Renormalization group improved pressure for cold and dense QCD

Jean-Lo\"ic Kneur; Marcus Benghi Pinto; Tulio Eduardo Restrepo

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Renormalization group improved pressure for cold and dense QCD

T0 review · 2 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 The paper claims that a variational resummation, RGOPT, already at two-loop order gives a cold dense QCD pressure that matches higher-order perturbative results and reduces renormalization-scale sensitivity.

desk verdict First RGOPT calculation for cold, dense QCD gives a plausible NLO pressure that tracks N3LO pQCD and shrinks scale dependence, but the NLO curve leans on an extra renormalization-scheme parameter fixed by a tangency condition, so treat the headline agreement as promising rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08363 v2 pith:XV4V3OKK submitted 2019-08-22 hep-ph hep-thnucl-th

Jean-Loïc Kneur , Marcus Benghi Pinto , Tulio Eduardo Restrepo This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-thnucl-th

keywords renormalizationgroupoptimizedperturbationtheoryQCDpressurecolddensefinitechemicalpotentialresummationequationofstateneutronstarsscaledependence

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 tries to establish that renormalization group optimized perturbation theory (RGOPT) gives a usable first-principles approximation to the pressure of cold, dense QCD with three massless quark flavors, a regime where lattice QCD cannot currently operate. At leading order the method already produces a non-perturbative pressure that is exactly invariant under changes of the renormalization scale, whereas ordinary perturbation theory at that order is just the free-gas result. At next-to-leading order the RGOPT pressure is claimed to lie much closer to the known higher-order perturbative result, which includes an $\alpha_s^3\ln^2\alpha_s$ term, than standard perturbative QCD at the same two-loop order does. The same calculation also narrows the renormalization-scale uncertainty compared with same-order pQCD. If correct, RGOPT supplies an alternative equation of state for neutron-star matter at high baryonic density.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the RGOPT interpolation: deform the QCD Lagrangian by rescaling the coupling $g\to\delta g$ and adding a variational mass term $m(1-\delta)^a\bar\psi_f\psi_f$, with the interpolation exponent fixed by the reduced renormalization-group equation to $a=\gamma_0/(2b_0)$. After subtracting zero-point terms $m^4\sum_k s_k g^{k-1}$ to restore perturbative RG invariance, the arbitrary mass $m$ is fixed by the principle of minimal sensitivity, i.e. stationarity of the pressure with respect to $m$. Because the NLO stationarity and RG equations have no real solutions, the paper adds a renormalization-scheme-change parameter $B_2$ through $m\to m'(1+B_2 g^2)$ and fixes it by requiring tangency of the two optimization curves. The resulting dressed mass acts as an in-medium variational parameter, not a physical mass, and it carries the resummation into the pressure.

What would settle it

Compute the RGOPT pressure at the next perturbative order, $O(g^2)$, at $T=0$ and finite $\mu$ with the same $B_2$ contact prescription; if the optimized pressure no longer tracks the N3LO pQCD curve and the scale-dependence band widens instead of shrinking, the NLO agreement was an artifact of the scheme-choice prescription rather than a genuine resummation property.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the next-to-leading order ($O(g)$) RGOPT pressure, evaluated at $T=0$ and finite quark chemical potential $\mu$, is in much better agreement with the higher-order perturbative predictions at order $g^2$ and $g^3\ln^2g$ than standard pQCD at the same order. The leading-order ($O(g^0)$) pressure, built from the one-loop term plus a renormalization-scheme subtraction, is already non-trivial and exactly renormalization-group invariant. At NLO the optimization equations admit real solutions only after introducing a renormalization-scheme-change parameter $B_2$ fixed by a contact condition; with that prescription the optimized pressure lies closer to the higher-order pQCD curves than NLO pQCD does at the central scale $M=2\mu$, and its residual scale variation over $M=\mu$ to $M=4\mu$ is moderately smaller, especially above $\mu\simeq1$ GeV. The paper also gives a simpler perturbative variant whose pressure agrees with the N3LO expression to better than 1.5% for $\mu > 0.6$ GeV at the central scale.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that at next-to-leading order the missing real solutions can be repaired by a single renormalization-scheme-change parameter $B_2$ fixed by the contact condition; if that scheme choice is not the physically correct one, the close agreement with higher-order pQCD could be partly an artifact of the prescription.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Already at one loop, the RGOPT pressure is non-trivial and exactly renormalization-scale invariant, where ordinary pQCD at the same order is just the free-gas pressure.
At two loops, the RGOPT pressure and quark number density show a moderately reduced scale uncertainty compared with same-order pQCD in the perturbative region above roughly 1 GeV, with about a 25% improvement near $\mu\simeq2$ GeV.
The NLO RGOPT pressure lies closer to the $O(g^2)$ and $O(g^3\ln^2g)$ pQCD results than NLO pQCD does, which the paper reads as evidence that the resummation captures part of the higher-order physics.
The method needs no lattice input, so it can be extended to massive quarks and used to build equations of state for neutron-star matter in the density range blocked for lattice QCD by the sign problem.
Residual scale dependence is expected to shrink further at NNLO, since RGOPT preserves perturbative RG invariance up to the next order.

Reading between the lines

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

The growth of $|B_2 g^2|$ toward small $\mu$ could serve as an internal diagnostic for where the resummed expansion breaks down, an implication the paper does not develop.
If an $O(g^2)$ RGOPT evaluation keeps the pressure close to the N3LO pQCD curve and further narrows the scale band, that would support the idea that the variational mass is the natural expansion variable for cold dense QCD.
Extending the calculation to beta-equilibrated massive quarks and comparing the resulting equation of state against astrophysical constraints on neutron stars would test whether this resummation is reliable where pQCD and lattice QCD are weakest.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the thing to know: this is the first RGOPT application to QCD at T=0 with finite chemical potential, and the main numerical claim is credible. At NLO (two-loop) the optimized pressure sits much closer to the N3LO pQCD result of Gorda et al. (the alpha_s^3 ln^2 alpha_s term) than ordinary pQCD at the same order, and the scale band M=mu..4mu is moderately narrower. The calculation is not circular: the N3LO pressure is used only for comparison, not to fix any parameter; the input alpha_s(M0=1.5 GeV)=0.326 is taken from Ref. [16]. I think the authors also deserve credit for being explicit that the LO result is a poor approximation and that the NLO scale improvement is only moderate.

What is genuinely new: RGOPT has been applied before to QCD at mu=0 and to other models at finite temperature, but not to cold dense QCD. The LO piece is RG invariant by construction and gives a non-trivial pressure at order alpha_s^0, which is a real feature of the method. The NLO part uses the known two-loop in-medium pressure and the optimization is done carefully.

Soft spots. The biggest one is the B2 parameter. At NLO the MOP and RG equations have no real solutions, so the authors introduce a scheme change m -> m(1+B2 g^2) and fix B2 by the tangency condition (4.7). That is a well-defined mathematical prescription, but it is not independently physical, and Fig. 3 shows B2 g^2 is not tiny at low mu. The paper's own alternative variant, Eq. (4.13), which avoids B2 by using a perturbative solution of the RG equation, gives a central pressure that agrees even more closely with N3LO pQCD but lies at a different value from the B2-based curve. So the headline agreement is not purely an artifact of B2, but the numerical NLO result is prescription-dependent at the few-percent level. A referee should ask for a scan over B2 or a cleaner argument that the tangency condition is the right one.

There is an apparent typo in Eq. (4.13): the final coefficient 1 - sqrt(43/8) is negative, while the first expression evaluated at pF ~ mu is positive (1 - sqrt(43)/8). The authors clearly used the positive version in their numerics, but the printed formula needs fixing. Minor point: including s1 at LO is a reasonable but slightly ad hoc way to improve the LO curve; it does not affect the NLO conclusion.

Who should read it: people who build neutron-star EoS from pQCD and people who care about resummation methods at finite density. It is not a final answer but a first step. I would send it to peer review with a referee who knows the RGOPT literature and ask for the B2 clarification and the typo fix. If those come back clean, I would cite it.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies renormalization group optimized perturbation theory (RGOPT) to the quark contribution to the QCD pressure at zero temperature and finite chemical potential, for three massless flavors, working through two-loop (order g) level. At leading order, order g^0, the method produces a nontrivial, exactly renormalization-group-invariant pressure and optimized mass. At next-to-leading order the optimization equations have no real solutions, so the authors introduce a renormalization-scheme-change parameter B2, fixed by the tangency condition in Eq. (4.7). The resulting NLO pressure is compared with perturbative QCD results of Refs. [13] and [16], including the partial N3LO alpha_s^3 ln^2 alpha_s contribution, and is claimed to be in much better agreement with those higher-order results than standard pQCD at the same order, while also showing reduced renormalization-scale sensitivity. An alternative, simpler NLO prescription based on a perturbative expansion of the optimized mass is also explored and is reported to agree with Eq. (4.11) to better than 1.5%. The paper is the first RGOPT application to in-medium QCD at nonzero chemical potential and is aimed at the cold-dense regime relevant to neutron-star equations of state, where lattice QCD encounters the sign problem.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper provides a useful resummation framework for cold and dense QCD, a regime of direct relevance to neutron-star physics and currently inaccessible to lattice simulations. The manuscript has real strengths: the LO result is exactly RG invariant, the calculation is presented in explicit analytic form, the comparison with known perturbative results and with the large-N limit of the GN model is informative, and the limitations of the approach (residual scale dependence, loss of reliability at low mu) are discussed candidly. The central comparison is not circular in the narrow sense: the variational mass and B2 are not fixed by matching the N3LO pressure. However, the NLO claim rests on an extra scheme-change parameter whose physical uniqueness and scheme independence are not established, and the paper presents two NLO variants whose numerical outputs differ. These features make the central quantitative claim currently conditional rather than fully demonstrated.

major comments (2)

[Section IV.B, Eqs. (4.6)-(4.7), Fig. 3] The NLO RGOPT pressure, which is the central result of the paper, is defined only after introducing the renormalization-scheme-change parameter B2, fixed by the tangency condition (4.7), because the optimization equations otherwise have no real solutions. The manuscript does not establish that this prescription is unique, nor does it test whether the quantitative agreement with Eq. (4.11) survives within a perturbatively reasonable range of B2 or under a different RSC choice. Since Fig. 3 shows that B2 g^2 is a non-negligible function of mu and M, the close agreement with the higher-order pQCD result could in principle be an artifact of the contact condition. A sensitivity study is needed before the headline claim can be considered robust.
[Section IV.C, Figs. 4 and 8] There is an unresolved tension between the two NLO RGOPT variants. The text states that the exact NLO pressure is "sensibly lower" than the other approximations, while the alternative prescription based on the perturbative mass of Eq. (4.13) agrees with Eq. (4.11) to better than 1.5%. The abstract and conclusions present "the NLO RGOPT pressure" as being in much better agreement with the higher-order perturbative result without distinguishing these versions. The authors should specify which curve is the claimed RGOPT prediction and quantify the difference between the two NLO pressures; otherwise the central claim is ambiguous.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV.A, Eq. (4.4)] Please clarify the factor of Nc in the stated replacement below Eq. (4.4): with s1 as defined in Eq. (3.11) and Nc=3, the expression -1/2 - 8 pi^2 s1 is not equal to 11/84; the value 11/84 corresponds to -1/2 - (8 pi^2/Nc) s1. The displayed formula or the definition of s1 should be adjusted accordingly.
[Abstract and Section V] The comparison is with the partial N3LO result of Ref. [16], which contains only the alpha_s^3 ln^2 alpha_s contribution, not the complete N3LO pressure. This qualification should be made explicit in the abstract and conclusions, where "higher-order perturbative results" could be read as implying a complete next-order calculation.
[Captions of Figs. 4 and 8] The labels "pQCD O(g^3)" should indicate that this is the leading-logarithm contribution at N3LO from Ref. [16], in order to avoid suggesting that the full N3LO pressure has been computed.
[Section I] There is a typo in the Introduction: "Beam Energy Scam" should be "Beam Energy Scan."
[Section IV.B] Equation (4.3) is first derived as the LO formal solution, but Section IV.B refers to solving "the MOP equation (4.3) at two-loop order". Please clarify that in the NLO case one solves the analogous numerical derivative condition, not the literal LO closed form.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RGOPT pressure parameters are fixed by RG/MOP/tangency conditions, not by the higher-order pQCD benchmark.

full rationale

The central claim is that the NLO RGOPT pressure at M = 2µ agrees better with the higher-order pQCD result Eq. (4.11) than standard pQCD at the same order. Walking the derivation chain, the variational mass m is fixed by the MOP condition Eq. (4.1), the interpolation exponent by the reduced RG equation, and the extra NLO renormalization-scheme parameter B2 by the tangency condition Eq. (4.7). None of these conditions involves the target pressure values of Ref. [16]: the tangency condition is a purely geometric 'closest to MS-scheme' criterion between the MOP and RG curves, while the alternative IV.C prescription also does not use the benchmark. The only input adopted from Ref. [16], alpha_s(M0 = 1.5 GeV) = 0.326, is an external reference coupling used consistently for both pQCD and RGOPT; it is not adjusted to improve agreement. The reduced scale-dependence claim is likewise a direct numerical comparison of residual M dependence, not a built-in identity. The paper's self-citations to prior RGOPT work are method references with independent external tests (e.g., the Gross-Neveu large-N limit, Lambda_MS compatible with the world average, quark condensate values), so they are not the load-bearing source of the current dense-QCD result. The ad hoc nature and scheme dependence of the B2 prescription is a legitimate correctness/sensitivity concern, but a parameter fixed by a stated prescription rather than by the quantity being predicted is not circularity. No step was found in which a prediction equals an input by construction or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the variational mass and the RSC parameter, both internal to the method, plus published perturbative inputs and the assumption that vacuum RG subtraction coefficients remain valid in medium. The method is not circular, but it does carry a scheme-dependent parameter.

free parameters (2)

Variational mass m(mu) = Solved from MOP Eq. (4.3) at LO; from RSC+MOP at NLO
Introduced by the interpolating Lagrangian Eq. (3.1) and fixed by demanding dP/dm=0, not by data.
RSC parameter B2(mu) = Approximately -0.00224 at mu=0; a function of mu shown in Fig. 3
Added at NLO to restore real solutions for the optimized mass; fixed by the contact condition Eq. (4.7). The central NLO numerical results depend on this parameter.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The three-loop vacuum pressure and two-loop in-medium pressure from Refs. [12,34] are correct.
Eq. (3.2) combines these published results without independent rederivation.
domain assumption The RG subtraction coefficients s0 and s1, determined at T=mu=0, remain valid at nonzero chemical potential.
Eq. (3.3) and the surrounding text assume the sk coefficients do not depend on mu.
domain assumption A quark-only RGOPT deformation is sufficient, with the gluon propagator kept massless.
Section III excludes gluon-sector modifications, justified by T=0 and by the comparison to pQCD.
standard math The QCD beta and gamma functions in Eqs. (3.4)-(3.9) are correctly taken from the literature.
These RG coefficients are standard published results [45].
ad hoc to paper The RSC contact condition Eq. (4.7) selects the correct scheme-change parameter B2.
This condition is introduced specifically to recover real solutions for the optimized mass and has no independent external justification.
domain assumption The two-loop running coupling Eq. (4.8) with alpha_s(1.5 GeV)=0.326 is the right input for the comparison.
This input is adopted from Ref. [16] to enable a precise comparison with the N3LO pQCD results.

invented entities (1)

Variational mass m(mu)
purpose: Serves as the Gaussian interpolating mass in Eq. (3.1) to define RGOPT and to be optimized via MOP.
Not a physical mass; the paper explicitly states it is an intermediate variational quantity whose sole purpose is to enter the optimized pressure.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Renormalization group improved pressure for cold and dense QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XV4V3OKK

@misc{pith2026190808363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Renormalization group improved pressure for cold and dense QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XV4V3OKK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08363}
}

abstract

We apply the renormalization group optimized perturbation theory (RGOPT)to evaluate the QCD (matter) pressure at the two-loop level considering three flavors of massless quarks in a dense and cold medium. Already at leading order ($\alpha_s^0$), which builds on the simple one loop (RG resummed) term, our technique provides a non-trivial non-perturbative approximation which is completely renormalization group invariant. At the next-to-leading order the comparison between the RGOPT and the pQCD predictions shows that the former method provides results which are in better agreement with the state-of-the-art $higher \, order$ perturbative results, which include a contribution of order $\alpha_s^3 \ln^2 \alpha_s$. At the same time one also observes that the RGOPT predictions are less sensitive to variations of the arbitrary $\bar{\rm MS}$ renormalization scale than those obtained with pQCD. These results indicate that the RGOPT provides an efficient resummation scheme which may be considered as an alternative to lattice simulations at high baryonic densities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08363 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The optimized mass as a function of the chemical potential at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** illustrates the corresponding values of the RSC parameter combination B2(µ)g 2 (µ), thus quantifying the departure from MS-scheme. One can see that RSC remains reasonably perturbative, although the value of |B2(µ)| needed to recover real solutions are increasing rapidly for smaller µ values for the lower renormalization scale M = µ (not surprisingly since in this region the running coupling g(M) becomes dangerously … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The normalized pressure as a function of the chemical potential at the central scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The normalized pressure as a function of the chemical potential. pQCD results at NLO order- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The remnant scale dependences defined by the differences ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The quark number density as a function of the chemical potential. pQCD results at NLO order- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. The normalized pressure as a function of the chemical potential. pQCD results from Eq.( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[16]

Gorda, A

T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, M. S¨ appi, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 202701 (2018). 16

work page 2018
[13]

Kurkela, P

A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D 81, 105021 (2010)

2010
[1]

Y. Aoki, G. Endr˝ odi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szab´ o, Nature 443, 675 (2006); Y. Aoki, S. Bors´ anyi, S. D¨ urr, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, and K. K. Szab´ o, JHEP 06, 088 (2009); S. Bors´ anyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szab´ o (Wuppertal-Budapest), JHEP 09, 73 (2010); A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD Colla...

work page 2006
[2]

de Forcrand, PoS LA T 2009, 010 (2009); G

P. de Forcrand, PoS LA T 2009, 010 (2009); G. Aarts, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 706, 022004 (2016)

work page 2009
[3]

Machleidt and D

R. Machleidt and D. Entem, Phys. Rep. 503, 1 (2011)

2011
[4]

Kraemmer and A

U. Kraemmer and A. Rebhan, Rept. Prog. Phys. 67, 351 (2004)

work page 2004
[5]

Chodos, R

A. Chodos, R. L. Jaﬀe, K. Johnson, and C. B. Thorn, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2599 (1974)

work page 1974
[6]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961); Phys. Rev. 124, 246 (1961); M. Buballa, Phys. Rep. 407, 205 (2005)

work page 1961

Show all 47 references

[7]

Gell-Mann and M

M. Gell-Mann and M. L´ evy, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) 16, 705 (1960); R.-A. Tripolt, B.-J. Schaefer, L. von Smekal, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D 97, 034022 (2018)

1960
[8]

B. A. Freedman and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1147 (1977)

1977
[9]

B. A. Freedman and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1169 (1977)

1977
[10]

A. Ipp, K. Kajantie, A. Rebhan, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D 74, 045016 (2006)

2006
[11]

Kurkela and A

A. Kurkela and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 042501 (2016)

2016
[12]

E. S. Fraga and P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. D 71, 105014 (2005)

2005
[14]

E. S. Fraga, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen, Astrophys. J. 781, L25 (2014)

2014
[15]

Vuorinen, Phys

A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054017 (2003)

2003
[17]

Kurkela, E

A. Kurkela, E. S. Fraga, J. Schaﬀner-Bielich, and A. Vuorinen, Astrophys. J. 789, 127 (2014)

2014
[18]

Gorda, Astrophys

T. Gorda, Astrophys. J. 832, 28 (2016)

2016
[19]

Annala, T

E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 172703 (2018)

2018
[20]

E. R. Most, L. R. Weih, L. Rezzolla, and J. Schaﬀner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 261103 (2018)

2018
[21]

J. O. Andersen, E. Braaten, and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2139 (1999); Phys. Rev. D 61, 074016 (2000)

1999
[22]

J. O. Andersen, M. Strickland, and N. Su, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 122003 (2010); JHEP 08, 113 (2010); J. O. Andersen, L. E. Leganger, M. Strickland, and N. Su, JHEP 08, 053 (2011)

2010
[23]

Mogliacci, J

S. Mogliacci, J. O. Andersen, M. Strickland, N. Su, and A. Vuorinen, JHEP 12, 055 (2013); N. Haque, J. O. Andersen, M. G. Mustafa, M. Strickland, and N. Su, Phys. Rev. D 89, 061701 (2014); N. Haque, A. Bandyopadhyay, J. O. Andersen, M. G. Mustafa, M. Strickland, and N. Su, JHE...

2013
[24]

Blaizot, E

J.-P. Blaizot, E. Iancu, and A. Rebhan, in Quark-gluon plasma 4 (2003) pp. 60–122, arXiv:hep-ph/0303185 [hep-ph]

2003 arXiv
[25]

P. M. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. D 23, 2916 (1981); Nucl. Phys. B 203, 472 (1982)

1981
[26]

Chiku and T

S. Chiku and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. D 58, 076001 (1998)

1998
[27]

Karsch, A

F. Karsch, A. Patks, and P. Petreczky, Phys. Lett. B401, 69 (1997); J. O. Andersen, E. Braaten, and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D 63, 105008 (2001); J. O. Andersen and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D 64, 105012 (2001)

1997
[28]

V. I. Yukalov, Theor. Math. Phys. 28, 652 (1976); W. E. Caswell, Ann. Phys. 123, 153 (1979); I. Halliday and P. Suranyi, Phys. Lett. B 85, 421 (1979); R. P. Feynman and H. Kleinert, Phys. Rev. A 34, 5080 (1986); H. Jones and M. Moshe, Phys. Lett. B 234, 492 (1990); A. Neveu, N...

1976
[29]

Kneur and A

J.-L. Kneur and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 81, 125012 (2010)

2010
[30]

D. J. Gross and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3235 (1974)

1974
[31]

Kneur and A

J.-L. Kneur and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 85, 014005 (2012)

2012
[32]

Kneur and A

J.-L. Kneur and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 88, 074025 (2013)

2013
[33]

Tanabashi et al

M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

2018
[34]

Kneur and A

J.-L. Kneur and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 92, 074027 (2015)

2015
[35]

Kneur and M

J.-L. Kneur and M. B. Pinto, Phys. Rev. D 92, 116008 (2015)

2015
[36]

Kneur and M

J.-L. Kneur and M. B. Pinto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 031601 (2016)

2016
[37]

G. N. Ferrari, J.-L. Kneur, M. B. Pinto, and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D 96, 116009 (2017)

2017
[38]

Forg´ acs, F

P. Forg´ acs, F. Niedermayer, and P. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B 367, 123 (1991)

1991
[39]

Gracey, Int

J. Gracey, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 09, 567 (1994); Phys. Lett. B 297, 293 (1992)

1994
[40]

Kastening, Phys

B. Kastening, Phys. Rev. D 54, 3965 (1996); Phys. Rev. D 57, 3567 (1998)

1996
[41]

Kneur, M

J.-L. Kneur, M. B. Pinto, and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D 74, 125020 (2006)

2006
[42]

S. K. Gandhi, H. Jones, and M. B. Pinto, Nucl. Phys. B 359, 429 (1991)

1991
[43]

I. T. Drummond, R. R. Horgan, P. V. Landshoﬀ, and A. Rebhan, Nucl. Phys. B 524, 579 (1998)

1998
[44]

Braaten and R

E. Braaten and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D 45, R1827 (1992)

1992
[45]

Vermaseren, S

J. Vermaseren, S. Larin, and T. van Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B 405, 327 (1997); M. Czakon, Nucl. Phys. B 710, 485 (2005); K. Chetyrkin, Nucl. Phys. B 710, 499 (2005)

1997
[46]

J. I. Kapusta and C. Gale, Finite-temperature ﬁeld theory: Principles and applications , Cambridge Monographs on Math- ematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

2011
[47]

Kneur and M

J.-L. Kneur and M. B. Pinto, In preparation

Pith tools

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

[1] [16]

Gorda, A

T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, M. S¨ appi, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 202701 (2018). 16

work page 2018

[2] [13]

Kurkela, P

A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D 81, 105021 (2010)

2010

[3] [1]

Y. Aoki, G. Endr˝ odi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szab´ o, Nature 443, 675 (2006); Y. Aoki, S. Bors´ anyi, S. D¨ urr, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, and K. K. Szab´ o, JHEP 06, 088 (2009); S. Bors´ anyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szab´ o (Wuppertal-Budapest), JHEP 09, 73 (2010); A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD Colla...

work page 2006

[4] [2]

de Forcrand, PoS LA T 2009, 010 (2009); G

P. de Forcrand, PoS LA T 2009, 010 (2009); G. Aarts, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 706, 022004 (2016)

work page 2009

[5] [3]

Machleidt and D

R. Machleidt and D. Entem, Phys. Rep. 503, 1 (2011)

2011

[6] [4]

Kraemmer and A

U. Kraemmer and A. Rebhan, Rept. Prog. Phys. 67, 351 (2004)

work page 2004

[7] [5]

Chodos, R

A. Chodos, R. L. Jaﬀe, K. Johnson, and C. B. Thorn, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2599 (1974)

work page 1974

[8] [6]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961); Phys. Rev. 124, 246 (1961); M. Buballa, Phys. Rep. 407, 205 (2005)

work page 1961