Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 47 references

Finite size effects on the phase diagram and the baryon fluctuations via momentum space constraints

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a mean-field quark-meson model, imposing finite-size constraints on momentum space shifts the critical endpoint of the QCD phase diagram significantly for system sizes below about 10 fm, and moves the baryon-fluctuation peak without…

desk verdict Finite-size CEP shifts in mean-field QM models: plausible within the model, but the advertised generality is undermined by the paper's own scenario dependence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00548 v2 pith:BPTRGW3P submitted 2024-12-31 hep-ph

Győző Kovács This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph MSC 81V0582B26 PACS 12.38.Mh25.75.Nq11.30.Rd
keywords finitesizeeffectsQCDphasediagramcriticalendpointbaryonfluctuationsquark-mesonmodelmomentumspaceconstraintscumulantratioschiralsymmetrybreaking
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

Heavy-ion collisions create fireballs of finite size, while most effective-model calculations of the QCD phase diagram assume an infinite volume. This paper asks whether that mismatch matters, and answers yes: when finite size is imposed through momentum-space constraints, such as a low-momentum cutoff or mode discretization with periodic or antiperiodic boundary conditions, the critical endpoint shifts significantly for linear sizes below $L\approx 10$ fm. The shift usually moves the endpoint to larger chemical potentials or to lower temperatures. The same constraints also move the peak in baryon-number cumulant ratios along the phase boundary, but leave its shape essentially unchanged. A sympathetic reader should care because these results imply that comparisons between effective-model phase diagrams and experimental fluctuation data must include finite-size effects.

What carries the argument

The central object is the set of momentum-space constraints that convert the infinite-volume momentum integrals of the mean-field quark-meson model into finite-volume equivalents. The low-momentum cutoff replaces integrals by $\int d^3p/(2\pi)^3\,\theta(p-\lambda)$ with $\lambda=\pi/L$; discretization replaces them by sums over modes $p_i=2n_i\pi/L$ (periodic) or $p_i=(2n_i+1)\pi/L$ (antiperiodic), summed spherically with a kernel and renormalized via the UV-improved scheme. These constraints act on both the fermionic vacuum and the thermal fluctuations, and they determine the size dependence of the chiral condensate, the phase boundary, the location of the CEP, and the baryon-number susceptibilities.

What would settle it

Compute the baryon-number cumulant ratios, or the CEP location, for the same model (or for QCD) at $L=6$ fm using an independent finite-volume method, such as a direct spatial discretization or lattice QCD in a box; if the peak does not move to higher chemical potentials or if the shape changes substantially, the momentum-space constraint premise is wrong. Alternatively, compare data from small and large heavy-ion collision systems at the same beam energy and check whether the cumulant-ratio peak shifts as predicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in the mean-field quark-meson model, the paper compares three ways to impose finite volume: a low-momentum cutoff with $\lambda = \pi/L$, momentum discretization with periodic boundary conditions ($p_i = 2n_i\pi/L$), and antiperiodic boundary conditions ($p_i=(2n_i+1)\pi/L$), with and without modifying the fermionic vacuum fluctuations. It finds that the choice of scenario and the vacuum treatment strongly affect the volume dependence of the critical endpoint: with a cutoff on the vacuum contribution the broken phase disappears at $L\approx 2.5$ fm, while with discretization chiral symmetry breaking is enhanced for decreasing size. Despite these differences, in every scenario the CEP is significantly shifted for $L\lesssim 10$ fm, in most cases toward larger chemical potentials or lower temperatures. Along the phase boundary, the kurtosis and skewness ratios ($C_4/C_2$ and $C_2/C_1$) show the peak indicating the CEP is displaced to higher chemical potentials for both the discretized and cutoff cases, but the shape of the signal is hardly modified, because the criticality remains intact at mean-field level when only momentum-space constraints are applied.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the assumption that the finite-size physics of a heavy-ion fireball is faithfully captured by imposing momentum-space constraints, such as a low-momentum cutoff or mode discretization in a cubic box, on a mean-field quark-meson model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For fireball linear sizes below about 10 fm, finite-size effects must be included before an effective-model phase diagram can be compared with heavy-ion data.
  • The direction and magnitude of the CEP shift depend on the chosen momentum-space constraint and on whether vacuum fluctuations are modified, so those choices must be stated and justified.
  • The path of the CEP as $L$ decreases is largely fixed by its infinite-volume position; models with a lower-lying CEP can show an interchange of the leading critical point at small sizes.
  • Baryon-number cumulant ratios along the phase boundary can still be used to search for the CEP at finite size, because the peak shifts but keeps its shape.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the momentum-space constraints capture the physics of a real fireball, then experimental estimates of the CEP obtained from cumulant ratios should be corrected for system size before being confronted with infinite-volume model predictions.
  • The 'staircase' phase transitions caused by discrete modes crossing the Fermi surface suggest that at small $L$ new critical points unrelated to the infinite-volume CEP may dominate low-temperature, high-density fluctuations; this could be tested by looking for multiple peaks in susceptibility scans.
  • The strong sensitivity of the results to the vacuum-fluctuation treatment indicates that the choice among cutoff, periodic, and antiperiodic schemes is not a technical detail; a first-principles finite-volume benchmark, such as lattice QCD in a box, would be needed to decide which scenario is physical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper studies the finite-size dependence of the QCD phase diagram and baryon number fluctuations in a mean-field quark-meson model by imposing momentum-space constraints: a low-momentum cutoff and mode discretization with periodic (PBC) and antiperiodic (APBC) boundary conditions, with the UV-improved summation taken from Ref. [30]. It reports that, depending on the scenario and on whether vacuum fluctuations are modified, the critical endpoint (CEP) is significantly shifted for L < 10 fm, and that the shape of the cumulant-ratio signals along the phase boundary is hardly modified (shown for one model at L=6 fm). The paper concludes that finite-size effects must be included in comparisons between effective-model phase diagrams and heavy-ion data.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful mapping of how different momentum-space finite-size implementations affect the CEP location and the baryon fluctuation ratios in a commonly used mean-field framework. The comparison across scenarios is informative and highlights that the choice of implementation is consequential. However, the paper's own analysis shows that some scenarios are excluded by an unbounded grand potential, and the fluctuation claim is demonstrated on a single parameter set at a single size; therefore the general statements in the abstract and conclusion are stronger than the evidence. The paper is a short proceedings contribution that relies heavily on Ref. [30] for technicalities, which is acceptable for the format but limits self-containedness.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 3, Fig. 1] The abstract claims the CEP is 'significantly shifted in each case' for L < 10 fm, but Sec. 5 and the body state 'in most cases'. In the modified-vacuum low-momentum-cutoff case (Fig. 1 top), the CEP disappears at L ≈ 2.5 fm and the chirally broken phase at L ≈ 2 fm, rather than being shifted. The wording should be made consistent, and the conclusion should be restricted to the cases where the CEP persists.
  2. [Sec. 3, unboundedness paragraph] The paper excludes the discretized-vacuum scenarios because the grand potential is unbounded from below when vacuum fluctuations are modified (leading to a -φ^4 log φ term), making the field equations have no common solution around L~5.5 fm for the ePQM. The remaining studied cases – unmodified vacuum, zero-mode-only vacuum discretization, and the low-momentum cutoff – are exactly those that are least directly tied to a finite spatial box. The low-momentum cutoff is not derivable from a finite volume, and leaving the vacuum continuum modes unmodified while discretizing matter modes is internally inconsistent with the mode-sum rationale of Eq. (2). Since the central claim of a generic CEP shift below L≈10 fm rests on these subsets, the paper should either justify why these scenarios are representative for heavy-ion fireballs or present the results as scenario-dependent rather than as a general statement.
  3. [Sec. 4, Fig. 3] The claim that the CEP signal is 'shifted, but its shape is hardly modified' is supported by a single model (Polyakov-extended QM B with m_sigma=600 MeV, no vacuum fluctuations) at a single size L=6 fm, with mu_q restricted below 250 MeV to avoid multiple critical points. The figure shows that the peak in C4/C2 is shifted and the finite-size curves are not simply rescaled (e.g., the APBC curve exhibits non-monotonic structures). With no variation in L and no systematic check over parameter sets, the generality of the 'hardly modified' statement is not established. A range of sizes or a quantitative measure of the shape change is needed.
  4. [Sec. 5, last paragraph] The paper states that the present results are 'either not complete ... or have too low resolution to see the scaling behavior near the CEP.' This self-admitted limitation bears directly on the fluctuation-shape conclusion: without a complete treatment of the finite-size divergences, the statement that the shape of the critical signal is 'hardly modified' should be treated as provisional. The authors should either provide a quantitative estimate of the uncertainty or soften the conclusion.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Footnote 1] Footnote 1: 'Fruthermore' should be 'Furthermore'.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, after Eq. (1)] 'is directly applicable' should be 'are directly applicable' because the subject is 'momentum integrals' (plural).
  3. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2)] The multiplicity sum over m is not defined; specify that m runs over all integer triplets with the same |p|.
  4. [Fig. 2 bottom panel caption] The dashed-dotted line is not described in the caption; indicate which scenario it corresponds to.
  5. [Sec. 4, Eq. (7)] The pressure is defined as Ω(0,0) − Ω(T,μ_q), but the normalization should be stated (e.g., grand potential density) to avoid ambiguity.
  6. [Fig. 3 caption] In the caption of Figure 3, 'C4/C2 (T ≈ Tpc)' should specify that T is slightly below the transition temperature T_pc(μ_q) as stated in the text.
  7. [References] Reference [45] is incomplete; it should provide a journal or arXiv identifier.
  8. [Abstract] The acronym ePQM is used without definition; define it at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CEP shifts and cumulant ratios are computed outputs of a mean-field model, not fitted values or imported conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity check. The finite-volume momentum-space constraints (Eqs. (1)-(4)) are definitions/implementations; the phase diagrams and CEP paths in Figs. 1-2 and the cumulant ratios in Fig. 3 are numerical solutions of the mean-field equations, not parameters fitted to reproduce those outputs. The paper's self-citations ([29,30] for the UV-improved summation/ePQM setup and as continuation) provide methodological input and prior parameterizations, but the central claims—CEP shifts below L≈10 fm and the displacement of the fluctuation peaks—are computed here and shown in the figures; no uniqueness theorem or prior result is invoked to force them. The admitted obstruction that discretizing the vacuum term makes the grand potential unbounded below (Sec. 3) and the restriction of the fluctuation study to one model at L=6 fm narrow the demonstrated scope but are limitations on generality, not circular reductions. There is no step in which an output quantity is defined in terms of the claimed prediction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing conclusion is imported solely from the author's earlier work.

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

The central claim rests on the identification of momentum-space constraints with finite fireball size and on model parameters taken from earlier literature. No new entities are introduced. The main uncharged input is the mapping from L to modified mode sums; a second is the restriction to model variants that avoid an unstable vacuum sector.

free parameters (3)
  • Quark-meson model parameters from Schaefer-Wagner 2009 and Kovacs-Szep-Wolf 2016 = m_sigma=600/800 MeV variants; Fit1,1,1,2 for ePQM
    The CEP location and its finite-size shift are computed with these prior literature fits to hadron vacuum properties; the paper does not fit them anew.
  • Polyakov-loop potential parameters from Lo et al. 2013 = Standard Polyakov-loop potential parameters from Ref. [46]
    Used in Sec. 4 to recover the correct kurtosis value in the chirally broken phase; results depend on this choice.
  • Finite-size cutoff parameters lambda_cut and lambda_Sigma, and UV grid cutoffs = Chosen per size so that the effect is numerically negligible
    Introduced in Sec. 2.1 to make the mode summation finite; they are computational control parameters and should not affect physics, but their choice is part of the implementation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A cubic box of side L with periodic or antiperiodic boundary conditions, or an equivalent low-momentum cutoff, is a valid way to implement a finite fireball volume in the effective model.
    Secs. 2.1 and 3; the entire finite-size dependence follows from this identification, supported only by analogy to an ideal boson gas [45] and prior model comparisons.
  • domain assumption The mean-field approximation for the quark-meson model gives the correct qualitative phase structure and critical behavior at finite volume.
    Sec. 2; all calculations are at mean-field level; the paper notes criticality remains and that mean-field treatments differ from functional methods.
  • standard math Renormalization remains valid when the fermionic vacuum integral gets a lower cutoff or is discretized with UV improvement.
    Sec. 2.1 claims the cutoff does not conflict with renormalization and that UV improvement allows the usual renormalization; this is a technical premise of the calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper The grand potential unboundedness at finite size is avoided by studying only cases where vacuum fluctuations are unmodified or only the lowest mode is discretized, and these cases are representative.
    Sec. 3, paragraph after the unboundedness discussion; the restriction is necessary to have solutions and is a choice on which the conclusions depend.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite size effects on the phase diagram and the baryon fluctuations via momentum space constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BPTRGW3P

@misc{pith2026250100548,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite size effects on the phase diagram and the baryon fluctuations via momentum space constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BPTRGW3P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00548}
}
abstract

The effect of the finite system size on the QCD phase diagram was studied with various momentum space constraints within a mean-field quark-meson model. On the one hand side, the choice of the scenario -- low-momentum cutoff and discretization with periodic or antiperiodic boundary conditions -- and the presence of the vacuum fluctuations were found to strongly affect the volume dependence of the CEP. On the other hand, its location is significantly shifted in each case for linear sizes below $L\approx 10$ fm. This is also reflected in the conserved charge fluctuations, which were investigated along the phase boundary using multiple scenarios for the finite size effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00548 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The size dependence of the phase diagram in the low-momentum cutoff scenario in the case modified (top) and unmodified (bottom) vacuum contribution. contribution as well (top panel), the CEP and, at a somewhat smaller size, the whole chirally broken phase disappears (at 𝐿 ≈ 2.5 fm and 𝐿 ≈ 2 fm, respectively) contrary to the case of unmodified fermionic vacuum fluctuations (bottom panel). This gives rise to the diffe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The size-dependent path of the CEP in different quark-meson models with antiperiodic (top) and periodic (bottom) boundary condition. momentum integrals it naturally appears also in NJL model calculations [16] as well as in quark-meson models with FRG [8, 9]. A further complication arises in the case of PBC, since then the CEP moves even to higher 𝑇 and lower 𝜇𝑞 for decreasing sizes if the vacuum fluctuations are not… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The ratio of the fourth and second (top) and the second and first (middle) order cumulants for infinite size and 𝐿 = 6𝑓 𝑚 – with discretization using APBC in green and with a low-momentum cutoff in blue – along the respective phase boundary (bottom). blue curves are the results at 𝐿 = 6 fm with discretization using APBC and with low-momentum cutoff, respectively. It can be seen that the peak indicating the location … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Kovács, P

    G. Kovács, P. Kovács,P. M. Lo, K. Redlich, and G. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D 108, 076010 (2023), arXiv:2307.10301 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    L. F. Palhares, E. S. Fraga, and T. Kodama, J. Phys. G38, 085101 (2011), arXiv:0904.4830 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2011

  3. [2]

    E. S. Fraga, T. Kodama, L. F. Palhares, and P. Sorensen, PoS FACESQCD, 017 (2010), arXiv:1106.3887 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  4. [3]

    N.Magdy,M.Csanád, andR.A.Lacey,J.Phys.G 44,025101(2017), arXiv:1510.04380 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [4]

    Influence of finite volume effect on the Polyakov Quark-Meson model

    N. Magdy, Universe5, 94 (2019), arXiv:1904.10949 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    J.Braun,B.Klein, andH.J.Pirner,Phys.Rev.D 71,014032(2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0408116

    arXiv 2005

  7. [6]

    J.Braun,B.Klein, andH.J.Pirner,Phys.Rev.D 72,034017(2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504127

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  8. [7]

    J.Braun,B.Klein,H.J.Pirner, andA.H.Rezaeian,Phys.Rev.D 73, 074010 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0512274

    arXiv 2006

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    R.-A.Tripolt,J.Braun,B.Klein, andB.-J.Schaefer,Phys.Rev.D 90, 054012 (2014), arXiv:1308.0164 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Almasi, R

    G. Almasi, R. Pisarski, and V. Skokov, Phys. Rev. D95, 056015 (2017), arXiv:1612.04416 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Klein, Phys

    B. Klein, Phys. Rept.707-708, 1 (2017), arXiv:1710.05357 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [11]

    D 87, 054009 (2013), arXiv:1212.5893 [hep-ph]

    A.Bhattacharyya,P.Deb,S.K.Ghosh,R.Ray, andS.Sur,Phys.Rev. D 87, 054009 (2013), arXiv:1212.5893 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bhattacharyya, R

    A. Bhattacharyya, R. Ray, and S. Sur, Phys. Rev. D91, 051501 (2015), arXiv:1412.8316 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Z.Pan,Z.-F.Cui,C.-H.Chang, andH.-S.Zong,Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 32, 1750067 (2017), arXiv:1611.07370 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Q.-W. Wang, Y. Xia, C. Shi, and H.-S. Zong, (2018), arXiv:1802.00258 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Q. Wang, Y. Xiq, and H. Zong, Mod. Phys. Lett. A33, 1850232 (2018), arXiv:1806.05315 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Xu and M

    K. Xu and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074001 (2020), arXiv:1903.08416 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    S.-S. Wan, D. Li, B. Zhang, and M. Ruggieri, (2020), arXiv:2012.05734 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    N. B. Mata Carrizal, E. Valbuena Ordóñez, A. J. Garza Aguirre, F. J. Betancourt Sotomayor, and J. R. Morones Ibarra, Universe8, 264 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    L.M.Abreu,E.S.Nery, andA.P.C.Malbouisson,Phys.Rev.D 91, 087701 (2015)

    2015

  13. [20]

    L.M.AbreuandE.S.Nery,Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 31,1650128(2016)

    2016

  14. [21]

    L. M. Abreu and E. S. Nery, Phys. Rev. C 96, 055204 (2017), arXiv:1711.07934 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Ishikawa, K

    T. Ishikawa, K. Nakayama, and K. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D99, 054010 (2019), arXiv:1812.10964 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    B.-L.Li,Z.-F.Cui,B.-W.Zhou,S.An,L.-P.Zhang, andH.-S.Zong, Nucl. Phys. B938, 298 (2019), arXiv:1711.04914 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Luecker, C

    J. Luecker, C. S. Fischer, and R. Williams, Phys. Rev. D81, 094005 (2010), arXiv:0912.3686 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Y.-Z.Xu,C.Shi,X.-T.He, andH.-S.Zong,Phys.Rev.D 102,114011 (2020), arXiv:2009.12035 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bernhardt, C

    J. Bernhardt, C. S. Fischer, P. Isserstedt, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D104, 074035 (2021), arXiv:2107.05504 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Bernhardt, C

    J. Bernhardt, C. S. Fischer, and P. Isserstedt, Phys. Lett. B841, 137908 (2023), arXiv:2208.01981 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Shaikh, R

    A. Shaikh, R. K. Mohapatra, and S. Datta, Nucl. Phys. A1054, 122981 (2025), arXiv:2406.20073 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    G.Kovács,P.Kovács,P.M.Lo,K.Redlich, andG.Wolf,in 7th FAIR next generation scientists workshop 2022 (2023) arXiv:2302.12925 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hadronic Fluctuations and Correlations,

    V. Koch, “Hadronic Fluctuations and Correlations,” in Relativis- tic Heavy Ion Physics , edited by R. Stock (2010) pp. 626–652, arXiv:0810.2520 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 032301 (2009), arXiv:0809.3450 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Adamczewski-Musch et al

    J. Adamczewski-Musch et al. (HADES), Phys. Rev. C102, 024914 (2020), arXiv:2002.08701 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    126,092301 (2021)

    S.Collaboration(STARCollaboration),Phys.Rev.Lett. 126,092301 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    M. S. Abdallahet al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 202303 (2022), arXiv:2112.00240 [nucl-ex]

    2022

  28. [36]

    Kitazawa and M

    M. Kitazawa and M. Asakawa, Phys. Rev. C86, 024904 (2012), [Erratum:Phys.Rev.C86,069902(2012)],arXiv:1205.3292[nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    V.Koch,M.Marczenko,K.Redlich, andC.Sasaki,Phys.Rev.D 109, 014033 (2024), arXiv:2308.15794 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    M.Marczenko,K.Redlich, andC.Sasaki, (2024),arXiv:2410.21746 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Skokov, B

    V. Skokov, B. Friman, and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C88, 034911 (2013), arXiv:1205.4756 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Schaefer, J

    B.-J. Schaefer, J. M. Pawlowski, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D76, 074023 (2007), arXiv:0704.3234 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Schaefer and M

    B.-J. Schaefer and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D79, 014018 (2009), arXiv:0808.1491 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Kovács, Z

    P. Kovács, Z. Szép, and G. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D93, 114014 (2016), arXiv:1601.05291 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    G.Kovács,P.Kovács, andZ.Szép,Phys.Rev.D 104,056013(2021), arXiv:2105.12689 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Giacosa, P

    F. Giacosa, P. Kovács, and S. Jafarzade, (2024), arXiv:2407.18348 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Redlich and K

    K. Redlich and K. Zalewski, (2016), arXiv:1611.03746 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    P.M.Lo,B.Friman,O.Kaczmarek,K.Redlich, andC.Sasaki,Phys. Rev. D88, 074502 (2013), arXiv:1307.5958 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Sasaki, B

    C. Sasaki, B. Friman, and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. D75, 074013 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611147 . Gy. Kovács: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 6 of 6

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.