Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

The paper claims that residual gauge-fixing imprecision in ξ-gauge lattice QCD can be removed by an empirical precision extrapolation, reproducing RI/MOM renormalization constants for scalar and tensor quark bilinears to 0.2–0.3% accuracy u

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 ↗

An empirical precision-extrapolation method reproduces the ξ-dependent RI/MOM renormalization constants of quark bilinear operators on the lattice to 0.2-0.3% for ξ up to 1.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A pragmatic, honest methods paper; the ξ-gauge extrapolation is plausible and the external 3-loop cross-check is real, but the empirical law's ξ>0 validity and the single-spacing test leave room for doubt. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.09367 v2 pith:LGZNQ7JO submitted 2025-09-11 hep-lat hep-ph

Toward precise $\xi$ gauge fixing for the lattice QCD

Li-Jun Zhou , Dian-Jun Zhao , Wei-jie Fu , Chun-Jiang Shi , Ji-Hao Wang , Yi-Bo Yang This is my paper
classification hep-lat hep-ph PACS 12.38.Gc11.15.Ha
keywords lattice QCDgauge fixingξ gaugeRI/MOM renormalizationquark bilinear operatorsprecision extrapolationLandau gaugenonperturbative 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

Lattice QCD calculations of off-shell quantities have been largely confined to the Landau gauge because general ξ-gauge fixing converges slowly, especially at larger ξ. This paper tries to remove that bottleneck by extrapolating away the gauge-fixing residual rather than removing it by brute force. It establishes that the empirical law X(θ) = X(0)e^{-cθ^n}, already known for nonlocal operators in Landau gauge, also describes local quark bilinear renormalization constants as a function of gauge-fixing precision θ. Applying this precision extrapolation to ξ-gauge data, with a careful definition of the effective ξ through the bare gauge coupling, reproduces the ξ-dependence of RI/MOM renormalization constants for scalar and tensor currents to 0.2–0.3% up to ξ ~ 1 when compared with three-loop perturbation theory. If this holds, it makes systematic non-Landau lattice QCD studies of propagators and vertices practical.

Core claim

The central claim is that the empirical formula X(θ) = X(0)e^{-cθ^n}, where θ is the volume-averaged squared residual of the discretized gauge-fixing condition, governs the gauge-fixing-precision dependence of local quark bilinear operators in both Landau and general covariant gauges. Using this formula, lattice data computed at imperfect gauge-fixing precisions can be extrapolated to θ→0, and when the bare gauge coupling is defined appropriately (the 'u0-approximation' definition that sets the effective ξ), the resulting ξ-dependent RI/MOM renormalization constants for scalar and tensor currents agree with three-loop perturbative predictions within 0.2% for ξ up to ~1 after removing O(a²μ²)

What carries the argument

The central object is the empirical precision-extrapolation law X(θ) = X(0)e^{-cθ^n}, with X any gauge-dependent lattice quantity and θ the gauge-fixing precision criterion. The paper couples this law with a specific definition of the bare gauge coupling g₀ (the 'u₀-only' definition) that determines the effective gauge parameter ξ through ξ = ξ̃/g₀², and with a polynomial extrapolation in a²μ² to remove discretization errors. Together these pieces allow imperfectly ξ-gauge-fixed data to be mapped to the θ→0 limit and compared with perturbative predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the empirical formula X(θ) = X(0)e^{-cθ^n}, measured over a limited range of attainable gauge-fixing residuals, continues to hold as θ→0 for every operator, momentum, lattice spacing, fermion discretization, and ξ value considered; if the fitting form or fitted parameters are biased by the restricted θ window, the claimed 0.2% agreement collapses.

What would settle it

Compute Z_S/Z_V and Z_T/Z_V at ξ = 1.0 on a lattice with a ≈ 0.03 fm using a gauge-fixing algorithm that reaches θ_min ≈ 10⁻⁶ rather than ~10⁻⁴·⁵, and compare the precision-extrapolated values with the three-loop perturbative prediction; a deviation larger than 0.3%, or a fitted exponent n that changes by more than ~0.1 when the θ window is varied, would falsify the extrapolation law as a description of the θ→0 limit.

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

If this is right

  • ξ-dependent quark and gluon propagators and interaction vertices become accessible on the lattice with controlled gauge-fixing systematics, enabling quantitative comparison with functional QCD approaches in non-Landau gauges.
  • The fitted precision-extrapolation parameters provide a practical recipe for propagating gauge-fixing uncertainty into any gauge-dependent lattice observable, not just renormalization constants.
  • The effective-ξ prescription absorbs most of the O(a²μ²) discretization effect, and the paper argues improved gauge-fixing conditions could suppress it further.
  • For infrared studies near μ ≤ 1 GeV, where imperfect gauge fixing produces larger relative deviations, the extrapolation is necessary for reliable results.
  • The method breaks down for ξ ≳ 1.2 because the minimal attainable θ grows rapidly with ξ, limiting the number of usable precision points.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same empirical law holds for other gauge-dependent Green's functions, it could become a general calibration tool for lattice quantities sensitive to gauge-fixing residuals, beyond the quark bilinear operators tested here.
  • The 0.2% validation is performed at finite lattice spacing after a model-based a²μ² extrapolation; a true continuum extrapolation using several lattice spacings would test whether the residual disagreement is purely discretization.
  • The fitted parameter c differs measurably between clover and overlap fermions at the same ensemble, suggesting the law is universal in form but not in the values of c and n — so each new operator/discretization needs its own calibration before extrapolation can be trusted.
  • A direct test would be to compare extrapolated values at moderate ξ with values obtained using a dramatically more precise gauge-fixing algorithm; agreement would place the method on much firmer footing.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an empirical 'precision extrapolation' method for lattice gauge fixing. Building on Ref. [31]'s observation that gauge-dependent quantities follow X(θ)=X(0)e^{-cθ^n} in Landau gauge, it fits this form to RI/MOM renormalization constants of local quark bilinear operators, studies the dependence of c and n on operator, momentum, lattice spacing, and fermion discretization, and then applies the same form in ξ gauge, where the attainable θ is limited (θ_min ~ 10^{-7+2.5ξ}). The effective ξ is defined through a choice of bare gauge coupling g0. The method is validated by comparing the extrapolated ξ-dependent Z_S and Z_T with 3-loop perturbative results on a single lattice ensemble (a06m310); the extrapolated c0 values are consistent with 1 within 0.3% statistical uncertainty. The paper concludes that lattice calculations of Z_RI_{S,T} up to ξ~1 achieve 0.2% agreement with 3-loop perturbative results, making non-Landau lattice QCD calculations practical for off-shell quantities.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a practical route to ξ-gauge lattice calculations of off-shell quantities that have so far been restricted to Landau gauge. The strength of the paper is that the proposed method is concrete, the fitting steps are clearly specified, and the comparison to 3-loop perturbation theory provides an external benchmark. The final c0≈1 is a fitted outcome rather than an input, so the central claim has some independent content. However, the validation is performed at a single lattice spacing, the empirical form (Eq. (7)) is assumed rather than verified for ξ>0 in the limited θ range, and the definition of the effective ξ is partly selected by agreement with the benchmark. These issues mean that the 0.2% claim is not yet a fully established systematic uncertainty, but the method is plausible and the required additional tests are well-defined. The paper is honest about several limitations (e.g., ξ≳1.2 reliability, need for continuum extrapolation), which strengthens its credibility.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III, Eq. (14) and Fig. 6] The ξ-gauge validation is performed at a single lattice spacing (a06m310, a=0.0566 fm). The c0 values are obtained by fitting a cubic polynomial in a²μ² to data from one lattice spacing; this is a model-dependent extrapolation, not a continuum limit. The paper itself acknowledges near Fig. 8 that 'a more rigorous comparison would require continuum extrapolation using lattice data at multiple spacing values.' Without a second lattice spacing, the quoted 0.2% agreement is a statement about the polynomial ansatz, not about the continuum limit. Please provide results at a second spacing (e.g., a09m310) or explicitly frame c0 as a discretization-model-dependent estimate rather than the continuum value.
  2. [§II.A, Eq. (7) and §III] The exponential form X(θ)=X(0)e^{-cθ^n} is assumed to hold for ξ>0 over the attainable θ range. At ξ=1, only θ down to ~10^-4.5 is available (Table III). With |c|≈0.5 and n≈0.5, the extrapolation shift at the lowest θ is e^{-0.5·(10^-4.5)^0.5} ≈ 3×10^-3, which is the same order as the claimed 0.2% precision. A modest deviation from the exponential form in this θ window would bias X(0) at the claimed level. Since Landau-gauge data are available down to θ=10^-14, a decisive self-consistency test is to truncate the Landau data to the ξ=1 θ sequence, fit Eq. (7), and compare with the known θ→0 Landau result. If this reproduces the exact result within 0.1%, the extrapolation is validated; if not, the ξ=1 agreement with perturbation theory may be accidental.
  3. [§III, Fig. 3 and Table IV] The bare gauge coupling g0 is selected partly by agreement with the benchmark: g0(c) is adopted because R_T is closer to 1 in Fig. 3. This is a mild fitting-to-target in the definition of the effective ξ. The comparison in Figs. 6 and 8 is therefore not fully blind. Please quantify how c0 in Table IV changes when g0(c) is replaced by g0(a) or g0(b), or define g0 from an independent criterion (e.g., action/tadpole) before comparing with perturbation theory. This would separate the test of the precision-extrapolation method from the tuning of the effective ξ.
  4. [§II.B.2, Table II and Summary] The paper claims 'universality' of the empirical law across fermion discretizations, but Table II shows c(Z_T)=-0.7(1) for clover versus -0.47(2) for overlap on the same ensemble, and n=0.32(6) for Z_T at a12m310. The functional form may be universal, but the parameters c and n clearly depend on discretization and lattice spacing. This does not invalidate the method, but the Summary's statement 'demonstrate universality across operators, RI/MOM scales, and fermion discretizations' is too strong and should be rephrased to say that the functional form is universal, with parameters that depend on the operator, discretization, and scale.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II.A, Eq. (1)] There are several notational typos in the rendered equations: '2ig0' in Eq. (1) has the imaginary unit in an unusual position, and 'Λ(x)a 2' appears twice. Please check the notation for the dimensionless Λ̃ and the relation ξ = (1/g0²)ξ̃.
  2. [§III, Table III and Fig. 4] For ξ=1 only 6 θ values are used to fit the three parameters X(0), c, and n in Eq. (7). Please report the number of degrees of freedom and χ²/d.o.f. for these fits. With 6 points and 3 parameters, the goodness of fit is not very constraining, and this should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Abstract, §III, and §IV] The abstract claims 0.2% agreement, §III states 'no more than 0.3% statistical uncertainty,' and the Summary again says 0.2%. These numbers should be reconciled, and the distinction between statistical uncertainty and systematic uncertainty (from the polynomial ansatz and the empirical form) should be made explicit.
  4. [§II.B.1, Fig. 2] The caption says both c and n 'lie on the same a²p² curve' and are 'insensitive to the lattice spacing a,' but later text and Table II show that |c| increases at smaller lattice spacing for clover fermions. Clarify whether Fig. 2 shows overlap-fermion data only and how Table II is consistent with the 'insensitive to lattice spacing' statement.
  5. [§III, Eq. (16)] The extraction of f0 uses Z_MS,latt(2 GeV) as a fit parameter. Please state the resulting value and its uncertainty, since it enters the normalization of Fig. 8 and could affect the apparent agreement.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Mild circularity: effective ξ is chosen using the validation ratio R_T, so part of the claimed 0.2% agreement is by selection; the external perturbative benchmark and independent fits keep the central claim substantive.

specific steps
  1. other [Section III, Fig. 3 and following paragraph (Eq. 13)]
    "We can see that the a 2p2 extrapolated value using either g (a) 0 or g (c) 0 , are closer to 1 than that using g (b) 0 and then can be considered as a good choice of g 0. Since g (c) 0 can be determined directly from gauge configurations without prior knowledge of the discretized action, we adopt it to define the effective ξ in the following analysis."

    The effective ξ is defined as ξ = (g0^a/g0)^2 ξ̃, and the choice among the three g0 definitions is made by looking at which one makes R_T in Eq. (13) closest to 1 — i.e., closest to the perturbative prediction. The same R_T is later used as the validation metric for the 0.2% agreement. Thus the gauge-coupling definition is selected using the target it is then claimed to reproduce. This is a discrete, transparent model selection rather than a continuous fit, and the chosen g_c has an independent motivation, but it is a mild fitting-to-target that partially builds the agreement into the setup.

full rationale

The central extrapolation chain is mostly self-contained. Equation (7) is an empirical ansatz imported from Ref. [31] (with overlapping authors), but the paper does not merely assume it: it re-fits c and n on newly computed Landau-gauge data for local operators (Fig. 2 and Table II), so the functional form is tested rather than taken on faith. The ξ-dependence benchmark is the external 3-loop perturbative calculation of Gracey [38], and the a^2 μ^2 polynomial in Eq. (14) is an unconstrained fit whose intercept c0 is then compared with 1; the closeness of c0 to 1 is not forced by construction. The main circularity concern is the selection of the effective ξ: Fig. 3 is used to choose among g0 definitions by the closeness of R_T to 1, and the same R_T is later quoted as evidence of 0.2% agreement. This is a mild selection effect, not a full reduction: the choice is discrete, one common definition is used for all ξ, and the agreement extends to both S and T operators. The paper's own limitation that the method becomes unreliable for ξ ≳ 1.2 (Section IV) further shows the extrapolation is not trivially forced. Overall, the central claim retains independent content and the circularity is limited to the effective-ξ selection.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an empirical ansatz imported from an overlapping-author paper, a perturbative benchmark, the standard lattice gauge-fixing discretization, and an assumed polynomial form for discretization effects. No new physical entities are introduced. The main fitted objects are the power-law coefficients c,n and the a^2 μ^2 polynomial coefficients c_i, plus the choice of g0 that defines effective ξ.

free parameters (4)
  • c(X) and n(X) in Eq. (7) = e.g., c(Z_T)=-0.47(2), n=0.51(2) on a06m310
    Empirical power-law coefficients; fitted at each operator, momentum, lattice spacing, and ξ from data at several θ values.
  • c0,X(ξ), c1,X(ξ), c2,X(ξ), c3,X(ξ) in Eq. (14) = Table IV, e.g., c0=1.0034(33) for ZS at ξ=0.957
    Polynomial coefficients fitted to remove a^2 μ^2 dependence; c0 is the extrapolated quantity compared to 1.
  • bare gauge coupling g0 definition = g0^(c) = sqrt(-16π ln u0 / 3.0684) u0
    Choice of g0 sets effective ξ; selected because it gives R_T closer to 1 in Fig. 3 (a target-informed choice; g0^(a) also works).
  • Z_MS,latt(2 GeV) and d_i in Eq. (16) = not quoted in text
    Fitted when constructing f0 discretization function; peripheral to central claim.
axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Empirical precision law X(θ)=X(0)e^{-c θ^n} (Eq. 7) holds for local quark bilinear operators and for ξ gauges over the attainable θ range.
    Taken from the authors' earlier Ref [31]; no derivation; the whole extrapolation breaks if this form is wrong.
  • domain assumption 3-loop perturbative ξ-dependent RI/MOM expressions from Gracey [38] describe the continuum limit of the lattice Z_RI(ξ,μ;a) once O(a^2 μ^2) effects are removed.
    Used in Eq. (13) as the benchmark; standard perturbative QCD, but the ξ used in the comparison is the effective ξ defined through g0.
  • domain assumption Lattice gauge-fixing condition Eq. (1) with random Λ fields faithfully implements continuum ξ gauge fixing, and g0 can be redefined without changing physics up to discretization effects.
    Standard lattice QCD framework; the g0 definition is exactly the ambiguity that the paper exploits.
  • ad hoc to paper Residual discretization error in R_X is a polynomial in a^2 μ^2 over a^2 p^2 in (2,20) (Eq. 14), so the c0 intercept is the continuum ratio.
    Fit ansatz; with one lattice spacing, this cannot be checked against a true continuum extrapolation.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward precise $\xi$ gauge fixing for the lattice QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGZNQ7JO

@misc{pith2026250909367,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward precise $\xi$ gauge fixing for the lattice QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGZNQ7JO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09367}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Lattice QCD provides a first-principles framework for solving Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). However, its application to off-shell partons has been largely restricted to the Landau gauge, as achieving high-precision $\xi$-gauge fixing on the lattice poses significant challenges. Motivated by a universal power-law dependence of off-shell parton matrix elements on gauge-fixing precision in the Landau gauge, we propose an empirical precision extrapolation method to approximate high-precision $\xi$-gauge fixing. By properly defining the bare gauge coupling and then the effective $\xi$, we validate our $\xi$-gauge fixing procedure by successfully reproducing the $\xi$-dependent RI/MOM renormalization constants for local quark bilinear operators at 0.3\% level, up to $\xi \sim 1$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09367 by Chun-Jiang Shi, Dian-Jun Zhao, Ji-Hao Wang, Li-Jun Zhou, Wei-jie Fu, Yi-Bo Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Gauge fixing criteria [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Gauge fixing precision parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Ratio of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Extrapolated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of renormalization constants under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

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

51 extracted references · 42 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Naive definition:g (a) 0 = p 6/β

  2. [2]

    Full tadpole improvement: Includingu 0 in both the action and also gauge link in the gauge fixing condition, and then Eq. (1) should be rewritten into Λ(x)a2 = X µ,η=± η   Uµ(x+η ˆµ 2 a) u0 − U † µ(x+η ˆµ 2 a) u0 2i p 6/β/u4 0   Traceless = X µ,η=± η " Uµ(x+η ˆµ 2 a)−U † µ(x+η ˆµ 2 a) 2i p 6/β/u0 # Traceless .(3) Thus it leads to a effective gauge cou...

  3. [3]

    For the MILC ensemble a06m310 ata=0.0566 fm with mπ=310 MeV and ˆβ= 5/3β= 6.72, three definitions yield:g (a) 0 = 1.2199, g (b) 0 = 1.3768, g (c) 0 = 1.2476, re- spectively

    Approximation fromu 0 only: Usingu 0 only in gauge fixing while approximatingα s viaα s ≃ −4lnu0 3.0684 [32] which avoids to defineg 0 from the action, and similar procedure gives:g (c) 0 = q − 16πlnu0 3.0684 u0. For the MILC ensemble a06m310 ata=0.0566 fm with mπ=310 MeV and ˆβ= 5/3β= 6.72, three definitions yield:g (a) 0 = 1.2199, g (b) 0 = 1.3768, g (c...

  4. [4]

    Renormalization Constants ofZ S,T on Various Momentum In this subsection, we focus on the RI/MOM renor- malization constants of the quark bilinear operatorsO which have the structure of: OΓ(x) = ¯ψ(x)Γψ(x),(8) where the interpolation gamma matrix Γ is selected as1, γµ orσ µν for scalar (S), vector(V) and tensor (T) cur- rents, respectively. With point sou...

  5. [5]

    Further Check with Valence Clover Volume Source Propagators For more accurate check on the deviation of impre- cise gauge fixing for different operators, we generate vol- ume source propagators with dimensionless momentum (5,5,0,0) (corresponds toµ≃3 GeV) and gauge fixing precisionsθ∈ 2.4×10 −11,2.5×10 −4 , using valence clover fermions on two ensembles, ...

  6. [6]

    Chang, Y.-X

    L. Chang, Y.-X. Liu, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 072001 (2011), arXiv:1009.3458 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    S.-x. Qin, L. Chang, H. Chen, Y.-x. Liu, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 172301 (2011), arXiv:1011.2876 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Bashir, L

    A. Bashir, L. Chang, I. C. Cloet, B. El-Bennich, Y.-X. Liu, C. D. Roberts, and P. C. Tandy, Commun. Theor. Phys.58, 79 (2012), arXiv:1201.3366 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  9. [9]

    C. S. Fischer, J. Luecker, and C. A. Welzbacher, Phys. Rev. D90, 034022 (2014), arXiv:1405.4762 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    F. Gao, J. Chen, Y.-X. Liu, S.-X. Qin, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D93, 094019 (2016), arXiv:1507.00875 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    A. C. Aguilaret al., Eur. Phys. J. A55, 190 (2019), arXiv:1907.08218 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Gao and J

    F. Gao and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Lett. B820, 136584 (2021), arXiv:2010.13705 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    C. D. Roberts, D. G. Richards, T. Horn, and L. Chang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103883 (2021), arXiv:2102.01765 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    P. J. Gunkel and C. S. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D104, 054022 (2021), arXiv:2106.08356 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Chang, Y.-B

    L. Chang, Y.-B. Liu, K. Raya, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, and Y.-B. Yang, Phys. Rev. D104, 094509 (2021), arXiv:2105.06596 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Mitter, J

    M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, Phys. Rev.D91, 054035 (2015), arXiv:1411.7978 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Braun, L

    J. Braun, L. Fister, J. M. Pawlowski, and F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev.D94, 034016 (2016), arXiv:1412.1045 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    A. K. Cyrol, L. Fister, M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, Phys. Rev.D94, 054005 (2016), arXiv:1605.01856 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    A. K. Cyrol, M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, Phys. Rev.D97, 054006 (2018), arXiv:1706.06326 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    W.-j. Fu, J. M. Pawlowski, and F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev. D101, 054032 (2020), arXiv:1909.02991 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    W.-j. Fu, C. Huang, J. M. Pawlowski, and Y.-y. Tan, SciPost Phys.14, 069 (2023), arXiv:2209.13120 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    W.-j. Fu, C. Huang, J. M. Pawlowski, and Y.-y. Tan, SciPost Phys.17, 148 (2024), arXiv:2401.07638 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Ihssen, J

    F. Ihssen, J. M. Pawlowski, F. R. Sattler, and N. Wink, (2024), arXiv:2408.08413 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    W.-j. Fu, C. Huang, J. M. Pawlowski, Y.-y. Tan, and L.-j. Zhou, (2025), arXiv:2502.14388 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Zhang, C

    D.-y. Zhang, C. Huang, and W.-j. Fu, (2025), arXiv:2502.15384 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Dupuis, L

    N. Dupuis, L. Canet, A. Eichhorn, W. Metzner, J. M. Pawlowski, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rept. 910, 1 (2021), arXiv:2006.04853 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Fu, Commun

    W.-j. Fu, Commun. Theor. Phys.74, 097304 (2022), arXiv:2205.00468 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    P. O. Bowman, U. M. Heller, D. B. Leinweber, M. B. Parappilly, A. G. Williams, and J.-b. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D71, 054507 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0501019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  29. [29]

    Boucaud, F

    P. Boucaud, F. De Soto, K. Raya, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Phys. Rev.D98, 114515 (2018), arXiv:1809.05776 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Zafeiropoulos, P

    S. Zafeiropoulos, P. Boucaud, F. De Soto, J. Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 162002 (2019), arXiv:1902.08148 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    A. C. Aguilar, F. De Soto, M. N. Ferreira, J. Papavassil- iou, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 154 (2020), arXiv:1912.12086 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Fujikawa, B

    K. Fujikawa, B. W. Lee, and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D6, 2923 (1972)

    1972

  33. [33]

    Giusti, Nucl

    L. Giusti, Nucl. Phys.B498, 331 (1997), arXiv:hep- lat/9605032 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 1997

  34. [34]

    Cucchieri, T

    A. Cucchieri, T. Mendes, and E. M. S. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 141602 (2009), arXiv:0907.4138 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    Bicudo, D

    P. Bicudo, D. Binosi, N. Cardoso, O. Oliveira, and P. J. Silva, Phys. Rev.D92, 114514 (2015), arXiv:1505.05897 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  36. [36]

    Zhang, Y.-K

    K. Zhang, Y.-K. Huo, X. Ji, A. Schaefer, C.-J. Shi, P. Sun, W. Wang, Y.-B. Yang, and J.-H. Zhang (Lattice Parton), Phys. Rev. D110, 074505 (2024), arXiv:2405.14097 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Orginos and D

    K. Orginos and D. Toussaint (MILC), Phys. Rev. D59, 014501 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9805009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  38. [38]

    Bazavovet al.(MILC), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  39. [39]

    Bazavovet al.(MILC), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Bazavovet al., Phys

    A. Bazavovet al., Phys. Rev. D98, 074512 (2018), arXiv:1712.09262 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    He, Y.-J

    F. He, Y.-J. Bi, T. Draper, K.-F. Liu, Z. Liu, and Y.- B. Yang (χQCD), Phys. Rev. D106, 114506 (2022), arXiv:2204.09246 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Chiu and S

    T.-W. Chiu and S. V. Zenkin, Phys. Rev.D59, 074501 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9806019 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  43. [43]

    J. A. Gracey, Nucl. Phys.B662, 247 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0304113 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2003

  44. [44]

    F. D. R. Bonnet, P. O. Bowman, D. B. Leinweber, A. G. Williams, and D. G. Richards, Austral. J. Phys.52, 939 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9905006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  45. [45]

    R. G. Edwards and B. Joo (SciDAC, LHPC, UKQCD), Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.140, 832 (2005), arXiv:hep- lat/0409003

    arXiv 2005

  46. [46]

    M. A. Clark, R. Babich, K. Barros, R. C. Brower, and C. Rebbi, Comput. Phys. Commun.181, 1517 (2010), arXiv:0911.3191 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  47. [47]

    Babich, M

    R. Babich, M. A. Clark, B. Joo, G. Shi, R. C. Brower, and S. Gottlieb, inProceeding, SC11(2011) arXiv:1109.2935 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  48. [48]

    M. A. Clark, B. Jo´ o, A. Strelchenko, M. Cheng, A. Gamb- hir, and R. Brower, (2016), arXiv:1612.07873 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  49. [49]

    Alexandru, C

    A. Alexandru, C. Pelissier, B. Gamari, and F. Lee, J. Comput. Phys.231, 1866 (2012), arXiv:1103.5103 [hep- lat]. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    Alexandru, M

    A. Alexandru, M. Lujan, C. Pelissier, B. Gamari, and F. X. Lee, inProceedings, SAAHPC’11(2011) pp. 123– 130, arXiv:1106.4964 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  51. [51]

    Y.-J. Bi, Y. Xiao, W.-Y. Guo, M. Gong, P. Sun, S. Xu, and Y.-B. Yang,Proceedings, Lattice 2019, PoSLA T- TICE2019, 286 (2020), arXiv:2001.05706 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.