103 (2018), arXiv:1702.08174 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    F. Chen, X. Jiang, Y. Chen, K.-F. Liu, W. Sun, and Y.- B. Yang, Glueballs at physical pion mass*, Chin. Phys. C47, 063108 (2023), arXiv:2111.11929 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    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

  9. [9]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua, and K.-F. Liu, Scalar glueball, scalar quarkonia, and their mixing, Phys. Rev. D74, 094005 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0607206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  10. [10]

    Cheng, H.-n

    H.-Y. Cheng, H.-n. Li, and K.-F. Liu, Pseudoscalar glueball mass from eta - eta-prime - G mixing, Phys. Rev. D79, 014024 (2009), arXiv:0811.2577 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    Cheng, Scalar and Pseudoscalar Glueballs, Int

    H.-Y. Cheng, Scalar and Pseudoscalar Glueballs, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 3392 (2009), arXiv:0901.0741 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua, and K.-F. Liu, Revisiting Scalar Glueballs, Phys. Rev. D92, 094006 (2015), arXiv:1503.06827 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    Vento, Glueball-Meson Mixing, Eur

    V. Vento, Glueball-Meson Mixing, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 1 (2016), arXiv:1505.05355 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Zhang, L.-P

    P. Zhang, L.-P. Zou, and Y. M. Cho, Abelian Decompo- sition and Glueball-Quarkonium Mixing in QCD, Phys. Rev. D98, 096015 (2018), arXiv:1606.02374 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    Guo, H.-W

    X.-D. Guo, H.-W. Ke, M.-G. Zhao, L. Tang, and X.- Q. Li, Revisiting the determining fraction of glueball component inf 0 mesons via radiative decays ofJ/ψ, Chin. Phys. C45, 023104 (2021), arXiv:2003.07116 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Lee and D

    W.-J. Lee and D. Weingarten, Scalar quarkonium masses and mixing with the lightest scalar glueball, Phys. Rev. D61, 014015 (2000), arXiv:hep-lat/9910008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  17. [17]

    McNeile and C

    C. McNeile and C. Michael (UKQCD), Mixing of scalar glueballs and flavor singlet scalar mesons, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114503 (2001), arXiv:hep-lat/0010019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  18. [18]

    J. A. Urrea-Ni˜ no, F. Knechtli, T. Korzec, and M. Pear- don, Charmonium-glueball spectroscopy with improved hadron creation operators, Phys. Rev. D114, 014509 (2026), arXiv:2603.20178 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Brett, J

    R. Brett, J. Bulava, D. Darvish, J. Fallica, A. Hanlon, B. H¨ orz, and C. Morningstar, Spectroscopy From The Lattice: The Scalar Glueball, AIP Conf. Proc.2249, 030032 (2020), arXiv:1909.07306 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    C. T. H. Davies, E. Follana, I. D. Kendall, G. P. Lepage, and C. McNeile (HPQCD), Precise determination of the lattice spacing in full lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D81, 034506 (2010), arXiv:0910.1229 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  21. [21]

    A. J. Woss, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, C. E. Thomas, and D. J. Wilson (Hadron Spectrum), Decays of an exotic 1−+ hybrid meson resonance in QCD, Phys. Rev. D103, 054502 (2021), arXiv:2009.10034 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    C. Shi, Y. Chen, X. Jiang, M. Gong, Z. Liu, and W. Sun, Form factor for Dalitz decays from J/ψto light pseudoscalars*, Chin. Phys. C48, 113105 (2024), arXiv:2403.11842 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Huet al.(CLQCD), Quark masses and low-energy constants in the continuum from the tadpole-improved clover ensembles, Phys

    Z.-C. Huet al.(CLQCD), Quark masses and low-energy constants in the continuum from the tadpole-improved clover ensembles, Phys. Rev. D109, 054507 (2024), arXiv:2310.00814 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Borsanyiet al., Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD, Nature593, 51 (2021), arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat]

    S. Borsanyiet al., Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD, Nature593, 51 (2021), arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    N. H. Christ, C. Dawson, T. Izubuchi, C. Jung, Q. Liu, R. D. Mawhinney, C. T. Sachrajda, A. Soni, and R. Zhou, Theηandη ′ mesons from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 241601 (2010), arXiv:1002.2999 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, P. Guo, and C. E. Thomas (Hadron Spectrum), Toward the excited isoscalar meson spectrum from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D88, 094505 (2013), arXiv:1309.2608 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    Zhang, W

    R. Zhang, W. Sun, Y. Chen, M. Gong, L.-C. Gui, and Z. Liu, The glueball content ofηc, Phys. Lett. B827, 136960 (2022), arXiv:2107.12749 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Jiang, W

    X. Jiang, W. Sun, F. Chen, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu, and R. Zhang,η-glueball mixing fromN f = 2 lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D107, 094510 (2023), arXiv:2205.12541 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Peardon, J

    M. Peardon, J. Bulava, J. Foley, C. Morningstar, J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, B. Joo, H.-W. Lin, D. G. Richards, and K. J. Juge (Hadron Spectrum), A Novel quark-field creation operator construction for hadronic physics in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D80, 054506 (2009), arXiv:0905.2160 [hep-lat]. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

    R. G. Edwards and B. Joo (SciDAC, LHPC, UKQCD), The Chroma software system for lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.140, 832 (2005), arXiv:hep- lat/0409003

    arXiv 2005

  32. [32]

    Witten, Instantons, the Quark Model, and the 1/n Expansion, Nucl

    E. Witten, Instantons, the Quark Model, and the 1/n Expansion, Nucl. Phys. B149, 285 (1979)

    1979

  33. [33]

    Witten, Current Algebra Theorems for the U(1) Goldstone Boson, Nucl

    E. Witten, Current Algebra Theorems for the U(1) Goldstone Boson, Nucl. Phys. B156, 269 (1979)

    1979

  34. [34]

    Veneziano, U(1) Without Instantons, Nucl

    G. Veneziano, U(1) Without Instantons, Nucl. Phys. B 159, 213 (1979)

    1979

  35. [35]

    W. I. Jay and E. T. Neil, Bayesian model averaging for analysis of lattice field theory results, Phys. Rev. D103, 114502 (2021), arXiv:2008.01069 [stat.ME]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Chanowitz, Chiral suppression of scalar glueball decay, Phys

    M. Chanowitz, Chiral suppression of scalar glueball decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 172001 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0506125

    arXiv 2005

  37. [37]

    M. S. Chanowitz, Reply to ‘Comment on ‘Chiral sup- pression of scalar glueball decay”, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 149104 (2007), arXiv:0704.1616 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [38]

    Chao, X.-G

    K.-T. Chao, X.-G. He, and J.-P. Ma, Comment on ‘Chiral suppression of scalar glueball decay’, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 149103 (2007), arXiv:0704.1061 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  39. [39]

    Zou, L.-C

    J. Zou, L.-C. Gui, Y. Chen, W. Qin, J. Liang, X. Jiang, and Y. Yang, The radiative decay of scalar glueball from lattice QCD, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 111012 (2024), arXiv:2404.01564 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    L.-C. Gui, Y. Chen, G. Li, C. Liu, Y.-B. Liu, J.-P. Ma, Y.-B. Yang, and J.-B. Zhang (CLQCD), Scalar Glueball in RadiativeJ/ψDecay on the Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 021601 (2013), arXiv:1206.0125 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Partial wave analysis of J/ψ→γηη ′, Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Partial wave analysis of J/ψ→γηη ′, Phys. Rev. D106, 072012 (2022), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 079901 (2023)], arXiv:2202.00623 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Ablikimet al.(BES), Partial wave analyses of J/psi —>gamma pi+ pi- and gamma pi0 pi0, Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BES), Partial wave analyses of J/psi —>gamma pi+ pi- and gamma pi0 pi0, Phys. Lett. B 642, 441 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0603048

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  43. [43]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Study of the near-threshold ωϕmass enhancement in doubly OZI-suppressedJ/ψ→ γωϕdecays, Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Study of the near-threshold ωϕmass enhancement in doubly OZI-suppressedJ/ψ→ γωϕdecays, Phys. Rev. D87, 032008 (2013), arXiv:1211.5668 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [44]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Amplitude analysis of the KSKS system produced in radiativeJ/ψdecays, Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Amplitude analysis of the KSKS system produced in radiativeJ/ψdecays, Phys. Rev. D98, 072003 (2018), arXiv:1808.06946 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Partial wave analysis of J/ψ→γηη, Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Partial wave analysis of J/ψ→γηη, Phys. Rev. D87, 092009 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 119901 (2013)], arXiv:1301.0053 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    J. R. Pelaez, Light Meson Resonances, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2509.08648 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    J. R. Pelaez, A. Rodas, and J. Ruiz de Elvira, f0(1370) Controversy from Dispersive Meson-Meson Scattering Data Analyses, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 051902 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 132, 239901 (2024)], arXiv:2206.14822 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Dobbs, A

    S. Dobbs, A. Tomaradze, T. Xiao, and K. K. Seth, Comprehensive Study of the Radiative Decays ofJ/ψand ψ(2S) to Pseudoscalar Meson Pairs, and Search for Glue- balls, Phys. Rev. D91, 052006 (2015), arXiv:1502.01686 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Rodas, A

    A. Rodas, A. Pilloni, M. Albaladejo, C. Fernandez- Ramirez, V. Mathieu, and A. P. Szczepaniak (Joint Physics Analysis Center), Scalar and tensor resonances inJ/ψradiative decays, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 80 (2022), arXiv:2110.00027 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    A. V. Sarantsev, I. Denisenko, U. Thoma, and E. Klempt, Scalar isoscalar mesons and the scalar glueball from radiativeJ/ψdecays, Phys. Lett. B816, 136227 (2021), arXiv:2103.09680 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Klempt and A

    E. Klempt and A. V. Sarantsev, Singlet-octet-glueball mixing of scalar mesons, Phys. Lett. B826, 136906 (2022), arXiv:2112.04348 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Grosset al., 50 Years of Quantum Chromodynamics, Eur

    F. Grosset al., 50 Years of Quantum Chromodynamics, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1125 (2023), arXiv:2212.11107 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    M. A. Clark, R. Babich, K. Barros, R. C. Brower, and C. Rebbi, Solving Lattice QCD systems of equations using mixed precision solvers on GPUs, Comput. Phys. Commun.181, 1517 (2010), arXiv:0911.3191 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [54]

    Babich, M

    R. Babich, M. A. Clark, B. Joo, G. Shi, R. C. Brower, and S. Gottlieb, Scaling Lattice QCD beyond 100 GPUs, inSC11 International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis(2011) arXiv:1109.2935 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  55. [55]

    Jiang, C

    X. Jiang, C. Shi, Y. Chen, M. Gong, and Y.-B. Yang, Use quda for lattice qcd calculation with python (2024), arXiv:2411.08461 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024