Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Hints for string breaking in QCD

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read String breaking spotted in QCD flux tubes at ~1 fm

desk verdict New flux-tube imaging method gives genuine hints of string breaking, but the key renormalization check is missing at the distance where the signal appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07143 v1 pith:GOGWBV5C submitted 2026-07-08 hep-lat

P. Cea , V. Chelnokov , L. Cosmai , A. Papa This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lat PACS 12.38.Gc12.38.Aw11.15.Ha
keywords stringbreakinglatticeQCDfluxtubechromo-electricfieldconfinementSchwingermechanismstaticquark-antiquarkpotential
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper investigates whether the confining flux tube between a static quark and antiquark in full QCD (with physical quark masses) breaks apart when the separation becomes large enough. The authors measure the chromo-electric field between the sources using two lattice operators (Schwinger line attached to the quark or to the antiquark). At a separation of 0.963 fm, the nonperturbative longitudinal electric field is uniform along the interquak axis and respects quark-antiquark symmetry, indicating an intact flux tube. At 1.156 fm, the field is suppressed near the midpoint and the symmetry is lost, signaling that a dynamical quark-antiquark pair has been created from the vacuum, splitting the original string into two shorter segments. The authors constrain the breaking distance to the range 0.963–1.156 fm, consistent with the Schwinger mechanism, and confirm that no breaking occurs in pure-gauge SU(3) (infinite quark mass) or in QCD with heavier symmetric quark masses at the same separation.

What carries the argument

Connected correlation function of a Wilson loop and a plaquette linked by a Schwinger line, yielding the nonperturbative longitudinal chromo-electric field E_NP and the perturbative Coulomb-like field E_C; quark-antiquark symmetry/antisymmetry of these fields as a diagnostic for flux-tube integrity.

What would settle it

If the observed suppression and symmetry loss at d=1.156 fm were shown to vanish under improved renormalization or alternative smearing protocols, the string-breaking claim would lose its direct observational basis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By directly imaging the gauge-invariant chromo-electric field profile between static color sources, the authors observe a qualitative transition between d=0.963 fm (intact, symmetric flux tube) and d=1.156 fm (suppressed field at midpoint, broken symmetry), constraining the QCD string-breaking distance to roughly 1 fm at physical quark masses.

Load-bearing premise

The loss of quark-antiquark symmetry and suppression of the nonperturbative field near the flux-tube midpoint at d=1.156 fm is interpreted as a physical signature of dynamical pair creation, rather than a systematic artifact of the Schwinger-line renormalization or smearing procedure, which the authors note can introduce distance-dependent effects.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the chromo-electric field between a static quark-antiquark pair in lattice QCD with 2+1 HISQ flavors at physical quark masses, using connected correlators with Schwinger lines attached to either the quark or antiquark time line. By examining both the nonperturbative longitudinal field $E_x^{NP}$ and the perturbative Coulomb-like fields ($E_y$, $E_z$, $E_x^P$) across the full interquark region, the authors identify qualitative signatures of string breaking at $d = 1.156$ fm that are absent at $d = 0.963$ fm. Consistency checks in SU(3) pure-gauge theory (no breaking up to 1.330 fm) and in QCD with symmetric heavy quark masses (no breaking at 1.156 fm) support the interpretation that the signal is tied to light dynamical quarks. The authors constrain the string-breaking distance to $0.963~{rm fm} lesssim d^* lesssim 1.156~{rm fm}$.

Significance. The approach is complementary to the standard Wilson-loop potential method, which suffers from poor overlap with the broken-string ground state. By directly imaging the gauge-invariant field profile and its quark-antiquark symmetry properties, the authors provide a model-independent diagnostic for string breaking. The inclusion of pure-gauge and heavy-quark controls is a genuine strength, as is the use of two independent correlators (quark-side and antiquark-side Schwinger lines) to scan the full interquark region. The estimated range for $d^*$ is broadly consistent with existing lattice determinations ($d^* simeq 1.21$ fm from Ref. [42]).

major comments (3)
  1. Sect. 3, discussion of Fig. 5: The authors verify that the geometric mean $sqrt{E_{x,q}^{NP} cdot E_{x,bar{q}}^{NP}}$ is approximately independent of $x_l$ at $d = 0.963$ fm, confirming that the Schwinger-line renormalization cancels and the underlying field is uniform. This check is not repeated at $d = 1.156$ fm, where the central string-breaking signal resides. Since the signal at $d = 1.156$ fm relies on the observed asymmetry between the quark and antiquark correlators (Fig. 11), and since the Schwinger lines are longer at this distance, producing the analogous geometric-mean plot at $d = 1.156$ fm would directly test whether the asymmetry is physical rather than a renormalization artifact. The authors' own argument implies the geometric mean carries a renormalization factor $A^{d/2+x_t}$ independent of $x_l$, so this plot should be straightforward to produce and would substantially
  2. Sect. 3.2, Figs. 11-14: The evidence for string breaking at $d = 1.156$ fm is presented qualitatively (e.g., 'it seems,' 'there is an indication,' 'strongly suppressed'). No quantitative measure of the symmetry violation or field suppression is provided. For instance, how many standard deviations is the antiquark-side $E_x^{NP}(x_t=0)$ below the quark-side value near the midpoint? A simple quantitative comparison (e.g., a ratio or difference with error bars) would strengthen the claim and allow the reader to judge whether the effect is statistically significant.
  3. Abstract vs. Sect. 4: The abstract states the range as $0.963~{rm fm} lesssim d^* lesssim 1.156~{rm fm}$, while the conclusion in Sect. 4 states '(0.963 fm to 1.116 fm).' This discrepancy (1.156 vs. 1.116) should be corrected. If 1.156 fm is the intended upper bound, the conclusion should be fixed; if 1.116 fm is intended, the abstract needs revision.
minor comments (6)
  1. Sect. 2, Fig. 2: The caption refers to $E_x(x_l = 3a, x_t)$ but the y-axis label and the smearing discussion could benefit from explicitly stating the units and the physical value of $x_l$.
  2. Sect. 3.2, Fig. 11: The text states the flux tube 'seems to break at around the middle point leading to two strings with $d_1 approx 0.7$ fm and $d_2 approx 0.3$ fm.' It would help to clarify how these sub-distances are estimated from the data.
  3. Sect. 3.3, Fig. 15 (upper panel): The text mentions that conclusions hold also for $d = 14a simeq 1.348$ fm 'albeit with rather larger statistical uncertainties,' but no figure is shown for this case. Including at least the $E_x^{NP}(x_t=0)$ profile for $d = 1.348$ fm would strengthen the consistency argument.
  4. Sect. 3.1: The authors mention that the transverse fields $E_y$ and $E_z$ 'can be well fitted by a screened Coulomb field' with parameters $Q$ and $mu$, and that $E_x^P$ can be similarly fitted, but defer details to a forthcoming paper. Providing at least the fitted parameter values in a table or footnote would allow the reader to assess the quality of the Coulomb interpretation.
  5. Table 1: The lattice size is listed as '484' and '244' in various places; standard notation would be $48^4$ and $24^4$ for clarity.
  6. Sect. 2: The temperature $T$ is listed in Table 1 but its values are not discussed in the text. A brief statement that all simulations are at $T < 70$ MeV (well below $T_c$) would reassure the reader that finite-temperature effects are negligible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the string-breaking signal is a direct lattice observation, not a fitted prediction or self-referential construction

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The connected correlator (Eq. 1) is a direct lattice measurement of Wilson loops, plaquettes, and Schwinger lines — no fitted parameters are introduced and then re-predicted. The decomposition E = E^NP + E^C (Eqs. 3–4) is a standard field-theoretic identity (irrotational vs. curl-free decomposition), not a definition that smuggles the conclusion into the premise. The magnetic current J_M = ∇ × E^NP (Eq. 5) follows mathematically from the measured fields. The central claim — that string breaking occurs in the range [0.963, 1.156] fm — is inferred from qualitative changes in directly measured field profiles (suppression of E^NP near the midpoint, loss of quark-antiquark symmetry, sign reversal of transverse fields at d=1.156 fm vs. well-defined flux tube at d=0.963 fm). No parameter is fitted to the string-breaking data and then presented as a prediction of those same data. The self-citations to prior works [27–34] provide methodological context and prior observations, but the load-bearing argument rests on new measurements at new distances, not on conclusions imported from those citations. The consistency checks (pure-gauge SU(3) showing no breaking at d≈1.33 fm; heavy symmetric quark masses showing no breaking at d≈1.156 fm) are independent corroborations, not circular restatements. The skeptic's concern about the Schwinger-line renormalization check not being repeated at d=1.156 fm is a legitimate systematics/correctness issue, but it does not constitute circularity — the observed asymmetry is a measurement, not a quantity defined in terms of the result it claims to derive.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are postulated. The free parameters are smearing choices, not physical fits. The axioms are standard lattice QCD constructions from the authors' established program and the broader literature.

free parameters (3)
  • HYPt smearing parameters (α1, α2, α3) = (1.0, 1.0, 0.5)
    Chosen by hand for temporal-link smearing; standard values from Ref. 56.
  • HYP3d smearing parameters (α1, α3) = (0.75, 0.3)
    Chosen by hand for spatial-link smearing.
  • Number of HYP3d smearing steps = 50
    Chosen as sufficient for stabilization based on Fig. 2; not a fitted physical parameter but a methodological choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The connected correlator ρ^conn_{W,μν} (Eq. 1) provides a gauge-invariant lattice definition of the field-strength tensor F_{μν} induced by static sources (Eq. 2).
    This is the foundational methodological axiom, established in prior work (Refs. 10-14, 27-34). It is a standard lattice QCD construction.
  • domain assumption The chromo-electric field decomposes into a nonperturbative longitudinal part and a perturbative irrotational part (Eq. 3-4).
    Invoked in Sect. 1 and used throughout Sect. 3 to separate confinement-related and Coulomb-like contributions.
  • domain assumption A well-defined flux tube manifests as a nonperturbative longitudinal field that is uniform along the interquark axis and satisfies quark-antiquark symmetry (Eq. 12-13).
    Used as the diagnostic criterion: if symmetry holds, the string is unbroken; if it breaks, string breaking has occurred.
  • domain assumption String breaking in QCD proceeds via the Schwinger mechanism (pair tunneling from the vacuum), implying the breaking distance increases with quark mass.
    Invoked in Sect. 3.3 to interpret the absence of breaking in pure-gauge and heavy-mass QCD as confirmation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hints for string breaking in QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOGWBV5C

@misc{pith2026260707143,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hints for string breaking in QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOGWBV5C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07143}
}
abstract

We present results for the chromo-electric field generated by a static quark-antiquark pair at nearly zero temperature in lattice QCD with 2+1 dynamical staggered fermions at physical quark masses. We investigate the evolution of the flux-tube structure as the distance between the static color charges increases. We find hints that string breaking occurs at a distance in the range $0.963 \; \text{fm} \; \lesssim \; d^* \lesssim \; 1.156 \; \text{fm}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07143 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The flux-tube operator with the Schwinger line attached to the quark time line (left) or to the antiquark time line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of smearing. We consider here the case of QCD (2+1) HISQ flavors, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. A sample of the Ex, Ey, Ez fields obtained from the “quark correlator” (Schwinger line attached to the quark time line in the Wilson loop) and the “antiquark correlator” (Schwinger line attached to the antiquark time line in the Wilson loop). The data refer to the case of QCD (2+1) HISQ flavors, 484 lattice, β = 6.880, with distance d = 10a ≃ 0.963 fm between the quark and the antiquark, and 50 HYP3d smearing steps.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The quantity q ENP x,q (xl ,xt = 0)E NP x,q¯ (xl ,xt = 0) in the case of QCD (2+1) HISQ flavors, 484 lattice, β = 6.880, d = 10a ≃ 0.963 fm. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The full 3D profile of the magnetic current and the longitudinal nonperturbative electric field for QCD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The nonperturbative electric field at xt = 0 along the flux tube for d = 10a ≃ 0.963 fm. from the quark connected correlator, while for d 2 ≤ xl ≤ d they come from the antiquark connected correlator. Note that at the middle point the two different estimates of the nonp…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Transverse distribution of the magnetic current and nonperturbative electric field near the color sources and at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Transverse distribution of the electric fields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The nonperturbative electric field at xt = 0 along the flux tube for d = 12a ≃ 1.156 fm. ing. Indeed, looking at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The perturbative longitudinal electric field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Transverse distribution of the magnetic current and nonperturbative electric field near the color sources and at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Transverse distribution of the electric fields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: (upper panel) The nonperturbative longitudinal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    The quark-mass dependence of the potential energy between static colour sources in the QCD vacuum with light and strange quarks

    J. Bulava, F. Knechtli, V . Koch, C. Morningstar, M. Pear- don, Phys. Lett. B854, 138754 (2024),2403.00754

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    50 Years of Quantum Chromodynamics

    F. Gross et al., Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1125 (2023), 2212.11107

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    Fukugita, T

    M. Fukugita, T. Niuya, Phys. Lett.B132, 374 (1983)

    work page 1983

  4. [3]

    Kiskis, K

    J.E. Kiskis, K. Sparks, Phys. Rev.D30, 1326 (1984)

    work page 1984

  5. [4]

    Flower, S.W

    J.W. Flower, S.W. Otto, Phys. Lett.B160, 128 (1985)

    work page 1985

  6. [5]

    Wosiek, R.W

    J. Wosiek, R.W. Haymaker, Phys. Rev.D36, 3297 (1987)

    work page 1987

  7. [6]

    Di Giacomo, M

    A. Di Giacomo, M. Maggiore, S. Olejnik, Phys. Lett. B236, 199 (1990)

    work page 1990

  8. [7]

    Di Giacomo, M

    A. Di Giacomo, M. Maggiore, S. Olejnik, Nucl. Phys. B347, 441 (1990)

    work page 1990

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Singh, D.A

    V . Singh, D.A. Browne, R.W. Haymaker, Phys. Lett. B306, 115 (1993),hep-lat/9301004

    1993 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Matsubara, S

    Y . Matsubara, S. Ejiri, T. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 34, 176 (1994),hep-lat/9311061

    1994 arXiv

  3. [10]

    P. Cea, L. Cosmai, Nuovo Cim.A107, 541 (1994), hep-lat/9210030

    1994 arXiv

  4. [11]

    P. Cea, L. Cosmai, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.34, 219 (1994),hep-lat/9311023

    1994 arXiv

  5. [12]

    P. Cea, L. Cosmai, Phys. Lett.B349, 343 (1995), hep-lat/9404017

    1995 arXiv

  6. [13]

    P. Cea, L. Cosmai, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.42, 225 (1995),hep-lat/9411048

    1995 arXiv

  7. [14]

    P. Cea, L. Cosmai, Phys. Rev.D52, 5152 (1995), hep-lat/9504008

    1995 arXiv

  8. [15]

    G.S. Bali, K. Schilling, C. Schlichter, Phys. Rev.D51, 5165 (1995),hep-lat/9409005

    1995 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Haymaker, T

    R.W. Haymaker, T. Matsuki, Phys. Rev.D75, 014501 (2007),hep-lat/0505019

    2007 arXiv

  10. [17]

    D’Alessandro, M

    A. D’Alessandro, M. D’Elia, L. Tagliacozzo, Nucl.Phys. B774, 168 (2007),hep-lat/0607014

    2007 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Cardaci, P

    M.S. Cardaci, P. Cea, L. Cosmai, R. Falcone, A. Papa, Phys. Rev.D83, 014502 (2011),1011.5803

    2011 arXiv

  12. [19]

    P. Cea, L. Cosmai, A. Papa, Phys. Rev.D86, 054501 (2012),1208.1362

    2012 arXiv

  13. [20]

    P. Cea, L. Cosmai, F. Cuteri, A. Papa, PoSLAT- TICE2013, 468 (2013),1310.8423

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    P. Cea, L. Cosmai, F. Cuteri, A. Papa, Phys. Rev.D89, 094505 (2014),1404.1172

    2014 arXiv

  15. [22]

    P. Cea, L. Cosmai, F. Cuteri, A. Papa, PoSLAT- TICE2014, 350 (2014),1410.4394

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Cardoso, M

    N. Cardoso, M. Cardoso, P. Bicudo, Phys. Rev.D88, 054504 (2013),1302.3633

    2013 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Caselle, M

    M. Caselle, M. Panero, R. Pellegrini, D. Vadacchino, JHEP01, 105 (2015),1406.5127

    2015 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Bicudo, N

    P. Bicudo, N. Cardoso, M. Cardoso (2017),1702.03454

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bicudo, N

    P. Bicudo, N. Cardoso, M. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D98, 114507 (2018),1808.08815

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Baker, P

    M. Baker, P. Cea, V . Chelnokov, L. Cosmai, F. Cuteri, A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J.C79, 478 (2019),1810.07133

    2019 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Baker, P

    M. Baker, P. Cea, V . Chelnokov, L. Cosmai, F. Cuteri, A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 514 (2020),1912.04739 16

    2020 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Baker, V

    M. Baker, V . Chelnokov, L. Cosmai, F. Cuteri, A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 937 (2022),2207.08797

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Baker, V

    M. Baker, V . Chelnokov, L. Cosmai, F. Cuteri, A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 150 (2024),2310.04298

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Baker, P

    M. Baker, P. Cea, V . Chelnokov, L. Cosmai, A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 29 (2025),2409.20168

    2025 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Baker, P

    M. Baker, P. Cea, V . Chelnokov, L. Cosmai, A. Papa, PoSLA TTICE2024, 390 (2025),2411.01886

    2025 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Baker, P

    M. Baker, P. Cea, V . Chelnokov, L. Cosmai, A. Papa, J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol.5, 100280 (2026), 2512.05804

    2026

  27. [34]

    Baker, P

    M. Baker, P. Cea, V . Chelnokov, L. Cosmai, A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 277 (2026),2510.02177

    2026

  28. [35]

    Cea, Universe2024, 10, 111 (2024),2311.14791

    P. Cea, Universe2024, 10, 111 (2024),2311.14791

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Laermann, C.E

    E. Laermann, C.E. DeTar, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.73, 447 (1999), hep-lat/9809105

    1999 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Kratochvila, P

    S. Kratochvila, P. de Forcrand, Nucl. Phys. B671, 103 (2003),hep-lat/0306011

    2003 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Drummond, Phys

    I.T. Drummond, Phys. Lett. B434, 92 (1998), hep-lat/9805012

    1998 arXiv

  32. [39]

    G.S. Bali, H. Neff, T. Duessel, T. Lippert, K. Schilling (SESAM), Phys. Rev.D71, 114513 (2005), hep-lat/0505012

    2005 arXiv

  33. [40]

    V . Koch, J. Bulava, B. Hörz, F. Knechtli, G. Moir, C. Morningstar, M. Peardon, PoSLATTICE2018, 053 (2018),1811.09289

    2018 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Bulava, B

    J. Bulava, B. Hörz, F. Knechtli, V . Koch, G. Moir, C. Morningstar, M. Peardon, Phys. Lett. B793, 493 (2019),1902.04006

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    M. John, K. Pareek, P. Tirler, T. Gollerthan, M. Meth, L. Gerster, P. Zoller, D. Gonzalez-Cuadra, T.V . Zache, M. Ringbauer,Non-Abelian String-Breaking Dynamics on a Qudit Quantum Computer(2026),2605.05841

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gonzalez-Cuadra, M

    D. Gonzalez-Cuadra, M. Hamdan, T.V . Zache, B. Braver- man, M. Kornjaca, A. Lukin, S.H. Cantu, F. Liu, S.T. Wang, A. Keesling et al., Nature642, 321 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    A. De, A. Lerose, D. Luo, F.M. Surace, A. Schuckert, E.R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, W. Morong, K.S. Collins, Z. Davoudi et al.,Observation of string-breaking dy- namics in a quantum simulator(2024),2410.13815

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ciavarella, Physical Review D111, 054501 (2025), 2411.05915

    A.N. Ciavarella, Physical Review D111, 054501 (2025), 2411.05915

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Magnifico, M

    G. Magnifico, M. Dalmonte, P. Facchi, S. Pascazio, F.V . Pepe, E. Ercolessi, Quantum4, 281 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Calajò, G

    G. Calajò, G. Magnifico, C. Edmunds, M. Ringbauer, S. Montangero, P. Silvi, PRX Quantum5, 040309 (2024), 2402.07987

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Follana et al

    E. Follana et al. (HPQCD Collaboration, UKQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev.D75, 054502 (2007), hep-lat/0610092

    2007 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (MILC), Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1349 (2010),0903.3598

    2010 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (MILC), Phys. Rev.D82, 074501 (2010),1004.0342

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev.D85, 054503 (2012), 1111.1710

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (MILC), PoSLATTICE2010, 074 (2010),1012.0868

    2010 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D95, 054504 (2017), 1701.04325

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Necco, R

    S. Necco, R. Sommer, Nucl. Phys.B622, 328 (2002), hep-lat/0108008

    2002 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Hasenfratz, F

    A. Hasenfratz, F. Knechtli, Phys. Rev.D64, 034504 (2001),hep-lat/0103029

    2001 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Schwinger, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.93, 615 (1954)

    1954

  50. [58]

    Schwinger, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  51. [59]

    Brezin, C

    E. Brezin, C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. D2, 1191 (1970)

    1970

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.