Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Dense Quark-Gluon Plasma in strong magnetic fields

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives analytic expressions for the quark pressure and magnetic susceptibility of a dense quark-gluon plasma in a uniform magnetic field, and finds the plasma is strongly paramagnetic, with susceptibility rising rapidly with…

desk verdict A competent FCM extension to dense QGP in a magnetic field, giving analytic pressure and susceptibility, with honest but under-propagated error estimates; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00800 v2 pith:JSFMNNAL submitted 2019-08-02 hep-ph

R.A.Abramchuk , M.A.Andreichikov , Z.V Khaidukov , Yu.A.Simonov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.Mh25.75.-q
keywords quark-gluonplasmamagneticfieldsusceptibilityPolyakovloopDebyemassLandaulevelsbaryonchemicalpotentialcorrelatormethod
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

Above the deconfinement transition, at temperatures between about one and three times $T_c$ ($T_c\sim 0.16\,\mathrm{GeV}$), with baryon chemical potential up to $0.5\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and magnetic field strength $eB$ up to $0.5\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$, this paper claims that the quark pressure of the quark-gluon plasma can be written analytically. Starting from the Field Correlator Method, with the nonperturbative physics carried by the Polyakov loop and a Debye mass that grows linearly with temperature, it replaces quark transverse motion by Landau levels and obtains closed forms for the pressure along the field, Eq. (21), and for the magnetic susceptibility, Eq. (34). The susceptibility is claimed to grow rapidly with temperature and only slowly with baryon density, and the zero-density limit is claimed to agree with lattice data. The result matters because magnetized quark matter appears in non-central heavy-ion collisions and in neutron-star interiors.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the Polyakov loop $L(T)=\exp(-V_1(\infty,T)/(2T))$, which encodes color-electric deconfinement dynamics, and the Debye mass $m_D(T)$ from color-magnetic confinement, defined by $m_D=c_D\sqrt{\sigma_s(T)}$ with $\sigma_s\sim g^4 T^2$. The magnetic field enters through the replacement of transverse quark energy by Landau levels, Eqs. (15)-(16), and the summation over Landau levels converts the series over $n$ into the closed forms (21) and (34). The Macdonald functions $K_0,K_1,K_2$ carry the thermal sums, while the same nonperturbative inputs, $L$ and $m_D$, are taken from the zero-field, zero-density fit to lattice QGP pressure.

What would settle it

A lattice computation of the magnetic susceptibility at fixed nonzero baryon density, using the same zero-field values of the Polyakov loop and Debye mass as inputs, would settle the claim: if the analytically predicted rapid temperature growth and slow density growth disagree with the lattice by more than the estimated roughly 15% at $eB\sim0.5\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$, the independence assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in the temperature range $1<T/T_c<3$, the quark contribution to the pressure of quark-gluon plasma at baryon chemical potential $\mu_B<0.5\,\mathrm{GeV}$ in a uniform external magnetic field $eB<0.5\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ is given by Eq. (21): a sum over Matsubara modes of Bessel functions $K_0,K_1,K_2$, with the field entering only through Landau-quantized quark energies. Expanding this expression in powers of $eB$ yields a magnetic susceptibility, Eq. (34), proportional to a sum of $K_0(n\bar M/T)$ weighted by Polyakov-loop powers $L^n$ and $\cosh(\mu n/T)$. The resulting QGP is strongly paramagnetic: the pressure grows with the field, the susceptibility increases rapidly with temperature and slowly with density, and at zero density the results match lattice data.

Load-bearing premise

The nonperturbative inputs—the Polyakov loop and the Debye mass—are taken from the zero-field, zero-density lattice fit and assumed not to change with magnetic field or baryon density; if they do change, the predicted pressure shift and susceptibility are altered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At zero baryon density, Eq. (21) reproduces the previously known FCM pressure and agrees with lattice data, anchoring the new finite-density extension.
  • The magnetic susceptibility (34) is an analytic function of $T$, $\mu_B$, and the nonperturbative inputs, so it can be evaluated without approximate Landau-level partial sums.
  • The combination $\Delta=(\epsilon-3P_z+\mu n)/T^4$ reproduces the qualitative lattice features of Ref. [33], including the dependence of the peak position and width on $eB$.
  • The pressure computed is the longitudinal pressure $P_z$; the paper notes the anisotropic relation $P_x=P_y=P_z-\boldsymbol{M}\cdot\boldsymbol{B}$ and leaves its detailed study to future work.
  • The results support strong paramagnetism of QGP, in line with the lattice study cited as Ref. [29].

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same analytic susceptibility continues to match lattice data at finite density, it could be used to constrain the equation of state of magnetized neutron-star matter at finite isospin or strangeness chemical potentials.
  • The paper's main limitation is explicit: the Polyakov loop and Debye mass are assumed independent of $B$ and $\mu_B$; a lattice measurement of these quantities at $eB\sim0.5\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ as functions of both variables would show how far the formulas can be pushed.
  • Because the magnetic field enters only through Landau-level energy shifts, the same summation technique could be applied to other magnetized-plasma observables, such as quark-number susceptibilities or conductivities.
  • The anisotropic-pressure relation noted as a future topic has measurable consequences for flow patterns in non-central heavy-ion collisions if the magnetization is large enough.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an analytic Field Correlator Method (FCM) treatment of quark pressure and magnetic susceptibility in deconfined QCD at nonzero baryon density and in a uniform external magnetic field. Starting from the zero-field pressure formula, the authors introduce Landau quantization via Eqs. (15)-(16), sum over Landau levels to obtain Eq. (21), and expand it to obtain the magnetic susceptibility in Eq. (34). The numerical section tests the Landau-level summation against the integral form, studies the magnetic shift of the pressure, and compares the combination Delta of Eq. (38) qualitatively with lattice data. The central claims are that the quark pressure has a simple analytic form in a magnetic field and that the QGP is strongly paramagnetic, with the susceptibility increasing rapidly with temperature and slowly with density.

Significance. If correct, these are the first analytic nonperturbative expressions for dense QGP thermodynamics in a magnetic field, and they give a useful model benchmark for lattice and heavy-ion phenomenology. The manuscript has genuine strengths: the Landau-level summation in Eq. (21) is checked numerically against the partial sum of Eq. (20); the B-to-0 limit of the integral form reproduces the zero-field pressure; and the authors are explicit about their input assumptions and error budget. At the same time, the predictive content comes entirely from zero-field Polyakov-loop and Debye-mass inputs, so the magnetic-field dependence and the susceptibility are model predictions that require a sensitivity analysis before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV, Eq. (34)] The derivation of Eq. (34) from Eq. (21) is not shown. The susceptibility is the central new result, and a reader cannot verify the coefficient Nc/(3 pi^2), the sign, or the cancellation of the 1/(eB) and finite terms that must occur in the quadratic expansion. Please display the expansion explicitly, or provide it in an appendix, including the intermediate terms that cancel.
  2. [VI and Eq. (34)] The assumption that L and m_D are independent of B and mu is load-bearing for the quantitative claim that the susceptibility increases rapidly with temperature. The paper cites 7%, 5%, and 2% lattice bounds and adds them linearly, but Eq. (34) contains L^n inside a thermal sum, so a relative uncertainty in L can be amplified near T_c. A sensitivity scan or an error propagation through Eq. (34) is needed; without it the statement that chi_q rises rapidly with T is not yet robust.
  3. [II and III, Eqs. (28) and (21)] The B-to-0 limit of Eq. (27) is a useful internal consistency check, but it is not an independent verification of the magnetic-field dependence, because the parameters V1(infinity,T) and m_D(T) are tuned to reproduce the zero-field lattice pressure. The paper should state explicitly that the predictive content resides in the B-dependent terms, and should not present the B-to-0 agreement as validation of the magnetic-field effects.
minor comments (5)
  1. [V, Fig. 1] The text states that the difference between Eq. (20) and Eq. (21) is negligible, but Fig. 1 would be much more informative with a relative-difference panel or axis; as printed it is difficult to quantify the accuracy of the Landau-level summation.
  2. [V and Eq. (8)] Equation (8) quotes c_D ~ 2 from Ref. [23], while the numerical analysis sets c_D = 1.6; please state the reason for this difference or adjust the notation.
  3. [VI] The phrase 'Polyakov loops interaction' should read 'Polyakov loop interactions', and the text around Eq. (38) should clarify that Delta is the trace anomaly only if the pressure is treated as isotropic, as the authors themselves note.
  4. [References] Reference [36] is incomplete, with no article number or journal volume; please provide the full citation.
  5. [IV, Eq. (30)] The definition of the magnetic susceptibility in Eq. (30) contains the conventional factor 1/2; it would be helpful to state explicitly that the same definition is used in the comparison with lattice values, to avoid a factor-of-two ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnetic-field shift and susceptibility follow analytically from Landau quantization with fixed zero-field inputs, and the zero-field baseline is a disclosed consistency fit, not a circular prediction.

full rationale

The central new results, the magnetic pressure shift in Eq. (21) and the susceptibility in Eq. (34), are obtained by an analytic derivation: the uniform magnetic field enters only through the Landau-level replacement in Eqs. (15)-(16), and the susceptibility is then extracted as the coefficient of (eB)^2 from that pressure expression. Nothing that is predicted (the B-dependence or the susceptibility) is used to define the inputs L(T), V1(T), or m_D(T). The only numerical quantities adjusted to data are the nonperturbative inputs, which the paper explicitly says 'were adjusted in such a way that QGP pressure (9) at zero m.f. and baryon density matches the lattice data'. Thus the zero-field, zero-density agreement is a disclosed consistency check, not an independent prediction, and it is not load-bearing for the new B-dependent claims. The heavy reliance on prior FCM work by the same authors is a normal continuation of a research program, but the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or hide an ansatz behind a citation; it states the model inputs and their approximation explicitly, including the assumed independence L(T,mu_B,B)~L(T), m_D(T,B)~m_D(T), and m_D(T,mu)~m_D(T), with external lattice error estimates cited. External lattice comparisons for the magnetic shift and the combination Delta in Figs. 2-3 provide an independent, if qualitative, benchmark. Therefore the derivation is not circular; the model-dependence and the fitted baseline are caveats about accuracy and validity, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on the FCM factorization assumptions and on the modeling choice that a magnetic field changes only the quark energy spectrum via Landau levels, not the Polyakov loop or Debye mass. No new entities are introduced. The two tuned inputs, c_D and V1, are calibrated to zero-field lattice data, so they carry prior information rather than independent verification.

free parameters (2)
  • c_D = 1.6
    Coefficient in m_D = c_D sqrt(sigma_s(T)); varied to reproduce the zero-field, zero-density QGP pressure from lattice data, described as a free parameter in Section V.
  • V1(infinity, T) = Not tabulated in this paper; taken from [26].
    Single-quark potential defining the Polyakov loop L = exp(-V1/(2T)); adjusted so that the zero-field, zero-density pressure matches lattice data, Section V.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The quark Green's function factorizes into a Polyakov loop part and a 3d spatial part S3(s) governed by color-magnetic confinement, as in Eq. (6).
    Central FCM assumption of statistical independence of color-electric and color-magnetic stochastic fields; invoked at Eq. (6) and used throughout.
  • domain assumption The spatial quark Green's function has the form S3(s) = exp(-m_D^2 s/4) / (4*pi*s)^(3/2), with m_D^2 = c_D^2 sigma_s(T), Eq. (8).
    Concrete CMC model for the Debye mass from prior FCM papers; this is the quantity whose B and mu independence is later assumed.
  • domain assumption In a uniform magnetic field, quark energy becomes the Landau spectrum and the transverse phase space is replaced by |e_q B|/(2*pi) with a sum over Landau levels, Eqs. (15)-(16).
    Standard relativistic charged-particle quantization; importing it into the FCM pressure formula is the main new modeling step.
  • domain assumption The Polyakov loop and Debye mass are independent of baryon density and magnetic field within the studied range.
    Stated in Section VI with lattice-based error estimates of 7%, 5%, and 2%; this is the weakest structural assumption for the B-dependent predictions.
  • domain assumption The gluon contribution to the magnetic susceptibility is negligible, suppressed by at least alpha_s^2, Eq. (31).
    Used to replace total susceptibility by quark susceptibility; a perturbative suppression estimate, not a nonperturbative proof.
  • standard math The integral representation K0(z) = (1/2) integral dx/x exp(-(1/x + z^2 x/4)) holds.
    Standard Macdonald function identity used to convert the susceptibility series to integral form in Eq. (35).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dense Quark-Gluon Plasma in strong magnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JSFMNNAL

@misc{pith2026190800800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dense Quark-Gluon Plasma in strong magnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JSFMNNAL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00800}
}
abstract

A non-perturbative (np) method of Field Correlators (FCM) was applied to study QCD at temperatures above the deconfinement transition ($1<T/T_c<3,~T_c\sim0.16~GeV$) and nonzero baryon densities (baryon chemical potential $\mu_B<0.5~GeV$) in an external uniform magnetic field ($eB<0.5~GeV^2$). Within FCM, the np high-temperature dynamics is embodied in the Polyakov loop and in the Debye mass due to the Color-Magnetic Confinement. Analytic expressions for quark pressure and magnetic susceptibility were obtained. The expressions were represented as series and in integral form. Magnetic susceptibility was found to increase rapidly with temperature and slowly with density. The results at the zero density limit are in agreement with lattice data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00800 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fig.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The pressure P/T4 from (20), the dash-dotted line, compared with the integral form, Eq. (21) the dashed line. With the expressions for gluon pressure from [37] and for quark pressure (21), we computed a special combination ∆ for dense QGP in an external m.f. ∆ =  − 3Pz + µn T4 . (38) If pressure is considered as isotropic, ∆ is the trace anomaly. The resulting curves in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The magnetic shift ∆P = P(eB, µ) − P(eB = 0, µ) for dense QGP with u, d, s quark flavors. For a given m.f., each trajectory demonstrates triple splitting for different µB. the Solid lines are for µB = 0, the dash-dotted — for µB = 0.2 GeV , and the dashed — for µB = 0.4 GeV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The combination ∆ for QGP with u, d, s quark flavors as a function of T at various values of µB[GeV ] and eB[GeV 2 ]. Polyakov loop dependence on the chemical potential is to be accounted for. The Polyakov loops interaction and the perturbative corrections were also ne…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (the QGP is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium)

    B =const method — the variation of energy in a constant external m.f. (the QGP is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium)

    work page

  2. [2]

    anisotropic

    Φ =const method, in which the total magnetic fluxΦ through the lattice is fixed. With the first method, pressure is isotropic, while with the second method Px =Py =Pz−M·B, (39) where M =− 1 V ∂F ∂B is the QGP magnetization. The “anisotropic” method is more subtle for real physical systems. It requires a careful analysis of the energy exchange between longitu...

    work page

  3. [3]

    D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A803, 227 (2008); V. Skokov, A. Y. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 5925 (2009), 0907.1396

    arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Vachaspati, Phys

    T. Vachaspati, Phys. Lett. B265, 258 (1991)

    1991

  5. [5]

    Enqvist and P

    K. Enqvist and P. Olesen, Phys. Lett. B319, 178 (1993), hep-ph/9308270

    arXiv 1993

  6. [6]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys.Rev.C85, 044907 (2012), 1201.5108

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Voronyuk, V

    V. Voronyuk, V. Toneev, W. Cassing, E. Bratkovskaya, V. Konchakovski, et al., Phys. Rev. C83, 054911 (2011), 1103.4239

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Bzdak and V

    A. Bzdak and V. Skokov, Phys.Lett.B710, 171 (2012), 1111.1949

    arXiv 2012

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    T. D. Cohen, D. A. McGady, and E. S. Werbos, Phys. Rev. C76, 055201 (2007), 0706.3208. J. O. Andersen, Phys. Rev.D 86, 025020 (2012), arXiv:1202.2051. J. O. Andersen, JHEP 1210, 005 (2012), arXiv:1205.6978. S. P. Klevansky and R. H. Lemmer, Phys.Rev. D39, 3478 (1989). D. P. Me...

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    R. C. Duncan and C. Thompson, Astrophys. J.392, L9 (1992). 11

    1992

  3. [11]

    D. E. Kharzeev, K. Landsteiner, A. Schmitt, and H. -U. Yee,Lect. Notes Phys.871, 1 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    J.F.Fuiri III, L.G.Yaffe, JHEP1507, 116 (2015); R.Oritelli, R.Rougemont, S.I.Finazzo, and J.Noronha, Phys. Rev. D94, 125019 (2016)

    2015

  5. [13]

    S. P. Klevansky and R. H. Lemmer, Phys.Rev. D39, 3478 (1989). D. P. Menezes, M. Benghi Pinto, S. S. Avancini, and C. Providencia, Phys. Rev. C80, 065805 (2009), 0907.2607. R. Gatto and M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D83, 034016 (2011), 1012.1291. R. Gatto and M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. ...

    1989 arXiv

  6. [14]

    the worst

    for a recent review). The QCD thermodynamics within FCM was initially developed in [15] with incorporation of Polyakov loops (for a comparison with lattice data, see [16]). Recently, the np QCD thermodynamics description at temperatures above deconfinement within FCM was improv...

    1908 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A.Ayala, L.A.Hernandez, M.Loewe, A.Raya, J.C.Rojas, R.Zamora, Phys. Rev. D96, 034007 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Lett.B 190, 177 (1987); H.G.Dosh and Yu.A.Simonov, Phys

    H.G.Dosh, Phys. Lett.B 190, 177 (1987); H.G.Dosh and Yu.A.Simonov, Phys. Lett.B 205, 339 (1988). Yu.A.Simonov, Nucl. Phys.B 307, 512 (1988). A.Di Giacomo, H.G.Dosch, V.I.Shevchenko, Yu.A.Simonov, Phys. Rept. 372, 319 (2002) ; hep- ph/0007223; Yu.A.Simonov, Phys. Usp.39, 313 (1996)

    1987

  9. [17]

    Rev.D 99, 056012 (2019), arXiv:1804.08946

    Yu.A.Simonov, Phys. Rev.D 99, 056012 (2019), arXiv:1804.08946

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Yu. A. Simonov, JETP Lett.54, 249 (1991); Yu. A. Simonov, JETP Lett.55, 605 (1992); Yu. A. Simonov, Phys. At. Nucl.58, 309 (1995); Yu. A. Simonov, Proc. Varenna 1995, Selected Topics in Nonperturbative QCD, p. 319; H. G. Dosch, H.-J. Pirner and Yu. A. Simonov, Phys. Lett.B 349...

    1991

  11. [19]

    Yu. A. Simonov, Ann. Phys. (NY)323, 783 (2008); E.V. Komarov and Yu.A. Simonov, Ann. Phys. (NY) 323, 1230 (2008), arXiv:0707.0781

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Agasian, M.S

    N.O. Agasian, M.S. Lukashov and Yu.A. Simonov, Eur. Phys. J.A 53, 138 (2017), arXiv:1701.07959

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Rev.D 96, 096002 (2017), arXiv:1605.07060

    Yu.A.Simonov, Phys. Rev.D 96, 096002 (2017), arXiv:1605.07060

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lukashov and Yu.A

    M.S. Lukashov and Yu.A. Simonov, JETP Lett.105, 659 (2017); [arXiv:1703.06666 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Agasian, M.S

    N.O. Agasian, M.S. Lukashov and Yu.A. Simonov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 31 , 1050222 (2016) [arXiv:1610.01472 [hep-lat]]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Andreichikov, M.S

    M.A. Andreichikov, M.S. Lukashov and Yu.A. Simonov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 , 8 (2018) [arXiv:1707.04631]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sz.Borsonyi et al., J. High En. Phys.2010, 077 (2010), arXiv: 1007.2580

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Agasian and Yu.A

    N.O. Agasian and Yu.A. Simonov, Phys. Lett.B 639, 82 (2006), hep-ph/0604004

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Rev.D 98, 074031 (2018), arXiv:1806.09407

    Z.V.Khaidukov and Yu.A.Simonov, Phys. Rev.D 98, 074031 (2018), arXiv:1806.09407

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Z.V.Khaidukov and Yu.A.Simonov, arXiv:1811.08970

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Z.V.Khaidukov and Yu.A.Simonov, Phys. Rev. D100, 076009, arXiv:1906.08677

    1906 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Abramchuk, Z.V

    R.A. Abramchuk, Z.V. Khaidukov and Yu.A. Simonov, arXiv:1812.01998

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    G.S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, F. Gruber, A. Schafer, JHEP 2013:130 (2013), arXiv:1303.1328

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bonati, M

    C. Bonati, M. D’Elia, M. Mariti, F. Negro, and F. Sanfilippo, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 182001 (2013), arXiv:1307.8063

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bonati, M

    C. Bonati, M. D’Elia, M. Mariti, F. Negro, F. Sanfilippo, 31th International Symposium Lattice 2013, arXiv:1312.5070

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bonati, M

    C. Bonati, M. D’Elia, M. Mariti, F. Negro, F. Sanfilippo, Phys. Rev. D89, 054506 (2014), 13 arXiv:1310.8656

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    G.S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, F. Gruber, A. Schafer, 31th International Symposium Lattice 2013, arXiv:1310.8145

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    G.S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, S.D. Katz, A. Schafer, JHEP 08 (2014) 177, arXiv:1406.0269

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Strickland, V

    M. Strickland, V. Dexheimer, D.P. Menezes, Phys. Rev.D86. 125032 (2012), arXiv:1209.3276

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Potekhin, D.G

    A.Y. Potekhin, D.G. Yakovlev, Phys. Rev.C85, 039801 (2012), arXiv:1109.3783

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Borsanyi, G

    Sz. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, K. K. Szabo, JHEP

  32. [40]

    Orlovsky, Yu.A

    V.D. Orlovsky, Yu.A. Simonov, JETP Lett.101, 423 (2015);[arXiv:1405.2697]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Orlovsky, Yu.A

    V.D. Orlovsky, Yu.A. Simonov, IJMPA,30, 155060 (2015);[arXiv:1406.1056]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Orlovsky, Yu.A

    V.D. Orlovsky, Yu.A. Simonov, Phys. Rev.D 89, 074034 (2014); [arXiv:1311.1087]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    M. A. Andreichikov, and Yu. A. Simonov, Eur. Phys. J.C78, 420 (2018), arXiv: 1712.02925

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Mechaniscs, part I, vol. 5, Pergamon, New York, 1980

    1980

  37. [45]

    Lett.B 370, 99-104 (2014),arXiv:1309.5258 [hep-lat]

    S.Borsanyi, Z.Fodor, C.Hoelbling,Phys. Lett.B 370, 99-104 (2014),arXiv:1309.5258 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    DeTar et al.,10.1103/Phys

    A.Bazavov,T.Bhattacharya, C. DeTar et al.,10.1103/Phys. Rev.D 90, 094503,arXiv:1407.6387

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Braguta, M.N

    V.V. Braguta, M.N. Chernodub, A.Yu. Kotov, A.V. Molochkov, A.A. Nikolaev, arXiv:1909.09547

    1909 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bonati, M

    C. Bonati, M. D’Elia, M. Mariti, M. Mesiti, F. Negro, A. Rucci, F. Sanfilippo, arXiv:1703.00842

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    D’Elia, F

    M. D’Elia, F. Negro, A. Rucci, F. Sanfilippo, arXiv:1907.09461

    1907 arXiv

  42. [50]

    D’Elia, E

    M. D’Elia, E. Meggiolaro, M. Mesiti, and F. Negro, Phys. Rev.D93, 054017 (2016), arXiv:1510.07012

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.