Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Three flavor QCD phase transition with M\"obius domain wall fermions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three-flavor QCD's chiral transition at 121 MeV is a smooth crossover at quark mass near 4 MeV.

desk verdict A careful, honest proceedings update that adds a large volume and a useful UV subtraction, but the crossover conclusion rests on a single lattice spacing and no continuum extrapolation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15494 v2 pith:DB5SDIYD submitted 2025-01-26 hep-lat hep-thnucl-th

Yu Zhang , Yasumichi Aoki , Shoji Hashimoto , Issaku Kanamori , Takashi Kaneko , Yoshifumi Nakamura This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-thnucl-th PACS 12.38.Gc11.30.Rd
keywords QCDphasetransitionchiralcrossoverthreeflavorsMobiusdomainwallfermionsdisconnectedsusceptibilityBindercumulantresidualsymmetrybreakingColumbiaplot
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

This paper uses Möbius domain wall fermions on Nt=12 lattices at a single lattice spacing a=0.1361(20) fm to ask whether the Nf=3 chiral phase transition is first order, second order, or a crossover at light quark masses. The authors add a new $48^{3}$×12×16 volume to previous $24^{3}$ and $36^{3}$ ensembles and examine the chiral condensate, the disconnected chiral susceptibility, and the Binder cumulant. They find that the transition is consistent with a smooth crossover, with the inflection point at m_f^MS(2 GeV) ≈ 4 MeV and T = 121(2) MeV. This matters because the order of the Nf=3 transition constrains the Columbia plot and the possible existence of a critical endpoint; the result agrees with recent staggered and Wilson fermion studies and leaves little room for a first-order region at heavier masses.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three observables computed on Möbius domain wall fermion ensembles: the disconnected chiral susceptibility, whose peak marks the transition and whose volume scaling distinguishes a crossover from a true phase transition; the Binder cumulant of the chiral condensate, with B4 = 3 for crossover, 1 for first order, and 1.604 for the 3d Z(2) universality class; and the distribution of the chiral condensate at the transition point. The chiral condensate itself requires an additive ultraviolet subtraction of the form C_D(m_f + x m_res)/$a^{2}$, with x ≈ −0.6(1) fixed by assuming the condensate vanishes in the chiral limit on the low-mass side. Residual chiral symmetry breaking is quantified by the residual mass m_res, which follows the expected 1/Ls behavior at this strong coupling.

What would settle it

Measure the disconnected chiral susceptibility and Binder cumulant on a $64^{3}$×12×16 lattice at the same quark mass near 4 MeV: if the susceptibility peak height grows roughly in proportion to the spatial volume, or the Binder cumulant moves from 3 toward 1.604 or 1, the crossover interpretation would be refuted; alternatively, a finer lattice with Nt=16 at the same physical temperature that shows a first-order signal would also refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, at this lattice spacing and temperature, the three-flavor QCD transition is analytic: no first-order signal and no Z(2) critical scaling appears at quark masses down to about 4 MeV. The evidence is that the disconnected chiral susceptibility develops a peak whose height grows only mildly with volume, far less than the linear growth expected for a first-order transition, and the Binder cumulant of the chiral condensate sits near 3, the crossover value, rather than 1 or 1.604. Histograms of the chiral condensate at the transition mass are single-peaked and Gaussian-like at all three volumes. The paper also performs the first explicit subtraction of the ultraviolet-divergent term C_D(m_f + x m_res)/$a^{2}$ from the domain wall chiral condensate, after which Ls=16 and Ls=32 results agree at the same total quark mass; this supports the reliability of the crossover conclusion and clarifies how residual chiral symmetry breaking enters chiral observables.

Load-bearing premise

All conclusions rest on a single lattice spacing a = 0.1361(20) fm, so the observed crossover could in principle be a lattice artifact rather than a property of continuum QCD.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the crossover conclusion holds, the first-order region in the Columbia plot, if it exists at all, must lie at quark masses below roughly 4 MeV.
  • The result is consistent with recent HISQ and improved Wilson fermion studies that found no first-order transition for pion masses above about 50 to 110 MeV, supporting a small or absent first-order region.
  • The successful subtraction of the C_D(m_f + x m_res)/a^2 divergence means domain wall fermion chiral condensates can be compared across Ls values, strengthening future studies of chiral observables.
  • The mild volume dependence of the susceptibility peak near m_f ≈ 4 MeV provides a template for distinguishing crossover from weak first-order behavior on finite lattices.
  • At this lattice spacing the residual mass obeys a 1/Ls dependence, so Ls must be increased or extrapolated before continuum extrapolations with these fermions become reliable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the crossover extends to the chiral limit, the Nf=3 transition would be a second-order transition of a different universality class or no transition at all, and the Pisarski-Wilczek first-order scenario would be excluded; the present data do not reach the chiral limit, so this is an extrapolation the authors do not make.
  • The same analysis could be repeated at a finer lattice spacing, such as larger Nt, to test whether the crossover persists; the observed 1/Ls behavior of m_res suggests that Ls must grow as the lattice is refined.
  • The volume dependence of the susceptibility peak height, if fitted to a scaling form, could be used to place an upper bound on the first-order transition strength at this quark mass.
  • The procedure for subtracting the ultraviolet divergence in the chiral condensate could be applied to Nf=2+1 simulations, where a physical strange quark mass is present, to separate thermal chiral effects from residual symmetry breaking.
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 updated lattice study of the Nf=3 QCD phase transition using Möbius domain wall fermions at a single lattice spacing a=0.1361(20) fm (Nt=12, T=121(2) MeV). New data include a 48^3 x 12 x 16 ensemble and 24^3 x 12 x 32 ensembles, together with earlier 24^3 and 36^3 volumes. From the chiral condensate, disconnected chiral susceptibility, Binder cumulant, and histograms of the chiral condensate, the authors conclude that the transition is consistent with a smooth crossover at m_f^MS(2 GeV) ~ 4 MeV. They also propose an explicit subtraction of the additive UV divergence induced by residual chiral symmetry breaking in the domain wall fermion condensate, using parameters C_D and x.

Significance. If taken as a fixed-spacing result, this is a useful data point from a chiral fermion formulation, complementing the staggered and Wilson fermion literature. The addition of a 48^3 volume and the Ls=32 residual-mass control are genuine improvements, and the manuscript is transparent about the modest nature of the evidence. The main significance, however, is limited by the absence of a continuum extrapolation and by the qualitative character of the finite-size analysis; as written, the paper does not settle the continuum nature of the Nf=3 transition, although it provides a relevant observation at this lattice spacing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Abstract] The central claim is made from a single lattice spacing, a=0.1361(20) fm (Nt=12), and no continuum extrapolation or second finer lattice spacing is presented. The manuscript itself notes in Sec. 1 that the size of the first-order region depends significantly on the lattice action and spacing (Refs. [15-20]). At this coarse spacing the residual mass at Ls=16 is am_res=0.00613(9), corresponding to about 9 MeV, which is more than twice the quoted physical quark mass. The Ls=32 comparison checks residual-chiral-symmetry effects but does not control O(a^2) discretization effects on the effective potential. I therefore ask that the abstract and summary state explicitly that the crossover observation applies at this lattice spacing and not yet to continuum QCD, or, alternatively, that a finer-spacing test be added.
  2. [Sec. 3.4 and Fig. 4] The classification as a crossover rests on Binder cumulant values near 3 and on single-peaked histograms, but no quantitative finite-size scaling analysis is performed. For a weak first-order transition, B4 at finite volume can be close to 3 and the histogram can appear single-peaked if the volume is not large enough to develop phase coexistence. A quantitative comparison with the 3D Z(2) and first-order FSS forms, or at least a fit to the volume dependence of the susceptibility peak height and position, would be needed to distinguish a genuine crossover from a weak first-order transition. As it stands, the conclusion is supported only at the qualitative level.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (4)-(5)] Equations (4) and (5) are not algebraically equivalent as printed. Equation (4) contains a term C_D m_f without an explicit 1/a^2, while Eq. (5) contains (C_D + C_R a^2)(m_f + m_res)/a^2; these expressions differ unless m_f and m_res are measured in a way that is not stated. Since C_D and x are central to the new UV-subtraction procedure, the lattice or physical units of m_f, m_res, and the condensate must be defined precisely and the equations corrected. Additionally, the extraction of x assumes that the three lowest mass points on 24^3 x 12 x 16 lie in the restored phase; this assumption should be justified with a direct check, for example by showing the disconnected susceptibility at those masses.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4] The word 'transtion' should be corrected to 'transition'.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The text contains typos such as 'descriaption' and 'perfrom'; a careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The statement that the largest-volume susceptibility is not fitted should be explained; it is unclear why the 48^3 data are excluded from the spline fits.
  4. [Sec. 3.4] The Binder cumulant plot in Fig. 4 does not show visible error bars; if the uncertainties are too small to display, the jackknife or bootstrap procedure should still be described.
  5. [Sec. 3.1] The sentence about obtaining m_res at finite temperature using a spatial source-sink separation is hard to parse and should be rewritten.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the crossover classification is benchmarked against external universal values and independent observables; the single-spacing limitation is a correctness risk, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The residual mass is defined through the axial Ward-Takahashi identity and measured from correlation-function plateaus; the chiral condensate subtraction uses coefficients C_D and x determined from zero- and finite-temperature fits, and the Ls=32 data provide an independent consistency check for that subtraction. The disconnected chiral susceptibility peak, the Binder cumulant comparison to the external universal values B4 = 1, 1.604, and 3, and the single-peak histograms are the actual evidence for a crossover, and none of these reduces to a fitted parameter or to the earlier proceedings [1,2]; those proceedings are used as raw lattice data from the same research program, not as an authority. Although the fit for the coefficient x uses the susceptibility peak to justify the chiral-limit mass range, x does not enter the disconnected susceptibility or the Binder cumulant, so the central claim is not forced by that calibration. The main vulnerability is that all finite-temperature results are at a single lattice spacing a = 0.1361(20) fm with no continuum extrapolation, which is a correctness risk acknowledged in the introduction (the first-order region depends on the action and spacing), not a circular step. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All numbers that set the renormalized quark mass scale or the ultraviolet subtraction are fitted to the simulations or taken from external scale-setting sources; no new dynamical entities are introduced. The crossover classification uses universal Binder values as external benchmarks.

free parameters (5)
  • C_D (UV-divergent coefficient in chiral condensate) = 1.12(6)
    Determined by continuum extrapolation of the linear mass term coefficient at three beta values (Fig. 2, right); used in the subtraction (C_D m_f + x m_res)/a^2.
  • x (coefficient of m_res/a^2 term) = -0.6(1)
    Determined from the intercept of the chiral-limit fit to the finite-temperature chiral condensate at the three lowest masses (Fig. 3, left); controls the residual chiral symmetry breaking subtraction.
  • Per-beta quadratic-fit coefficients C_R and A (Eq. 4) = not reported individually
    Nuisance parameters in quadratic fits of the zero-temperature condensate; only the derived linear coefficient is used to obtain C_D.
  • Residual mass at zero input quark mass, Ls=16 = am_res = 0.00613(9)
    Linear extrapolation of am_res vs am_f; sets the effective quark mass m_f + m_res used throughout the analysis.
  • Residual mass at zero input quark mass, Ls=32 = am_res = 0.00324(3)
    Same extrapolation for Ls=32; used to compare residual chiral symmetry breaking effects between Ls values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Finite Ls chiral symmetry breaking is captured by an additive residual mass m_res, so the effective quark mass is m_f + m_res (Eq. 2, Sec. 3.1).
    Standard domain-wall fermion effective theory, cited to Refs. 26 and 27; load-bearing because all mass labels and chiral-limit extrapolations use m_f + m_res.
  • domain assumption The chiral condensate has the UV-divergent form <psi-bar psi>|DWF ~ <psi-bar psi>|cont + (C_D m_f + x m_res)/a^2 + ... (Eq. 3, Sec. 3.2).
    This specific form with separate coefficients C_D and x, based on Ref. 29, is assumed in order to subtract the divergence; both coefficients must be fitted.
  • ad hoc to paper For the three lowest mass points on 24^3x12x16, the system is in the chirally restored phase and <psi-bar psi>_cont = 0, so the intercept of the chiral-limit fit gives C_D(x-1)m_res/a^2.
    The selection is justified by the same susceptibility peak the paper is measuring; if the transition point is actually lower, x and the subtracted condensate shift.
  • standard math Binder cumulant and histogram classification at finite volume can distinguish crossover from weak first-order or Z(2) transitions using universal values B4=1, 1.604, 3 (Sec. 3.4).
    Uses 3D Z(2) Ising universality from Ref. 31; standard but requires thermodynamic-limit scaling, which is not quantitatively demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Nt=12 at beta=4.0 (a=0.1361 fm) is representative of continuum physics for the transition order.
    The paper's own introduction notes the first-order region size depends on lattice spacing and action; no continuum extrapolation is performed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three flavor QCD phase transition with M\"obius domain wall fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DB5SDIYD

@misc{pith2026250115494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three flavor QCD phase transition with M\"obius domain wall fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DB5SDIYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15494}
}
abstract

We present an updated study of the $N_f=3$ QCD phase transition using M\"{o}bius domain wall fermions. Simulations were performed on $N_t=12$ lattices with aspect ratios ranging from 2 to 4 for various quark masses, at a lattice spacing of $a=0.1361(20)$ fm, corresponding to a temperature of 121(2) MeV. To clarify the nature of the phase transition, a large-volume lattice, $48^3 \times 12\times 16$, was added to analyze the volume dependence of disconnected chiral susceptibility. By examining the chiral condensate, disconnected chiral susceptibility, and Binder cumulant, and incorporating results from $24^3 \times 12 \times 16$ and $36^3 \times 12 \times 16$ lattices reported in earlier studies, we observe that the transition is consistent with a crossover at a quark mass of approximately $m_f^{\mathrm{\overline {MS}}}(2\, \mathrm{GeV}) \sim 4$ MeV at this temperature. Furthermore, we discuss the effects of residual chiral symmetry breaking on the chiral condensate and disconnected chiral susceptibility for different sizes in the 5th direction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15494 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Residual mass as a function of the bare input quark mass 𝑎𝑚𝑞 for zero and finite temperature ensembles at 𝛽 = 4.0, with linear 𝑎𝑚 𝑓 → 0 extrapolation to determine the mass independent 𝑚res. Right: The pion mass squared as a function of the renormalized quark mass in physical units for three different 𝛽 values. The dashed lines represent linear fits. extent. We observe that the 𝑚res obtained from finite-tempera… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: The multiplicatively renormalized chiral condensate as a function of the renormalized quark mass for three different 𝛽 values, with the dashed lines representing the quadratic fits. Right: The coefficient of linear quark mass term as a function of lattice spacings. The left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The multiplicatively renormalized chiral condensate (left) and the additively and multiplicatively renormalized chiral condensate (right) as functions of the renormalized quark mass for 𝑁𝑡 = 12 lattices with 𝐿𝑠 = 16 and 𝐿𝑠 = 32 respectively. 3.3 Disconnected chiral susceptibility We use the disconnected chiral susceptibility, 𝜒disc, to pinpoint the transition point where it develops a peak. 𝜒disc does not suffer fro… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: The renormalized disconnected chiral susceptibility as a function of the renormalized quark mass for 𝑁𝑡 = 12 lattices with 𝐿𝑠 = 16 and 𝐿𝑠 = 32, along with their cubic spline fits, except for the largest volume. The vertical bands represent the transition region. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The histogram of chiral condensate in the vicinity of the transition mass point (𝑚 𝑓 + 𝑚res) MS(2 GeV) ∼ 3.6 MeV for 𝑁𝑡 = 12 lattices with three different volumes. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On the nature of the QCD chiral phase transition with imaginary chemical potential

    hep-lat 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    First-order chiral regions observed on coarse staggered lattices disappear in tricritical points as the lattice spacing decreases at imaginary chemical potential, implying a second-order continuum transition.

  2. The order of the chiral phase transition in massless many-flavour lattice QCD

    hep-lat 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Lattice QCD simulations with up to seven flavors indicate that the first-order chiral transition seen on coarse lattices is a cutoff artifact, so the continuum chiral transition is second-order for all flavors up to t...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Aoki, S. Hashimoto, I. Kanamori, T. Kaneko and Y. Nakamura,Finite temperature QCD phase transition with 3 flavors of Mobius domain wall fermions,PoS LATTICE2022(2023) 197 [2212.10021]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Aoki, S. Hashimoto, I. Kanamori, T. Kaneko and Y. Nakamura,Exploring the QCD phase diagram with three flavors of Möbius domain wall fermions, PoS LATTICE2023(2024) 203 [2401.05066]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Pisarski and F

    R.D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek,Remarks on the Chiral Phase Transition in Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D29(1984) 338

    1984

  4. [4]

    Fejos,Second-order chiral phase transition in three-flavor quantum chromodynamics?, Phys

    G. Fejos,Second-order chiral phase transition in three-flavor quantum chromodynamics?, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) L071506 [2201.07909]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Fejos and T

    G. Fejos and T. Hatsuda,Order of the SU(Nf)×SU(Nf) chiral transition via the functional renormalization group,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 016021 [2404.00554]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Kousvos and A

    S.R. Kousvos and A. Stergiou,CFTs withU(m)× U(n) global symmetry in 3D and the chiral phase transition of QCD,SciPost Phys.15 (2023) 075 [2209.02837]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Pisarski and F

    R.D. Pisarski and F. Rennecke,Conjectures about the Chiral Phase Transition in QCD from Anomalous Multi-Instanton Interactions,Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024) 251903 [2401.06130]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Giacosa, G

    F. Giacosa, G. Kovács, P. Kovács, R.D. Pisarski and F. Rennecke,Anomalous U(1)A couplings and the Columbia plot, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 016014 [2410.08185]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Bernhardt and C.S

    J. Bernhardt and C.S. Fischer,QCD phase transitions in the light quark chiral limit, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 114018 [2309.06737]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Liao,Study of 3 flavor QCD finite temperature phase transition with staggered fermions, Nucl

    X. Liao,Study of 3 flavor QCD finite temperature phase transition with staggered fermions, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.106 (2002) 426 [hep-lat/0111013]

    2002 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Karsch, E

    F. Karsch, E. Laermann and C. Schmidt,The Chiral critical point in three-flavor QCD,Phys. Lett. B520 (2001) 41 [hep-lat/0107020]

    2001 arXiv

  4. [12]

    de Forcrand and O

    P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen,The QCD phase diagram for three degenerate flavors and small baryon density, Nucl. Phys. B673 (2003) 170 [hep-lat/0307020]

    2003 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Iwasaki, K

    Y. Iwasaki, K. Kanaya, S. Sakai and T. Yoshie,Chiral phase transition in lattice QCD with Wilson quarks, Z. Phys. C71(1996) 337 [hep-lat/9504019]

    1996 arXiv

  6. [14]

    X.-Y. Jin, Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, S. Takeda and A. Ukawa,Critical endpoint of the finite temperature phase transition for three flavor QCD, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 014508 [1411.7461]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Karsch, C.R

    F. Karsch, C.R. Allton, S. Ejiri, S.J. Hands, O. Kaczmarek, E. Laermann et al.,Where is the chiral critical point in three flavor QCD?, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.129 (2004) 614 [hep-lat/0309116]. 9 Three flavor QCD phase transition with Möbius domain wall fermions Yu Zhang

    2004 arXiv

  8. [16]

    de Forcrand and O

    P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen,The Chiral critical line of N(f) = 2+1 QCD at zero and non-zero baryon density, JHEP 01(2007) 077 [hep-lat/0607017]

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Varnhorst,The𝑁𝑓=3 critical endpoint with smeared staggered quarks, PoS LATTICE2014(2015) 193

    L. Varnhorst,The𝑁𝑓=3 critical endpoint with smeared staggered quarks, PoS LATTICE2014(2015) 193

    2015

  10. [18]

    Bazavov, H.T

    A. Bazavov, H.T. Ding, P. Hegde, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, S. Mukherjee et al.,Chiral phase structure of three flavor QCD at vanishing baryon number density,Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 074505 [1701.03548]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    X.-Y. Jin, Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, S. Takeda and A. Ukawa,Critical point phase transition for finite temperature 3-flavor QCD with non-perturbatively O(𝑎) improved Wilson fermions at𝑁t= 10,Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 034523 [1706.01178]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kuramashi, Y

    Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, H. Ohno and S. Takeda,Nature of the phase transition for finite temperature𝑁f = 3 QCD with nonperturbatively O(𝑎) improved Wilson fermions at𝑁t= 12, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 054509 [2001.04398]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cuteri, O

    F. Cuteri, O. Philipsen and A. Sciarra,On the order of the QCD chiral phase transition for different numbers of quark flavours, JHEP 11(2021) 141 [2107.12739]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    L.Dini, P.Hegde, F.Karsch, A.Lahiri, C.SchmidtandS.Sharma, Chiralphasetransitionin three-flavor QCD from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 034510 [2111.12599]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Nakamura, Y

    Y. Nakamura, Y. Aoki, S. Hashimoto, I. Kanamori, T. Kaneko and Y. Zhang,Finite temperature phase transition for three flavor QCD with Möbius-domain wall fermions,PoS LATTICE2021(2022) 080

    2022

  16. [24]

    Meyer, D

    N. Meyer, D. Pleiter, S. Solbrig and T. Wettig,Lattice QCD on upcoming Arm architectures, PoS LATTICE2018(2019) 316 [1904.03927]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Borsanyi et al.,High-precision scale setting in lattice QCD,JHEP 09 (2012) 010 [1203.4469]

    S. Borsanyi et al.,High-precision scale setting in lattice QCD,JHEP 09 (2012) 010 [1203.4469]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Furman and Y

    V. Furman and Y. Shamir,Axial symmetries in lattice QCD with Kaplan fermions,Nucl. Phys. B439 (1995) 54 [hep-lat/9405004]

    1995 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Blum et al.,Quenched lattice QCD with domain wall fermions and the chiral limit,Phys

    T. Blum et al.,Quenched lattice QCD with domain wall fermions and the chiral limit,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 074502 [hep-lat/0007038]

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    RBC, UKQCD collaboration,Localization and chiral symmetry in three flavor domain wall QCD, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 014509 [0705.2340]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sharpe,Future of chiral extrapolations with domain wall fermions, 0706.0218

    S.R. Sharpe,Future of chiral extrapolations with domain wall fermions, 0706.0218

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Binder,Finite size scaling analysis of Ising model block distribution functions,Z

    K. Binder,Finite size scaling analysis of Ising model block distribution functions,Z. Phys. B 43(1981) 119. 10 Three flavor QCD phase transition with Möbius domain wall fermions Yu Zhang

    1981

  23. [31]

    Blote, E

    H.W.J. Blote, E. Luijten and J.R. Heringa,Ising universality in three dimensions: a Monte Carlo study, J. Phys. A28(1995) 6289 [cond-mat/9509016]

    1995 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Portelli, N

    A. Portelli, N. Lachini, felixerben, mmphys, F. Joswig, rrhodgson et al.,aportelli/hadrons: Hadrons v1.4, June, 2023. 10.5281/zenodo.8023716. 11

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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