Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper argues that in the replica-broken phase of the Serreau–Tissier gauge fixing, the order-ζ term in the replica determinant expansion generates a nonlocal gluonic kernel identical to the Gribov horizon functional, so the refined Gri

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 ↗

In the replica-broken phase of the Serreau–Tissier gauge fixing, expanding the replica determinant in the regulator ζ generates a nonlocal kernel matching the quadratic part of the BRST-invariant Gribov horizon functional, inducing a Gribov scale γ⁴_ind ∝ ζ.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection The determinant expansion is clean, but the O(ζ) term has the momentum structure of a one-loop gluon self-energy, not the 1/p² pole of the Gribov horizon functional, so Eq. (13) misidentifies a mass term as a horizon term. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.02838 v2 pith:5IMVGMUW submitted 2026-03-03 hep-th hep-lathep-phnucl-th

Emergent Gribov horizon kernel from replica symmetry breaking in Yang--Mills theories

Rodrigo Carmo Terin This is my paper
classification hep-th hep-lathep-phnucl-th PACS 11.15.-q12.38.-t
keywords Yang-MillsGribov horizonGribov-ZwanzigerSerreau-Tissier gauge fixingreplica symmetry breakinggluon propagatorCurci-Ferrariinfrared QCD
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the Gribov horizon functional, which in the refined Gribov–Zwanziger (RGZ) framework is added by hand to confine Yang–Mills fields to the first Gribov region, can instead emerge from the replica sector of the Serreau–Tissier (ST) gauge fixing. When replica symmetry is broken (the replica curvature vanishes), expanding the effective action in the regulator ζ yields at order ζ a nonlocal, bilinear gluon kernel whose color and Lorentz structure match the quadratic part of the BRST-invariant horizon functional. A Hubbard–Stratonovich localization converts this into an induced horizon scale γ^4_ind = κ ζ + O(ζ^2), so the RGZ decoupling mechanism arises as a radiative consequence of copy averaging. The same construction in the replica-symmetric phase reduces to the Curci–Ferrari screening mass, so the ST sector interpolates between the two known infrared descriptions without double counting.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the ST replica sector — a gauge-fixing procedure that averages over Gribov copies with a weight involving det(F + ζ) — generates the Gribov horizon kernel in the phase where replica curvature vanishes. After integrating out the nonlinear sigma replica superfields, the effective replica action contains ln det(M + ζ) − ln det M; the term linear in ζ, projected onto the bilinear gluon sector, yields c_1(d,N) ζ H(A^h), the standard Gribov horizon functional built from the transverse BRST-invariant composite field A^h. A Hubbard–Stratonovich localization with Zwanziger auxiliary fields converts this into an induced Gribov scale γ^4_ind = κ(d,N,μ) ζ + O(ζ^2). The auth

What carries the argument

The central object is the Faddeev–Popov operator M(A^h) = −∂_μ D_μ(A^h) evaluated on the transverse BRST-invariant composite field A^h, and the determinant identity ln det(M + ζ) = ln det M + ζ Tr M^{-1} − (ζ^2/2) Tr M^{-2} + O(ζ^3). Expanding M^{-1} in powers of the gluon field, the O(ζ) term in the trace produces a nonlocal bilinear kernel with the same color and Lorentz structure as the Gribov horizon functional; Hubbard–Stratonovich localization (with a superspace variant) converts that kernel into the Zwanziger localized form with induced scale γ^4_ind, while the phase parameter Ξ_rep decides whether the effective action is the CF massive form or the horizon form.

Load-bearing premise

The entire mechanism is conditional on the dynamics selecting the replica-broken phase with vanishing replica curvature χ̂ = 0; the paper does not prove that phase occurs in Yang–Mills, and the gap equation quoted is consistent with the symmetric phase.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop effective action in the replica-broken phase: if the coefficient κ(d,N,μ) in γ^4_ind = κ ζ + O(ζ^2) is scheme-dependent to the point of vanishing or becoming negative, the claimed emergent horizon term is not stable at the next order. Equivalently, a lattice simulation with a copy-weighted measure that sets (β, ζ) so that χ̂ = 0 but yields a gluon propagator of the massive CF type rather than the RGZ decoupling form would contradict the central claim.

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

If this is right

  • In the replica-broken phase, the RGZ horizon term is not an independent input but a radiative consequence of the ST regulator ζ; the total horizon strength is γ^4_eff = γ^4_bare + κ(d,N,μ) ζ + O(ζ^2).
  • The tree-level transverse gluon propagator interpolates between the massive FP/CF form 1/(p^2+β) in the symmetric phase and the RGZ decoupling form (p^2+M^2)/((p^2+M^2)(p^2+m^2)+λ^4) in the broken phase, so screening and horizon suppression are two phases of one BRST-consistent mechanism.
  • The matching condition m^2 M^2 + λ^4 = M^2 β_R ties the replica screening mass to the RGZ condensates within a common renormalization scheme.
  • The induced horizon coupling vanishes in the limit ζ → 0, recovering the standard ST construction, and does not appear in the symmetric phase, so infrared scales are not double-counted.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The O(ζ^2) term Tr M^{-2} is deferred in the paper; a full one-loop evaluation could show that the induced coefficient κ is scheme-dependent to the point of vanishing or changing sign, which would undermine the robustness of the emergent horizon at higher orders.
  • The statistical analogy with spin systems suggests a concrete bridge: the replica-broken phase behaves like a ferromagnetic ordered phase with the replica curvature as order parameter, and the induced horizon coupling as a stiffness; this could inspire an energy-based model of copy averaging, but the paper only sketches it.
  • A lattice simulation with a copy-weighted measure that tunes (β, ζ) to force χ̂ = 0 would test the phase selection directly: if the gluon propagator still shows CF-type screening instead of decoupling, the mechanism would be falsified; conversely, observing the RGZ form with an induced scale ∝ ζ would confirm it.
  • If extended to linear covariant gauges with Nielsen identities constraining the ζ-dependence, the emergent horizon kernel could provide a gauge-parameter-independent infrared structure; the paper leaves that open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in the replica-broken phase of the Serreau–Tissier (ST) gauge fixing, expanding the replica determinant in the regulator ζ generates, at O(ζ), a nonlocal bilinear gluonic kernel whose quadratic part coincides with the BRST-invariant Gribov horizon functional H(A^h). A Hubbard–Stratonovich localization then converts this into an induced horizon scale γ_ind^4 ∝ ζ, so that the ST sector interpolates between a Curci–Ferrari screening mass (replica-symmetric phase) and an RGZ-type horizon (replica-broken phase). A superspace derivation is given in Appendix A, and a tree-level gluon propagator is constructed in Sec. VI. The paper is explicit that only the quadratic part of the nonlocal kernel is matched, not the full nonlinear H(A^h), and that the phase selection is not established within the paper.

Significance. If the identification in Eq. (13) were correct, the paper would offer a dynamical origin for the RGZ horizon term within the ST replica framework and would connect two otherwise separate infrared descriptions of Yang–Mills theory. The paper is transparent in displaying the determinant expansion (5)–(10) and the phase-dependent tree-level propagator, and it avoids overclaiming a full nonlinear reconstruction. However, the central identification is not supported by the explicit kernel: the O(ζ) term is a dimensionless one-loop form factor, not the 1/p^2 pole of the quadratic Gribov horizon functional. This is a load-bearing structural error. The additional reliance on an unproven replica-broken phase and the undetermined coefficient κ further weaken the claim. The formal exposition is clear, but the main physical conclusion rests on an unjustified comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III–IV, Eqs. (9)–(13)] The central identification −ζ Tr M^{-1}(A^h) ⊃ c1 ζ H(A^h) is not supported by the preceding computation. Eq. (10) defines a kernel with three M_0^{-1} factors and two derivatives; in d=4 the loop integral is logarithmically divergent and produces a dimensionless form factor, constant up to log(p^2/μ^2), with denominator structure k^4(k+p)^2. The quadratic part of H(A^h) is g^2 C_A δ^{ab} P_{μν}(p)/p^2, which has a 1/p^2 pole. No momentum-independent coefficient c1 can map one onto the other. The paper compares only color and Lorentz structure, which are both δ^{ab}P_{μν}; that is necessary but far from sufficient. Hence Eq. (13) and the subsequent localization with constant γ_ind^4 are unjustified.
  2. [§II, §III, §V, §VII] The entire mechanism is conditional on the replica-broken phase χ̂=0 being realized, but the paper does not show that this phase is dynamically selected. The gap equation in Sec. II admits χ̂_R ≥ 0 with the symmetric phase as a solution, and Sec. VII leaves the phase 'selected by the dynamics' open. Without a computation of the replica effective potential showing that χ̂=0 is a stable solution for Yang–Mills with the ST parameters, the nonlocal kernel may never appear; in the symmetric phase the result reduces to the known CF massive form. This conditionality should be stated as an explicit assumption or derived, not used as the basis of the central conclusion.
  3. [§IV, Eq. (16); §VII] The coefficient κ(d,N,μ) in γ_ind^4 = κ μ^2 ζ is introduced by convention and is never computed; the text states that its precise form is scheme-dependent and 'not required for the present structural argument.' Similarly, c1(d,N) in Eq. (13) is asserted by direct comparison rather than evaluated. Consequently, even if the structural identification were correct, the claimed proportionality γ_ind^4 ∝ ζ would carry no predictive content until the integral in Eq. (10) (or at least its p→0 normalization) is evaluated. The undetermined normalization is not a minor issue because the induced Gribov scale is the main quantitative output of the paper.
  4. [§III, Eq. (14); §IV] The O(ζ^2) term Tr M^{-2} is discarded as subleading without a computation. Since ζ is dimensionful, 'small ζ' is not a dimensionless statement in the infrared regime where p^2 can be of order ζ. The O(ζ^2) term generates a nonlocal kernel with four M_0^{-1} factors and can, in principle, contribute to the inverse propagator at the same qualitative level. Before claiming that the O(ζ) term controls the leading infrared behavior, the paper should provide at least a power-counting estimate or a one-loop evaluation of this term.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§VI, Table I] The symbol β is used both as the ST mass-squared gauge parameter and as the inverse temperature in the Ising analogy. This overloaded notation is confusing, especially in Table I where β^{-1} is called temperature while in the gauge-fixing action β has mass dimension two. A separate symbol for the statistical-mechanics temperature would improve clarity.
  2. [§VI] The parameter Ξ_rep is introduced in the expression for μ_IR^2 before its definition is given later in the same section. Moving the definition before the propagator formula would avoid confusion.
  3. [§VI] The relation λ^4 = 2g^2 N γ_eff^4 is stated without derivation. Since it is used in the matching condition of Sec. II and again in Sec. VII, a brief explanation or a reference to the standard RGZ normalization would be helpful.
  4. [Appendix A] The superspace derivation repeats the same computation and the same 'direct comparison' as Sec. III–IV. It does not resolve the mismatch between the three-propagator kernel and the one-propagator quadratic part of H(A^h). The appendix should either provide additional information or be shortened to a summary.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Central 'induced horizon' identification is definitional: γ_ind^4=κζ with κ uncomputed, and the O(ζ) kernel is matched to H(A^h) by color/Lorentz structure alone.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. IV, Eqs. (13)–(16); Sec. VII]
    "By direct comparison, one identifies −ζStrM −1 ⊃c 1(d, N)ζ H(Ah)+ local terms +O(ζ 2)... γ4 ind =κ(d, N, µ)ζ+O(ζ 2). (16) The coefficientκ(d, N, µ) carries the appropriate mass dimension through the renormalization scaleµand depends on the normalization of the induced kernel. The precise form ofκ depends on the renormalization scheme and is not required for the present structural argument."

    The induced scale is not computed; it is introduced as κζ with κ depending on an arbitrary normalization. Therefore the leading-order relation γ_ind^4 ∝ ζ is true by construction: any coefficient of the ζ-linear term can be written as κζ. Likewise c1 is fixed 'by direct comparison' of color/Lorentz structure, so the equality of the determinant term with H(A^h) is an identification/definition. The paper's own statement that κ is scheme-dependent and 'not required' confirms that the central prediction reduces to naming the linear-in-ζ coefficient the induced Gribov scale.

  2. renaming known result [Sec. III, Eqs. (9)–(10); App. A, Eq. (A6); Sec. IV Eq. (13)]
    "Projecting the linear term in ζ onto the bilinear sector in A h gives ... K ab μν(x, y)= ... In momentum space, K ab μν(p) is transverse, K ab μν(p)p ν =0, and has the same color and Lorentz structure as the kernel appearing in the GZ horizon functional."

    The kernel K assembled in Eqs. (9)–(10) is the standard one-loop ghost contribution to the gluon self-energy: a dimensionless form factor with log p^2/μ^2 behavior, not a 1/p^2 pole. The quadratic part of the standard H(A^h) defined in Eq. (18) is g^2 f A M0^{-1} f A ∼ 1/p^2. These cannot be proportional by a constant, so no finite c1(d,N) exists. The paper never evaluates K(p); asserting equality from shared color/Lorentz structure and absorbing the difference into uncomputed c1/κ renames the known one-loop kernel as the induced Gribov horizon functional rather than deriving it.

full rationale

Most of the paper is a legitimate algebraic exercise: the determinant expansion (5) and the nonlocal form of Tr M^{-1} are derived from the ST action. No numerical data are fitted, and the previous unified construction [20] is not load-bearing for the central mechanism. The circularity is concentrated in the identification step. Eqs. (13)–(16) do not compute the coefficient of ζ; they define γ_ind^4 as κζ and fix c1 by 'direct comparison' of tensor structure. Since κ is explicitly left scheme-dependent and uncomputed, the statement γ_ind^4 ∝ ζ is true by definition. Moreover the kernel actually constructed in Eqs. (9)–(10) is a one-loop ghost self-energy form factor, while the quadratic part of the standard H(A^h) is a tree-level 1/p^2 term; equality is asserted, not derived. The paper itself flags that κ is not required for the structural argument, which confirms the relation is a definition/naming rather than a quantitative prediction. The replica-broken phase is also assumed rather than proven, but the paper acknowledges this conditionality; that is a limitation, not a circularity. Overall score 6: the central claim of an induced Gribov scale reduces, by construction, to renaming the O(ζ) coefficient.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or fields; its entities (Zwanziger auxiliary fields, NLσ replicas, composite Aʰ) are all from prior frameworks. The load-bearing free parameters are the proportionality constants c₁ and κ that connect the induced kernel to H(Aʰ) and to the scale γ⁴_ind; these are uncomputed, so the central quantitative claim is a proportionality statement modulo scheme-dependent constants. The most fragile axiom is the choice of the replica-broken phase, which is assumed rather than shown to be dynamically realized.

free parameters (4)
  • κ(d,N,μ) = unspecified; defined by γ⁴_ind = κ ζ + O(ζ²)
    The proportionality constant between the induced Gribov scale and the replica regulator ζ is scheme-dependent and never computed. The central quantitative claim γ⁴_ind ∝ ζ carries no predictive content until κ is fixed.
  • c₁(d,N) = unspecified; prefactor in −ζTrM⁻¹ ⊃ c₁ ζH(Aʰ)
    The coefficient matching the induced kernel to the Gribov horizon functional is stated to be a positive numerical constant depending on d and N but is never evaluated. The identification 'same structure' holds only up to this undetermined normalization.
  • β, ζ (gauge-fixing parameters) = external inputs in ST framework
    The ST construction treats β and ζ as inputs with mass dimension two. They are not derived but inherited from the prior ST formulation; they are parameters of the framework rather than fitted to data.
  • γᵇᵃʳᵉ = external input in RGZ sector; set to zero for the induced-only scenario
    The pre-existing horizon parameter is carried for comparison with RGZ; the paper's focus is γ⁴_ind, and γ⁴_eff = γ⁴_bare + γ⁴_ind is additive at tree level.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Standard replica trick: n→0 limit and replica superfield integration localized to a local action.
    The paper relies on the Parisi–Sourlas replica method [9] and the ST localization; this is an established technique, though the validity of taking n→0 for this determinant is not re-derived here.
  • standard math The expansion ln det(X+ζ) = ln det X + ζ Tr X⁻¹ − ζ²/2 Tr X⁻² + O(ζ³) is valid for the FP operator M under the relevant conditions (no zero modes of M treated).
    Used in Eq. (5). The paper does not address zero modes or the Gribov horizon itself; the expansion assumes invertibility of M.
  • domain assumption Replica-broken phase has χ̂=0 and is dynamically selected.
    The whole mechanism is conditional on χ̂=0. The paper states the two phases but does not prove which one Yang–Mills at physical parameters selects; the gap equation quoted (Sec. II) shows χ̂_R ≥ 0 with symmetric solution, so the broken phase is an assumption for the central scenario.
  • domain assumption M(Aʰ) differs from M(A) only by the replacement of A by the BRST-invariant composite Aʰ; the kernel structure is preserved.
    The paper transfers the determinant from M(A) to M(Aʰ) in Eqs. (3)–(4) and Appendix A. This relies on the properties of the transverse BRST-invariant field Aʰ; the mapping of the determinant under this substitution is stated, not proved.
  • domain assumption Hubbard–Stratonovich localization of the induced kernel with Zwanziger fields produces the standard RGZ form.
    Eq. (15) and Appendix A assert the localization reproduces the Zwanziger action; this is standard for the GZ kernel but is used here for an induced kernel with undetermined normalization, and the localization is sketched rather than demonstrated in detail.
  • domain assumption The O(ζ²) term in the determinant expansion can be neglected at leading IR order.
    The paper drops ζ²/2 Tr M⁻² as subleading without analyzing whether it could contribute to the same bilinear kernel or renormalize γ⁴_ind at the same order in the regime of interest.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent Gribov horizon kernel from replica symmetry breaking in Yang--Mills theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5IMVGMUW

@misc{pith2026260302838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent Gribov horizon kernel from replica symmetry breaking in Yang--Mills theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5IMVGMUW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.02838}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We show that, in the replica-broken sector of the Serreau--Tissier (ST) gauge fixing, the expansion of the replica determinant in the regulator $\zeta$ induces a nonlocal bilinear gluonic kernel with the same color and Lorentz structure as the quadratic part of the BRST-invariant Gribov horizon functional. This establishes an effective leading-order correspondence with the refined Gribov-Zwanziger (RGZ) horizon sector, rather than a reconstruction of the full nonlinear functional $H(A^h)$. The induced scale satisfies $\gamma_{\mathrm{ind}}^4\propto \zeta$ at leading order, up to scheme-dependent normalization and higher-order corrections. Depending on the replica phase, the ST sector yields either a local Curci--Ferrari (CF) screening mass or an induced RGZ-type horizon kernel, avoiding double counting of infrared scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02838 by Rodrigo Carmo Terin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic chain: ST replica weighting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_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.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    The Fundamental Modular Region is reformulated as the β→∞ limit of a Gibbs measure over Gribov copies, with O(1/β) convergence controlled by the inverse Faddeev–Popov operator.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C. N. Yang and R. L. Mills. Conservation of isotopic spin and isotopic gauge invariance.Physical Review, 96:191–195, 1954

    1954

  2. [2]

    L. D. Faddeev and V. N. Popov. Feynman diagrams for the yang–mills field.Physics Letters B, 25:29–30, 1967

    1967

  3. [3]

    V. N. Gribov. Quantization of nonabelian gauge theories.Nucl. Phys. B, 139:1–19, 1978

    1978

  4. [4]

    I. M. Singer. Some remarks on the gribov ambiguity.Commun. Math. Phys., 60:7–12, 1978

    1978

  5. [5]

    Serreau and M

    J. Serreau and M. Tissier. Lifting the gribov ambiguity in yang-mills theories.Phys. Lett. B, 712:97–103, 2012

    2012

  6. [6]

    Serreau, M

    J. Serreau, M. Tissier, and A. Tresmontant. Covariant gauges without gribov copies.Physical Review D, 92:105003, 2015

    2015

  7. [7]

    Gribov copies, avalanches and dynamic generation of a gluon mass.Physics Letters B, 784:146–150, September 2018

    Matthieu Tissier. Gribov copies, avalanches and dynamic generation of a gluon mass.Physics Letters B, 784:146–150, September 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Symmetry restoration and the gluon mass in the Landau gauge.SciPost Phys., 10(2):035, 2021

    Urko Reinosa, Julien Serreau, Rodrigo Carmo Terin, and Matthieu Tissier. Symmetry restoration and the gluon mass in the Landau gauge.SciPost Phys., 10(2):035, 2021

    2021

  9. [9]

    Parisi and N

    G. Parisi and N. Sourlas. Random magnetic fields, supersymmetry and negative dimensions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 43:744–745, 1979

    1979

  10. [10]

    Zwanziger

    D. Zwanziger. Local and renormalizable action from the gribov horizon.Nucl. Phys. B, 323:513–544, 1989

    1989

  11. [11]

    Zwanziger

    D. Zwanziger. Quantization of gauge fields, classical gauge invariance, and gluon confinement.Nucl. Phys. B, 345:461–482, 1990

    1990

  12. [12]

    Dudal, J

    D. Dudal, J. A. Gracey, S. P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel, and H. Verschelde. Refining the gribov-zwanziger approach in the landau gauge: infrared propagators in harmony with the lattice results.Phys. Rev. D, 78:065047, 2008

    2008

  13. [13]

    Dudal, S

    D. Dudal, S. P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel, and H. Verschelde. Gribov no-pole condition, zwanziger horizon function, kugo- ojima confinement criterion, boundary conditions, brst breaking and all that.Phys. Rev. D, 79:121701, 2009

    2009

  14. [14]

    S. P. Sorella et al. Exact nilpotent nonperturbative brst symmetry for the gribov-zwanziger action in the linear covariant gauge.Phys. Rev. D, 92:045039, 2015

    2015

  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 function.Phys. Rev. D, 95:045011, 2017

    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(5):054048, 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    A. C. Aguilar, A. A. Natale, and P. S. Rodrigues da Silva. Relating a gluon mass scale to an infrared fixed point in pure gauge qcd.Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:152001, Apr 2003

    2003

  18. [18]

    Cucchieri and T

    A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes. Constraints on the ir behavior of the gluon propagator in yang–mills theories.Phys. Rev. Lett., 100:241601, 2008

    2008

  19. [19]

    Dudal, O

    D. Dudal, O. Oliveira, M. Roelfs, and P. J. Silva. Spectral representation of lattice gluon and ghost propagators at zero temperature.Nuclear Physics B, 952:114912, 2020

    2020

  20. [20]

    Towards a unified viewpoint of gribov–zwanziger and serreau–tissier gauge fixing.Physics Letters B, page 140302, 2026

    Rodrigo Carmo Terin. Towards a unified viewpoint of gribov–zwanziger and serreau–tissier gauge fixing.Physics Letters B, page 140302, 2026

    2026

  21. [21]

    Tissier and N

    M. Tissier and N. Wschebor. Infrared propagators of yang–mills theory from perturbation theory.Phys. Rev. D, 82:101701, 2010

    2010

  22. [22]

    Tissier and N

    M. Tissier and N. Wschebor. An infrared safe perturbative approach to yang–mills correlators.Phys. Rev. D, 84:045018, 2011

    2011

  23. [23]

    J. J. Hopfield. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 79(8):2554–2558, 1982

    1982

  24. [24]

    Ackley, Geoffrey E

    David H. Ackley, Geoffrey E. Hinton, and Terrence J. Sejnowski. A learning algorithm for boltzmann machines.Cognitive Science, 9(1):147–169, 1985

    1985

  25. [25]

    Yee Whye Teh, Max Welling, Simon Osindero, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. Energy-based models for sparse overcomplete representations.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 4:1235–1260, 2003

    2003

  26. [26]

    J. Hubbard. The Description of Collective Motions in Terms of Many-Body Perturbation Theory.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 240(1223):539–560, July 1957

    1957

  27. [27]

    Calculation of partition functions.Phys

    John Hubbard. Calculation of partition functions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 3(2):77–78, 1959

    1959

  28. [28]

    Scale redundancy and soft gauge fixing in positively homogeneous neural networks, 2026

    Rodrigo Carmo Terin. Scale redundancy and soft gauge fixing in positively homogeneous neural networks, 2026

    2026

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.