pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28543 · v1 · pith:G5WDWCDFnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · ✦ hep-lat

Highly improved staggered quarks on anisotropic lattices

Alexei Bazavov , Yannis Trimis , Johannes Heinrich Weber This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 00:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-lat
keywords anisotropic latticesstaggered quarksaHISQ actiontaste splittingsgradient flowanisotropy tuningpion spectrumlattice QCD
0
0 comments X

The pith

Anisotropic aHISQ quarks exhibit qualitatively different pion taste mass splitting behavior than naive staggered quarks.

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

The paper tunes the anisotropic highly improved staggered quark action on pure gauge ensembles across renormalized anisotropies from 1 to 8. It evaluates multiple gradient flow methods to set the gauge anisotropy and compares how the fermion anisotropy is tuned for both the naive staggered and aHISQ actions. The central result is an empirical model for the aHISQ taste spectrum together with the observation that the dependence of staggered pion taste splittings on anisotropy differs markedly between the two formulations.

Core claim

On pure gauge ensembles the renormalized gauge anisotropy is tuned via gradient flow, the fermion anisotropy parameters are fixed separately for naive staggered and aHISQ actions, and the resulting pion taste mass splittings are measured; these splittings display qualitatively different anisotropy dependence for the two actions, which is captured by a simple empirical model for the aHISQ case.

What carries the argument

The aHISQ action together with gradient-flow-based tuning of gauge and fermion anisotropies and the empirical parametrization of taste splittings.

If this is right

  • An optimal gradient flow scheme for gauge anisotropy tuning can be selected for anisotropic aHISQ runs.
  • Fermion anisotropy must be tuned differently for aHISQ than for the naive action.
  • The empirical model supplies a practical description of aHISQ taste splittings across a range of anisotropies.
  • Qualitatively different taste behavior suggests that aHISQ may suppress anisotropy-enhanced taste violations relative to the naive action.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The observed difference could reduce the need for additional improvement terms when simulating anisotropic systems with aHISQ.
  • The empirical model might be tested by extending the anisotropy range beyond 8 on new ensembles.
  • If the difference persists at finer lattice spacings, aHISQ would become the default choice for anisotropic thermodynamics or spectroscopy.

Load-bearing premise

The gradient flow schemes give reliable and optimal values for the gauge anisotropy on the pure gauge ensembles.

What would settle it

A direct side-by-side measurement on identical ensembles showing that the anisotropy dependence of the taste splittings is statistically indistinguishable between naive staggered and aHISQ quarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28543 by Alexei Bazavov, Johannes Heinrich Weber, Yannis Trimis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The ratio defined in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Determining the bare gauge anisotropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The lines of constant renormalized anisotropy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Finding the bare gauge coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Left panel) Finding the bare fermion anisotropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Final tuning steps that determine the strange quark mass that corresponds to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Progression of pion taste masses, plotted as dimensionless combinations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Splittings of pion taste multiplets from the Goldstone pion, normalized by the value for the singlet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Splittings of pion taste multiplets from the Goldstone pion, normalized by their individual values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The low-energy constants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The low-energy constants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Determining the bare fermion anisotropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Comparison of the chiral condensate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a study of tuning of the anisotropic highly improved staggered quark (aHISQ) action on pure gauge ensembles with the renormalized anisotropy ranging from 1 to 8. We discuss multiple gradient flow schemes for tuning the gauge anisotropy and comment on what scheme may be optimal for anisotropic simulations. Next, we compare tuning of the fermion anisotropy for the naive staggered and aHISQ actions. Finally, we study the dependence of the staggered pion taste mass splittings on anisotropy for the two actions and develop an empirical model that captures the main features of the aHISQ spectrum. We observe qualitatively different behavior of the naive and aHISQ taste spectrum with anisotropy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies tuning of the anisotropic highly improved staggered quark (aHISQ) action on pure-gauge ensembles with renormalized anisotropy ξ ranging from 1 to 8. It examines multiple gradient-flow definitions for determining the gauge anisotropy, compares the tuning of the fermion anisotropy parameter for naive staggered versus aHISQ actions, analyzes the anisotropy dependence of staggered pion taste-mass splittings for both actions, introduces an empirical model for the aHISQ taste spectrum, and reports qualitatively different anisotropy dependence between the naive and aHISQ taste spectra.

Significance. If the tuning of ξ is robust, the work supplies practical guidance on gradient-flow anisotropy determination for anisotropic lattice QCD and highlights action-dependent discretization effects in the taste spectrum that could inform the design of improved staggered actions for anisotropic simulations. The empirical model, if validated, offers a compact description of taste violations that may be useful for systematic-error estimates in future calculations.

major comments (2)
  1. [gradient-flow tuning discussion] Tuning discussion (gradient-flow section): the manuscript selects one gradient-flow scheme as potentially optimal but does not report quantitative cross-checks of the resulting ξ values against independent determinations such as Wilson-loop aspect ratios or static-potential fits on the same ensembles; because the central claim of qualitatively different taste-spectrum behavior rests on the horizontal-axis calibration by ξ, residual scheme dependence or uncontrolled systematics in the chosen definition would directly affect the interpretation of the plots.
  2. [taste spectrum dependence on anisotropy] Taste-splitting analysis: the figures comparing naive and aHISQ taste spectra versus ξ do not include error bands on the ξ values themselves or a sensitivity study showing how plausible variations in ξ (arising from flow-time window or operator choice) would shift the data points; without this, it is not possible to judge whether the reported qualitative distinction survives the uncertainty in the anisotropy calibration.
minor comments (2)
  1. [empirical model section] The abstract states that an empirical model is developed but the main text does not specify the functional form, the number of parameters, or the goodness-of-fit metrics used to capture the aHISQ spectrum features.
  2. [gauge anisotropy tuning] Notation for the renormalized anisotropy ξ is introduced without an explicit equation defining how it is extracted from the gradient-flow observables.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments on the robustness of the anisotropy calibration. We address each major comment below and agree that the suggested additions will strengthen the presentation of the results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Tuning discussion (gradient-flow section): the manuscript selects one gradient-flow scheme as potentially optimal but does not report quantitative cross-checks of the resulting ξ values against independent determinations such as Wilson-loop aspect ratios or static-potential fits on the same ensembles; because the central claim of qualitatively different taste-spectrum behavior rests on the horizontal-axis calibration by ξ, residual scheme dependence or uncontrolled systematics in the chosen definition would directly affect the interpretation of the plots.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative cross-checks against independent methods would provide valuable confirmation of the gradient-flow ξ determinations. In the revised manuscript we will add comparisons of the chosen gradient-flow ξ values with Wilson-loop aspect ratios computed on the same ensembles (where statistics permit) and include a brief discussion of any observed differences. This will directly address potential scheme dependence and support the interpretation of the taste-spectrum plots. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Taste-splitting analysis: the figures comparing naive and aHISQ taste spectra versus ξ do not include error bands on the ξ values themselves or a sensitivity study showing how plausible variations in ξ (arising from flow-time window or operator choice) would shift the data points; without this, it is not possible to judge whether the reported qualitative distinction survives the uncertainty in the anisotropy calibration.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The revised version will include horizontal error bands on the ξ values in the relevant figures, derived from the observed variation across flow times and operators. We will also add a short sensitivity analysis (in the text or an appendix) that shifts the data points within the estimated ξ uncertainties and confirms that the qualitative difference between the naive and aHISQ taste spectra remains visible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected; tuning and spectral comparison are independent of target observables

full rationale

The paper tunes renormalized gauge anisotropy ξ via gradient-flow schemes applied to pure-gauge ensembles; these tuned ensembles then serve as fixed input for the subsequent aHISQ and naive staggered fermion runs. The taste-splitting comparison and the empirical model for the aHISQ spectrum are extracted from data generated on those ensembles, but neither the tuning procedure nor the model is defined in terms of the final taste-spectrum distinction. No self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks (gradient-flow definitions and pure-gauge ensembles).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; tuning parameters for anisotropy are implied but unspecified.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5632 in / 982 out tokens · 46543 ms · 2026-06-30T00:53:13.817649+00:00 · methodology

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

83 extracted references · 37 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    If necessary (for complicated cases such as heavier pion tastes), perform uncorrelated fits to find reasonable starting guesses for the fit parameters

  2. [2]

    Perform correlated fits on the full ensemble to find where the ground state energy reaches a plateau andχ 2/dof is about 1

  3. [3]

    Choose and keep constantτ min consistent with point 2, and keepτ max =N τ /2−1

  4. [4]

    Perform correlated fits (with the covariance matrix from the full ensemble) with fixedτ min, τmax in each jackknife bin

  5. [5]

    Thus, the final quoted errors are propagated with jackknife and they are typically large enough to accommodate the systematic errors coming from varyingτ min

    Propagate errors on the ground state energies (and the functions thereof such as pion split- tings) with the jackknife procedure. Thus, the final quoted errors are propagated with jackknife and they are typically large enough to accommodate the systematic errors coming from varyingτ min. D. Fermion anisotropy and strange quark mass tuning In our setup, th...

  6. [7]

    Asakawa, T

    M. Asakawa, T. Hatsuda, and Y. Nakahara, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.46, 459 (2001), arXiv:hep- lat/0011040

    arXiv 2001

  7. [8]

    Aarts, C

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, T. Harris, S. Kim, M. P. Lombardo, S. M. Ryan, and J.-I. Skullerud, JHEP07, 097, arXiv:1402.6210 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [9]

    S. Kim, P. Petreczky, and A. Rothkopf, Phys. Rev. D91, 054511 (2015), arXiv:1409.3630 [hep-lat]. 52

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [10]

    H.-T. Ding, O. Kaczmarek, S. Mukherjee, H. Ohno, and H. T. Shu, Phys. Rev. D97, 094503 (2018), arXiv:1712.03341 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [11]

    Ilgenfritz, J

    E.-M. Ilgenfritz, J. M. Pawlowski, A. Rothkopf, and A. Trunin, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 127 (2018), arXiv:1701.08610 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [12]

    H.-T. Ding, O. Kaczmarek, A.-L. Kruse, R. Larsen, L. Mazur, S. Mukherjee, H. Ohno, H. Sandmeyer, and H.-T. Shu, Nucl. Phys. A982, 715 (2019), arXiv:1807.06315 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [13]

    S. Kim, P. Petreczky, and A. Rothkopf, JHEP11, 088, arXiv:1808.08781 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [14]

    S. Y. Chen, H. T. Ding, F. Y. Liu, G. Papp, and C. B. Yang, (2021), arXiv:2110.13521 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  14. [15]

    Huang and S

    L. Huang and S. Liang, Phys. Rev. D109, 054508 (2024), arXiv:2309.11114 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

  15. [16]

    S. Ali, D. Bala, A. Francis, G. Jackson, O. Kaczmarek, J. Turnwald, T. Ueding, and N. Wink (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D110, 054518 (2024), arXiv:2403.11647 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

  16. [17]

    Bignell et al., PoSQCHSC24, 161 (2025), arXiv:2505.15601 [hep-lat]

    R. Bignell et al., PoSQCHSC24, 161 (2025), arXiv:2505.15601 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [18]

    Skullerud et al., PoSQCHSC24, 160 (2025), arXiv:2503.17315 [hep-lat]

    J.-I. Skullerud et al., PoSQCHSC24, 160 (2025), arXiv:2503.17315 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [19]

    Takahashi, H

    J. Takahashi, H. Ohno, and A. Tomiya, Phys. Rev. D113, 034507 (2026), arXiv:2509.10386 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [20]

    M. P. Lombardo et al., J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol.3, 100049 (2025)

    2025

  20. [21]

    Skullerud et al., in Excited QCD 2026 Workshop (2026) arXiv:2604.20449 [hep-lat]

    J.-I. Skullerud et al., in Excited QCD 2026 Workshop (2026) arXiv:2604.20449 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [22]

    R. K. Bryan, European Biophysics Journal18, 165 (1990)

    1990

  22. [23]

    Jarrell and J

    M. Jarrell and J. Gubernatis, Physics Reports269, 133 (1996)

    1996

  23. [24]

    Backus and F

    G. Backus and F. Gilbert, Geophysical Journal16, 169 (1968)

    1968

  24. [25]

    Hansen, A

    M. Hansen, A. Lupo, and N. Tantalo, Phys. Rev. D99, 094508 (2019), arXiv:1903.06476 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [26]

    Burnier and A

    Y. Burnier and A. Rothkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 182003 (2013), arXiv:1307.6106 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [27]

    A. S. Mishchenko, N. V. Prokof’ev, A. Sakamoto, and B. V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. B62, 6317 (2000)

    2000

  27. [28]

    Fuchs, T

    S. Fuchs, T. Pruschke, and M. Jarrell, Phys. Rev. E81, 056701 (2010)

    2010

  28. [29]

    Nomura, H

    K. Nomura, H. Matsufuru, and T. Umeda, Prog. Theor. Phys.111, 245 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0401009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  29. [30]

    Levkova, T

    L. Levkova, T. Manke, and R. Mawhinney, Phys. Rev. D73, 074504 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0603031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  30. [31]

    T. Blum, C. E. Detar, S. A. Gottlieb, K. Rummukainen, U. M. Heller, J. E. Hetrick, D. Toussaint, R. L. Sugar, and M. Wingate, Phys. Rev. D55, R1133 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9609036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  31. [32]

    Orginos, D

    K. Orginos, D. Toussaint, and R. L. Sugar (MILC), Phys. Rev. D60, 054503 (1999), arXiv:hep- lat/9903032

    arXiv 1999

  32. [33]

    U. M. Heller, F. Karsch, and B. Sturm, Phys. Rev. D60, 114502 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9901010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  33. [34]

    Morningstar and M

    C. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D69, 054501 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0311018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  34. [35]

    Follana, Q

    E. Follana, Q. Mason, C. Davies, K. Hornbostel, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, H. Trottier, and K. Wong (HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D75, 054502 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0610092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  35. [36]

    Bazavov, D

    A. Bazavov, D. Hoying, R. N. Larsen, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, A. Rothkopf, and J. H. Weber (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D109, 074504 (2024), arXiv:2308.16587 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

  36. [37]

    Hasenfratz and P

    A. Hasenfratz and P. Hasenfratz, Nuclear Physics B193, 210 (1981)

    1981

  37. [38]

    Karsch, Nucl

    F. Karsch, Nucl. Phys. B205, 285 (1982). 53

    1982

  38. [39]

    H. J. Rothe, Lattice Gauge Theories : An Introduction (Fourth Edition), Vol. 43 (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2012)

    2012

  39. [40]

    Smecca, G

    A. Smecca, G. Aarts, C. Allton, R. Bignell, B. J¨ ager, S.-i. Nam, S. Kim, J.-I. Skullerud, and L.-K. Wu, Phys. Rev. D112, 114509 (2025), arXiv:2412.20922 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [41]

    Jiang, W

    X. Jiang, W. Sun, F. Chen, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu, and R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D107, 094510 (2023), arXiv:2205.12541 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2023

  41. [42]

    Weisz, Nucl

    P. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B212, 1 (1983)

    1983

  42. [43]

    Luscher and P

    M. Luscher and P. Weisz, Commun. Math. Phys.98, 433 (1985), [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 98, 433 (1985)]

    1985

  43. [44]

    T. R. Klassen, Nucl. Phys. B533, 557 (1998), arXiv:hep-lat/9803010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  44. [45]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  45. [46]

    Borsanyi, S

    S. Borsanyi, S. Durr, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, T. Kurth, S. Mages, A. Schafer, and K. K. Szabo, (2012), arXiv:1205.0781 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [47]

    Luscher, Commun

    M. Luscher, Commun. Math. Phys.293, 899 (2010), arXiv:0907.5491 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  47. [48]

    Bors´ anyi, Z

    S. Bors´ anyi, Z. Fodor, M. Giordano, S. D. Katz, A. Pasztor, C. Ratti, A. Sch¨ afer, K. K. Szabo, and B. T´ oth, Phys. Rev. D98, 014512 (2018), arXiv:1802.07718 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [49]

    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), JHEP09, 010, arXiv:1203.4469 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [50]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (MILC), Phys. Rev. D82, 074501 (2010), arXiv:1004.0342 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  50. [51]

    van den Doel and J

    C. van den Doel and J. Smit, Nucl. Phys. B228, 122 (1983)

    1983

  51. [52]

    M. F. L. Golterman and J. Smit, Nucl. Phys. B245, 61 (1984)

    1984

  52. [53]

    M. F. L. Golterman, Nucl. Phys. B273, 663 (1986)

    1986

  53. [54]

    M. A. Clark and A. D. Kennedy, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.129, 850 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0309084

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  54. [55]

    M. A. Clark and A. D. Kennedy, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 051601 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0608015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [56]

    M. A. Clark and A. D. Kennedy, Phys. Rev. D75, 011502 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0610047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  56. [57]

    K. Y. Wong and R. M. Woloshyn, PoSLATTICE2007, 047 (2007), arXiv:0710.0737 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  57. [58]

    Cabibbo and E

    N. Cabibbo and E. Marinari, Phys. Lett. B119, 387 (1982)

    1982

  58. [59]

    Fabricius and O

    K. Fabricius and O. Haan, Phys. Lett. B143, 459 (1984)

    1984

  59. [60]

    A. D. Kennedy and B. J. Pendleton, Phys. Lett. B156, 393 (1985)

    1985

  60. [61]

    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D37, 458 (1988)

    1988

  61. [62]

    Duane, A

    S. Duane, A. D. Kennedy, B. J. Pendleton, and D. Roweth, Phys. Lett. B195, 216 (1987)

    1987

  62. [63]

    Namekawa et al

    Y. Namekawa et al. (CP-PACS), Phys. Rev. D64, 074507 (2001), arXiv:hep-lat/0105012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  63. [64]

    Fodor, K

    Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, S. Mondal, D. Nogradi, and C. H. Wong, JHEP09, 018, arXiv:1406.0827 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [65]

    Ramos and S

    A. Ramos and S. Sint, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 15 (2016), arXiv:1508.05552 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [66]

    Sheikholeslami and R

    B. Sheikholeslami and R. Wohlert, Nucl. Phys. B259, 572 (1985). 54

    1985

  66. [67]

    S. O. Bilson-Thompson, D. B. Leinweber, and A. G. Williams, Annals Phys.304, 1 (2003), arXiv:hep- lat/0203008

    arXiv 2003

  67. [68]

    C. R. Allton, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.53, 867 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9610014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  68. [69]

    Aoki et al

    Y. Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Phys. Rev. D113, 014508 (2026), arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [70]

    Berland, C

    J. Berland, C. Bogey, and C. Bailly, Computers and Fluids35, 1459 (2006)

    2006

  70. [71]

    Bazavov, BIT Numerical Mathematics62, 745–771 (2021)

    A. Bazavov, BIT Numerical Mathematics62, 745–771 (2021)

    2021

  71. [72]

    Bazavov and T

    A. Bazavov and T. Chuna, (2021), arXiv:2101.05320 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  72. [73]

    Bazavov, BIT Numerical Mathematics66, 38 (2026), arXiv:2506.07359 [math.NA]

    A. Bazavov, BIT Numerical Mathematics66, 38 (2026), arXiv:2506.07359 [math.NA]

    arXiv 2026

  73. [74]

    Bazavov, (2025), arXiv:2506.08444 [math.NA]

    A. Bazavov, (2025), arXiv:2506.08444 [math.NA]

    arXiv 2025

  74. [75]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, MILC), Phys. Rev. D113, 054501 (2026), arXiv:2509.14367 [hep- lat]

    arXiv 2026

  75. [76]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (MILC), Phys. Rev. D87, 054505 (2013), arXiv:1212.4768 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  76. [77]

    Lepage and C

    P. Lepage and C. Gohlke, gplepage/lsqfit: lsqfit version 13.3.1 (2025)

    2025

  77. [78]

    C. T. H. Davies, E. Follana, I. D. Kendall, G. P. Lepage, and C. McNeile (HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D81, 034506 (2010), arXiv:0910.1229 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  78. [79]

    Luo, Phys

    Y.-b. Luo, Phys. Rev. D57, 265 (1998), arXiv:hep-lat/9702013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  79. [80]

    Lee and S

    W.-J. Lee and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D60, 114503 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9905023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  80. [81]

    Bernard (MILC), Phys

    C. Bernard (MILC), Phys. Rev. D65, 054031 (2002), arXiv:hep-lat/0111051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

Showing first 80 references.