Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 45 references

Generalized domain-wall fermions require new O(e^2) seagull and anti-quark contact terms for gauge-covariant QED corrections.

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 07:43 UTC pith:UKUUWGFR

load-bearing objection Solid, useful derivation of O(e^2) DWF seagull vertices — but Eq. (90) carries a sign error in the Qbar2 contact term that must be fixed. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21346 v1 pith:UKUUWGFR submitted 2026-07-23 hep-lat

Perturbative quantum electrodynamics with generalized domain wall fermions

Matteo Di Carlo , Antonin Portelli This is my paper
classification hep-lat PACS 11.15.Ha12.20.-m
keywords domain-wall fermionslattice QCDQED correctionsseagull vertexWard-Takahashi identityconserved vector currentbackground-field expansionradiative corrections
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 establishes that when physical quark fields in generalized domain-wall fermions are defined through the gauge-link-dependent operator D_-, the expansion of the quark propagator in the electromagnetic charge e acquires new local insertions at second order: a seagull current and two anti-quark contact terms. These terms are not artifacts; they are required for the lattice U(1) Ward-Takahashi identity to hold and for O(alpha_em) radiative corrections obtained by the standard perturbative expansion around e=0 to be gauge covariant. The paper rederives the known first-order conserved current from a background-field method, derives the previously missing second-order seagull vertices, validates them numerically against direct derivatives of the propagator, and extends the pattern to all orders.

Core claim

The central claim is that the physical anti-quark field in generalized domain-wall fermions, qbar = (psibar D_-) R5 P with D_- = 1 - c_s D_w, depends on the QCD+QED gauge links. Expanding this definition in e produces operator insertions that are absent in the standard c_s=0 case. At O(e) the expansion yields the conserved vector current V^mu plus a contact term Qbar_1^mu. At O(e^2) it yields a double-current insertion, a single second-order insertion involving the seagull current T^mu(z) = sum_{x,y} psibar(x) Gamma_2^mu(x,z,y) Omega(m) psi(y), and anti-quark contact terms Qbar_1^mu and Qbar_2^mu. With these terms, the lattice Ward-Takahashi identity for the two-current correlator gives the

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the definition of the physical anti-quark field, qbar(x) = [(psibar D_-)(x) R5 P]_1, where D_- = diag(1 - c_s D_w) contains the QCD+QED Wilson gauge links. Because D_- carries the U(3) links, derivatives of the field generate contact terms not present in formulations with c_s = 0. The second-order seagull current T^mu(z) = sum_{x,y} psibar(x) Gamma_2^mu(x,z,y) Omega(m) psi(y), built from a point-split kernel Gamma_2^mu, and the anti-quark contact currents Qbar_1^mu and Qbar_2^mu are the new local insertions that carry the argument; together they enforce the Ward-Takahashi identity and make the O(e^2) propagator gauge covariant.

Load-bearing premise

The entire result rests on the chosen definition qbar(x) = [(psibar D_-)(x) R5 P]_1, with D_- containing the QCD+QED links; if a different field identification were used, every second-order contact term would change.

What would settle it

Compute the left and right sides of the lattice Ward-Takahashi identity for the two-current correlator on a small volume with a fixed U(1) background and check whether the difference vanishes when the seagull term is dropped. Alternatively, replace the physical anti-quark definition by D_- evaluated at e=0 and compare the O(e^2) propagator derivative with a direct finite-difference derivative; any mismatch would show the contact terms are artifacts of the chosen convention.

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

If this is right

  • Any O(alpha_em) calculation with generalized domain-wall fermions that drops the seagull or anti-quark contact terms will violate the lattice U(1) Ward-Takahashi identity and lose gauge covariance.
  • The conserved vector current and the first-order Ward identity are recovered from the same background-field expansion, unifying the first-order description.
  • The vacuum polarization tensor remains transverse, qhat_mu Pi_mu_nu = 0, only when the seagull term is included in the two-current correlator.
  • The pattern alternates: at every odd order the point-split kernel is Gamma_1^mu and at every even order Gamma_2^mu, so higher-order radiative corrections can be generated systematically.
  • The same contact structures apply to imaginary chemical potential through analytic continuation, so quark number susceptibilities in finite-temperature QCD need the same corrections.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the extra terms come entirely from the gauge-link dependence of D_-, any future reformulation of domain-wall fermions that changes this field definition will need its own seagull derivation; the present calculation provides the template but not a uniqueness proof.
  • Existing generalized-domain-wall results that used local currents plus renormalization factors are not saved by renormalization at the level of gauge invariance; their systematics should be re-evaluated observable-by-observable before being used for sub-percent precision.
  • A direct test is to measure the Ward identity residual on a lattice with a non-trivial U(1) background; the residual should vanish only when both the seagull and anti-quark terms are included, giving a check independent of numerical derivative validation.
  • The all-order pattern suggests that seagull-like terms appear at every even order, so a resummed all-order expression for the propagator could be constructed and might simplify future automated perturbation theory.

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

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives the perturbative expansion of the physical quark propagator in generalized domain-wall QCD+QED with respect to the electromagnetic charge e up to O(e^2). Starting from the U(3)-link Wilson operator, the authors obtain the first-order conserved vector current and, at second order, a new local seagull current T^mu plus anti-quark contact operators Qbar1^mu and Qbar2^mu, the latter arising because the physical anti-quark field qbar depends on the QCD+QED links through the operator D_- in Eq. (26). The derivation is performed with a background-field method, and the resulting Ward-Takahashi identity for the DWF currents is used to justify the seagull vertex. The authors also provide a numerical finite-difference validation on an 8^4 lattice for Shamir, scaled-Shamir, and zMobius domain-wall actions, with code released in a public repository.

Significance. If the claimed result is correct, it fills a genuine gap: until now the O(e^2) seagull and contact terms for generalized domain-wall fermions were missing, forcing RM123-style calculations with Mobius/zMobius actions to use a non-gauge-invariant local current. The derivation is explicit, self-contained, and parameter-free, and the numerical validation against finite-difference ground truth is a strong check. The public implementation in Grid is also a practical strength. However, the displayed operator-insertion formula Eq. (90) contains a sign error in the anti-quark contact term, which must be corrected before the paper can be accepted as stated.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (90)] Equation (90) is internally inconsistent with Eqs. (85) and (89). The last operator in Eq. (85) is -S_dw (Gamma2 dot A^2) C. Using the paper's own definition Qbar2^mu = -psi_bar Gamma2^mu C R5 P (Eq. (89)), the sandwich [P^-1(-S_dw Gamma2 C R5 P)]_11 equals +<q Qbar2>, so 1/2 partial^2_e S_q contains +1/2<q Qbar2>, not -1/2 as printed in Eq. (90). The same sign follows from the path-integral derivative: partial^2_e<q qbar> contains <q partial^2_e qbar> = <q Qbar2>, and the overall factor 1/2 gives +1/2. The Feynman-diagram expression in Eq. (95) already displays the +1/2 sign, so Eq. (90) is the outlier. This is not a convention ambiguity; it follows from the definitions stated in the paper. Since Eq. (90) is the main operator-insertion formula, an implementation based on it would insert the anti-quark contact term with the wrong sign. The numerical validation in Sec. VII tests Eq. (85)
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VII, Fig. 1] The validation is performed on a single gauge configuration and a single source. This is acceptable for a consistency check, but should be stated clearly in the caption. In addition, reporting the fitted slopes or numerical values of epsilon1 and epsilon2 at several e^2 would make the claim that the errors scale linearly with e^2 more quantitative than a visual inspection of points.
  2. [Sec. VI, Eq. (114)] The function F is used without an explicit definition. Please define F(D) = D^-1 partial D / partial mu (or state that it denotes the integrand in Eq. (111)), so that the trace identity tr F(D_ov) = tr F(D_dw(m)) - tr F(D_dw(1)) is unambiguous.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eq. (115)] The analytic continuation is written as eA_nu -> i mu delta_nu4. It would help to state explicitly that derivatives are taken with respect to the variable eA_nu, not A_nu, to avoid apparent missing factors of 1/e.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the second-order seagull and contact terms are derived by differentiating a fixed lattice action and field definition, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central result is the O(e^2) expansion of the physical quark propagator, Eqs. (85) and (90). This follows by direct differentiation of the exact identity Sq = [P^{-1} Sdw D_- R5 P]_{11} (Eq. (21)), where D_- is the link-dependent operator in the boundary field definition (Eq. (26)). The operators V^mu, Qbar1^mu, T^mu and Qbar2^mu are defined from the corresponding derivatives of the action and fields; they are not fitted to any data, and the Ward-Takahashi identities (73), (78), (97) are algebraic consequences of the same definitions rather than independent empirical predictions. The numerical validation in Sec. VII compares the perturbative expansions directly to finite differences of the full e-dependent lattice propagator (Eqs. (130)-(134)); this is an independent ground truth, and the perturbative coefficients are not adjusted to match it. Self-citations appear only as implementation references (Grid [31,32], the public repository [34]) or as background for the RM123 method [10,11]; none of these supplies the derivation's content. An apparent algebraic-sign question between Eq. (90) and Eq. (85) would be a correctness concern, not an equivalence-by-construction, and therefore does not affect the circularity verdict. The derivation is self-contained and parameter-free.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the action coefficients b_s, c_s, omega_s are inherited from prior DWF literature. The central claim rests on the DWF field identification and the standard U(3)-link coupling, both taken as domain assumptions.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Generalized DWF action of Eqs. (3)-(11) with coefficients b_s,c_s and transfer matrix T_s yields the effective overlap operator via Eqs. (16)-(17).
    Taken from Refs. [15-18]; the derivation operates on this exact 5D action and inherits its validity.
  • domain assumption Physical quark propagator is Sq = [P^{-1} Sdw D_- R5 P]_{11} (Eq. 21), with qbar depending on the links through D_- (Eq. 26).
    This is the key structural assumption; all new contact terms originate from D_-'s link dependence.
  • standard math U(1) vector transformation (56) is a unitary change of variables, so deltaV<O>=0 and the Ward identity (59) holds.
    Standard path-integral identity for Grassmann variables; used to derive Eqs. (73), (78), (97).
  • domain assumption QED is coupled by promoting links to U_mu=e^{ieA_mu} U_mu (Eq. 30) and expanding in e; the Wilson operator is linear in links.
    Standard lattice QED coupling; all derivatives (32), (79) follow from this choice.
  • domain assumption The finite-Ls DWF is an approximation of the overlap operator; physical limit is Ls -> infinity.
    The derivation is exact at finite Ls, but the physical interpretation as chiral fermions assumes the overlap limit (Eq. 16).
  • domain assumption For susceptibilities, chemical potential equals imaginary U(1) background eA4=i mu_f (Eq. 107) and det[Dov]=det[Ddw]/det[Ddw(1)] (Eq. 110).
    From Refs. [24-27]; transfers the perturbative expansion to thermodynamic quantities.
invented entities (2)
  • DWF seagull current T^mu(z) no independent evidence
    purpose: O(e^2) local operator insertion required to preserve the U(1) Ward identity when two conserved currents collide (Eqs. 91-97).
    Derived from the action expansion, not postulated; no external falsifiable prediction beyond the Ward identity and the code validation in the paper.
  • Anti-quark contact currents Qbar1^mu, Qbar2^mu no independent evidence
    purpose: Contact terms from the link dependence of D_- in qbar; they correct the vector-current Ward identity (78) and appear in the O(e^2) propagator (90).
    Mathematical artifacts of the field definition, not new physical entities; no independent experimental handle provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14823 in / 23517 out tokens · 233189 ms · 2026-08-01T07:43:38.336688+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper we derive the expansion of the generalized domain-wall fermion Dirac operator including electromagnetic corrections up to $\mathcal{O}(e^2)$, which are relevant for lattice computations of radiative corrections to hadronic processes with chiral fermions. In the generalized formulation of the domain-wall fermionic QCD+QED action, physical quark fields are related to the corresponding five-dimensional fields in a way which depends on the (QCD+QED) gauge links, generating extra contact terms when expanding correlation functions with respect to the electric charge. We re-derive the known first-order correction using a background-field approach and, at second order, obtain new local operator insertions (seagull vertices) required for gauge covariant calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21346 by Antonin Portelli, Matteo Di Carlo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative example of relative errors between numerical derivatives of the quark propagator with respect to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.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

45 extracted references · 32 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    ,0, P−η)T ;(121)

    Build a five-dimensional source η5 from the four- dimensional one as a vector with components (η5)s = [R5P] s1 η, namely η5 = (P+η,0, . . . ,0, P−η)T ;(121)

  2. [2]

    One then hasϕ=S η 5, and the physical quark propagator is given by Sq η= [P −1S η5]11 ,(123) which is a direct application of Eq

    solve numerically the linear system Ddw(m)ϕ=D −η5 ,(122) where ϕ is the solution vector. One then hasϕ=S η 5, and the physical quark propagator is given by Sq η= [P −1S η5]11 ,(123) which is a direct application of Eq. (21)

  3. [3]

    build the sequential source vector η′ =−i(Γ 1 ·A) Ω(m)ϕ+C η 5 ;(124)

  4. [4]

    One then has ϕ′ = (∂eS η5)|e=0 ,(126) which implements Eq

    solve numerically the linear system Ddw(m)ϕ′ =η ′ ,(125) whereϕ ′ is the new solution vector. One then has ϕ′ = (∂eS η5)|e=0 ,(126) which implements Eq. (41); 9

  5. [5]

    build the sequential source vector η′′ =−i(Γ 1 ·A)Ω(m)ϕ ′ − 1 2 (Γ2 ·A 2) Ω(m)ϕ+C η 5 ; (127)

  6. [6]

    One then has ϕ′′ = 1 2 (∂2 e S η5)|e=0 ,(129) which implements Eq

    solve numerically the linear system Ddw(m)ϕ′′ =η ′′ ,(128) whereϕ ′′ is the solution vector. One then has ϕ′′ = 1 2 (∂2 e S η5)|e=0 ,(129) which implements Eq. (85). In order to check the procedure above, one needs a numerical ground truth for comparison. Such reference can be obtained by computing numerically the derivatives (∂eS η5)|e=0 and( ∂2 e S η5)|...

    2020

  7. [7]

    Borsanyiet al.(BMW), Ab initio calculation of the neutron-proton mass difference, Science347, 1452 (2015), arXiv:1406.4088 [hep-lat]

    S. Borsanyiet al.(BMW), Ab initio calculation of the neutron-proton mass difference, Science347, 1452 (2015), arXiv:1406.4088 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Bushnaq, I

    L. Bushnaq, I. Campos, M. Catillo, A. Cotellucci, M. Dale, P. Fritzsch, J. Lücke, M. Krstić Marinković, A. Patella, and N. Tantalo (RCstar), First results on QCD+QED with C∗ boundary conditions, JHEP03, 012, arXiv:2209.13183 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    G. M. de Divitiis, R. Frezzotti, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, R. Petronzio, G. C. Rossi, F. Sanfilippo, S. Simula, and N. Tantalo (RM123), Leading isospin breaking ef- fects on the lattice, Phys. Rev. D87, 114505 (2013), arXiv:1303.4896 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Boyle, V

    P. Boyle, V. Gülpers, J. Harrison, A. Jüttner, C. Lehner, A. Portelli, and C. T. Sachrajda, Isospin breaking cor- rections to meson masses and the hadronic vacuum polarization: a comparative study, JHEP09, 153, arXiv:1706.05293 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Altherret al.(RC ⋆), Comparing QCD+QED via full simulation versus the RM123 method: U-spin window contribution to aHVP µ , JHEP10, 158, arXiv:2506.19770 [hep-lat]

    A. Altherret al.(RC ⋆), Comparing QCD+QED via full simulation versus the RM123 method: U-spin window contribution to aHVP µ , JHEP10, 158, arXiv:2506.19770 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Simula, and N

    D.Giusti, V.Lubicz, C.Tarantino, G.Martinelli, F.Sanfil- ippo, S. Simula, and N. Tantalo, Leading isospin-breaking corrections to pion, kaon and charmed-meson masses with Twisted-Mass fermions, Phys. Rev. D95, 114504 (2017), arXiv:1704.06561 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Frezzotti, G

    R. Frezzotti, G. Gagliardi, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Sanfilippo, and S. Simula, Lattice calculation of the pion mass difference Mπ+-Mπ0 at order O(αem), Phys. Rev. D106, 014502 (2022), arXiv:2202.11970 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Carrasco, V

    N. Carrasco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, C. T. Sachrajda, N. Tantalo, C. Tarantino, and M. Testa, QED Corrections to Hadronic Processes in Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D91, 074506 (2015), arXiv:1502.00257 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Giusti, V

    D. Giusti, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, C. T. Sachrajda, F. Sanfilippo, S. Simula, N. Tantalo, and C. Tarantino, First lattice calculation of the QED corrections to lep- tonic decay rates, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 072001 (2018), arXiv:1711.06537 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Di Carlo, D

    M. Di Carlo, D. Giusti, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, C. T. Sachrajda, F. Sanfilippo, S. Simula, and N. Tantalo, Light- meson leptonic decay rates in lattice QCD+QED, Phys. Rev. D100, 034514 (2019), arXiv:1904.08731 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Boyleet al., Isospin-breaking corrections to light-meson leptonic decays from lattice simulations at physical quark masses, JHEP02, 242, arXiv:2211.12865 [hep-lat]

    P. Boyleet al., Isospin-breaking corrections to light-meson leptonic decays from lattice simulations at physical quark masses, JHEP02, 242, arXiv:2211.12865 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Giusti, V

    D. Giusti, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Sanfilippo, and S. Simula, Electromagnetic and strong isospin-breaking corrections to the muong− 2from Lattice QCD+QED, Phys. Rev. D99, 114502 (2019), arXiv:1901.10462 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Djukanovic, G

    D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, S. Kuberski, H. B. Meyer, N. Miller, K. Ottnad, J. Parrino, A. Risch, and H. Wit- tig, The hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g − 2 at long distances, JHEP04, 098, arXiv:2411.07969 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Blumet al.(RBC, UKQCD), Long-Distance Window of the Hadronic Vacuum Polarization for the Muon g-2, Phys

    T. Blumet al.(RBC, UKQCD), Long-Distance Window of the Hadronic Vacuum Polarization for the Muon g-2, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 201901 (2025), arXiv:2410.20590 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    R. C. Brower, H. Neff, and K. Orginos, Mobius fermions: Improved domain wall chiral fermions, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.140, 686 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0409118

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  22. [22]

    R. C. Brower, H. Neff, and K. Orginos, Mobius fermions, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.153, 191 (2006), arXiv:hep- lat/0511031

    arXiv 2006

  23. [23]

    R. C. Brower, H. Neff, and K. Orginos, The Möbius domain wall fermion algorithm, Comput. Phys. Commun. 220, 1 (2017), arXiv:1206.5214 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Blumet al.(RBC, UKQCD), Domain wall QCD with physical quark masses, Phys

    T. Blumet al.(RBC, UKQCD), Domain wall QCD with physical quark masses, Phys. Rev. D93, 074505 (2016), arXiv:1411.7017 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    Narayanan and H

    R. Narayanan and H. Neuberger, A Construction of lattice chiral gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B443, 305 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9411108

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  26. [26]

    R. G. Edwards, U. M. Heller, and R. Narayanan, A study of chiral symmetry in quenched QCD using the overlap Dirac operator, Phys. Rev. D59, 094510 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9811030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  27. [27]

    Shamir, Chiral fermions from lattice boundaries, Nucl

    Y. Shamir, Chiral fermions from lattice boundaries, Nucl. Phys. B406, 90 (1993), arXiv:hep-lat/9303005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  28. [28]

    Furman and Y

    V. Furman and Y. Shamir, Axial symmetries in lattice QCD with Kaplan fermions, Nucl. Phys. B439, 54 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9405004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  29. [29]

    Gockeler, R

    M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, W. Kurzinger, D. Pleiter, P. E. L. Rakow, and G. Schierholz (QCDSF), Vacuum polarization and hadronic contribution to muon g-2 from lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys. B688, 135 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0312032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  30. [30]

    J. C. R. Bloch and T. Wettig, Domain-wall and overlap fermions at nonzero quark chemical potential, Phys. Rev. D76, 114511 (2007), arXiv:0709.4630 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  31. [31]

    Hegde, F

    P. Hegde, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and S. Shcheredin, Lat- tice cut-off effects and their reduction in studies of QCD thermodynamics at non-zero temperature and chemical potential, Eur. Phys. J. C55, 423 (2008), arXiv:0801.4883 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  32. [32]

    Banerjee, R

    D. Banerjee, R. V. Gavai, and S. Sharma, Thermodynam- ics of the ideal overlap quarks on the lattice, Phys. Rev. D78, 014506 (2008), arXiv:0803.3925 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  33. [33]

    Goswami, Y

    J. Goswami, Y. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, I. Kanamori, T. Kaneko, Y. Nakamura, and Y. Zhang (JLQCD), Quark number susceptibility and conserved charge fluctuation for (2+1)-flavor QCD with Möbius 11 domain wall fermions, PoSLATTICE2024, 168 (2025), arXiv:2501.03509 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    S. A. Gottlieb, W. Liu, D. Toussaint, R. L. Renken, and R. L. Sugar, The Quark Number Susceptibility of High Temperature QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2247 (1987)

    1987

  35. [35]

    S. A. Gottlieb, W. Liu, D. Toussaint, R. L. Renken, and R. L. Sugar, Fermion Number Susceptibility in Lattice Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. D38, 2888 (1988)

    1988

  36. [36]

    Cheng, N

    M. Cheng, N. H. Christ, M. Li, R. D. Mawhinney, D. Ren- frew, P. Hegde, F. Karsch, M. Lin, and P. Vranas, The finite temperature QCD using 2 + 1 flavors of domain wall fermions atNt = 8, Phys. Rev. D81, 054510 (2010), arXiv:0911.3450 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  37. [37]

    Boyle, G

    P. Boyle, G. Cossu, A. Yamaguchi, and A. Portelli, Grid: A next generation data parallel C++ QCD library, PoS LATTICE2015, 023 (2016), arXiv:1512.03487 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    Yamaguchi, P

    A. Yamaguchi, P. Boyle, G. Cossu, G. Filaci, C. Lehner, and A. Portelli, Grid: OneCode and FourAPIs, PoSLAT- TICE2021, 035 (2022), arXiv:2203.06777 [hep-lat]. [33]https://github.com/paboyle/Grid

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Portelli and M

    A. Portelli and M. Di Carlo, Grid implementation of gdwf conserved currents (2026)

    2026

  40. [40]

    Neuberger, Vector - like gauge theories with almost massless fermions on the lattice, Phys

    H. Neuberger, Vector - like gauge theories with almost massless fermions on the lattice, Phys. Rev. D57, 5417 (1998), arXiv:hep-lat/9710089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  41. [41]

    Neuberger, Exactly massless quarks on the lattice, Phys

    H. Neuberger, Exactly massless quarks on the lattice, Phys. Lett. B417, 141 (1998), arXiv:hep-lat/9707022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  42. [42]

    Chiu, Optimal domain wall fermions, Phys

    T.-W. Chiu, Optimal domain wall fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 071601 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0209153

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  43. [43]

    Chiu, Locality of optimal lattice domain wall fermions, Phys

    T.-W. Chiu, Locality of optimal lattice domain wall fermions, Phys. Lett. B552, 97 (2003), arXiv:hep- lat/0211032

    arXiv 2003

  44. [44]

    Mcglynn, Algorithmic improvements for weak cou- pling simulations of domain wall fermions, PoSLAT- TICE2015, 019 (2016)

    G. Mcglynn, Algorithmic improvements for weak cou- pling simulations of domain wall fermions, PoSLAT- TICE2015, 019 (2016)

    2016

  45. [45]

    Hodgson,Rare strange to down quark transitions from lattice quantum chromodynamics, Ph.D

    R. Hodgson,Rare strange to down quark transitions from lattice quantum chromodynamics, Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh (2023). 12

    2023