Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Comparing QCD+QED via full simulation versus the RM123 method: U-spin window contribution to $a_\mu^{\mathrm{HVP}}$

T0 review · 0 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 Direct QCD+QED simulation gives about three times better precision than the RM123 expansion for the U-spin window contribution to the muon anomaly, at fixed statistics.

desk verdict First matched comparison of full QCD+QED vs RM123 with sea effects; the precision claim holds at fixed spacing, though the paper's own caveats should be kept. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19770 v1 pith:26WK5DYX submitted 2025-06-24 hep-lat

A. Altherr , I. Campos , A. Cotellucci , R. Gruber , T. Harris , J. Komijani , F. Margari , M. K. Marinkovic
show 5 more authors
L. Parato A. Patella S. Rosso N. Tantalo P. Tavella
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lat
keywords QCD+QEDlatticesimulationC*boundaryconditionsRM123methodmuonanomalousmagneticmomenthadronicvacuumpolarizationisospin-breakingeffectsU-spinwindowsea-quarkdiagrams
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

This paper asks which way of putting electromagnetism into lattice QCD gives better predictions for the hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP) piece of the muon anomalous magnetic moment: simulate QCD+QED together from the start, or start from isospin-symmetric QCD and add electromagnetic and quark-mass corrections perturbatively, as in the RM123 method. Using the U-spin window contribution $a_\mu^{U,w}$ — a windowed slice of the HVP at Euclidean separations 0.4–1 fm — as the test observable, at one lattice spacing, one volume, and the same number of Monte Carlo samples, the two methods agree within errors, but the direct simulation is more precise: $a_\mu^{U,w}\times10^{11}=1085(7)$ versus $1094(21)$. The RM123 error is dominated by statistical noise in the sea-quark isospin-breaking diagrams, which more stochastic estimators cannot reduce once gauge noise is reached. The paper concludes that, sample for sample, simulating the full QCD+QED distribution is the advantageous route, with configuration-generation cost and tuning effort left aside.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing setup is the C* (charge-conjugation-periodic) boundary-condition formulation of finite-volume QCD+QED, which permits a local, gauge-invariant treatment of the photon and allows the same action to be either sampled directly or expanded perturbatively around the isospin-symmetric point. The probe observable is the U-spin window contribution $a_\mu^{U,w}$, built from the non-singlet current $V_\mu = \frac{1}{2}(\bar{s}\gamma_\mu s - \bar{d}\gamma_\mu d)$ and the intermediate Euclidean-time window $t\in[0.4,1]\,\mathrm{fm}$, which is quark-line connected because the $d$ and $s$ quarks remain degenerate. On the RM123 side the argument is carried by the systematic expansion of the Dirac operator, the pfaffian (sea-quark effects), and the point-split current to order $O(e^2,\Delta m_f)$, organized into valence-valence, sea-valence and sea-sea diagrams; the comparison is made both at fixed bare parameters and after propagating the uncertainty of matching the hadronic observables $\phi_0,\dots,\phi_3$ that define the line of constant physics.

What would settle it

Compute the same U-spin window with the RM123 method including the next-order terms ($O(e^4)$ and $O(\Delta m_f^2)$) or on a second, finer lattice spacing with matched physics; if the RM123 prediction moves by more than its quoted uncertainty relative to the non-perturbative result, the truncation and $O(a)$ assumptions behind the comparison fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a direct comparison: at a fixed lattice spacing and volume, and with a fixed number of gauge configurations and quark sources, the non-perturbative QCD+QED computation of $a_\mu^{U,w}$ reaches a relative uncertainty of about 0.6–0.7%, while the RM123 expansion including all sea-quark effects reaches only about 1.9%. The two predictions are consistent, $1085(7)\times10^{-11}$ and $1094(21)\times10^{-11}$ after matching to a common line of constant physics, and the electro-quenched version of RM123, which neglects sea-quark effects, has essentially the same uncertainty as the direct simulation. This identifies the sea-quark diagrams as the entire source of RM123's extra error. The paper therefore claims it is advantageous to simulate the full QCD+QED distribution given a fixed number of samples, while noting that configuration-generation cost and tuning effort are not part of the comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the RM123 expansion, cut off at first order in $e^2$ and the quark-mass shifts, reproduces the same renormalized QCD+QED theory as the direct simulation at $a\approx0.054$ fm, with the clover coefficient left at its isospin-symmetric value and the currents unimproved; if electromagnetic lattice artefacts or neglected higher-order terms are not small, the agreement between the two methods would be misleading.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed statistics, the non-perturbative QCD+QED result for the U-spin window has a 0.6–0.7% uncertainty, about 2.5–3 times smaller than the RM123 result's 1.9%.
  • The entire extra RM123 uncertainty comes from sea-quark (sea-valence and sea-sea) diagrams; the electro-quenched approximation is as precise as the direct simulation.
  • The sea-sea variance is gauge-noise dominated for more than about 100 pseudofermion sources, so reducing RM123's error forces more gauge configurations, and the paper expects this cost to grow with volume.
  • The two methods agree within errors, so RM123 remains a valid cross-check of direct QCD+QED at this lattice spacing and at a pion mass of about 400 MeV.
  • Matching to a fixed line of constant physics increases RM123's uncertainty from 1.6% to 1.9% but leaves the non-perturbative result essentially unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the precision gap persists at physical quark masses and finer lattice spacings, direct QCD+QED simulation should become the default production method for the hadronic vacuum polarization, with RM123 serving as a cross-check rather than the primary estimator.
  • Because the U-spin current is protected from disconnected diagrams by a residual SU(2) symmetry, this comparison probably understates how hard the full electromagnetic current is for RM123, where singlet and disconnected contributions do not cancel.
  • The modified renormalization condition sets the $\phi_i$ targets to the central values measured on the QCD+QED ensemble, so the fixed-LCP comparison is partially self-referential for those tuning observables; an independently determined line of constant physics could change the quoted non-perturbative tuning uncertainty, though not the direct $a_\mu^{U,w}$ comparison at fixed bare parameters.
  • A natural next test is to rerun the same comparison at a smaller lattice spacing; if the RM123 correction shifts relative to the non-perturbative result, the neglected $O(a e^2)$ and higher-order terms are not small at $a\approx0.054$ fm.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares two ways of including electromagnetic effects in lattice hadronic vacuum polarization: a fully non-perturbative QCD+QED simulation with C* boundary conditions and the perturbative RM123 expansion around an isospin-symmetric QCD theory. The observable is the U-spin window contribution to the muon anomaly, a_mu^{U,w}, computed on two matched ensembles at a single lattice spacing and volume with N_f=1+2+1 dynamical quarks at unphysical masses. The comparison is done both at fixed bare parameters and at a fixed line of constant physics, with sea-quark effects included fully in both approaches. The final results are a_mu^{U,w} x 10^11 = 1094(21) for RM123 and 1085(7) for the non-perturbative simulation, so the non-perturbative result is about three times more precise at fixed sample count. The paper also reports consistency between the two methods for the scale-setting quantity t0 and the hadronic observables phi_i. The central claim is that, at fixed lattice spacing, volume, and Monte Carlo sample count, the direct QCD+QED simulation is advantageous over the RM123 expansion, with the RM123 uncertainty dominated by sea-quark gauge noise.

Significance. If the result holds, it provides useful guidance for future QCD+QED lattice calculations of the muon anomaly, where per-mille precision on HVP is needed. The paper is careful and transparent: it uses two current discretizations, two matching prescriptions, Gamma-method error estimation, AIC model averaging for fit-range systematics, and an explicit variance-saturation test for the stochastic sea-sea estimators. The fixed-bare-parameter comparison in Table 10 is a valuable independent consistency check that mitigates the self-referential nature of the modified LCP conditions in Eq. (6.1). The main limitations — a single lattice spacing and volume, unphysical quark masses, and the absence of a total-cost comparison — are stated clearly in the text. The paper is a solid groundwork study rather than a final physical prediction, and that scope is respected throughout.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.2 / Fig. 6] The text states that N_eta=160 pseudofermion sources reach gauge noise for all estimators, but Fig. 6 shows saturation only for the sea-sea contribution; please state explicitly whether a similar check was performed for the sea-valence diagrams, or explain why their stochastic error is subdominant.
  2. [Sec. 6.1 / Eq. (6.1)] The modified LCP targets are set to the central values measured on A380a07, so the fixed-LCP comparison of the phi_i is partly tautological; I recommend highlighting more prominently that the fixed-bare-parameter comparison in Table 10 is the independent consistency test, and that the target observable a_mu is not affected by this choice.
  3. [Table 10] The label 'isoQCD+RM123|eq' is undefined; please spell out 'electro-quenched' in the caption or define the abbreviation in the text.
  4. [Table 2] The column 'alpha' lists 0 for A400a00 and 0.007299 for A380a07, while the text says the latter is 'close to the physical value of alpha'; please clarify in the caption that this is the bare coupling, not the renormalized alpha_R.
  5. [Sec. 4.1, after Eq. (4.12)] The statement that the expansion of Eq. (3.11) contains only odd powers of e would benefit from a brief explanation or a reference, since it is used to justify the absence of an e^2 term in the SW expansion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild self-reference in the LCP renormalization targets; the central fixed-bare and a_mu comparisons remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 6, eq. (6.1) and the paragraph introducing the modified renormalization condition (also used in Section 6.6)]
    "we modify the renormalization condition, so the target matches the central value of the measured values on the A380a07 ensemble and no further correction is required. Explicitly expanding in the bare parameters to leading order around the simulated parameters of the A400a00 ensemble, then we have the conditions [eq. (6.1)] ... where the target values are slightly modified with respect to eq. (2.2)."

    The right-hand sides of eq. (6.1) are fixed to the central values of phi_i measured on A380a07 (table 4: 2.126, 2.13, 12.122). Solving eq. (6.1) for the RM123 bare-mass shifts therefore forces the RM123 estimates of these scale-setting observables to coincide with the non-perturbative values at fixed LCP by construction; agreement in phi_i is not an independent check. This does not extend to the target observable a_mu^{U,w}, whose RM123 value is computed from independent diagram contributions, and the fixed-bare-parameter comparison of table 10 remains an independent consistency test. The self-reference is confined to the LCP-tuning exercise and its propagated uncertainty, so it is a minor circular element rather than one that forces the paper's central precision claim.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a precision comparison of two independent implementations of QCD+QED at fixed lattice spacing, volume, and number of samples: direct non-perturbative sampling versus the RM123 expansion around isoQCD. The two results for a_mu^{U,w} are obtained by separate numerical procedures—direct measurement on the A380a07 ensemble and RM123 diagrams on the A400a00 isoQCD ensemble—so the final uncertainty ratio of roughly 2.5-3 is not manufactured by the analysis. The fixed-bare-parameter comparison (table 10 and eq. (6.29)) provides a genuine cross-check of both the target observable and the hadronic observables phi_i and t0. The only self-referential element I can exhibit is the modified renormalization condition in eq. (6.1), where the LCP targets are set equal to the central values measured on A380a07; that makes the RM123 phi_i at fixed LCP agree with the non-perturbative phi_i by construction. However, the paper does not use this agreement as evidence for the main claim, and the fixed-bare comparison is independent. The non-perturbative LCP uncertainty propagation reuses derivatives computed on the isoQCD ensemble, but this is explicitly stated as a first-order approximation and contributes negligibly. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation chain, and no imported uniqueness theorem. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained and the observed mild self-reference does not undermine the precision comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a comparison, not a new theory. It draws a large amount of apparatus from prior literature: C* boundary conditions, RM123, Wilson fermions, gradient-flow scale, hadronic renormalization. Within the paper, the only tunable inputs are the renormalization targets and the numerical choices for estimators; no new degrees of freedom or couplings are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Modified LCP target values phi_i^target = phi1=2.126, phi2=2.13, phi3=12.122
    In Sec. 6, eq. (6.1), the renormalization targets from eq. (2.2) are replaced by the central values measured on the A380a07 ensemble to enable comparison at fixed lattice spacing. These hand-set values fix the mass shifts entering the RM123 corrections, although they do not affect the comparison of statistical uncertainties.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption C* boundary conditions give a local, gauge-invariant finite-volume formulation of QED with suppressed finite-volume effects.
    Section 3 relies on refs. [31-36]; no proof is reproduced in this paper, and the suppression of finite-volume effects is taken from prior work.
  • domain assumption The RM123 Taylor expansion truncated at O(e^2, Delta m_f) is accurate for the observables at the physical electromagnetic coupling and the simulated quark masses.
    Section 4, eqs. (4.1)-(4.3) and Section 6.4 use this truncation without an independent estimate of the omitted O(e^4) and O((Delta m)^2) terms.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of the QED dependence of the SU(3) clover coefficient and use of unimproved currents does not change the comparison.
    Secs. 4.1 and 5.1 set c_sw^{SU(3)} to the isoQCD value in both implementations and use unimproved currents because O(a) improvement coefficients for N_f=4 are not known.
  • domain assumption The stochastic estimators with N_eta=160 pseudofermion sources and N_A=160 photon samples reach the gauge noise.
    Sec. 5.2 and Fig. 6 show variance saturation for the sea-sea contribution, supporting this assumption for the specific observable and ensemble.
  • domain assumption The universal QED finite-volume corrections Delta_L phi_i derived for C* boundary conditions apply to the two ensembles.
    Sec. 6, eq. (6.16) and Table 8 use the results of ref. [34] to subtract finite-volume effects from the charged meson masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparing QCD+QED via full simulation versus the RM123 method: U-spin window contribution to $a_\mu^{\mathrm{HVP}}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26WK5DYX

@misc{pith2026250619770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparing QCD+QED via full simulation versus the RM123 method: U-spin window contribution to $a_\mu^\mathrmHVP$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26WK5DYX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19770}
}
abstract

Electromagnetic corrections to hadronic vacuum polarization contribute significantly to the uncertainty of the Standard Model prediction of the muon anomaly, which poses conceptual and numerical challenges for ab initio lattice determinations. In this study, we compute the non-singlet contribution from intermediate Euclidean current separations in quantum chromo- and electrodynamics (QCD+QED) using C* boundary conditions in two ways: either non-perturbatively by sampling the joint probability distribution directly or by perturbatively expanding from an isospin-symmetric theory. This allows us to compare the predictions and their uncertainties at a fixed lattice spacing and volume, including fully the sea quarks effects in both cases. Treating carefully the uncertainty due to tuning to the same renormalized theory with $N_{\mathrm{f}} = 1 + 2 + 1$ quarks, albeit with unphysical masses, we find it advantageous to simulate the full QCD+QED distribution given a fixed number of samples. This study lays the ground-work for further applications of C* boundary conditions to study QCD+QED at the physical point, essential for the next generation of precision tests of the Standard Model.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Perturbative quantum electrodynamics with generalized domain wall fermions

    hep-lat 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For generalized domain-wall fermions, the O(e^2) electromagnetic expansion requires new local seagull and anti-quark contact vertices, derived here for the first time.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aoyama et al.,The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model, Phys

    T. Aoyama et al.,The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model, Phys. Rept.887(2020) 1 [2006.04822]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Aliberti et al.,The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update,2505.21476

    R. Aliberti et al.,The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update,2505.21476

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Borsanyi et al.,Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD,Nature593(2021) 51 [2002.12347]

    S. Borsanyi et al.,Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD,Nature593(2021) 51 [2002.12347]. [4]RBC, UKQCDcollaboration,Long-Distance Window of the Hadronic Vacuum Polarization for the Muon g-2,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 201901 [2410.20590]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [5]

    Djukanovic, G

    D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, S. Kuberski, H.B. Meyer, N. Miller, K. Ottnad et al.,The hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g−2 at long distances,JHEP04 (2025) 098 [2411.07969]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [6]

    Bazavov et al.,Hadronic vacuum polarization for the muong−2from lattice QCD: Long-distance and full light-quark connected contribution,2412.18491

    A. Bazavov et al.,Hadronic vacuum polarization for the muong−2from lattice QCD: Long-distance and full light-quark connected contribution,2412.18491

    arXiv

  6. [7]

    Boccaletti et al.,High precision calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution to the muon anomaly,2407.10913

    A. Boccaletti et al.,High precision calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution to the muon anomaly,2407.10913. [8]Muon g-2collaboration,Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 072003 [hep-ex/0602035]. [9]Muon g-2collaboration,Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Momen...

    arXiv 2006

  7. [13]

    Benton, D

    G. Benton, D. Boito, M. Golterman, A. Keshavarzi, K. Maltman and S. Peris,Data-driven estimates for light-quark-connected and strange-plus-disconnected hadronic g-2 window quantities,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 036010 [2311.09523]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [14]

    Lehner and A.S

    C. Lehner and A.S. Meyer,Consistency of hadronic vacuum polarization between lattice QCD and the R ratio,Physical Review D101(2020) [2003.04177]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 42 references
  1. [15]

    Aubin, T

    C. Aubin, T. Blum, M. Golterman and S. Peris,The muon anomalous magnetic moment: is the lattice spacing small enough?,PoSLATTICE2022(2023) 300 [2211.12057]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [16]

    C` e et al.,Window observable for the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g-2 from lattice QCD,Phys

    M. C` e et al.,Window observable for the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g-2 from lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 114502 [2206.06582]. [17]Extended Twisted Masscollaboration,Lattice calculation of the short and intermediate time-distance hadronic vacuum...

    2022 arXiv

  3. [18]

    Kuberski, M

    S. Kuberski, M. C` e, G. von Hippel, H.B. Meyer, K. Ottnad, A. Risch et al.,Hadronic vacuum polarization in the muon g−2: the short-distance contribution from lattice QCD, JHEP03(2024) 172 [2401.11895]. – 42 – [19]chiQCDcollaboration,Muon g-2 with overlap valence fermions,Phys...

    2024 arXiv

  4. [22]

    Lahert, C

    S. Lahert, C. DeTar, A.X. El-Khadra, S. Gottlieb, A.S. Kronfeld and R.S. Van de Water, The two-pion contribution to the hadronic vacuum polarization with staggered quarks, 2409.00756. [23]Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD, MILCcollaboration,Light-quark connected intermediate-window cont...

    2023 arXiv

  5. [26]

    Parrino, V

    J. Parrino, V. Biloshytskyi, E.-H. Chao, H.B. Meyer and V. Pascalutsa,Computing the UV-finite electromagnetic corrections to the hadronic vacuum polarization in the muon (g−2)from lattice QCD,2501.03192

    arXiv

  6. [27]

    Hayakawa and S

    M. Hayakawa and S. Uno,QED in finite volume and finite size scaling effect on electromagnetic properties of hadrons,Prog. Theor. Phys.120(2008) 413 [0804.2044]

    2008 arXiv

  7. [28]

    Endres, A

    M.G. Endres, A. Shindler, B.C. Tiburzi and A. Walker-Loud,Massive photons: an infrared regularization scheme for lattice QCD+QED,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 072002 [1507.08916]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [29]

    T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung et al.,Using infinite volume, continuum QED and lattice QCD for the hadronic light-by-light contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 034515 [1705.01067]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [30]

    Feng and L

    X. Feng and L. Jin,QED self energies from lattice QCD without power-law finite-volume errors,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 094509 [1812.09817]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [31]

    Kronfeld and U.J

    A.S. Kronfeld and U.J. Wiese,SU(N) gauge theories with C periodic boundary conditions. 1. Topological structure,Nucl. Phys. B357(1991) 521

    1991

  11. [32]

    Kronfeld and U.J

    A.S. Kronfeld and U.J. Wiese,SU(N) gauge theories with C periodic boundary conditions. 2. Small volume dynamics,Nucl. Phys. B401(1993) 190 [hep-lat/9210008]

    1993 arXiv

  12. [33]

    Polley,Boundaries for SU(3)(C) x U(1)-el lattice gauge theory with a chemical potential, Z

    L. Polley,Boundaries for SU(3)(C) x U(1)-el lattice gauge theory with a chemical potential, Z. Phys. C59(1993) 105

    1993

  13. [34]

    Lucini, A

    B. Lucini, A. Patella, A. Ramos and N. Tantalo,Charged hadrons in local finite-volume QED+QCD with C ⋆ boundary conditions,JHEP02(2016) 076 [1509.01636]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [35]

    Martins and A

    S. Martins and A. Patella,Finite-Size Effects of the HVP Contribution to the Muong−2 with C ⋆ Boundary Conditions,PoSLATTICE2022(2023) 323 [2212.09565]. – 43 –

    2023 arXiv

  15. [36]

    Patella,QED Corrections to Hadronic Observables,PoSLATTICE2016(2017) 020 [1702.03857]

    A. Patella,QED Corrections to Hadronic Observables,PoSLATTICE2016(2017) 020 [1702.03857]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [37]

    D. Erb, A. G´ erardin, H.B. Meyer, J. Parrino, V. Biloshytskyi and V. Pascalutsa, Isospin-violating vacuum polarization in the muon(g−2)with SU(3) flavour symmetry from lattice QCD,2505.24344

    arXiv

  17. [38]

    de Divitiis et al.,Isospin breaking effects due to the up-down mass difference in Lattice QCD,JHEP04(2012) 124 [1110.6294]

    G.M. de Divitiis et al.,Isospin breaking effects due to the up-down mass difference in Lattice QCD,JHEP04(2012) 124 [1110.6294]. [39]RM123collaboration,Leading isospin breaking effects on the lattice,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 114505 [1303.4896]. [40]RCstarcollaboration,First result...

    2012 arXiv

  18. [41]

    Neufeld and H

    H. Neufeld and H. Rupertsberger,The Electromagnetic interaction in chiral perturbation theory,Z. Phys. C71(1996) 131 [hep-ph/9506448]

    1996 arXiv

  19. [42]

    Bar and M

    O. Bar and M. Golterman,Chiral perturbation theory for gradient flow observables,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 034505 [1312.4999]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [43]

    Bruno, T

    M. Bruno, T. Korzec and S. Schaefer,Setting the scale for the CLS2 + 1flavor ensembles, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 074504 [1608.08900]. [44]Flavour Lattice A veraging Group (FLAG)collaboration,FLAG Review 2024, 2411.04268. [45]RC*collaboration,openQ*D code: a versatile tool for QCD+...

    2017 arXiv

  21. [46]

    Weisz,Continuum Limit Improved Lattice Action for Pure Yang-Mills Theory

    P. Weisz,Continuum Limit Improved Lattice Action for Pure Yang-Mills Theory. 1.,Nucl. Phys. B212(1983) 1

    1983

  22. [47]

    and Weisz, P.,On-shell improved lattice gauge theories,Commun

    L¨ uscher, M. and Weisz, P.,On-shell improved lattice gauge theories,Commun. Math. Phys. 98(1985) 433

    1985

  23. [48]

    L¨ uscher, Martin and Sint, Stefan and Sommer, Rainer and Weisz, Peter,Chiral symmetry and O(a) improvement in lattice QCD,Nucl. Phys. B478(1996) 365 [hep-lat/9605038]

    1996 arXiv

  24. [49]

    Bernecker and H.B

    D. Bernecker and H.B. Meyer,Vector Correlators in Lattice QCD: Methods and applications, Eur. Phys. J. A47(2011) 148 [1107.4388]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [50]

    Della Morte, A

    M. Della Morte, A. Francis, V. G¨ ulpers, G. Herdo´ ıza, G. von Hippel, H. Horch et al.,The hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muong−2from lattice QCD,JHEP10 (2017) 020 [1705.01775]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [51]

    Simulation program for lattice QCD+QED:openQ*Dcode, Gitlab:https://gitlab.com/rcstar/openqxDCSIC:https: //dx.doi.org/10.20350/digitalCSIC/8591,https://hdl.handle.net/10261/173334

    J.C. Collins, A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise,Renormalization of the vector current in QED, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 105019 [hep-th/0512187]. [52](RC*), I. Campos, P. Fritzsch, M. Hansen, M. Krsti´ c Marinkovi´ c, A. Patella et al., “Simulation program for lattice QCD+QED:openQ*Dcode, ...

    2006 arXiv

  27. [53]

    Thron, S.J

    C. Thron, S.J. Dong, K.F. Liu and H.P. Ying,Pade - Z(2) estimator of determinants,Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 1642 [hep-lat/9707001]

    1998 arXiv

  28. [54]

    G¨ ulpers, G

    V. G¨ ulpers, G. von Hippel and H. Wittig,Scalar pion form factor in two-flavor lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 094503 [1309.2104]. – 44 –

    2014 arXiv

  29. [55]

    Giusti, T

    L. Giusti, T. Harris, A. Nada and S. Schaefer,Frequency-splitting estimators of single-propagator traces,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 586 [1903.10447]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [56]

    Harris, V

    T. Harris, V. G¨ ulpers, A. Portelli and J. Richings,Efficiently unquenching QCD+QED at O(α),PoSLATTICE2022(2023) 013 [2301.03995]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [57]

    Altherr, I

    A. Altherr, I. Campos, A. Cotellucci, R. Gruber, T. Harris, M. Krsti´ c Marinkovi´ c et al., Error Scaling of Sea Quark Isospin-Breaking Effects,PoSLATTICE2024(2025) 116 [2502.03145]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [58]

    Jay and E.T

    W.I. Jay and E.T. Neil,Bayesian model averaging for analysis of lattice field theory results, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 114502 [2008.01069]. [59]ALPHAcollaboration,Monte Carlo errors with less errors,Comput. Phys. Commun.156 (2004) 143 [hep-lat/0306017]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [60]

    Joswig, S

    F. Joswig, S. Kuberski, J.T. Kuhlmann and J. Neuendorf,pyerrors: A python framework for error analysis of Monte Carlo data,Comput. Phys. Commun.288(2023) 108750 [2209.14371]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [61]

    Altherr et al.,Hadronic vacuum polarization with C* boundary conditions,PoS LATTICE2022(2023) 312 [2212.11551]

    A. Altherr et al.,Hadronic vacuum polarization with C* boundary conditions,PoS LATTICE2022(2023) 312 [2212.11551]. – 45 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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