Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Correlations and fluctuations in a magnetized three-flavor PNJL model with and without inverse magnetic catalysis effect

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a magnetized three-flavor PNJL model, the scaled baryon-charge correlation rises fastest with magnetic field and is proposed as a QCD magnetometer.

desk verdict A clean three-flavor PNJL susceptibility study with a plausible magnetometer claim that needs a regulator-robustness check before it fully lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14532 v1 pith:CSVLBWPZ submitted 2025-04-20 nucl-th hep-ph

Shijun Mao This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph
keywords PNJLmodelmagneticfieldinversecatalysisconservedchargecorrelationsbaryonnumberelectricstrangenessQCDmagnetometer
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 a three-flavor Polyakov-loop-extended Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (PNJL) model to compute correlations and fluctuations of baryon number, electric charge, and strangeness in quark matter under an external magnetic field. It finds that these susceptibilities grow with temperature, peak at the chiral-restoration and deconfinement crossover, and that the peaks become more pronounced as the magnetic field increases. Along the chiral pseudocritical line, all scaled quantities increase with magnetic field, with the scaled BQ correlation $\hat{\chi}^{BQ}_{11}$ increasing fastest; the author therefore suggests $\hat{\chi}^{BQ}_{11}$ as a magnetometer of QCD, a probe of magnetic field strength in quark matter. Including inverse magnetic catalysis through $G(eB)$ or $T_0(eB)$ changes the values but not the qualitative ordering.

What carries the argument

The central object is the mean-field thermodynamic potential $\Omega$ of the three-flavor PNJL model, which includes chiral condensates $\sigma_u,\sigma_d,\sigma_s$, the Polyakov loop $\Phi$, and Landau-level quark energies in a constant magnetic field $B$. From $\Omega$, the susceptibilities are obtained as derivatives with respect to dimensionless chemical potentials $\hat{\mu}_X=\mu_X/T$, for example $\chi^{XY}_{11} = -\partial^2(\Omega/T^4)/\partial\hat{\mu}_X\partial\hat{\mu}_Y$ evaluated at zero chemical potential. The model applies Pauli–Villars regularization to both the vacuum and medium parts of $\Omega$, a choice the paper emphasizes is responsible for the appearance of peaks in all correlation channels, in contrast to an earlier calculation that regularized only the vacuum term. The peak height and location are tied to the derivative of the chiral condensate $d\sigma_{ud}/dT$, whose maximum defines $T^c_{pc}$ and whose height measures the phase-transition strength, which grows with magnetic field.

What would settle it

Recompute the correlations and scaled susceptibilities using the regularization scheme of the earlier work that regularizes only the vacuum term: if $\hat{\chi}^{BQ}_{11}$ no longer increases fastest among the scaled quantities, the claim fails. Alternatively, compare the predicted monotonic growth of $\hat{\chi}^{BQ}_{11}$ at $T^c_{pc}$ against existing or future lattice QCD data at $eB/m_\pi^2 = 10$ and $20$; any non-monotonicity or a slower rise than $\hat{\chi}^{B}_{4}$ or $\hat{\chi}^{Q}_{4}$ would falsify the magnetometer proposal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the three-flavor PNJL model at vanishing chemical potential, the correlations $\chi^{BQ}_{11}$, $\chi^{BS}_{11}$, $\chi^{QS}_{11}$ and the quadratic/quartic fluctuations $\chi^{B,Q,S}_{2,4}$ all exhibit a distinct peak around the pseudocritical temperatures of chiral restoration and deconfinement. The peak structure is sharpest for $\chi^{BQ}_{11}$, $\chi^{B}_{4}$, and $\chi^{Q}_{4}$. When these quantities are evaluated at the chiral pseudocritical temperature and normalized by their zero-field values, the resulting scaled correlations and fluctuations increase monotonically with magnetic field. Among them, the scaled BQ correlation $\hat{\chi}^{BQ}_{11}$ grows fastest, a behavior the author attributes to the increase in phase-transition strength under magnetic field and suggests could serve as a magnetometer of QCD. The paper also shows that implementing inverse magnetic catalysis through a field-dependent coupling $G(eB)$ or a field-dependent Polyakov-loop scale $T_0(eB)$ does not change the qualitative picture, only the numerical magnitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that Pauli–Villars regularization should be applied to both the vacuum and medium parts of the thermodynamic potential; if only the vacuum term is regularized, as in earlier work, the pronounced peaks in several susceptibilities—and possibly the fastest growth of $\hat{\chi}^{BQ}_{11}$—may disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the prediction is correct, $\hat{\chi}^{BQ}_{11}$ provides a concrete, conserved-charge observable whose growth rate with magnetic field is the strongest, giving experimentalists a targeted probe in relativistic heavy-ion collisions.
  • The qualitative ordering—$\hat{\chi}^{BQ}_{11}$ fastest, strangeness-related quantities slowest—is robust to the way inverse magnetic catalysis is implemented, so future model comparisons can focus on the BQ channel as the decisive test.
  • The results imply that the magnetic-field enhancement of phase-transition strength, rather than the inverse magnetic catalysis mechanism itself, governs the rise of all scaled susceptibilities near the crossover.
  • Strangeness fluctuations and correlations are less sensitive to the magnetic field because strange quarks are heavier, so measurements of these channels would be less useful as magnetometers.
  • The model's scaled correlations and quadratic fluctuations are qualitatively consistent with existing lattice QCD results, suggesting the same observable trends could be confirmed by forthcoming lattice data at higher $eB$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The regularization-scheme dependence noted in the paper means the quantitative predictions, including the exact rate at which $\hat{\chi}^{BQ}_{11}$ grows, may be scheme-dependent; recomputing with a different regularization (e.g., proper-time or sharp cutoff) would test the robustness of the magnetometer claim.
  • The author's magnetometer proposal could be extended to finite baryon density, where $\chi^{BQ}_{11}$ may mix with chemical-potential effects; this extension is not explored in the paper but is a natural next step.
  • The mechanism implies that any physical effect that steepens the crossover slope (e.g., stronger coupling or a different Polyakov potential) would similarly enhance all scaled susceptibilities, offering a testable prediction for other effective models.
  • If lattice QCD at $eB$ up to about 1 GeV$^2$ shows that $\hat{\chi}^{BQ}_{11}$ does not grow faster than other scaled susceptibilities, the central claim would be refuted, but the paper's qualitative peak structure might still survive.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the temperature and magnetic-field dependence of baryon-number, electric-charge, and strangeness correlations and quadratic/quartic fluctuations in a three-flavor PNJL model. The inverse magnetic catalysis (IMC) effect is modeled through magnetic-field-dependent couplings G(eB) or T0(eB) fitted to LQCD pseudocritical temperatures. The paper reports that these quantities exhibit peaks around the chiral pseudocritical temperature, that the peaks and the scaled values along the pseudocritical line increase with eB, and that the scaled BQ correlation chi_hat_11^BQ increases fastest, making it a candidate magnetometer of QCD. The central claim is that the inclusion of IMC changes the values but not the qualitative ordering.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the paper offers a testable prediction for the most magnetically sensitive conserved-charge susceptibility. The systematic comparison of two IMC implementations (G(eB) versus T0(eB)) is useful, and the identification of a specific, falsifiable observable (chi_hat_11^BQ) is a strength. The model setup and gap equations are standard, and the authors clearly state the regularization scheme. However, the regulator-dependence of the peak structure identified by the authors themselves means the predictive claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A, paragraph after Fig. 2] The authors attribute the new peak structure compared to Ref. [70] to applying Pauli-Villars regularization to both the vacuum and medium parts of the thermodynamic potential. Since the medium part is finite after vacuum subtraction, this is a scheme choice rather than a physical requirement. The headline result that chi_hat_11^BQ increases fastest among the scaled susceptibilities (abstract and Sec. IV) is based on this choice. To make the magnetometer claim robust, the authors should repeat the analysis with the vacuum-only regularization of Ref. [70] and show that the ordering persists, or provide a physical justification for regularizing the medium part. Absent this, the central conclusion may be regulator-dependent.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 4] The magnetic-field-dependent parameters G(eB) and T0(eB) are fitted to the LQCD pseudocritical temperature T_pc^c(eB)/T_pc^c(0) from Ref. [7]. The scaled susceptibilities are then evaluated at the model T_pc^c(eB) that is constrained by this fit. Consequently, the agreement with LQCD scaled susceptibilities shown in Figs. 3 and 5-7 is partly inherited from the fit. The authors should quantify the impact of this partial circularity and state clearly which features of the scaled susceptibilities are genuine predictions rather than consequences of the input T_pc(eB).
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (5) and Sec. III.A] The manuscript does not display the explicit Pauli-Villars regularized form of Omega_q. Given that the regularization prescription is the stated reason for the difference from Ref. [70] and underlies the peak structure, the absence of the regularized expression prevents an independent check of the calculations. Please include the substitution rule for the covariant Pauli-Villars regulators and the resulting expression for Omega_q.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'LQC D' should be 'LQCD'.
  2. [Sec. III.A] The phrase 'much more heavier' in the discussion of strange-quark contributions should be 'much heavier'.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption refers to 'scaled quadratic fluctuation chi_hat_4^B' but the panel shows the quartic fluctuation; the wording should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. IV] The summary states that 'these properties of correlations and quadratic fluctuations are qualitatively consistent with the LQCD results' but omits the quartic fluctuations that were also computed; the summary should be updated for completeness.
  5. [Figs. 3 and 5-7] The vertical lines representing LQCD results are not accompanied by a legend or numerical values; adding a table or annotated legend would make the comparison more transparent.
  6. [Eq. (6)] The notation chi_{i,j}^{B,Q,S} with the exponent i+j+k is slightly confusing; it would be clearer to write explicitly which indices correspond to the correlations and fluctuations studied here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IMC parameters are fitted to LQCD T_pc(eB), but the fluctuation values, peak structure, and the fastest-growth ranking of chi_hat_11^BQ are computed from the thermodynamic potential and compared against LQCD as an external benchmark.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The only externally fitted inputs are the magnetic-field-dependent parameters G(eB) and T0(eB), fitted to the LQCD-reported decreasing pseudocritical temperature T_pc(eB)/T_pc(0) from Ref. [7] (Sec. III.B, Fig. 4). These inputs locate the crossover line in the model; they do not determine the values of the correlations and fluctuations. The central outputs—chi_11^BQ, chi_11^BS, chi_11^QS, chi_2,4^B,Q,S, their temperature dependence, the peak structure, and the scaled ratios chi_hat evaluated at T_pc^c(eB)—are computed from the thermodynamic potential via Eq. (6) and the gap equations, without being fitted to lattice data. The paper explicitly reports quantitative mismatches with LQCD (e.g., chi_hat_11^BQ and chi_hat_2^B slightly undershoot LQCD, while chi_hat_2^Q overshoots), which demonstrates that the fluctuation results are genuine outputs rather than reproductions of fitted values. The claim that the peak structure differs from Ref. [70] because Pauli-Villars regularization is applied to both the vacuum and medium terms is an admitted regulator-sensitivity caveat, not a circular step: no equation identifies chi_hat_11^BQ with the regularization choice, with dsigma/dT, or with T_pc(eB) by construction. The self-citations to earlier IMC studies are not load-bearing because the parameters are fitted here, not imported as an unverified uniqueness result, and the qualitative agreement with LQCD vertical lines in Figs. 3, 5, and 6 is an external falsifiable benchmark. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation-chain circularity is present. The main weakness is the possible regulator dependence of the peak structure, which is a robustness concern for the magnetometer claim, not a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on standard NJL/PNJL assumptions and on fitted parameters. The two IMC schemes are fit to lattice T_pc, so the IMC dependence of the transition temperature is an input rather than a prediction; the fluctuation values themselves are then computed without further fitting.

free parameters (8)
  • Light current quark masses m_u0 = m_d0 = 5.5 MeV
    Fitted to vacuum pion mass and decay constant (Sec. III.A).
  • Strange current quark mass m_s0 = 154.7 MeV
    Fitted to vacuum kaon and eta-prime masses (Sec. III.A).
  • Four-quark coupling G = G * Lambda^2 = 3.627
    Fitted to vacuum meson masses (Sec. III.A).
  • Six-quark coupling K = K * Lambda^5 = 92.835
    Fitted to eta-prime mass and U_A(1) anomaly strength (Sec. III.A).
  • Pauli-Villars cutoff Lambda = 1101 MeV
    Chosen as regularization scale, fixed by vacuum fit (Sec. III.A).
  • Polyakov potential parameters a0, a1, a2, a3, b3, b4, T0 = 6.75, -1.95, 2.625, -7.44, 0.75, 7.5, 270 MeV
    Taken from Ref [77], fitted to pure gauge thermodynamics (Sec. II and III.A).
  • G(eB), magnetic-field-dependent four-quark coupling = Decreasing function of eB, shown in Fig. 4
    Fitted to reproduce LQCD T_pc(eB)/T_pc(0) from Ref [7] (Sec. III.B).
  • T0(eB), magnetic-field-dependent Polyakov scale = Decreasing function of eB, shown in Fig. 4
    Fitted to reproduce LQCD T_pc(eB)/T_pc(0) from Ref [7] (Sec. III.B).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation for the thermodynamic potential, minimized with respect to chiral condensates and Polyakov loop fields (Eq. 5)
    The entire calculation assumes mean-field treatment is adequate for these susceptibilities.
  • domain assumption Pauli-Villars regularization applied to both vacuum and medium terms of the thermodynamic potential
    Explicitly identified in Sec. III.A as the source of differences from Ref [70] and therefore load-bearing for the peak structure.
  • domain assumption Inverse magnetic catalysis can be parameterized by magnetic-field-dependent G(eB) or T0(eB) fitted to lattice T_pc
    This is a modeling choice; the physical mechanism of IMC is not derived from QCD.
  • standard math At vanishing chemical potential, Polyakov loop and its conjugate are equal (Phi = anti-Phi)
    Used implicitly in solving gap equations at zero chemical potential.
  • standard math Susceptibilities are defined as derivatives of Omega/T^4 with respect to dimensionless chemical potentials, evaluated at zero chemical potential (Eq. 6)
    Standard definition for conserved-charge fluctuations and correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlations and fluctuations in a magnetized three-flavor PNJL model with and without inverse magnetic catalysis effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSVLBWPZ

@misc{pith2026250414532,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlations and fluctuations in a magnetized three-flavor PNJL model with and without inverse magnetic catalysis effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSVLBWPZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14532}
}
abstract

The correlations $\chi^{BQ}_{11},\ \chi^{BS}_{11} ,\ \chi^{QS}_{11}$ and quadratic (quartic) fluctuations $\chi^{B,\ Q,\ S}_{2,4}$ of baryon number $B$, electric charge $Q$ and strangeness $S$ are investigated in a three-flavor PNJL model at finite temperature and magnetic field. The inverse magnetic catalysis (IMC) effect is introduced through the magnetic field dependent parameters $G(eB)$ or $T_0(eB)$, and we make comparison of the results in the cases with and without IMC effect. Since including IMC effect does not change the strength of phase transition under external magnetic field, it does not lead to qualitative difference in the correlations and fluctuations, but modifies their values. Under vanishing and nonvanishing magnetic field, the correlations and fluctuations increase with temperature, and then show the peak around the pseudocritical temperatures of chiral restoration and deconfinement phase transitions. The peak structure in $\chi^{BQ}_{11}$, $\chi^B_{4}$ and $\chi^Q_{4}$ are much more apparent than in others. The correlations and fluctuations along the phase transition line under external magnetic field are characterized by the scaled correlations ${\hat {\chi}}_{11}^{XY}=\frac{\chi_{11}^{XY}(eB,T_{pc}^c(eB))}{\chi_{11}^{XY}(eB=0,T_{pc}^c(eB=0))}$ and scaled quadratic (quartic) fluctuations ${\hat {\chi}}_{2,4}^{X}=\frac{\chi_{2,4}^{X}(eB,T_{pc}^c(eB))}{\chi_{2,4}^{X}(eB=0,T_{pc}^c(eB=0))}$, with $X,\ Y=B,\ Q,\ S$ and $X \neq Y$ at the pseudocritical temperature $T_{pc}^c$ of chiral restoration phase transition. They increase with magnetic fields due to the increase of phase transition strength under magnetic fields. Among them, ${\hat {\chi}}_{11}^{BQ}$ increases fastest, which may serve as the magnetometer of QCD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14532 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (first two rows) The chiral condensates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Quadratic fluctuations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The scaled correlations ˆχ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (upper panel) Magnetic field dependent parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (First row) The correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (First row) The quadratic fluctuation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (First row) The quartic fluctuation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Leading-Order QCD Equation of State in Strong Magnetic Fields at Nonzero Baryon Chemical Potential

    hep-lat 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Continuum-estimated leading-order EoS coefficients in magnetized strangeness-neutral QCD at nonzero baryon chemical potential show temperature-band crossings in q1 and P2 and a possible sign change of the trace anomal...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [70]

    G.Kadam, S.Pal, and A.Bhattacharyya, J. Phys. G 47, 125106(2020)

    2020

  2. [7]

    Notes Phys

    M.D’Elia, Lect. Notes Phys. 871, 181(2013)

    2013

  3. [1]

    The four-fermion interaction L4 represents the interaction in scalar and pseudo-scalar channels, with Gell-Mann matrices λ α, α = 1, 2,..., 8 and λ 0 = √ 2/ 3I in fla- vor space

    is the current quark mass matrix in flavor space. The four-fermion interaction L4 represents the interaction in scalar and pseudo-scalar channels, with Gell-Mann matrices λ α, α = 1, 2,..., 8 and λ 0 = √ 2/ 3I in fla- vor space. The six-fermion interaction or Kobayashi- Maskawa-’t Hooft term L6 is related to the UA(1) anomaly [83–87]. The Polyakov potential...

  4. [2]

    Notes Phys

    F.Preis, A.Rebhan and A.Schmitt, Lect. Notes Phys. 871, 51(2013)

    2013

  5. [3]

    Notes Phys

    R.Gatto and M.Ruggieri, Lect. Notes Phys. 871, 87(2013)

    2013

  6. [4]

    V.A.Miransky and I.A.Shovkovy, Phys. Rep. 576, 1(2015)

    2015

  7. [5]

    J.O.Anderson and W.R.Naylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 025001(2016)

    2016

  8. [6]

    G.Q.Cao, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 264(2021)

    2021

Show all 93 references
  1. [8]

    High Energy Phys

    G.S.Bali, F.Bruckmann, G.Endr¨ odi, Z.Fodor, S.D.Katz, S.Krieg, A.Schaefer and K.K.Szabo, J. High Energy Phys. 02, 044(2012)

    2012

  2. [9]

    G.S.Bali, F.Bruckmann, G.Endr¨odi, Z.Fodor, S.D.Katz and A.Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D86, 071502(2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    High Energy Phys

    G.S.Bali, F.Bruckmann, G.Endr¨odi, Z.Fodor, S.D.Katz and A.Schaefer, J. High Energy Phys. 08, 177(2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    High En- ergy Phys

    F.Bruckmann, G.Endr¨odi and T.G.Kovacs, J. High En- ergy Phys. 04, 112(2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    V.G.Bornyakov, P.V.Buividovich, N.Cundy, O.A.Kochetkov and A.Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D90, 034501(2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    High Energy Phys

    G.Endr¨odi, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 173(2015)

    2015

  7. [14]

    High Energy Phys

    G.Endr¨odi, M.Giordano, S.D.Katz, T.G.Kovacs and F.Pittler, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 009(2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    H.T.Ding, S.T.Li, J.H.Liu and X.D.Wang, Phys. Rev. D 105 , 034514(2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    H.T.Ding, J.B.Gu, A.Kumar and S.T.Li, arXiv: 2503.18467

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    M.D’Elia, F.Manigrasso, F.Negro and F.Sanfilippo, Phys. Rev. D98, 054509(2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    K.Fukushima and Y.Hidaka, Phys. Rev. Lett 110, 031601(2013)

    2013

  12. [19]

    S.J.Mao, Phys. Lett. B758, 195(2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    S.J.Mao, Phys. Rev. D94, 036007(2016)

    2016

  14. [21]

    S.J.Mao, Phys. Rev. D97, 011501(R)(2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    S.J.Mao, Chin. Phys. C45, 021004(2021)

    2021

  16. [23]

    S.J.Mao, Phys. Rev. D106, 034018(2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    High Energy Phys

    K.Kamikado and T.Kanazawa, J. High Energy Phys. 03, 009(2014)

    2014

  18. [25]

    J.Y.Chao, P.C.Chu and M.Huang, Phys. Rev. D88, 054009(2013)

    2013

  19. [26]

    J.Braun, W.A.Mian and S.Rechenberger, Phys. Lett. B755, 265(2016)

    2016

  20. [27]

    N.Mueller and J.M.Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D91, 116010(2015)

    2015

  21. [28]

    T.Kojo and N.Su, Phys. Lett. B720, 192(2013)

    2013

  22. [29]

    A.Ayala, M.Loewe, A.J.Mizher and R.Zamora, Phys. Rev. D90, 036001(2014)

    2014

  23. [30]

    A.Ayala, L.A.Hernandez, A.J.Mizher, J.C.Rojas and C.Villavicencio, Phys. Rev. D89, 116017(2014)

    2014

  24. [31]

    A.Ayala, C.A.Dominguez, L.A.Hernandez, M.Loewe and R.Zamora, Phys. Rev. D92, 096011(2015)

    2015

  25. [32]

    R.L.S.Farias, K.P.Gomes, G.Krein, and M.B.Pinto, Phys. Rev. C90, 025203(2014)

    2014

  26. [33]

    M.Ferreira, P.Costa, O.Lourenco, T.Frederico, and C.Providˆencia, Phys. Rev. D89, 116011(2014)

    2014

  27. [34]

    High Energy Phys

    F.Preis, A.Rebhan and A.Schmitt, J. High Energy Phys. 1103, 033(2011)

    2011

  28. [35]

    E.S.Fraga and A.J.Mizher, Phys. Rev. D78, 025016(2008)

    2008

  29. [36]

    E.S.Fraga and A.J.Mizher, Nucl. Phys. A820, 103C(2009)

    2009

  30. [37]

    K.Fukushima, M.Ruggieri and R.Gatto, Phys. Rev. D81, 114031(2010)

    2010

  31. [38]

    High Energy Phys

    C.V.Johnson and A.Kundu, J. High Energy Phys. 12, 053(2008)

    2008

  32. [39]

    V.Skokov, Phys. Rev. D85, 034026(2012)

    2012

  33. [40]

    E.S.Fraga, J.Noronha and L.F.Palhares, Phys. Rev. D87, 114014(2013)

    2013

  34. [41]

    R.Gatto and M.Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D82, 054027(2010)

    2010

  35. [42]

    R.Gatto and M.Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D83, 034016(2011)

    2011

  36. [43]

    M.Ferreira, P.Costa and C.Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D89, 036006(2014)

    2014

  37. [44]

    M.Ferreira, P.Costa, D.P.Menezes, C.Providˆ encia and N.N.Scoccola, Phys. Rev. D89, 016002(2014)

    2014

  38. [45]

    P.Costa, M.Ferreira, H.Hansen, D.P.Menezes and C.Providˆencia, Phys. Rev. D89, 056013(2014)

    2014

  39. [46]

    A.J.Mizher, M.N.Chernodub and E.S.Fraga, Phys. Rev. D82, 105016(2010)

    2010

  40. [47]

    Mintz and J.Schaffner-Bielich, Phys

    E.S.Fraga, B.W. Mintz and J.Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Lett B731, 154-158(2014)

    2014

  41. [48]

    E.J.Ferrer, V.de la Incera, I.Portillo and M.Quiroz, Phys. Rev. D89, 085034(2014)

    2014

  42. [49]

    E.J.Ferrer, V.de la Incera, and X.J.Wen, Phys. Rev. D91, 054006(2015)

    2015

  43. [50]

    J.Mei and S.J.Mao, Phys. Rev. D102, 114035(2020)

    2020

  44. [51]

    K.Xu, J.Y.Chao and M.Huang, Phys. Rev. D103, 076015(2021)

    2021

  45. [52]

    J.Mei, R.Wen, S.J.Mao, M.Huang and K.Xu, Phys. Rev. D110, 034024(2024)

    2024

  46. [53]

    S.J.Mao, Phys. Rev. D110, 054002(2024)

    2024

  47. [54]

    G.Cao and X.G.Huang, Phys. Rev. D93, 016007(2016)

    2016

  48. [55]

    W.R.Tavares, R.L.S.Farias and S.S.Avancini, Phys. Rev. D101, 016017(2020)

    2020

  49. [56]

    W.R.Tavares, S.S.Avancini and R.L.S.Farias, Phys. Rev. D108, 016017(2023)

    2023

  50. [57]

    G.Endr¨odi and G.Marko, Phys. Rev. D109, 034506(2024)

    2024

  51. [58]

    H.T.Ding, F.Karsch and S.Mukherjee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24, 1530007(2015)

    2015

  52. [59]

    W.J.Fu, Commun. Theor. Phys. 74, 097304 (2022)

    2022

  53. [60]

    X.Luo and N.Xu, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 112(2017)

    2017

  54. [61]

    A.Pandav, D.Mallic and B.Mohanty, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125, 103960(2022)

    2022

  55. [62]

    276, 01007(2023)

    A.Rustanmov, EPJ Web Conf. 276, 01007(2023)

    2023

  56. [63]

    Nonaka, Acta Phys

    T. Nonaka, Acta Phys. Pol. B Proc. Suppl. 16, 1- A14(2023)

    2023

  57. [64]

    H.S.Ko(STAR Collaboration), Acta Phys. Pol. B Proc. Suppl. 16, 1-A87(2023)

    2023

  58. [65]

    H.T.Ding, S.T.Li, Q.Shi, and X.D.Wang, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 202(2021)

    2021

  59. [66]

    H.T.Ding, S.T.Li, J.H.Liu and X.D.Wang, arXiv:2208.07285. 11

    arXiv

  60. [67]

    H.T.Ding, J.B.Gu, A.Kumar, S.T.Li and J.H.Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 201903(2024)

    2024

  61. [68]

    K.Fukushima and Y.Hidaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 102301(2016)

    2016

  62. [69]

    A.Bhattacharyya, S.K.Ghosh, R.Ray, and S.Samanta, Eur. Phys. Lett. 115, 62003(2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    W.J.Fu, Phys. Rev. D88, 014009(2013)

    2013

  64. [72]

    N.Chahal, S.Dutt, and A.Kumar, Phys. Rev. C107, 045203(2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Mao, Chin

    S.J. Mao, Chin. Phys. C (accepted); arXiv:2410.10217

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    H.Liu, L.Yu, M.Chernodub and M.Huang, Phys. Rev. D94, 113006(2016)

    2016

  67. [75]

    Rev.D104, 094040(2021)

    S.S.Avancini, M.Coppola, N.N.Scoccola, and J.C.Sodr´ e, Phys. Rev.D104, 094040(2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    S.J.Mao and Y.M.Tian, Phys. Rev. D106, 094017(2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    P.N.Meisinger and M.C.Ogilvie, Phys. Lett. B379, 163(1996)

    1996

  70. [78]

    P.N.Meisinger, T.R.Miller and M.C.Ogilvie, Phys. Rev . D65, 034009(2002)

    2002

  71. [79]

    K.Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B591, 277(2004)

    2004

  72. [80]

    A.Mocsy, F.Sannino, and K.Tuominen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 182302(2004)

    2004

  73. [81]

    E.Megias, E.Ruiz Arriola, and L.L.Salcedo, Phys. Rev. D74, 065005(2006)

    2006

  74. [82]

    C.Ratti, M.A.Thaler, and W.Weise, Phys. Rev. D73, 014019(2006)

    2006

  75. [83]

    S.K.Ghosh, T.K.Mukherjee, M.G.Mustafa and R.Ray, Phys. Rev. D73, 114007(2006)

    2006

  76. [84]

    T.Kunihiro and T.Hatsuda, Phys. Lett. B206, 385(1988)

    1988

  77. [85]

    V.Bernard, R.L.Jaffe, and U.G.Meissner, Nucl. Phys. B308, 753(1988)

    1988

  78. [86]

    H.Reinhardt and R.Alkofer, Phys. Lett. B207, 482(1988)

    1988

  79. [87]

    G.’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D14, 3432(1976)

    1976

  80. [88]

    G.’t Hooft, Phys. Rept. 142, 357(1986)

    1986

  81. [89]

    P.Rehberg, S.P.Klevansky, and J.Huefner, Phys. Rev. C53, 410(1996)

    1996

  82. [90]

    J.Mei, T.Xia, and S.J.Mao, Phys. Rev. D107, 074018(2023); D110, 119901(E)(2024)

    2023

  83. [91]

    A.Ayala, C.A.Dominguez, L.A.Hern´ andez, M.Loewe, A.Raya, J.C.Rojas and C.Villavicenico, Phys. Rev. D94, 054019 (2016)

    2016

  84. [92]

    R.L.S.Farias, V.S.Timoteo, S.S.Avancini, M.B.Pinto and G.Klein, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 101(2017)

    2017

  85. [93]

    S.Avancini, R.Farias, M.Pinto, W.Travres and V.Tim´oteo, Phys. Lett. B767, 247(2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.