Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

The Fundamental Modular Region can be defined as the zero-temperature limit of regulated copy-weighted Landau gauges, without parametrizing its boundary.

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

2026-07-31 23:26 UTC pith:ZF2GVFMW

load-bearing objection A clean formal proposal for the FMR as the beta->infinity limit of copy-weighted gauges, but the defining ordered limits are unproved and the paper itself defers them. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27896 v1 pith:ZF2GVFMW submitted 2026-07-30 hep-th hep-lathep-phnucl-th

A regulated zero-temperature construction of the Fundamental Modular Region in pure Yang--Mills theory and QCD

Rodrigo Carmo Terin This is my paper
classification hep-th hep-lathep-phnucl-th
keywords Yang-Mills theoryQCDGribov copiesFundamental Modular RegionLandau gaugegauge fixingFaddeev-Popov operatorcopy-weighted gauges
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 argues that the Fundamental Modular Region (FMR), the set of absolute minima of the Landau functional on each gauge orbit, need not be imposed by spelling out its boundary. Instead, the author defines it operationally as the beta-to-infinity limit of a regulated copy-weighted Landau measure, with a specific ordered-limit prescription for the continuum. At finite beta the measure is a well-defined weighted average over Gribov copies; in the limit it localizes on absolute minima, making the absolute Landau gauge a concrete limiting construction rather than a global optimization to be solved by hand. The paper also shows that the approach to the FMR is controlled: the leading 1/beta correction is governed by the inverse Faddeev-Popov operator at the absolute representative, which yields a testable lattice diagnostic. A small SU(2) benchmark demonstrates that the finite-temperature copy-weighted measure can be sampled in practice.

Core claim

The central claim is that the FMR expectation value of a gauge-dependent observable can be defined by the ordered limit ⟨O⟩_FMR = lim_{a→0} lim_{V→∞} lim_{ζ→0+} lim_{β→∞} ⟨O⟩^{a,V}_{β,ζ}, where at fixed lattice cutoff and volume the finite-β measure weights each Gribov copy by W_ζ exp(-β F_A[U]) and β→∞ performs the absolute-minimum selection. At an isolated absolute representative U*, the finite-β average evaluates to O[A^{U*}] + (1/2β) Tr[M^{-1}(A^{U*}) O^{(2)}_{U*}] + O(β^{-2}). This gives a regulated definition of absolute Landau gauge that does not require an explicit parametrization of the FMR boundary, and it extends unchanged to full QCD because the quark action is gauge invariant. I

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the copy-weighted measure on the set of Landau copies of a fixed gauge orbit, P_β[g|U] ∝ W_ζ[U,g] exp(-β F_U[g]), where F_U is the lattice Landau functional and W_ζ regulates Faddeev-Popov zero modes. At finite β this measure admits a local replicated field-theory representation; its zero-temperature limit selects absolute minima of the Landau functional. The companion identity is the saddle-point expansion around an isolated absolute minimum, in which the inverse Faddeev-Popov operator M^{-1}(A^{U*}) controls the 1/β correction to any orbit observable. Together the soft-min identity and the ordered limit convert the global, nonlocal FMR condition into an operation

Load-bearing premise

The definition assumes that, after taking the zero-temperature limit on a fixed lattice, the subsequent removal of the regulator, the infinite-volume limit, and the continuum limit all exist and give the same answer regardless of the order.

What would settle it

Measure the finite-β gluon or ghost propagator at fixed lattice size; if the leading deviation from the β→∞ value is not O(1/β) and does not grow as the smallest nonzero Faddeev-Popov eigenvalue at the best copy decreases, the claimed expansion fails. Also compute the ordered limit with β→∞ taken before and after V→∞; different results would show the FMR expectation value is order-dependent.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Absolute Landau gauge acquires a regulated continuum definition without parametrizing the FMR boundary.
  • Finite-β observables approach best-copy values with a calculable 1/β correction whose coefficient is fixed by the inverse Faddeev-Popov operator at the absolute minimum.
  • Lattice tests can diagnose convergence: configurations whose best copy has small low-lying FP eigenvalues should show slow β-convergence.
  • Restriction to the first Gribov region and the FMR selection act on different variables and can be imposed together without conflict.
  • The same ordered-limit prescription defines FMR gauge-fixed QCD Green functions once the quark action is included; gauge-invariant observables are unaffected.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the ordered limit is stable, this construction would give a practical bridge between lattice best-copy results and continuum calculations, since the 1/β expansion supplies a controlled extrapolation rather than a bare β→∞ assertion.
  • The FP-spectrum diagnostic could be turned into a quantitative measure of how close a copy is to the FMR boundary, making the notoriously fuzzy boundary testable through convergence rates.
  • Because the finite-β regulator is local but the β=∞ projection is not, one could investigate whether renormalization of the local family survives the limit; if it does not, the prescription would still be meaningful only at fixed cutoff.
  • A natural next test is whether the population and collective sampling methods continue to find lower basins than multistart relaxation on larger volumes; the paper's benchmark is too small to decide whether spectral guidance helps.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to define the Fundamental Modular Region (FMR) in Yang–Mills theory and QCD as the zero-temperature limit of copy-weighted Landau gauges. On each gauge orbit, copies are weighted by exp(-β F_A[U]), with an optional Faddeev–Popov determinant regulator W_ζ. At fixed lattice cutoff and volume, compactness guarantees that the β→∞ limit localizes on absolute minima of the lattice Landau functional. The paper derives a 1/β saddle-point correction controlled by the inverse FP operator, presents a local replicated field-theory representation at finite β, discusses compatibility with the first Gribov region and horizon terms, and reports a small SU(2) 4^4 benchmark using population annealing and collective basin hopping. The full definition of continuum FMR expectation values is the ordered limit Eq. (30): lim_{a→0} lim_{V→∞} lim_{ζ→0+} lim_{β→∞} ⟨O⟩^{a,V}_{β,ζ}.

Significance. If the construction works as intended, it gives an operational definition of absolute Landau gauge that does not require an explicit parametrization of the FMR boundary, and it provides a calculable 1/β convergence diagnostic. The orbitwise localization proof in Appendix A is sound: it uses only compactness and continuity at fixed regulator. The finite-β saddle expansion in Appendix B is a standard Laplace calculation and is correctly stated. The numerical proof of concept is honest about its exploratory nature. However, the central claim is conditional: the ordered limit that defines ⟨O⟩_FMR is not proved to exist or to be order-independent after the β→∞ step, and the paper explicitly defers this stability analysis to future work. The small benchmark cannot compensate for this gap. The definitional, rather than derivational, character of the zero-temperature selection also needs to be stated more clearly.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (30); Sec. 9] The central object ⟨O⟩_FMR is defined by the ordered limit in Eq. (30), but the existence and order-independence of the limits after β→∞ are not established. The paper states in Sec. 9: 'Future work should focus on the stability of the ordered limit for IR Green functions.' This is not a peripheral technicality: if the ζ→0+, V→∞, a→0 limits do not exist, or if they do not commute with β→∞, then the FMR expectation value is not well defined even though the orbitwise localization at fixed regulator is correct. Please provide either a proof under stated assumptions, or a detailed numerical study of the double/extrapolated limits for D_β(p) and G_β(p), including explicit checks of limit-order independence.
  2. [Eq. (14); Appendix A.20] The determinant prefactor W_ζ is not well defined when det M[A U_i] = 0: the denominator |det M[A U_i]| vanishes and s(i) = sign det M[A U_i] is undefined. Zero modes on the absolute-minimizing set are precisely the situation that ζ is supposed to regulate. Moreover, in Eq. (21) the denominator can vanish as ζ→0+, so the ζ→0+ step in Eq. (30) may not exist. The manuscript only says 'provided that the denominator does not vanish on the minimizing set'; this condition needs to be justified, or the determinant ratio must be replaced by a genuinely regularized expression that remains finite when det M vanishes.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (18)–(22)] The zero-temperature localization is presented as if the FMR condition is 'generated dynamically' by the Gibbs factor. Algebraically, however, Eqs. (18)–(20) and the soft-min identity (22) merely restate the definition of the copy average: the absolute-minimum set I_* is the support of the limiting measure because the measure was defined with exp(-β F_i). This is a legitimate definitional construction, but the paper should state explicitly that the FMR selection is imposed by definition, not derived from independent dynamical input. Otherwise the argument invites the circularity objection.
  4. [Eq. (25); Appendix B] The 1/β expansion is derived only for an isolated absolute minimum with positive Hessian on nonzero modes. The paper itself allows for degenerate absolute minima, e.g. Eq. (19) and the discussion of boundary identifications, but no controlled finite-β expansion is provided in that case. Since the ordered limit in Eq. (30) does not assume uniqueness, the convergence diagnostic based on Tr[M^{-1} O^{(2)}] is incomplete for degenerate FMR representatives. Please either extend the expansion to the degenerate case or state clearly that the diagnostic applies only to isolated minima and explain what changes otherwise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and infelicities: 'attaines' (Sec. 1), 'setted' (Secs. 1, 6, 9), 'the β→∞ limit' repeated, 'App. Appendix C' (App. C heading), and inconsistent use of 'the FMR' / 'an FMR'.
  2. [Sec. 5; Appendix C] The replica trick is invoked with n→0, but no justification of the analytic continuation is given. At minimum, cite the standard Parisi–Sourlas construction and state the assumptions under which the replica limit is expected to hold.
  3. [Table 1; Sec. 8] The benchmark is based on 12 configurations on a 4^4 lattice at β_W=1.2. The text appropriately disclaims certification of exact absolute minima, but the reader should be reminded in the main text that 'hit rate' means agreement with the best value found by the included methods within 10^-7, not a proof of FMR membership.
  4. [Appendix F.5] The population-annealing and collective-hop results are given as mean gaps without error bars or a statistical analysis over the twelve configurations. Since the message is proof of concept, this is acceptable, but error estimates would strengthen the claim.
  5. [References] Reference [31] is dated 2026 and arXiv:2602.23731; verify the bibliographic data and note if the volume/DOI is correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the FMR prescription is an explicit definition; localization and 1/β correction are consequences, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central object is introduced by definition: Eq. (30) defines ⟨O⟩_FMR as the ordered limit of regulated copy-weighted averages whose Boltzmann weights are set in Eq. (13). The localization result (Eqs. (18)-(20)) and the soft-min identity (Eq. (22)) are direct Laplace-principle consequences of that definition; they are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and the paper does not claim to derive FMR selection from independent dynamics. The 1/β correction (Eq. (25)) is a standard saddle-point expansion of the same defined measure, so it is a calculable property rather than an input. Self-citations [22,23] are contextual (unified ST-RGZ viewpoint and a replica-broken kernel) and are not load-bearing: the construction relies on the cited Serreau-Tissier weights [18-21] and standard saddle/replica techniques, and the horizon compatibility in App. D is proven directly from the gauge invariance of A^h. The genuine limitation — existence and order-independence of the limits taken after β→∞ — is explicitly deferred in Sec. 9 ('Future work should focus on the stability of the ordered limit for IR Green functions') and Appendix D; this is a well-posedness gap, not circularity. No specific circular reduction (Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, or fitted parameter called prediction) can be exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The replica superfields V_k are a bookkeeping device from the existing ST/replica literature, not physical entities. The construction rests on regulators (β, ζ, γ), on the formal replica limit, and on the assumed stability of the ordered continuum limits.

free parameters (4)
  • β (copy inverse temperature) = ∞ (limit of regulator)
    Central control parameter of the construction. Not fitted to data, but all results are statements about the β→∞ limit.
  • ζ (FP determinant regulator) = 0+ (limit)
    Regulates zero modes of the FP determinant; removed after β→∞ in the ordered limit.
  • γ (GZ horizon parameter) = 0+ (optional)
    Appears in the combined GZ/copy-weighted action; cancels in orbitwise copy averages due to gauge invariance of A^h (App. D).
  • β_W = 1.2 (lattice Wilson coupling in benchmark) = 1.2
    Exploratory ensemble parameter for the SU(2) 4⁴ benchmark; not fitted to any physical target.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The set of Gribov copies on a fixed orbit is discrete/countable and the sums in Eqs. (13)/(15) are well defined.
    The orbitwise construction is algebraic in the copy index; continuum proofs of discreteness are not given, and the paper retreats to the lattice regulator.
  • domain assumption The replica limit n→0 is valid and commutes with β→∞ in Eq. (39).
    The local action (35)–(38) uses the Parisi–Sourlas replica trick; analytic continuation n→0 is not proved.
  • ad hoc to paper The infinite-volume and continuum limits in Eq. (30) exist and are independent of the order after β→∞.
    The paper defines FMR via the ordered limit and explicitly defers stability to future work (Sec. 9).
  • domain assumption At the absolute minimum, the FP Hessian is positive definite on non-zero modes and the saddle expansion (App. B) is valid.
    Needed for Eq. (25); degeneracies on the FMR boundary would invalidate the simple 1/β formula and are only mentioned qualitatively.
  • standard math Compact gauge group and continuity of the lattice Landau functional guarantee the existence of absolute minima.
    Used in App. A; standard topology applied to the compact product of SU(N) groups.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 22418 in / 13694 out tokens · 132816 ms · 2026-07-31T23:26:46.722674+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A regulated zero-temperature construction of the Fundamental Modular Region in pure Yang--Mills theory and QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZF2GVFMW

@misc{pith2026260727896,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A regulated zero-temperature construction of the Fundamental Modular Region in pure Yang--Mills theory and QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZF2GVFMW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27896}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We formulate the Fundamental Modular Region (FMR) as the zero-temperature limit of regulated copy-weighted Landau gauges. At finite $\beta$, the measure localizes on absolute minima, and the leading correction is dominated by the inverse Faddeev--Popov (FP) operator. A small $SU(2)$ benchmark provides a computational realization through population annealing and collective basin hopping. Our construction defines absolute Landau gauge without parametrizing the FMR boundary and extends naturally to full quantum chromodynamics (QCD). It also admits a Hamiltonian interpretation in terms of the gauge-fixed vacuum wave functional on the FMR.

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

32 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. N. Yang, R. L. Mills, Conservation of isotopic spin and isotopic gauge invariance, Phys. Rev. 96 (1954) 191–195. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.96.191

    doi:10.1103/physrev.96.191 1954

  2. [2]

    L. D. Faddeev, V . N. Popov, Feynman diagrams for the yang–mills field, Phys. Lett. B 25 (1967) 29–30.doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(67)90067-6

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(67)90067-6 1967

  3. [3]

    V . N. Gribov, Quantization of non-abelian gauge theo- ries, Nucl. Phys. B 139 (1978) 1–19.doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(78)90175-X

    1978

  4. [4]

    I. M. Singer, Some remarks on the gribov ambiguity, Commun. Math. Phys. 60 (1978) 7–12.doi:10.1007/ BF01609471

    1978

  5. [5]

    Vandersickel, D

    N. Vandersickel, D. Zwanziger, The gribov problem and qcd dynamics, Phys. Rept. 520 (2012) 175–251.arXiv: 1202.1491,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.07.003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Zwanziger, Action from the Gribov horizon, Nucl

    D. Zwanziger, Action from the Gribov horizon, Nucl. Phys. B 321 (1989) 591–604.doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(89)90263-0

    1989

  7. [7]

    Zwanziger, Local and renormalizable action from the Gribov horizon, Nucl

    D. Zwanziger, Local and renormalizable action from the Gribov horizon, Nucl. Phys. B 323 (1989) 513–544.doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(89)90122-3

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90122-3 1989

  8. [8]

    Dudal, J

    D. Dudal, J. A. Gracey, S. P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel, H. Verschelde, A refinement of the gribov–zwanziger ap- proach in the landau gauge: Infrared propagators in har- mony with the lattice results, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 065047.arXiv:0806.4348,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 78.065047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    Dudal, S

    D. Dudal, S. P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel, H. Verschelde, New features of the gluon and ghost propagator in the in- frared region from the gribov–zwanziger approach, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 071501.arXiv:0711.4496,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.071501

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

    Dudal, S

    D. Dudal, S. P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel, The dynami- cal origin of the refinement of the gribov–zwanziger the- ory, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 065039.arXiv:1105.3371, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.065039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

    Cucchieri, T

    A. Cucchieri, T. Mendes, Constraints on the infrared be- havior of the gluon propagator in yang–mills theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 241601.arXiv:0712.3517, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.241601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    Dudal, O

    D. Dudal, O. Oliveira, P. J. Silva, High precision statisti- cal landau gauge lattice gluon propagator computation vs. the gribov–zwanziger approach, Annals Phys. 397 (2018) 351–364.arXiv:1803.02281,doi:10.1016/j.aop. 2018.08.019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    S. P. Sorella, et al., Exact nilpotent nonperturbative brst symmetry for the gribov–zwanziger action in the linear covariant gauge, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 045039.arXiv: 1506.06995,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.045039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    S. P. Sorella, et al., Local and brst-invariant yang– mills theory within the gribov horizon, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 025035.arXiv:1605.02610,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.94.025035. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    S. P. Sorella, et al., Nonperturbative aspects of euclidean yang–mills theories in linear covariant gauges: Nielsen identities and a brst-invariant two-point correlation func- tion, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 045011.arXiv:1611. 10077,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.045011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.045011 2017

  16. [16]

    R. C. Terin, et al., All-order renormalizable refined gribov–zwanziger model with brst-invariant fermionic horizon function in linear covariant gauges, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 054048.arXiv:2107.08569,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.104.054048

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Dell’Antonio, D

    G. Dell’Antonio, D. Zwanziger, Every gauge orbit passes inside the gribov horizon, Commun. Math. Phys. 138 (1991) 291–299.doi:10.1007/BF02099494

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02099494 1991

  18. [18]

    Serreau, M

    J. Serreau, M. Tissier, Lifting the gribov ambiguity in yang–mills theories, Phys. Lett. B 712 (2012) 97–103. arXiv:1202.3432,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012. 04.041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  19. [19]

    Serreau, M

    J. Serreau, M. Tissier, A. Tresmontant, Influence of Gri- bov ambiguities in a class of nonlinear covariant gauges, Phys. Rev. D 92 (10) (2015) 105003.arXiv:1505. 07270,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.105003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.105003 2015

  20. [20]

    Tissier, Gribov copies, avalanches and dynamical gen- eration of a gluon mass, Phys

    M. Tissier, Gribov copies, avalanches and dynamical gen- eration of a gluon mass, Phys. Lett. B 784 (2018) 146– 150.doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.043

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.043 2018

  21. [21]

    Reinosa, J

    U. Reinosa, J. Serreau, R. C. Terin, M. Tissier, Symme- try restoration and the gluon mass in the landau gauge, SciPost Phys. 10 (2) (2021) 035.arXiv:2004.12413, doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.10.2.035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    R. C. Terin, Towards a unified viewpoint of gribov– zwanziger and serreau–tissier gauge fixing, Phys. Lett. B 875 (2026) 140302.doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026. 140302

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026 2026

  23. [23]

    R. C. Terin, Emergent Gribov horizon kernel from replica symmetry breaking in Yang–Mills theories, Eur. Phys. J. C 86 (6) (2026) 680.arXiv:2603.02838,doi:10. 1140/epjc/s10052-026-15971-y

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Cucchieri, Numerical study of the fundamental mod- ular region in the minimal Landau gauge, Nucl

    A. Cucchieri, Numerical study of the fundamental mod- ular region in the minimal Landau gauge, Nucl. Phys. B 521 (1998) 365–379.arXiv:hep-lat/9711024,doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00235-1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    Cucchieri, Gribov copies in the minimal Landau gauge: The influence on gluon and ghost propagators, Nucl

    A. Cucchieri, Gribov copies in the minimal Landau gauge: The influence on gluon and ghost propagators, Nucl. Phys. B 508 (1–2) (1997) 353–370.arXiv:hep-lat/ 9705005,doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00629-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(97)00629-9 1997

  26. [26]

    V . G. Bornyakov, V . K. Mitrjushkin, M. Muller-Preussker, Infrared behavior and gribov ambiguity in su(2) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 074504.arXiv: 0812.2761,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.074504

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [27]

    I. L. Bogolubsky, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, M. Müller-Preussker, A. Sternbeck, Lattice gluodynamics computation of Landau-gauge Green’s functions in the deep infrared, Phys. Lett. B 676 (2009) 69–73.arXiv:0901.0736, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.04.076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    Sternbeck, M

    A. Sternbeck, M. Muller-Preussker, Lattice evidence for the family of decoupling solutions of landau gauge yang–mills theory, Phys. Lett. B 726 (2013) 396–403. arXiv:1211.3057,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013. 08.017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Parisi, N

    G. Parisi, N. Sourlas, Random magnetic fields, super- symmetry, and negative dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 744–745.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.744

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.43.744 1979

  30. [30]

    Oliveira, P

    O. Oliveira, P. Silva, Gribov copies and gauge fixing in lattice gauge theories, Nuclear Physics B - Pro- ceedings Supplements 106-107 (2002) 1088–1090, lATTICE 2001 Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5632(01)01937-5. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0920563201019375

    work page doi:10.1016/s0920-5632(01)01937-5 2002

  31. [31]

    Hsiao, B

    H. Hsiao, B. J. Choi, H. Ohno, A. Tomiya, A Machine Learning Approach for Lattice Gauge Fixing, PoS LAT- TICE2025 (2026) 041.arXiv:2602.23731,doi:10. 22323/1.518.0041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Machta, Population annealing with weighted av- erages: A monte carlo method for rough free- energy landscapes, Phys

    J. Machta, Population annealing with weighted av- erages: A monte carlo method for rough free- energy landscapes, Phys. Rev. E 82 (2010) 026704. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.82.026704. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevE.82.026704 18

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.82.026704 2010