Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Vacuum polarization in QED with an electromagnetic background from the lattice

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reweighting lattice data yields strong-field QED vacuum polarization

desk verdict A genuinely new lattice-worldline proposal for strong-field QED vacuum polarization with a clean renormalization scheme, but the central determinant-replacement step is unproved and untested — conditional accept. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10457 v1 pith:Q2LQV4UF submitted 2026-08-11 hep-lat

En-Hung Chao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lat
keywords latticeQEDvacuumpolarizationreweightingworldlineformalismgradientflowconstantcrossedfieldRitus–Narozhnyconjecturecomplexaction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a way to compute QED vacuum polarization in a strong electromagnetic background on the lattice without simulating the background dynamically. Gauge configurations are generated in the ordinary, background-free theory, and the effect of the external potential is inserted afterward as a reweighting factor, namely the ratio of fermion determinants with and without the background. This ratio is evaluated in the continuum using the worldline formalism, applied to a gradient-flowed and smoothly interpolated version of the lattice gauge field, with the flow time $t$ also serving as the heat-kernel proper-time cutoff. The paper argues that after taking the lattice spacing to zero and then the flow time to zero, with a gradient-flow minimal-subtraction counterterm, this gives the physical, renormalized vacuum polarization tensor in a constant crossed field for spacelike momenta. If correct, this provides a first-principles nonperturbative route into the strong-field regime governed by the Ritus–Narozhny parameter $g=\alpha\chi^{2/3}$, and a template for other complex-action problems such as QCD at finite chemical potential.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the double-limit reweighting formula of Eq. (18), together with the regulator identification $t_h=t$: the gradient flow time $t$ simultaneously suppresses high-frequency lattice modes, making the gauge field smoothly interpolable, and cuts off the worldline proper-time integral that defines the fermion determinant. The multidimensional Whittaker–Kotel'nikov–Shannon sampling theorem, applied after gauge fixing, supplies the continuum interpolation of the flowed field, while the Seeley–DeWitt small-$t$ expansion of the heat-kernel-regulated determinant identifies the divergent part that the GFMS counterterm removes.

What would settle it

On a small lattice with free Wilson fermions in the constant crossed setup, evaluate the reweighting factor both through the worldline formula and by brute-force determinant ratios on the same configurations, then compare the reweighted current-current correlator with the exact free-fermion lattice result; disagreement in the $a\to0$ then $t\to0$ limits would falsify the central identity Eq. (18).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is the reweighting identity $$R_O=\lim_{t\to0}\lim_{a\to0}\left[\frac{\langle O_{\mathrm{lat}}[A_{\mathrm{lat}}](a)\,V(t,a)\rangle}{\langle V(t,a)\rangle}\right]^{R},\qquad V(t,a)=\exp\!\left(-\$\Delta$\Gamma_t[\tilde A(t|a),A_{\mathrm{ext}}]\right),$$ with the $a\to0$ limit taken before $t\to0$. Here $\Delta\Gamma_t$ is the difference of one-loop effective actions with and without the external potential, computed in the continuum from the gradient-flowed, band-limited interpolated field $\tilde A(t|a)$, and regularized by cutting the worldline proper-time integral at $t_h=t$. The paper shows that the small-$t$ divergence of this quantity is logarithmic and absorbs it through the gradient-flow minimal-subtraction (GFMS) scheme, defined by $Z_{\mathrm{ext}}(\mu,t)=1-\frac{1}{24\pi^2}\ln(\mu^2 t)$. On this basis the paper argues that the three form factors $\bar\pi_1,\bar\pi_2,\bar\pi_3$ of the QED vacuum polarization tensor in a constant crossed field can be extracted in the spacelike region by Fourier transforming reweighted current-current correlators, with the imaginary Euclidean electric field handled by Dirichlet boundary conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The method rests on assuming that the determinant ratio computed from the smoothed, interpolated gauge field at flow time $t$, with the proper-time cutoff set equal to $t$, converges to the exact determinant ratio of the original lattice Dirac operators once the lattice spacing and then the flow time go to zero—an assumption the paper states but does not prove or numerically test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nonperturbative access opens up to the vacuum polarization form factors $\bar\pi_1,\bar\pi_2,\bar\pi_3$ in a constant crossed field at spacelike $p^2<0$, a regime with no existing lattice method.
  • The proposed calculation would provide a first-principles test of the Ritus–Narozhny conjecture that strong-field QED is organized by $g=\alpha\chi^{2/3}$ rather than by powers of $\alpha$.
  • External potentials can be scanned without generating new gauge ensembles, since the same background-free configurations are reweighted for each background.
  • The framework transfers to other complex-action settings, in particular QCD at finite chemical potential, provided the gauge field can be extracted from link variables or Wilson loops and field strengths are interpolated directly.
  • The vacuum is stable in the constant crossed-field configuration, so the overlap between the sampled and target theories is expected to remain good enough for reweighting to be viable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct numerical test of the regulator replacement, comparing Eq. (17) with a brute-force determinant ratio on small lattices, would separate the framework's method from its main unproven assumption; the paper does not carry out that test.
  • If the double limit works, the same flow-time/proper-time identification could supply a cheap small-$t$ approximation to the reweighting factor through the Seeley–DeWitt expansion alone, allowing background scans without full worldline path integrals.
  • For finite-density QCD, the proposal would complement truncated Taylor-expansion reweighting by keeping the full determinant ratio, but extracting the gluon field from link variables at practical flow times is an open question, and larger $t$ would compete with the required $t\to0$ limit.
  • The framework is in principle not restricted to constant crossed fields: inhomogeneous or time-dependent backgrounds could be treated as fixed external potentials, though pair-producing backgrounds would degrade the reweighting overlap and require additional boundary-condition care.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid lattice/continuum reweighting framework for computing QED vacuum polarization in an external electromagnetic background. Dynamical lattice ensembles are generated without the background, and the fermion determinant ratio that would introduce the external field is evaluated in the continuum from gradient-flowed, sinc-interpolated gauge configurations using the worldline formalism, with the proper-time cutoff identified with the flow time. The paper derives the small-flow-time Seeley-DeWitt divergences, introduces a gradient-flow minimal subtraction (GFMS) renormalization for the external field, gives a form-factor decomposition for constant crossed fields, and presents a free-field lattice study of the current-current correlator in Appendix B. The central identity of the proposal is Eq. (18), which asserts that the reweighted observable is obtained by taking the lattice-spacing limit and then the flow-time limit of a flowed, heat-kernel-regulated determinant ratio.

Significance. If Eq. (18) is correct, the proposal is a genuinely novel approach to nonperturbative strong-field QED: it avoids the complex-action problem by reweighting, uses no fitted parameters, and leverages the worldline formalism for the determinant evaluation. The paper's derivation of the Seeley-DeWitt divergences and the GFMS counterterm is clean, the form-factor decomposition in Eq. (38) is useful, and the free-field lattice calculation in Appendix B is a reasonable first step. However, the central link between the exact lattice determinant ratio and the flowed, proper-time-regulated continuum expression is not proved or numerically tested, so the significance of the proposal is currently conditional on closing that gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II C, Eq. (18)] The load-bearing identity (18) replaces the exact determinant ratio V[A,A_ext] of Eq. (5), built from the un-flowed lattice Dirac operators, by exp(-DeltaGamma_t[\tilde A(t|a), A_ext]) computed in the continuum from gradient-flowed and sinc-interpolated fields. The paper asserts the limit order a->0 then t->0 without proof. In Abelian QED the gradient flow is a linear low-pass filter, so the flowed determinant already contains factors e^{-t p^2} in addition to the heat-kernel regulator e^{-T p^2}; the combined suppression shifts the proper-time integrand in a way that leaves a finite O(t^0) contribution (for example, a simplified momentum integral gives \int_t^\infty dT/T e^{-T p^2} e^{-2t p^2} = \int_{3t}^\infty ds/(s-2t) e^{-s p^2}, differing from the un-flowed expression by a ln(3)-type constant). Such finite pieces need not vanish as t->0 and need not be configuration-independent, yet they would enter the extracted form factors unless the scheme is explicitly matched. No argument or numerical test is given that the flowed determinant ratio converges to the un-flowed ratio in the same renormalization scheme.
  2. [Section II C 2, Eqs. (27)-(31)] The GFMS subtraction (29)-(30) removes the logarithmic divergence in Tr(Delta a_2), but it does not address the finite, scheme-dependent O(t^0) part of DeltaGamma_t. The identification t_h = t between the worldline proper-time cutoff and the gradient-flow time is dimensional, but the flow also suppresses high momenta, so the effective cutoff in the determinant is not simply t. A finite field-dependent constant in DeltaGamma_t cannot be absorbed into the common normalization <V> in Eq. (18) and would bias the renormalized form factors. The paper should either prove scheme independence of the GFMS finite part or specify a matching condition, for example by requiring agreement with a known weak-field or free-field limit, before Eq. (31) can be used in a production calculation.
  3. [Appendix B and Section III B] No numerical validation of the central replacement is presented. Appendix B studies only the free-field Wilson current-current correlator in a CCF background, which tests the exponential fall-off of the correlator but does not test the determinant ratio V(t,a) or the a->0 then t->0 extrapolation of Eq. (18). A controlled test on small volumes, comparing the exact lattice determinant ratio with the flowed, worldline-regulated expression for free or weakly coupled fields, is necessary to support the central claim. Without such a test, Eq. (18) remains an unverified assumption rather than an established identity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II A] The notation for the flowed field switches between B_mu(t) in Eq. (7) and \tilde A(t|a) later; this should be unified to avoid confusion.
  2. [Eq. (16)] The definition of the sinc function contains a typographical issue: 'sin ct' should presumably read 'sinc t = sin(pi t)/(pi t)'.
  3. [Section III B] The statement that only spacelike p^2 < 0 is directly accessible from Euclidean calculations should be justified with a sentence connecting the Euclidean analytic continuation to the Minkowski form-factor kinematics.
  4. [Section IV] The volume-scaling claim for the cost of evaluating the reweighting factor is supported only by the 'to appear' reference [43]. Since this is a self-citation to unpublished work, the scaling argument should either be summarized in the present paper or the claim should be softened.
  5. [Figure 1] The figure caption reports effective masses fitted from limited ranges; adding the fit ranges and the statistical error definition would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (18) is an unproven matching assumption, not an input-output tautology; the GFMS scheme is an explicit renormalization condition, and the only self-citation is peripheral.

full rationale

The load-bearing Eq. (18) replaces the exact lattice determinant ratio V[A,A_ext] of Eq. (5) by the flowed, proper-time-regulated continuum object V(t,a)=exp(-DeltaGamma_t[A_tilde(t|a), A_ext]). This replacement is asserted rather than proved, but it is not circular: V(t,a) is not defined to equal V by construction, and nothing in the definitions forces the double limit a->0 then t->0 to coincide with the un-flowed determinant ratio. The absence of a proof or numerical test of this matching is a validation gap, not a reduction to inputs. The renormalization step is also non-circular: deltaZ_ext in Eq. (29) is fixed by demanding cancellation of the log divergence in Eq. (27), which is an explicit scheme choice (GFMS), not a parameter fitted to the vacuum polarization being predicted. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation, Ref. [43] ('to appear', same author), supports the peripheral expectation of manageable volume scaling in the conclusion, not the derivation of the reweighting formula or the GFMS condition; the central claim has independent content. I therefore find no significant circularity; the paper's weakness is lack of validation of Eq. (18), which is a correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework pulls a substantial amount from standard QFT and lattice technology: heat-kernel expansions, Wilson flow, Shannon interpolation, and reweighting. The genuinely new assumptions are the flow-based replacement of the determinant and the GFMS renormalization convention; neither is yet benchmarked. No free parameters are fitted to data in the central derivation.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Fermion determinant admits the worldline/proper-time representation and the small-proper-time Seeley-DeWitt expansion (Eqs. 9, 21, A3-A9).
    Used to regulate and renormalize the determinant ratio; standard QFT background assumed without proof.
  • standard math Whittaker-Kotel'nikov-Shannon interpolation exactly reconstructs bandlimited functions on R^N (Eq. 16).
    The theorem is stated for infinite flat space; applying it to lattice gauge fields requires extra conditions.
  • domain assumption After gradient flow, the lattice gauge field is effectively bandlimited and can be gauge-fixed and interpolated reliably (Section II C).
    The paper says 'we expect Eq. (16) to work well' but gives no bound or test for QED gauge fields.
  • ad hoc to paper The flowed-field determinant ratio V(t,a) equals the un-flowed ratio in the a -> 0 then t -> 0 limits (Eq. 18).
    This is the load-bearing step. It is asserted, not derived; finite flow-time effects on the determinant are not analyzed.
  • domain assumption Reweighting overlap between the unperturbed and target ensembles is sufficient to control the sign/overlap problem (Sections I, IV).
    The paper relies on CCF zero-order free energy equality [21], but provides no quantitative overlap or noise study.
  • ad hoc to paper The GFMS counterterm Z_ext = 1 - (1/(24 pi^2)) ln(mu^2 t) removes all logarithmic divergences and defines the physical external field (Eqs. 28-30).
    A scheme choice; its finite parts are not benchmarked against a known low-order QED calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vacuum polarization in QED with an electromagnetic background from the lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q2LQV4UF

@misc{pith2026260810457,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vacuum polarization in QED with an electromagnetic background from the lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q2LQV4UF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10457}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a framework to determine the vacuum polarization functions in QED in the presence of an electromagnetic background field in the spacelike region on the lattice. This method consists in reweighting lattice Monte Carlo data generated without the background with the fermion determinant ratio evaluated in the continuous spacetime using worldline formalism. This proposal can be further extended to other applications in lattice gauge theory, such as QCD in finite chemical potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10457 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Eq. (B3) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The small proper-time expansion 9

    work page

  2. [2]

    spin factor

    Renormalization of QED in an E&M background 10 III. QED vacuum polarization tensor in constant crossed fields 12 A. Form factor decomposition for the vacuum polarization tensor 12 B. Setup for a lattice calculation 13 IV. Conclusion 15 Acknowledgments 16 A. The Seeley-DeWitt Coefficients 17 B. Free-field QED in a CCF background 18 References 18 2 I. INTRO...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Upon quantization, the traced quantity becomes precisely the path integral in the proper- time parameterization in Eq

    The small proper-time expansion Consider a heat-kernel regulated functional determinant ln det t H[A]≡− Z ∞ t dT T Tr e−TH[A] ,(19) 9 where the operatorHis defined via H[A] =−D[A] µD[A]µ−E[A],D µ≡∂ µ +iAµ,(20) withEa potential term. Upon quantization, the traced quantity becomes precisely the path integral in the proper- time parameterization in Eq. (9). ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Renormalization of QED in an E&M background In this context, we have, for the potential term in Eq. (20), E[A] = i 2σµνFµν−m 2,(23) E[A−iA ext] = i 2σµν Fµν +F ext µν −m 2,(24) where we introduce the field strength of the external potential via F ext µν ≡−i(∂ µAext ν −∂νAext µ ).(25) Note the unusual factor ofidue to our convention forA ext [Eq. (2)]. Usi...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Ad- vances in QED with intense background fields, Phys. Rept.1010, 1 (2023), arXiv:2203.00019 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Hattori, K

    K. Hattori, K. Itakura, and S. Ozaki, Strong-field physics in QED and QCD: From fundamen- tals to applications, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.133, 104068 (2023), arXiv:2305.03865 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    V. I. Ritus, Radiative corrections in quantum electrodynamics with intense field and their analytical properties, Annals Phys.69, 555 (1972). 18 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 m+eff = 5.56e-01 +/- 1.6e-02 m-eff = 5.63e-01 +/- 1.5e-02 C(Δy) Δy FIG. 1. Eq. (B3) withE= 0.2 andm 0 = 0.02 in lattice units.m + eff andm − eff are the effectiv...

    work page 1972

  8. [8]

    N. B. Narozhnyi, Expansion parameter of perturbation theory in intense field quantum elec- trodynamics, Phys. Rev. D21, 1176 (1980)

    work page 1980

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    C. A. Ur, D. Balabanski, G. Cata-Danil, S. Gales, I. Morjan, O. Tesileanu, D. Ursescu, I. Ursu, and N. V. Zamfir, The ELI–NP facility for nuclear physics, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B355, 198 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Abramowiczet al.(LUXE), Technical Design Report for the LUXE experiment, Eur

    H. Abramowiczet al.(LUXE), Technical Design Report for the LUXE experiment, Eur. Phys. J. ST233, 1709 (2024), arXiv:2308.00515 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Borysov, A

    O. Borysov, A. Levi, S. Meuren, N. Nofech-Mozes, I. Rajkovic, D. A. Reis, A. Santra, D. W. Storey, N. Tal Hod, and R. Urmanov, Prospects for the production and detection of Breit- Wheeler tunneling positrons in Experiment 320 at the FACET–II accelerator, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A...

    2026

  4. [12]

    Di Piazza and M

    A. Di Piazza and M. A. Lopez-Lopez, One-loop vertex correction in a plane wave, Phys. Rev. D102, 076018 (2020), arXiv:2006.15370 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. A. Mironov and A. M. Fedotov, Structure of radiative corrections in a strong constant crossed field, Phys. Rev. D105, 033005 (2022), arXiv:2109.00634 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Heinzl, A

    T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, and B. King, Classical Resummation and Breakdown of Strong-Field 19 QED, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 061601 (2021), arXiv:2101.12111 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. A. Mironov, S. Meuren, and A. M. Fedotov, Resummation of QED radiative corrections in a strong constant crossed field, Phys. Rev. D102, 053005 (2020), arXiv:2003.06909 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. B. Kogut and D. K. Sinclair, Lattice QED in an external magnetic field: Evidence for dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D109, 034511 (2024), arXiv:2311.03516 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D. K. Sinclair and J. B. Kogut, B dependence of the QED chiral condensate induced by an external magnetic field, PoSLATTICE2024, 158 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Fodor and S

    Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz, Lattice determination of the critical point of QCD at finite T and mu, JHEP03, 014, arXiv:hep-lat/0106002

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bors´ anyi, Z

    S. Bors´ anyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, R. Kara, S. D. Katz, P. Parotto, A. P´ asztor, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szab´ o, Lattice QCD equation of state at finite chemical potential from an alternative expansion scheme, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 232001 (2021), arXiv:2102.06660 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Berges and I

    J. Berges and I. O. Stamatescu, Simulating nonequilibrium quantum fields with stochastic quantization techniques, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 202003 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0508030

    2005 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aarts and I.-O

    G. Aarts and I.-O. Stamatescu, Stochastic quantization at finite chemical potential, JHEP09, 018, arXiv:0807.1597 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cristoforetti, F

    M. Cristoforetti, F. Di Renzo, and L. Scorzato (AuroraScience), New approach to the sign problem in quantum field theories: High density QCD on a Lefschetz thimble, Phys. Rev. D 86, 074506 (2012), arXiv:1205.3996 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Nagata, Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems, Prog

    K. Nagata, Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127, 103991 (2022), arXiv:2108.12423 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Aarts and D

    G. Aarts and D. Sexty, Lattice field theories with a sign problem (2026) arXiv:2604.24290 [hep-lat]

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. S. Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization, Phys. Rev.82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  18. [26]

    G. V. Dunne, Functional determinants in quantum field theory, J. Phys. A41, 304006 (2008), arXiv:0711.1178 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Narayanan and H

    R. Narayanan and H. Neuberger, Infinite N phase transitions in continuum Wilson loop op- erators, JHEP03, 064, arXiv:hep-th/0601210

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    L¨ uscher, Properties and uses of the Wilson flow in lattice QCD, JHEP08, 071, [Erratum: JHEP 03, 092 (2014)], arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]

    M. L¨ uscher, Properties and uses of the Wilson flow in lattice QCD, JHEP08, 071, [Erratum: JHEP 03, 092 (2014)], arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]. 20

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bern and D

    Z. Bern and D. A. Kosower, The Computation of Loop Amplitudes in Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B379, 451 (1992)

    1992

  22. [30]

    M. J. Strassler, Field theory without Feynman diagrams: One loop effective actions, Nucl. Phys. B385, 145 (1992), arXiv:hep-ph/9205205

    1992 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Luscher and P

    M. Luscher and P. Weisz, Perturbative analysis of the gradient flow in non-abelian gauge theories, JHEP02, 051, arXiv:1101.0963 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bors´ anyi, S

    S. Bors´ anyi, S. D¨ urr, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, T. Kurth, L. Lellouch, T. Lippert, and C. McNeile (BMW), High-precision scale setting in lattice QCD, JHEP09, 010, arXiv:1203.4469 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Monahan and K

    C. Monahan and K. Orginos, Quasi parton distributions and the gradient flow, JHEP03, 116, arXiv:1612.01584 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Shindler, Moments of parton distribution functions of any order from lattice QCD, Phys

    A. Shindler, Moments of parton distribution functions of any order from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D110, L051503 (2024), arXiv:2311.18704 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Black, R

    M. Black, R. Harlander, F. Lange, A. Rago, A. Shindler, and O. Witzel, Using Gradient Flow to Renormalise Matrix Elements for Meson Mixing and Lifetimes, PoSLATTICE2023, 263 (2024), arXiv:2310.18059 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Black, R

    M. Black, R. Harlander, F. Lange, A. Rago, A. Shindler, and O. Witzel, Gradient Flow Renormalisation for Meson Mixing and Lifetimes, PoSLATTICE2024, 243 (2025), arXiv:2409.18891 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Shindler, Gradient Flow: Perturbative and Non-Perturbative Renormalization, EPJ Web Conf.274, 01005 (2022), arXiv:2301.07438 [hep-lat]

    A. Shindler, Gradient Flow: Perturbative and Non-Perturbative Renormalization, EPJ Web Conf.274, 01005 (2022), arXiv:2301.07438 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    R. P. Feynman, Mathematical formulation of the quantum theory of electromagnetic interac- tion, Phys. Rev.80, 440 (1950)

    1950

  31. [39]

    Schubert, Perturbative quantum field theory in the string inspired formalism, Phys

    C. Schubert, Perturbative quantum field theory in the string inspired formalism, Phys. Rept. 355, 73 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0101036

    2001 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Schneider, G

    C. Schneider, G. Torgrimsson, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Discrete worldline instantons, Phys. Rev. D98, 085009 (2018), arXiv:1806.00943 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    T., XVIII.—On the Functions which are represented by the Expansions of the Interpolation-Theory, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh35, 181–194 (1915)

    Whittaker, E. T., XVIII.—On the Functions which are represented by the Expansions of the Interpolation-Theory, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh35, 181–194 (1915)

    1915

  34. [42]

    V. A. Kotel’nikov, On the transmission capacity of the “ether” and wire in electrocommunica- tions, inModern Sampling Theory: Mathematics and Applications(Birkh¨ auser Boston, 2001) 21 pp. 27–45

    2001

  35. [43]

    J. M. Whittaker, Interpolatory Function Theory, Cambridge Tracts, 33. (Cambridge). Math. Gaz.19, 372–373 (1935)

    1935

  36. [44]

    D. P. Petersen and D. Middleton, Sampling and reconstruction of wave-number-limited func- tions in N-dimensional euclidean spaces, Information and Control5, 279 (1962)

    1962

  37. [45]

    B. S. DeWitt, Dynamical theory of groups and fields, Conf. Proc. C630701, 585 (1964)

    1964

  38. [46]

    R. T. Seeley, Complex powers of an elliptic operator, Proc. Symp. Pure Math.10, 288 (1967)

    1967

  39. [47]

    Chao, Reweighting using the worldline formalism, to appear

    E.-H. Chao, Reweighting using the worldline formalism, to appear. 22

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.