Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 98 references

This paper gives the complete one-loop matching of the low-energy effective field theory (LEFT) to the QCD gradient flow for all baryon- and lepton-number-conserving operators up to mass dimension six.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 07:52 UTC pith:72ZBQ3P7

load-bearing objection Complete one-loop LEFT-to-gradient-flow matching, with strong internal cross-checks; the power-divergent sector is the main soft spot. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.18883 v2 pith:72ZBQ3P7 submitted 2026-01-26 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

One-loop matching of the LEFT to the QCD gradient flow

\`Oscar L. Crosas , Peter Stoffer This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-lat
keywords gradient flowLEFTlow-energy effective field theoryone-loop matchingshort-flow-time expansionHV schemechiral symmetry restorationlattice 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 paper aims to establish a complete one-loop correspondence, or short-flow-time expansion, between the LEFT below the electroweak scale and the QCD gradient flow, a regulator well suited to lattice QCD. For every baryon- and lepton-number-conserving LEFT operator up to dimension six, the matching coefficient that converts a continuum MS Wilson coefficient into a flowed operator is computed in an algebraically consistent HV scheme, with full flavor structure and generic non-diagonal mass matrices. If these coefficients are correct, lattice-QCD matrix elements computed at small flow times can be connected perturbatively to continuum calculations at next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy, covering processes such as neutron electric dipole moments and precision flavor physics. The calculation also demonstrates that the gradient flow acts as a gauge-invariant ultraviolet regulator: divergent and finite counterterms of the LEFT can be extracted from the same matching computation, and spurious chiral-symmetry-breaking terms cancel against known finite counterterms. The explicit results are tabulated before and after field redefinitions that remove redundant operators, including power-divergent mixings into lower-dimensional operators.

Core claim

The central claim is that the one-loop matching coefficients connecting every baryon- and lepton-number-conserving LEFT Wilson coefficient up to mass dimension six to the corresponding QCD gradient-flow operators are correctly given in App. D. The calculation is performed in Euclidean space with the background-field formulation of the gradient flow, in the algebraically consistent HV scheme, keeping fully generic flavor structures and non-diagonal mass matrices. The paper verifies that spurious chiral-symmetry-violating terms cancel against finite symmetry-restoring counterterms, and it reports both off-shell results in the redundant basis and final results after field redefinitions. It also

What carries the argument

The central object is the short-flow-time expansion: flowed composite operators at flow time t are expanded into MS operators with Wilson coefficients computed by matching the off-shell one-particle-irreducible effective action. Two ingredients carry the argument: the background-field formulation of the gradient flow, which preserves gauge invariance and avoids gauge-variant off-shell operators, and the method of regions, which expands the loop integrands in external momenta and generic spurion mass matrices before integration. In this setup the flow time acts as a gauge-invariant ultraviolet regulator, and the expanded flowed integrals are reduced by a recursive algorithm for flow-time inte

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the method-of-regions expansion captures all momentum regions of the flowed one-loop integrals: unflowed integrals are dropped as scaleless, and the infrared singularities of the expanded flowed integrals are assumed to cancel exactly against the ultraviolet counterterms of the unflowed theory. If any region is missed, the quoted coefficients, especially the power-divergent one-over-flow-time mixings, would be incomplete.

What would settle it

Compute one of the power-divergent matching coefficients, for example the quark-mass matching in App. D.2, by a direct numerical integration of the one-loop flow-time diagrams without the method-of-regions expansion: keep the full propagator and generic non-diagonal masses, integrate at small but finite external momentum, and isolate the coefficient of log(8 pi mu^2 t) and the 1/t pole. Agreement with the closed-form expression would support the expansion; any mismatch in those terms would falsify the quoted coefficient.

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

If this is right

  • If the matching is correct, any baryon- and lepton-number-conserving LEFT Wilson coefficient up to dimension six can be converted perturbatively from the MS scheme to the gradient-flow scheme at next-to-leading-logarithmic order.
  • Lattice-QCD matrix elements of flowed operators become usable for precision low-energy observables such as the neutron electric dipole moment and flavor-changing transitions.
  • The same one-loop matching produces LEFT counterterms, both divergent and finite, because the gradient flow acts as a UV regulator; this cross-checks the independent renormalization of the unflowed theory.
  • Power-divergent mixings into dimension-three and -four operators are given, providing perturbative constraints for small-flow-time lattice simulations.
  • Results before and after field redefinitions show how redundant operators are eliminated and which physical coefficients receive induced shifts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The recursive flow-time integral algorithm is not limited to one loop in any obvious way, so it points toward a two-loop extension of this matching, although the evanescent and chiral-restoration bookkeeping would need to be upgraded.
  • If the holomorphy violations found in dipole-to-mass matching are genuinely polynomial, a modified finite renormalization could define a scheme in which they vanish, simplifying the renormalization-group evolution.
  • The framework should extend to QED corrections and to baryon- and lepton-number-violating operators, which the paper explicitly leaves for future work.
  • The power-divergent matching coefficients, combined with lattice data at multiple flow times, could be used to extract non-perturbative subtraction constants for CP-violating matrix elements.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents the one-loop short-flow-time expansion (SFTE) matching between the baryon- and lepton-number-conserving LEFT up to mass dimension six and the QCD gradient flow. The calculation is performed in Euclidean space with the background-field formulation of the gradient flow, in the HV scheme of Ref. [26] with evanescent operators and finite chiral-symmetry-restoring counterterms. Generic flavor structures and non-diagonal mass matrices are kept throughout, and the method of regions is used to expand flowed integrands in external momenta and masses. The paper reports the complete one-loop matching coefficients Δ1 for all Wilson coefficients, before and after field redefinitions, including power-divergent mixings into dimension-3 and -4 operators. The results are validated by cancellation of 1/ε divergences against Ref. [26], restoration of spurion chiral symmetry, independence of the gauge parameters ξg and α0, two independent computer-algebra implementations, and comparisons with partial results in the literature for the cosmological constant, gauge couplings, dipole operators, CP-odd four-quark operators, and semileptonic operators.

Significance. If correct, the results constitute the first complete one-loop bridge between MS-renormalized continuum LEFT and lattice-QCD gradient-flow matrix elements for the full flavor-conserving sector up to dimension six. This is a valuable and necessary ingredient for NLL-accurate low-energy phenomenology, particularly for nEDM and precision flavor studies, and the inclusion of power-divergent mixings provides useful perturbative constraints for lattice simulations. The paper's strengths are the genuinely full flavor structure, generic masses, the explicit before/after field-redefinition sets, and the unusually broad battery of internal and external checks, including agreement with prior results in every comparable sector. The two independent implementations increase confidence in the algebraic content. The main caveat concerns the power-divergent sector, which is less directly constrained by the stated checks.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.1, App. D (Eqs. D.1, D.11–D.13, D.94–D.95)] The power-divergent matching coefficients are obtained by expanding flowed integrands in external momenta and mass matrices before integration and by discarding unflowed integrals as scaleless. The paper's internal checks — cancellation of 1/ε poles against Ref. [26], restoration of spurion chiral symmetry, and independence of ξg and α0 — constrain the logarithmic and chiral-structure parts of the matching, but not the IR-finite, non-logarithmic 1/t and 1/t^2 pieces. The external comparisons reported in Sec. 6 cover only some flavor-diagonal or massless cases (Refs. [72,96] for Λ, [69] for θ_QCD); the generic flavor and four-quark power-divergent terms, e.g., the (L_{S1,RR}^{uu})_{prvw}(M_u^†)_{wv}/t contribution in Eq. (D.94), rest only on the agreement between the two independent implementations, which share the same region-expansion assumption. A missed momentum/mass region would sile
  2. [§3.3, §5.3, Eq. (4.21)] The finite chiral-symmetry-restoring counterterms X_{i,χ}^{(1,0)} are taken from Ref. [26], which shares an author with the present paper. The verification that these counterterms cancel the spurious chiral-symmetry-breaking terms is therefore a consistency check of the scheme, not an independent derivation, unless the present calculation determines these counterterms from the flowed side alone. The text in §7 states that the calculation 'independently reproduce[s] the finite symmetry-restoring counterterms'; please clarify whether this is the case and, if so, provide an explicit example of such an extraction (e.g., one coefficient before it is compared with Ref. [26]). If the counterterms were only checked, the wording should be softened and the Abstract/Section 7 claim that the gradient flow 'enables an efficient extraction of both divergent and finite counterterms' should be qualified
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Eq. (5.5)] The reduction algorithm implicitly sets to zero scaleless momentum integrals with no Gaussian damping (case c=0). This is part of the DR prescription and should be stated explicitly near Eq. (5.5), since it is essential to the method-of-regions argument.
  2. [App. D] The very large formulas in App. D would benefit from a short notation subsection defining the contraction order for four-fermion operators (e.g., (L_{S1,RR}^{uu})_{prvw}), the trace convention ⟨·⟩, and the rule that all RHS coefficients are flowed coefficients with the superscript dropped. This is stated once, but a reminder near the first equations would improve usability.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (4.15)] The ringed-field condition (4.15) is written for each flavor and in the massless limit. Please clarify how this condition fixes the multiplicative renormalization factor for the full flavor matrix, and how the quoted normalization N_c/(4π)^2 t^2 is obtained in the present Euclidean conventions.
  4. [Page 2] The header 'Prepared for submission to JHEPZU-TH 02/26' appears to contain a journal/issue placeholder. This should be corrected before submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the App. D matching coefficients are computed from flowed-loop integrals; Ref. [26] only supplies the scheme definition and counterterms used in cross-checks.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: define the LEFT in the HV scheme with the evanescent basis and chiral-symmetry-restoring counterterms taken from Ref. [26] (Sect. 3); compute 1PI Green's functions with single insertions of flowed operators using the background-field Feynman rules of App. C; reduce the integrals by the method of regions and the closed flow-integral algorithm of Sect. 5.2; and determine the one-loop matching shifts Delta1 by demanding cancellation of 1/epsilon divergences and of spurious chiral-symmetry-violating terms with the imported counterterms. The matching equations in App. D are outputs of this calculation, not re-statements of the inputs: no equation in App. D is set equal to a Ref. [26] counterterm by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabelled as a prediction. The dependence on Ref. [26] is a scheme choice (operator basis, evanescent definitions, finite counterterms), which is standard and is additionally cross-checked by the paper's two independent implementations, by independence of the gauge parameters xi_g and alpha_0, and by comparisons with Refs. [67,68,69,71,72,96,97], several of which are outside the present author pair. The method-of-regions assumption about cancellation of IR singularities is a genuine correctness risk for the power-divergent 1/t and 1/t^2 coefficients, but a missed momentum/mass region would be an error, not a circularity: the quoted coefficients are not defined in terms of the quantities they are claimed to predict. No circular step satisfying the evidence requirement (an explicit equation or parameter reduction to an input) is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data: the calculation is a parameter-free one-loop matching with generic Wilson coefficients, generic mass matrices, and generic gauge parameters (ξg, α0) whose dependence cancels (verified). The scheme-defining inputs (evanescent-operator basis and finite counterterms) are borrowed from Ref. [26]. No new entities are introduced; flowed operators and ringed fields are standard constructions.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The renormalization scheme of Ref. [26] — HV-scheme evanescent operator basis, finite chiral-symmetry-restoring counterterms, evanescent-compensating counterterms — is correct and sufficient for one-loop LEFT renormalization.
    Invoked throughout §3 and in the renormalized parameters of §4.3 (Eqs. 4.20-4.21). If these counterterms were incorrect, the chirality-cancellation checks in §6 would compare the gradient-flow computation against the wrong benchmark.
  • domain assumption The short-flow-time expansion (SFTE) for all LEFT operators up to dimension six exists at one loop; flowed composite operators are UV finite up to multiplicative quark-field renormalization, and operator mixing at short flow time is captured by Eq. (4.17).
    Section 4.3. Standard in the gradient-flow literature [50-52, 88, 89], but assumed rather than proven here.
  • domain assumption Method of regions: for t → 0, expanding flowed integrands in external momenta and spurion masses before integration is valid; unflowed loop integrals become scaleless (vanish in DR), and IR singularities of expanded flowed integrals cancel the unflowed UV counterterms.
    Section 5.1. Load-bearing for the power-divergent (1/t, 1/t^2) mixings and O(t^0) mass corrections; not proven in the paper.
  • domain assumption The background-field formulation of the gradient flow (Ref. [82], §4.2) preserves background gauge invariance, so the off-shell 1PI effective action contains no gauge-variant operators.
    Section 4.2. The ξg- and α0-independence check (§5.3) partially substantiates this.
  • standard math Euclidean Dirac algebra in the HV scheme: {γ5, γ̄μ}=0, [γ5, γ̂μ]=0, Chisholm identity (A.18), four-dimensional Levi-Civita tensor.
    App. A.3 conventions; standard algebra.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 44017 in / 23585 out tokens · 243637 ms · 2026-08-03T07:52:19.844102+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present the complete one-loop matching of the baryon- and lepton-number-conserving low-energy effective field theory (LEFT) to the QCD gradient flow. Using Euclidean conventions and the background-field formulation of the gradient flow, we derive the short-flow-time expansion for the full LEFT operator basis up to mass dimension six. The matching is performed in dimensional regularization in the algebraically consistent 't Hooft-Veltman scheme, including a systematic treatment of evanescent operators and the finite counterterms required to restore chiral symmetry in the spurion sense. Keeping fully generic flavor structures, we verify the cancellation of spurious chiral-symmetry-violating terms with the known finite symmetry-restoring counterterms. This demonstrates that the gradient flow as a gauge-invariant ultraviolet regulator enables an efficient extraction of both divergent and finite counterterms in addition to the matching contributions. We provide the matching coefficients both before and after field redefinitions that remove redundant operators, as well as power-divergent mixings into lower-dimensional operators. Our results establish a consistent perturbative link between continuum LEFT calculations and gradient-flow-based lattice-QCD matrix elements, enabling precision low-energy phenomenology beyond leading-logarithmic accuracy.

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

98 extracted references · 80 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Buchm¨ uller and D

    W. Buchm¨ uller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986)

    1986

  2. [2]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP10, 085 (2010), [arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, JHEP10, 087 (2013), [arXiv:1308.2627 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, JHEP01, 035 (2014), [arXiv:1310.4838 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, JHEP04, 159 (2014), [arXiv:1312.2014 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and P. Stoffer, JHEP03, 016 (2018), [arXiv:1709.04486 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and P. Stoffer, JHEP01, 084 (2018), [arXiv:1711.05270 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Dekens and P

    W. Dekens and P. Stoffer, JHEP10, 197 (2019), [arXiv:1908.05295 [hep-ph]], [Erratum: JHEP11, 148 (2022)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    A. J. Buras and P. H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B333, 66 (1990)

    1990

  10. [10]

    A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, M. E. Lautenbacher, and P. H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B370, 69 (1992), [Addendum: Nucl. Phys. B375, 501 (1992)]

    1992

  11. [11]

    A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, M. E. Lautenbacher, and P. H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B400, 37 (1993), [arXiv:hep-ph/9211304]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  12. [12]

    Ciuchini, E

    M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, and L. Reina, Nucl. Phys. B415, 403 (1994), [arXiv:hep-ph/9304257]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  13. [13]

    Ciuchini, E

    M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B421, 41 (1994), [arXiv:hep-ph/9311357]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  14. [14]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 1125 (1996), [arXiv:hep-ph/9512380]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  15. [15]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. M¨ unz, Nucl. Phys. B520, 279 (1998), [arXiv:hep-ph/9711280]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  16. [16]

    A. J. Buras, M. Misiak, and J. Urban, Nucl. Phys. B586, 397 (2000), [arXiv:hep-ph/0005183]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  17. [17]

    Gorbahn and U

    M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, JHEP10, 094 (2016), [arXiv:1607.03773 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Panico, A

    G. Panico, A. Pomarol, and M. Riembau, JHEP04, 090 (2019), [arXiv:1810.09413 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    de Vries, G

    J. de Vries, G. Falcioni, F. Herzog, and B. Ruijl, Phys. Rev. D102, 016010 (2020), [arXiv:1907.04923 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, and E. Sawyer, JHEP10, 211 (2020), [arXiv:2005.12917 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Aebischer, A

    J. Aebischer, A. J. Buras, and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D106, 035003 (2022), [arXiv:2203.11224 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M. K¨ onig, J. Pag` es, A. E. Thomsen, and F. Wilsch, JHEP02, 031 (2023), [arXiv:2211.09144 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Aebischer, M

    J. Aebischer, M. Pesut, and Z. Polonsky, JHEP01, 060 (2024), [arXiv:2306.16449 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, L. Naterop, and J. Pag` es, JHEP12, 165 (2023), [arXiv:2308.06315 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, L. Naterop, and J. Pag` es, JHEP02, 131 (2024), [arXiv:2310.19883 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Naterop and P

    L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, JHEP02, 068 (2024), [arXiv:2310.13051 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Di Noi, R

    S. Di Noi, R. Gr¨ ober, G. Heinrich, J. Lang, and M. Vitti, Phys. Rev. D109, 095024 (2024), [arXiv:2310.18221 [hep-ph]]. – 40 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A. Palavri´ c, and A. E. Thomsen, Phys. Lett. B851, 138557 (2024), [arXiv:2311.13630 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Morell and J

    P. Morell and J. Virto, JHEP04, 105 (2024), [arXiv:2402.00249 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    A. V. Manohar, J. Pag` es, and J. Roosmale Nepveu, JHEP05, 018 (2024), [arXiv:2402.08715 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Di Noi, R

    S. Di Noi, R. Gr¨ ober, and M. K. Mandal, JHEP12, 220 (2025), [arXiv:2408.03252 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    L. Born, J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, S. Kvedarait˙ e, and A. E. Thomsen, JHEP05, 121 (2025), [arXiv:2410.07320 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Naterop and P

    L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, JHEP06, 007 (2025), [arXiv:2412.13251 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A. Moreno-S´ anchez, A. Palavri´ c, and A. E. Thomsen, JHEP08, 099 (2025), [arXiv:2412.12270 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Aebischer, P

    J. Aebischer, P. Morell, M. Pesut, and J. Virto, arXiv:2501.08384 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    C. Duhr, A. Vasquez, G. Ventura, and E. Vryonidou, JHEP07, 160 (2025), [arXiv:2503.01954 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Haisch, JHEP06, 004 (2025), [arXiv:2503.06249 [hep-ph]]

    U. Haisch, JHEP06, 004 (2025), [arXiv:2503.06249 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Zhang, JHEP06, 106 (2025), [arXiv:2504.00792 [hep-ph]]

    D. Zhang, JHEP06, 106 (2025), [arXiv:2504.00792 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Naterop and P

    L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, JHEP07, 237 (2025), [arXiv:2505.03871 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Naterop and P

    L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, arXiv:2507.08926 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  41. [41]

    Haisch and M

    U. Haisch and M. Niggetiedt, arXiv:2507.20803 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    C. Duhr, G. Ventura, and E. Vryonidou, JHEP11, 046 (2025), [arXiv:2508.04500 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Banik, A

    S. Banik, A. Crivellin, L. Naterop, and P. Stoffer, arXiv:2510.08682 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  44. [44]

    Carmona, A

    A. Carmona, A. Lazopoulos, P. Olgoso, and J. Santiago, SciPost Phys.12, 198 (2022), [arXiv:2112.10787 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M. K¨ onig, J. Pag` es, A. E. Thomsen, and F. Wilsch, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 662 (2023), [arXiv:2212.04510 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Guedes, P

    G. Guedes, P. Olgoso, and J. Santiago, SciPost Phys.15, 143 (2023), [arXiv:2303.16965 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Allwicheret al., Eur

    L. Allwicheret al., Eur. Phys. J. C84, 170 (2024), [arXiv:2307.08745 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    A. E. Thomsen, JHEP12, 185 (2024), [arXiv:2404.11640 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Guedes and P

    G. Guedes and P. Olgoso, arXiv:2412.14253 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    L¨ uscher, JHEP08, 071 (2010), [arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]], [Erratum: JHEP 03, 092 (2014)]

    M. L¨ uscher, JHEP08, 071 (2010), [arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]], [Erratum: JHEP 03, 092 (2014)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  51. [51]

    L¨ uscher and P

    M. L¨ uscher and P. Weisz, JHEP02, 051 (2011), [arXiv:1101.0963 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  52. [52]

    L¨ uscher, JHEP04, 123 (2013), [arXiv:1302.5246 [hep-lat]]

    M. L¨ uscher, JHEP04, 123 (2013), [arXiv:1302.5246 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  53. [53]

    Shintani, S

    E. Shintani, S. Aoki, N. Ishizuka, K. Kanaya, Y. Kikukawa, Y. Kuramashi, M. Okawa, Y. Tanigchi, A. Ukawa, and T. Yoshie, Phys. Rev. D72, 014504 (2005), [arXiv:hep-lat/0505022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  54. [54]

    Berruto, T

    F. Berruto, T. Blum, K. Orginos, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D73, 054509 (2006), [arXiv:hep-lat/0512004]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  55. [55]

    Shindler, J

    A. Shindler, J. de Vries, and T. Luu, PoSLA TTICE2014, 251 (2014), [arXiv:1409.2735 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    F. K. Guo, R. Horsley, U. G. Meissner, Y. Nakamura, H. Perlt, P. E. L. Rakow, G. Schierholz, A. Schiller, and J. M. Zanotti, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 062001 (2015), [arXiv:1502.02295 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    Shindler, T

    A. Shindler, T. Luu, and J. de Vries, Phys. Rev. D92, 094518 (2015), [arXiv:1507.02343 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  58. [58]

    Alexandrou, A

    C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, G. Koutsou, K. Ottnad, and M. Petschlies, Phys. Rev. D93, 074503 (2016), [arXiv:1510.05823 [hep-lat]]. – 41 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Shintani, T

    E. Shintani, T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D93, 094503 (2016), [arXiv:1512.00566 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  60. [60]

    Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) Collaboration], Eur

    Y. Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C82, 869 (2022), [arXiv:2111.09849 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    Dragos, T

    J. Dragos, T. Luu, A. Shindler, J. de Vries, and A. Yousif, Phys. Rev. C103, 015202 (2021), [arXiv:1902.03254 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, R. Gupta, E. Mereghetti, and B. Yoon, Phys. Rev. D103, 114507 (2021), [arXiv:2101.07230 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, R. Gupta, E. Mereghetti, J.-S. Yoo, and B. Yoon, Phys. Rev. D108, 074507 (2023), [arXiv:2304.09929 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Bhattacharya, S

    T. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, R. Gupta, E. Mereghetti, S. Park, J.-S. Yoo, and B. Yoon, PoSLA TTICE2024, 344 (2025), [arXiv:2502.00460 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, R. Gupta, E. Mereghetti, and B. Yoon, Phys. Rev. D92, 114026 (2015), [arXiv:1502.07325 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

    Cirigliano, E

    V. Cirigliano, E. Mereghetti, and P. Stoffer, JHEP09, 094 (2020), [arXiv:2004.03576 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [67]

    Mereghetti, C

    E. Mereghetti, C. J. Monahan, M. D. Rizik, A. Shindler, and P. Stoffer, JHEP04, 050 (2022), [arXiv:2111.11449 [hep-lat]], [Erratum: JHEP03, 101 (2025)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  68. [68]

    B¨ uhler and P

    J. B¨ uhler and P. Stoffer, JHEP08, 194 (2023), [arXiv:2304.00985 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  69. [69]

    `O. L. Crosas, C. J. Monahan, M. D. Rizik, A. Shindler, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B847, 138301 (2023), [arXiv:2308.16221 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    R. V. Harlander and T. Neumann, JHEP06, 161 (2016), [arXiv:1606.03756 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  71. [71]

    R. V. Harlander, Y. Kluth, and F. Lange, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 944 (2018), [arXiv:1808.09837 [hep-lat]], [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C79, 858 (2019)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  72. [72]

    J. Artz, R. V. Harlander, F. Lange, T. Neumann, and M. Prausa, JHEP06, 121 (2019), [arXiv:1905.00882 [hep-lat]], [Erratum: JHEP10, 032 (2019)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [73]

    R. V. Harlander, F. Lange, and T. Neumann, JHEP08, 109 (2020), [arXiv:2007.01057 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    R. V. Harlander and F. Lange, Phys. Rev. D105, L071504 (2022), [arXiv:2201.08618 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [75]

    Borgulat, R

    J. Borgulat, R. V. Harlander, J. T. Kohnen, and F. Lange, JHEP05, 179 (2024), [arXiv:2311.16799 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Borgulat, N

    J. Borgulat, N. Felten, R. Harlander, and J. T. Kohnen, SciPost Phys. Core8, 032 (2025), [arXiv:2501.07150 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    R. V. Harlander, J. T. Kohnen, and A. Shindler, arXiv:2511.17145 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  78. [78]

    Georg, R

    L. Georg, R. V. Harlander, and R. H. Mason, arXiv:2601.13914 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  79. [79]

    `O. L. Crosas and P. Stoffer, in progress

  80. [80]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, Commun. Math. Phys.52, 11 (1977)

    1977

Showing first 80 references.