Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 104 references

First-order CP phase transition in two-flavor QCD at $\theta = \pi$ under electromagnetic scale anomaly via a Nambu-Jona-Lasinio description

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At θ=π, the electromagnetic scale anomaly from a weak magnetic field turns QCD's thermal CP transition into a first-order transition whose strength grows with the field.

desk verdict A clear NJL-based argument that the electromagnetic scale anomaly can make the θ=π CP transition first order under weak magnetic fields; the claim is honest about resting on an imported, truncated term. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03879 v3 pith:UWLQEFDI submitted 2025-02-06 hep-ph hep-lathep-thnucl-th

Yuanyuan Wang , Shinya Matsuzaki , Mamiya Kawaguchi , Akio Tomiya This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-lathep-thnucl-th
keywords QCDthetatermCPphasetransitionNambu-Jona-Lasiniomodelelectromagneticscaleanomalymagneticcatalysisfirst-orderequalspiearlyuniverse
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 argues that in two-flavor QCD at $\theta=\pi$, a weak background magnetic field changes the thermal CP phase transition from a second-order transition into a first-order one. The cause is the electromagnetic scale anomaly, which contributes a 'tadpole' potential that develops a free-energy barrier around the CP order parameter at high temperature. The barrier is thermally generated and its height grows with the field, roughly as $|eB|^3$, so the transition becomes more strongly first-order as the magnetic field increases. If the claim survives contact with full QCD, it gives a concrete benchmark for what the $\theta=\pi$ transition could do in the early universe, where CP-odd domains and a redshifted cosmic magnetic field may coexist. It also ties the CP transition to cosmological scenarios, such as gravitational waves from collapsing axionlike domain walls, that require a first-order transition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tadpole potential $V^{(\rm Tad)}_{\rm eff}=-\varphi/f_\varphi\,T^\mu_\mu$, with $\varphi=\sqrt{\sum_f[(\sigma'_f)^2+(\eta'_f)^2]}$, where $T^\mu_\mu$ is the electromagnetic trace anomaly truncated to the one-loop $\beta$-function term plus a thermomagnetic term. In the $\theta=\pi$, isospin-symmetric limit the thermomagnetic part reduces to a sum over Landau levels that, at the relevant temperatures and weak fields, is dominated by the lowest level and becomes $V^{(\rm Tad)}_{\rm eff}\sim |eB|^3/f_0\cdot |\alpha|/(\alpha^2+m_0^2)\,I(T/M_0(\alpha))$, with $\alpha=-2(g_s+g_d)P$ and $M_0^2(\alpha)=\alpha^2+m_0^2$. That function peaks at $\alpha=m_0$ and therefore builds the barrier; the reduction of the quark loop to a one-dimensional momentum integral along the magnetic field is what produces the nonperturbative $|\alpha|/(\alpha^2+m_0^2)$ shape.

What would settle it

Solve the full stationary conditions (18) without imposing the illustrative isospin-symmetric projection of Fig. 2, and recompute the thermomagnetic tadpole potential using a complete nonperturbative photon polarization function in the weak-field limit; if no barrier at $|P|\simeq m_0$ survives, the first-order conclusion is an artifact of the truncation or projection. A lattice determination of the transition order at $\theta=\pi$ with $eB\sim 0.01$--$0.04$ GeV$^2$, using analytic continuation from imaginary $\theta$, would settle the same question directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in a two-flavor Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model at $\theta=\pi$ in the mean-field approximation, the paper finds that including the electromagnetic scale anomaly via the tadpole potential $V^{(\rm Tad)}_{\rm eff}=-\varphi/f_\varphi\,T^\mu_\mu$ turns the thermal CP phase transition first order. The anomalous term's thermomagnetic part develops a peak when the CP order parameter $P$ is near the current-quark mass $m_0$, not at $P=0$, creating a barrier between the CP-broken and CP-symmetric phases. Around the critical temperature $T_c\sim 300$ MeV with $eB\sim f_\pi^2$, only the lowest Landau level matters and the induced potential takes the nonperturbative form $\sim |eB|^3/f_\pi\cdot |P|/(P^2+m_0^2)$, which has its maximum at $|P|=m_0$. Because this barrier scales as $|eB|^3$, increasing the magnetic field makes the transition more strongly first order and shifts $T_c$ upward. Without the tadpole term the same model yields only a second-order transition, so the electromagnetic scale anomaly is the entire source of the first-order character.

Load-bearing premise

The entire first-order prediction rests on the imported tadpole term being the correct representation of the electromagnetic scale anomaly, with the trace-anomaly expansion in Eq. (14) truncated as stated; if that term is wrong or the truncation fails, the potential barrier and the first-order transition disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $\theta=\pi$, the two-flavor NJL CP transition is second order without the electromagnetic scale anomaly and first order with it, so the anomaly term is the decisive new ingredient.
  • The strength of the first-order transition grows with the magnetic field, and the critical temperature increases with $eB$.
  • The barrier-producing potential has the nonperturbative form $\propto |eB|^3 |P|/(P^2+m_0^2)$, placing it outside any Ginzburg-Landau polynomial description.
  • The first-order character persists for current-quark masses in the range $10^{-5}<m_0/m_{\rm phys}<10$; outside that window the transition reverts to second order.
  • If realized in QCD, this first-order CP transition could shape gravitational-wave signals from axionlike domain-wall collapse and contribute to primordial black-hole production.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same barrier mechanism should survive in a three-flavor extension at $\theta=\pi/3$, because the anomaly-induced peak sits near the origin while the $U(1)_A$ cubic term acts at larger field values; a three-flavor calculation would test this persistence explicitly.
  • Beyond the paper: the sharp quark-mass window for first-order behavior implies a testable extended Columbia plot at $\theta=\pi$, where the first-order region shrinks as $m_0$ moves away from the physical point and disappears outside the stated bounds.
  • Beyond the paper: the truncation of Eq. (14) can be checked by evaluating the tadpole with the full photon polarization function, the route the paper itself flags for future work; a peak-free result would signal that the first-order prediction is truncation-dependent.
  • Beyond the paper: if the prediction is correct, the gravitational-wave spectrum from a QCD-era first-order CP transition would carry an imprint of the magnetic field strength, since the barrier height scales as $|eB|^3$; this offers an indirect probe of primordial magnetic fields at the QCD epoch.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the thermal CP phase transition in two-flavor QCD at θ=π in the presence of a weak magnetic field, using a two-flavor NJL model in the mean-field approximation with an added 'electromagnetic scale anomaly' tadpole potential (Eqs. (12)–(14)). The central claim is that this tadpole term, whose thermomagnetic part generates a nonperturbative barrier of the form |eB|^3 |P|/(P^2+m0^2), turns the CP transition at θ=π from second order into first order, with the transition strength increasing as eB grows. The paper provides analytic approximations (Eqs. (19)–(22)), numerical results for the order parameter (Fig. 1), and potential plots (Figs. 2–3). The authors argue that the barrier arises only for θ=π and massive quarks, and they discuss possible extensions to the Polyakov-loop and three-flavor cases.

Significance. If the electromagnetic-scale-anomaly term is accepted as correct and quantitatively reliable, the result is a concrete and interesting model prediction: the θ=π CP transition becomes first order in weak magnetic fields, with a genuinely non-Ginzburg-Landau barrier that is ultraviolet-insensitive and largely parameter-free in its leading form (Eq. (22)). This could be a useful benchmark for future lattice studies, and the extension to gravitational-wave/primordial-black-hole phenomenology is motivated. The analytic derivation of the barrier and the explicit demonstration that no barrier appears at θ=0 (Eq. (25)) are clear and instructive. However, the central claim is conditional on an imported, truncated ansatz for the electromagnetic scale anomaly that is neither derived nor benchmarked in this paper, and one of the key numerical illustrations (Fig. 2) does not solve the gap equations; these issues materially limit the strength of the conclusion until addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (12)–(14) and footnote 2] The entire first-order transition rests on the tadpole potential V_eff^Tad = -φ/f_φ T^μ_μ, with T^μ_μ truncated as in Eq. (14). This term is imported from the authors' earlier works (refs. [95–97]) and is not derived from QCD or tested against independent data here. Footnote 2 explicitly concedes that 'other possible higher order terms in eB have been disregarded' and calls this a 'crude truncation.' Since the left panel of Fig. 1 shows that without this term the transition is second order, the headline claim would disappear if the prefactor, sign, or higher-order eB corrections of Eq. (14) differ. The authors should provide a concrete robustness test, for example by varying the truncation, estimating the size of the neglected terms, or comparing with an independent derivation of the electromagnetic trace anomaly in a weak field.
  2. [Fig. 2 and gap equations (18)] The potential plotted in Fig. 2 is obtained by imposing P'_u = P'_d = 0 and β_u = β_d = m0, i.e., a specific isospin-symmetric projection, without demonstrating that this projection satisfies the stationary conditions in Eq. (18). As a result, the displayed barrier does not necessarily correspond to a physical path between two stationary solutions of the full potential. The authors should either solve the gap equations at each temperature and plot the effective potential along the resulting physical path, or explicitly justify why the projected direction captures the true transition dynamics.
  3. [Eqs. (19)–(22)] The derivation of the barrier shape relies on three approximations: dominance of the lowest Landau level, the claim that the integral I(T/M_n(α)) is almost constant in α, and the reduction of the momentum integral to one dimension. The authors themselves note (after Eq. (22)) that including higher Landau levels or the transverse momentum dependence could 'potentially disrupt the barrier generation structure.' This undermines the analytic argument for the nonperturbative barrier form as a general feature. The paper should quantify the validity of these approximations, e.g., by showing the contribution of the n=1 Landau level or by evaluating I without the constant-I approximation at the relevant temperatures.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'To explicitize' is not standard English; consider 'To make this explicit' or similar.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The formula for β_d has a stray double comma ('... + 2g_d P'_u, , ≡ ...'), which should be corrected.
  3. [Eq. (14) and Sec. II] The beta-function coefficient β(e) in Eq. (14) is notationally confusing because β_u and β_d are used in Eq. (9) for the pseudoscalar mean fields; a different symbol, e.g., β_EM, would avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Fig. 1] The two panels normalize the order parameter differently: the left panel divides by |<u-bar iγ5 u>(0)| while the right panel divides by |<u-bar u>(0)|. This makes a direct visual comparison misleading and should be clarified in the caption, or a single normalization should be used.
  5. [Eqs. (19) and (23)] The prefactor in Eq. (19) is stated only 'up to a factor of (N_f · N_c)', but the sign and the precise numerical coefficient matter for the quantitative claim of first-order strength. The full coefficient should be displayed, including the factor f_0 and the charges of both flavors.
  6. [Fig. 3] The right panel of Fig. 3 shows values of V_eff^Tad on the order of -10^8, which are drastically different from the left-panel scale and are not explained; this looks like a normalization artefact and should be described in the caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The first-order CP barrier is the imported tadpole ansatz, not an independent prediction.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. II, Eqs. (12)-(14) and footnote #2; applied in Sec. III, Eqs. (19)-(22) and Fig. 1.]
    "Besides, we incorporate the electromagnetic scale anomaly into the PNJL model [95–97]: V (Tad) eff = − φ fφ T µ µ ... #2 Higher-order contributions in powers of eB are potentially included in the full quark mass Mf in the second term of Eq.(14), while other possible higher order terms in eB have been disregarded in Eq.(14). This may be a crude truncation."

    The potential that generates the barrier is Eq. (12) with the truncated trace anomaly Eq. (14), imported verbatim from the same authors' earlier papers [95-97]. The central conclusion—first-order CP transition with barrier ∼ |eB|^3 |α|/(α^2+m0^2)—is obtained by algebraically reducing exactly this imported input (Eqs. 19-22). The left panel of Fig. 1 shows that without the tadpole term the transition is second order, so the first-order prediction is not an independent result; it is the assumed anomaly term rewritten as a potential. No external derivation or benchmark of Eq. (14) is given here, and the paper itself concedes the truncation 'may be a crude truncation.' Thus the headline claim is conditional on a self-cited, unvalidated ansatz.

full rationale

The NJL computation itself is internally consistent: the mean-field potential is computed and the stationary conditions are the gap equations. The circularity is not a formal tautology but a chain of input-dependence. The paper's advertised new ingredient is the electromagnetic-scale anomaly tadpole V_eff^Tad = -(φ/f_φ) T^μ_μ, whose thermomagnetic part is truncated as in Eq. (14). That term is taken from the authors' previous works [95-97] and is not rederived or tested against external data in the present paper. The right panel of Fig. 1 and the analytic barrier formulas (Eqs. 19-22) are direct consequences of that single input: without it the CP transition is second order, as shown in the left panel of Fig. 1. The paper also honestly flags the truncation as crude in footnote #2, and Fig. 2 relies on a projection P'_u = P'_d = 0 that is not checked against the gap equations. These caveats confirm that the first-order result is not independently established but is essentially the assumed tadpole form. For a model paper this is a legitimate calculation, but as a 'prediction' it reduces to the self-cited ansatz. Hence a partial circularity score of 6 is appropriate rather than a higher score, because the mean-field machinery is still carried out consistently and the result is not claimed to be a theorem derived from QCD.

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

The central claim rests on a model ansatz from the authors' earlier papers, plus several approximations: lowest Landau level dominance, isospin projection with P' = 0, and truncation of higher eB terms. No new particle or new interaction beyond the imported anomaly term is introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • m0 (isospin-symmetric current quark mass) = 0.006 GeV
    Fitted to reproduce m_pi = 0.1402 GeV, f_pi = 0.0926 GeV, and quark condensate (-0.2415 GeV)^3 at eB = T = 0.
  • Lambda (three-momentum cutoff) = 0.59 GeV
    Chosen with G0 to reproduce empirical hadron observables in the isospin symmetric limit.
  • G0 Lambda^2 = 2.435
    Scalar-pseudoscalar coupling strength fitted to the vacuum observables.
  • c (KMT determinant mixing) = 0.2
    Sets gs = 2(1-c)G0 and gd = 2cG0, following refs [44,46,47].
  • f_phi (or f0) = not quoted in the paper
    Vacuum expectation value of phi at T = eB = 0; normalizes the tadpole potential and sets the barrier height through the 1/f0 factor in Eq. (19).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The NJL model in the mean-field approximation describes the thermal CP transition at theta = pi.
    The entire calculation uses two-flavor NJL in MFA; no derivation from QCD is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The electromagnetic scale anomaly enters as V_eff^Tad = -phi/f_phi T^mu_mu with T^mu_mu as in Eq. (14).
    Imported from refs [95-97] by the same authors; this term is the origin of the barrier and is not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Higher-order terms in eB in the trace anomaly are negligible.
    Footnote #2 explicitly calls the truncation 'a crude truncation'; the |eB|^3 scaling depends on it.
  • domain assumption The lowest Landau level dominates at T ~ 300 MeV and eB = O(f_pi^2).
    Used to reduce Eq. (19) to Eq. (21); not quantitatively justified and doubtful for n = 1 at eB = 0.02 GeV^2.
  • ad hoc to paper The illustrative potential can be projected with P'_u = P'_d = 0 and beta_u = beta_d = m0.
    Fig. 2 uses this truncation; it is not shown to satisfy the stationary conditions (18).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First-order CP phase transition in two-flavor QCD at $\theta = \pi$ under electromagnetic scale anomaly via a Nambu-Jona-Lasinio description." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWLQEFDI

@misc{pith2026250203879,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First-order CP phase transition in two-flavor QCD at $\theta = \pi$ under electromagnetic scale anomaly via a Nambu-Jona-Lasinio description},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWLQEFDI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03879}
}
abstract

We discuss the thermal CP phase transition in QCD at $\theta=\pi$ under a weak magnetic field background, where the electromagnetic scale anomaly gets significant. To explicitize, we work on a two-flavor Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model at $\theta=\pi$ in the mean field approximation, including the electromagnetic-scale anomaly term. We find that the thermal CP phase transition becomes first order and the strength of the first order gets more prominent as the magnetic field increases. The associated potential barrier is thermally created by the electromagnetic scale anomaly and gives rise to criticality due to the induced potential of a non-perturbative form $\sim \frac{|eB|^3}{f_\pi} \frac{|P|}{P^2 + m_0^2}$, where $eB$ denotes the magnetic field strength; $P$ the CP order parameter, and $m_0$ the isospin-symmetric current-quark mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03879 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The deformation of the thermomagnetic potential projected onto the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Left panel): the breakdown of the tadpole-potential term-contributions in Eq.(12), as a function of the CP order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. Abel, S. Afach, N. J. Ayres, C. A. Baker, G. Ban, G. Bison, K. Bodek, V. Bondar, M. Burghoff and E. Chanel, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, no.8, 081803 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.081803 [arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Liang et al

    J. Liang et al. [χQCD], Phys. Rev. D 108, no.9, 094512 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.094512 [arXiv:2301.04331 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2019 (1983) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2019

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.28.2019 1983

  4. [4]

    F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2212 (1984) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.2212

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.30.2212 1984

  5. [5]

    Kharzeev and A

    D. Kharzeev and A. Zhitnitsky, Nucl. Phys. A 797, 67-79 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.10.001 [arXiv:0706.1026 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A 803, 227-253 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.02.298 [arXiv:0711.0950 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Fukushima, D

    K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074033 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.074033 [arXiv:0808.3382 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    L. D. McLerran, E. Mottola and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D 43, 2027-2035 (1991) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.2027

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.43.2027 1991

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    G. D. Moore, Phys. Lett. B 412, 359-370 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)01046-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/9705248 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  2. [10]

    G. D. Moore and K. Rummukainen, Phys. Rev. D 61, 105008 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.105008 [arXiv:hep- ph/9906259 [hep-ph]]

    2000

  3. [11]

    Bodeker, G

    D. Bodeker, G. D. Moore and K. Rummukainen, Phys. Rev. D 61, 056003 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.056003 [arXiv:hep-ph/9907545 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  4. [12]

    R. F. Dashen, Phys. Rev. D 3, 1879-1889 (1971) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.3.1879

    1971 doi

  5. [13]

    D. J. Gross, R. D. Pisarski and L. G. Yaffe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53, 43 (1981) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.53.43

    1981 doi

  6. [14]

    Weiss, Phys

    N. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 24, 475 (1981) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24.475

    1981 doi

  7. [15]

    Witten, Annals Phys

    E. Witten, Annals Phys. 128, 363 (1980) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(80)90325-5

    1980 doi

  8. [16]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2862-2865 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.2862 [arXiv:hep-th/9807109 [hep-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg and B. Willett, JHEP 02, 172 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)172 [arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    ’t Hooft, NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft, NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 135-157 (1980) doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7571-5 9

    1980 doi

  11. [19]

    Frishman, A

    Y. Frishman, A. Schwimmer, T. Banks and S. Yankielowicz, Nucl. Phys. B 177, 157-171 (1981) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(81)90268-6

    1981 doi

  12. [20]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, Z. Komargodski and N. Seiberg, JHEP 05, 091 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)091 [arXiv:1703.00501 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C´ ordova and K

    C. C´ ordova and K. Ohmori, [arXiv:1910.04962 [hep-th]]

    1910 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kitano, N

    R. Kitano, N. Yamada and M. Yamazaki, JHEP 02, 073 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2021)073 [arXiv:2010.08810 [hep- lat]]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kitano, R

    R. Kitano, R. Matsudo, N. Yamada and M. Yamazaki, Phys. Lett. B 822, 136657 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136657 [arXiv:2102.08784 [hep-lat]]

    2021

  16. [24]

    Yamada, M

    N. Yamada, M. Yamazaki and R. Kitano, [arXiv:2411.00375 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Yamada, M

    N. Yamada, M. Yamazaki and R. Kitano, JHEP 07, 198 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)198 [arXiv:2403.10767 [hep- lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hirasawa, M

    M. Hirasawa, M. Honda, A. Matsumoto, J. Nishimura and A. Yosprakob, [arXiv:2412.03683 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Del Debbio, H

    L. Del Debbio, H. Panagopoulos and E. Vicari, JHEP 08, 044 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/08/044 [arXiv:hep- th/0204125 [hep-th]]

    2002

  20. [28]

    D’Elia, Nucl

    M. D’Elia, Nucl. Phys. B 661, 139-152 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(03)00311-0 [arXiv:hep-lat/0302007 [hep-lat]]

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Del Debbio, G

    L. Del Debbio, G. M. Manca, H. Panagopoulos, A. Skouroupathis and E. Vicari, PoS LA T2006, 045 (2006) doi:10.22323/1.032.0045 [arXiv:hep-th/0610100 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Giusti, S

    L. Giusti, S. Petrarca and B. Taglienti, Phys. Rev. D76, 094510 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.094510 [arXiv:0705.2352 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Izubuchi, S

    T. Izubuchi, S. Aoki, K. Hashimoto, Y. Nakamura, T. Sekido and G. Schierholz, PoS LA TTICE2007, 106 (2007) doi:10.22323/1.042.0106 [arXiv:0802.1470 [hep-lat]]

    2007 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Vicari and H

    E. Vicari and H. Panagopoulos, Phys. Rept. 470, 93-150 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2008.10.001 [arXiv:0803.1593 [hep- 11 th]]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [33]

    D’Elia and F

    M. D’Elia and F. Negro, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.3, 034503 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.034503 [arXiv:1306.2919 [hep- lat]]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hirasawa, K

    M. Hirasawa, K. Hatakeyama, M. Honda, A. Matsumoto, J. Nishimura and A. Yosprakob, PoS LA TTICE2023, 193 (2024) doi:10.22323/1.453.0193 [arXiv:2401.05726 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Byrnes, P

    T. Byrnes, P. Sriganesh, R. J. Bursill and C. J. Hamer, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.109, 202-206 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0920- 5632(02)01416-0 [arXiv:hep-lat/0201007 [hep-lat]]

    2002 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Funcke, K

    L. Funcke, K. Jansen and S. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.5, 054507 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.054507 [arXiv:1908.00551 [hep-lat]]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kuramashi and Y

    Y. Kuramashi and Y. Yoshimura, JHEP 04, 089 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2020)089 [arXiv:1911.06480 [hep-lat]]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chakraborty, M

    B. Chakraborty, M. Honda, T. Izubuchi, Y. Kikuchi and A. Tomiya, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.9, 094503 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.094503 [arXiv:2001.00485 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Honda, E

    M. Honda, E. Itou, Y. Kikuchi, L. Nagano and T. Okuda, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.1, 014504 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.014504 [arXiv:2105.03276 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Honda, doi:10.1142/9789811261633 0003

    M. Honda, doi:10.1142/9789811261633 0003

    doi

  33. [41]

    R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3084-3087 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.3084 [arXiv:hep-ph/9601316 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Creutz, Phys

    M. Creutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 201601 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.201601 [arXiv:hep-lat/0312018 [hep-lat]]

    2004 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A. J. Mizher and E. S. Fraga, Nucl. Phys. A 831, 91-105 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.09.004 [arXiv:0810.5162 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Boer and J

    D. Boer and J. K. Boomsma, Phys. Rev. D 78, 054027 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.054027 [arXiv:0806.1669 [hep- ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Creutz, Annals Phys

    M. Creutz, Annals Phys. 324, 1573-1584 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2009.01.005 [arXiv:0901.0150 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    J. K. Boomsma and D. Boer, Phys. Rev. D 80, 034019 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.034019 [arXiv:0905.4660 [hep- ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Sakai, H

    Y. Sakai, H. Kouno, T. Sasaki and M. Yahiro, Phys. Lett. B 705, 349-355 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.10.032 [arXiv:1105.0413 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Chatterjee, H

    B. Chatterjee, H. Mishra and A. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 85, 114008 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.114008 [arXiv:1111.4061 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Sasaki, J

    T. Sasaki, J. Takahashi, Y. Sakai, H. Kouno and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. D 85, 056009 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.056009 [arXiv:1112.6086 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Sasaki, H

    T. Sasaki, H. Kouno and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.5, 056003 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.056003 [arXiv:1208.0375 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Aoki and M

    S. Aoki and M. Creutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, no.14, 141603 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.141603 [arXiv:1402.1837 [hep-lat]]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Mameda, Nucl

    K. Mameda, Nucl. Phys. B 889, 712-726 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.11.002 [arXiv:1408.1189 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. J. M. Verbaarschot and T. Wettig, Phys. Rev. D 90, no.11, 116004 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.116004 [arXiv:1407.8393 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Y. Bai, T. K. Chen and M. Korwar, JHEP 12, 194 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2023)194 [arXiv:2306.17160 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Huang, Y

    L. Huang, Y. Wang, H. X. Zhang, S. Matsuzaki, H. Ishida, M. Kawaguchi and A. Tomiya, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.11, 115015 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.115015 [arXiv:2403.11444 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Vachaspati, Phys

    T. Vachaspati, Phys. Lett. B 265, 258-261 (1991) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90051-Q

    1991 doi

  49. [57]

    Enqvist and P

    K. Enqvist and P. Olesen, Phys. Lett. B 319, 178-185 (1993) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90799-N [arXiv:hep-ph/9308270 [hep-ph]]

    1993 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Grasso and A

    D. Grasso and A. Riotto, Phys. Lett. B 418, 258-265 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)01224-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/9707265 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Grasso and H

    D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, Phys. Rept. 348, 163-266 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00110-1 [arXiv:astro- ph/0009061 [astro-ph]]

    2001

  52. [60]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, M. Lewicki, V. Vaskonen and A. Wickens, JCAP09, 019 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/019 [arXiv:1907.04315 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Zhang, T

    Y. Zhang, T. Vachaspati and F. Ferrer, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.8, 083006 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083006 [arXiv:1902.02751 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Y. Di, J. Wang, R. Zhou, L. Bian, R. G. Cai and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.25, 251102 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.251102 [arXiv:2012.15625 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Yang and L

    J. Yang and L. Bian, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.2, 023510 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023510 [arXiv:2102.01398 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    S. Saga, M. Shiraishi, K. Akitsu and T. Okumura, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.4, 043520 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043520 [arXiv:2312.16316 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    H. Liu, R. Qin and L. Bian, [arXiv:2409.16091 [hep-ph]]

  58. [66]

    Y. Di, L. Bian and R. G. Cai, [arXiv:2409.16124 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    M. S. Turner and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3428 (1988) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3428

    1988 doi

  60. [68]

    W. D. Garretson, G. B. Field and S. M. Carroll, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5346-5351 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.5346 [arXiv:hep-ph/9209238 [hep-ph]]

    1992 arXiv

  61. [69]

    M. M. Anber and L. Sorbo, JCAP 10, 018 (2006) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/10/018 [arXiv:astro-ph/0606534 [astro- ph]]. 12

    2006 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Domcke, B

    V. Domcke, B. von Harling, E. Morgante and K. Mukaida, JCAP 10, 032 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/10/032 [arXiv:1905.13318 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Domcke, Y

    V. Domcke, Y. Ema and K. Mukaida, JHEP 02, 055 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2020)055 [arXiv:1910.01205 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Patel, H

    T. Patel, H. Tashiro and Y. Urakawa, JCAP 01, 043 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/01/043 [arXiv:1909.00288 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Domcke, V

    V. Domcke, V. Guidetti, Y. Welling and A. Westphal, JCAP 09, 009 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/009 [arXiv:2002.02952 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Shtanov and M

    Y. Shtanov and M. Pavliuk, JCAP 08, 042 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/042 [arXiv:2004.00947 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Okano and T

    S. Okano and T. Fujita, JCAP 03, 026 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/026 [arXiv:2005.13833 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Y. Cado, B. von Harling, E. Mass´ o and M. Quir´ os, JCAP 07, 049 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/07/049 [arXiv:2102.13650 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Kushwaha and S

    A. Kushwaha and S. Shankaranarayanan, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.6, 063502 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063502 [arXiv:2103.05339 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    E. V. Gorbar, K. Schmitz, O. O. Sobol and S. I. Vilchinskii, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.12, 123504 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123504 [arXiv:2109.01651 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    E. V. Gorbar, K. Schmitz, O. O. Sobol and S. I. Vilchinskii, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.4, 043530 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043530 [arXiv:2111.04712 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    E. V. Gorbar, A. I. Momot, I. V. Rudenok, O. O. Sobol, S. I. Vilchinskii and I. V. Oleinikova, Ukr. J. Phys. 68, no.11, 717 (2023) doi:10.15407/ujpe68.11.717 [arXiv:2111.05848 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Fujita, J

    T. Fujita, J. Kume, K. Mukaida and Y. Tada, JCAP09, 023 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/023 [arXiv:2204.01180 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Cado and M

    Y. Cado and M. Quir´ os, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.12, 123527 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.123527 [arXiv:2208.10977 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Domcke, K

    V. Domcke, K. Kamada, K. Mukaida, K. Schmitz and M. Yamada, JHEP 01, 053 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2023)053 [arXiv:2210.06412 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Cado and M

    Y. Cado and M. Quir´ os, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.2, 023508 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.023508 [arXiv:2303.12932 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Murai and W

    K. Murai and W. Yin, JHEP 10, 062 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)062 [arXiv:2307.00628 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Bastero-Gil, P

    M. Bastero-Gil, P. B. Ferraz, L. Ubaldi and R. Vega-Morales, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.9, 095019 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.095019 [arXiv:2311.09475 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Bastero-Gil, P

    M. Bastero-Gil, P. B. Ferraz, L. Ubaldi and R. Vega-Morales, JCAP 10, 078 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/078 [arXiv:2312.15137 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Otsuka and R

    H. Otsuka and R. Yokokura, JHEP 07, 055 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)055 [arXiv:2404.00698 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    von Eckardstein, K

    R. von Eckardstein, K. Schmitz and O. Sobol, JHEP 02, 096 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2025)096 [arXiv:2408.16538 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Sharma, A

    R. Sharma, A. Brandenburg, K. Subramanian and A. Vikman, [arXiv:2411.04854 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  83. [91]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, A. Schafer and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 02, 044 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2012)044 [arXiv:1111.4956 [hep-lat]]

    2012 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Chatterjee, H

    B. Chatterjee, H. Mishra and A. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 91, no.3, 034031 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.034031 [arXiv:1409.3454 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Bandyopadhyay, R

    A. Bandyopadhyay, R. L. S. Farias, B. S. Lopes and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.7, 076021 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.076021 [arXiv:1906.09250 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  86. [94]

    J. P. Carlomagno, D. G´ omez Dumm and N. N. Scoccola, [arXiv:2501.02782 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  87. [95]

    Kawaguchi, S

    M. Kawaguchi, S. Matsuzaki and A. Tomiya, JHEP 12, 175 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)175 [arXiv:2102.05294 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Y. Wang, M. Kawaguchi, S. Matsuzaki and A. Tomiya, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.9, 095010 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.095010 [arXiv:2208.03975 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Y. Wang, M. Kawaguchi, S. Matsuzaki and A. Tomiya, [arXiv:2410.11360 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  90. [98]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 44, 1422-1424 (1970) doi:10.1143/PTP.44.1422

    1970 doi

  91. [99]

    Kobayashi, H

    M. Kobayashi, H. Kondo and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 45, 1955-1959 (1971) doi:10.1143/PTP.45.1955

    1971 doi

  92. [100]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 8-11 (1976) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.8

    1976 doi

  93. [101]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D 14, 3432-3450 (1976) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 18, 2199 (1978)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3432

    1976 doi

  94. [102]

    Frasca and M

    M. Frasca and M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D 83, 094024 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.094024 [arXiv:1103.1194 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Ghosh, B

    R. Ghosh, B. Karmakar and M. G. Mustafa, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.5, 056007 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.056007 [arXiv:1911.00744 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  96. [104]

    S. S. Avancini, R. L. S. Farias, N. N. Scoccola and W. R. Tavares, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.11, 116002 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.116002 [arXiv:1904.02730 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.