Thermodynamics of Heavy Quarkonium in a Bayesian Holographic QCD model

Defu Hou; Hanzhong Zhang; Kai Zhou; Liqiang Zhu; Ou-Yang Luo; Xun Chen

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 107 references

Thermodynamics of Heavy Quarkonium in a Bayesian Holographic QCD model

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hotter and denser quark-gluon plasma dissociates heavy quarkonium more readily, according to a holographic QCD model calibrated to lattice data.

desk verdict Solid Bayesian holographic application with real uncertainty quantification, but the entropy derivative is computed incorrectly as written and that undermines the entropic-force claim until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.12756 v1 pith:4CFETCV5 submitted 2025-08-18 hep-ph

Liqiang Zhu , Ou-Yang Luo , Xun Chen , Kai Zhou , Hanzhong Zhang , Defu Hou This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords heavyquarkoniumholographicQCDquark-gluonplasmaquark-antiquarkpotentialentropicforcebaryonchemicalBayesianinferenceEinstein-Maxwell-dilatonmodel

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 tries to establish that, within a holographic QCD model fitted to lattice QCD data, the same conditions that make quark-gluon plasma hotter and denser also systematically weaken heavy quarkonium. The authors compute the interquark distance, potential energy, entropy, entropic force, binding energy, and internal energy of a heavy quark-antiquark pair as functions of temperature and baryon chemical potential. They find that raising $T$ and $\mu$ shrinks the maximum separation $L_{\max}$ at which the pair can stay connected, suppresses the potential at large separations, increases entropy and entropic force, and drives the binding energy through zero at a smaller critical separation $L_c$. All these trends point in the same direction: quarkonium dissociates more readily in hotter, denser matter, the regime probed by heavy-ion collisions. The paper also reports that single-quark free energy, entropy, and internal energy grow with chemical potential and approach conformal limits at high temperature.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a bottom-up Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton (EMD) holographic dual, with a five-dimensional metric ansatz $ds^2 = \frac{L^2 e^{2A(z)}}{z^2}\left(-g(z)\,dt^2 + \frac{dz^2}{g(z)} + d\vec{x}^2\right)$ and analytic dilaton and gauge-kinetic functions (Eqs. 19-20). Its six free parameters are fixed by Bayesian inference against lattice QCD data for the equation of state and baryon number susceptibility at zero chemical potential, yielding MAP values and 95% CL ranges. Heavy quarkonium is represented by a Nambu-Goto string hanging from a Wilson loop on the boundary into the black-hole bulk; the vertex position $z_0$ parametrizes the separation, and the on-shell string action gives the free energy (potential), with entropy obtained from $-\partial F/\partial T$, binding energy from subtracting twice the single-quark free energy, and internal energy from $F + TS + \mu N$. The central objects doing the work are the interquark-distance function $L(z_0)$, whose maximum defines $L_{\max}$, and the entropic force $F_e = T\,\partial S/\partial L$, which the paper identifies as the dynamical driver of dissociation.

What would settle it

A finite-density lattice QCD calculation of the static heavy-quark free energy at a temperature near $T = 0.134$ GeV would settle the matter: if the dissociation distance $L_{\max}$ or the zero-binding separation $L_c$ grows with $\mu$ up to 0.6 GeV rather than shrinking, the paper's central trend is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a 2+1 flavor holographic QCD model, finite temperature and finite baryon chemical potential act as parallel dissociation agents on heavy quarkonium. Specifically, the maximum dissociation distance $L_{\max}$ decreases monotonically with $T$ and $\mu$; the real part of the quark-antiquark potential is suppressed at large separations while its short-distance Coulomb part remains nearly unchanged; the entropy and the entropic force $F_e = T\,\partial S/\partial L$ grow with $T$ and $\mu$ and diverge as $L$ approaches $L_{\max}$; and the binding energy $E_{Q\bar Q} = F_{Q\bar Q} - 2F_Q$ crosses zero at a critical separation $L_c \le L_{\max}$ that moves to smaller $L$ as $T$ and $\mu$ rise. The authors interpret this as the holographic image of color screening: more partons in the medium shorten the reach of the confining string, so bound states melt earlier. The quantitative results are given with maximum a posteriori values and 95% confidence intervals propagated from the Bayesian parameter inference.

Load-bearing premise

The model's six parameters are fit to lattice data at zero baryon chemical potential, and the paper assumes the same holographic background remains quantitatively correct at baryon chemical potentials up to 0.6 GeV without a finite-density lattice check.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If $T$ and $\mu$ shrink $L_{\max}$ and $L_c$, sequential quarkonium suppression in heavy-ion collisions should be stronger in hotter, denser fireballs, with larger quarkonium states melting at smaller sizes.
The near constancy of the short-distance Coulomb potential implies tightly bound states such as the $\Upsilon(1S)$ should survive into hotter and denser matter while larger, looser states dissociate first.
The divergence of the entropic force near $L_{\max}$ predicts a sharp enhancement of the dissociation rate close to the melting separation, which could show up as a steep drop in quarkonium yields near the dissociation boundary.
The single-quark free energy, entropy, and internal energy approaching conformal limits at high temperature gives a holographic prediction for heavy-quark thermodynamics that can be compared with other QCD-based estimates.
The binding-energy crossing point $L_c$ defines a well-specified dissociation criterion that can be translated into a dissociation temperature for each quarkonium state in the model.

Reading between the lines

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

The finite-density predictions could be checked against Taylor-expanded lattice QCD at nonzero baryon chemical potential; if such data showed weaker $\mu$ dependence than the model, the extrapolation assumption would be the first thing to fail.
The same EMD background could be used to compute the imaginary part of the heavy-quark potential or a dynamical dissociation time, connecting the static thermodynamics here to observables such as quarkonium suppression in heavy-ion collisions.
The entropic-force mechanism suggests a complementary picture to complex-potential approaches: the holographic entropy force and the QCD Landau-damping width may be describing the same melting process from different sides.
A testable extension would be to compute the $\mu$-dependence of $L_c$ for specific states ($J/\psi$, $\Upsilon$) and compare with the energy dependence of quarkonium production in heavy-ion collisions at lower beam energies where baryon density is larger.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: this is a competent application of an existing Bayesian-calibrated holographic model to heavy quarkonium, and the posterior error bands are a real addition. But the entropy calculation as written has a genuine derivative error, so the entropic-force curves are not what they claim to be.

What's new: Ref. [88] calibrated the six EMD parameters to lattice EoS and baryon susceptibility. This paper takes the posterior and propagates it through the Wilson-loop machinery to get 95% CL bands for the interquark distance, potential, entropy, binding energy, and internal energy. That uncertainty propagation is the actual contribution. The comparison of the real-part potential to HotQCD data (Fig. 3) is an external check that the calibration didn't use, and it's a fair pass.

Soft spots, in rough order. First, Eq. (31) defines S = -∂F/∂z_h ∂z_h/∂T, but F also depends on the string turning point z0. Since L is held fixed by varying z0 with temperature, the correct derivative includes -(∂F/∂z0)(∂z0/∂T)|_L. The stress-test is right: no argument shows this term vanishes, and it affects the mu=0 temperature dependence too. So Fig. 4 and the entropic force in Fig. 5 are not the fixed-L thermodynamic quantities. This is load-bearing for the entropy-driven dissociation story, though probably fixable numerically. Eq. (35) for the single-quark entropy looks typo'd (z0 vs zh) and should be checked. Second, the μN_{Q\bar Q} term in Eq. (34) is never defined, so the internal-energy plots are incomplete. Third, setting sqrt(lambda)=1 is a normalization convention that needs justification in the binding-energy comparison, though it cancels in some ratios. The finite-mu extrapolation to 0.6 GeV is an acknowledged limitation; it's an assumption, not a test, but they say so.

The qualitative result—T and μ weaken the binding—is almost certainly right and consistent with the broader literature. The issue is quantitative rigor in one section.

Recommendation: send to peer review, conditionally. The authors should recompute the entropy with the correct fixed-L derivative, define N_{Q\bar Q}, and clarify the normalization. The Bayesian error bars and potential comparison make it worth a round of revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a 2+1-flavor Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton holographic model with six parameters fixed by Bayesian inference to lattice QCD data for the equation of state and baryon-number susceptibility at μ=0. Using the standard Nambu-Goto string configuration for a heavy quark-antiquark pair, it computes the separation length L(z0), the real part of the potential/free energy, the entropy, entropic force, binding energy, and internal energy as functions of temperature and chemical potential, and similar single-quark quantities. The central claim is that increasing T and μ decreases the dissociation distance Lmax, suppresses the potential, raises the entropy and entropic force, and shifts the zero of the binding energy to smaller separations, thereby accelerating quarkonium dissociation. The paper also compares the μ=0 potential with HotQCD lattice data and reports 95% posterior bands for all observables.

Significance. If the calculations are correct, the paper would provide a quantitatively constrained holographic description of quarkonium thermodynamics with quantified uncertainty bands, and the direct comparison with HotQCD lattice data in Fig. 3 is a genuine strength, since that lattice input was not part of the parameter fit. The claimed trends (smaller dissociation distance, weaker binding, larger entropic force at higher T and μ) are physically plausible and consistent with general screening expectations. However, the entropy and internal-energy derivations contain technical gaps that are load-bearing for the main dissociation mechanism, and the finite-μ results rest on an untested extrapolation of the μ=0 fit. With those points fixed, the paper would be a useful phenomenological contribution.

major comments (4)

[III.C, Eq. (31)] The entropy is defined as S_Q\bar Q = -∂F_Q\bar Q/∂T = -(∂F/∂z_h)(∂z_h/∂T), but the free energy in Eq. (30) depends on both the horizon z_h and the string turning point z_0, and the plotted curves are generated by varying z_0 at fixed z_h. For a thermodynamic entropy at fixed separation L, the derivative must be taken along L(z_h,z_0)=const, which adds the term -(∂F/∂z_0)|_{z_h}(∂z_0/∂T)|_L. This turning-point contribution is absent from Eq. (31), and no argument is given that it vanishes. As written, the entropy curves in Fig. 4, the entropic force in Fig. 5, and the statement that increasing T or μ raises the entropic force and drives dissociation are not established; the issue also affects the μ=0 temperature dependence, not only the finite-μ extrapolation.
[III.E, Eq. (34)] The internal energy is written as U_Q\bar Q = F_Q\bar Q + T S_Q\bar Q + μ N_Q\bar Q, but N_Q\bar Q is never defined and no value or expression is supplied. For a quark-antiquark pair with zero net baryon number, N should be zero, in which case the term is redundant; if it is not zero, its definition is essential because the plots in Fig. 7 depend on it. The treatment is also inconsistent with Section IV, where the single-quark internal energy in Eq. (36) omits any μN term despite the single quark carrying baryon number.
[IV, Eq. (35)] The single-quark entropy is written as S_Q = -∂F_Q/∂T = -(∂F_Q/∂z_0)(∂z_0/∂T). However, F_Q in Eq. (33) is an integral with upper limit z_h and has no dependence on the string turning point z_0, so the correct derivative is -(∂F_Q/∂z_h)(∂z_h/∂T). As printed, the formula is incorrect, and the single-quark entropy curves in Fig. 9 need to be checked against the actual computation.
[II and III] All finite-chemical-potential results (Figs. 1b, 2b, 4b, 6b, 7b, and 8-10) are produced by the same EMD background whose parameters were fitted only to μ=0 lattice data in Ref. [88]. The paper should either validate the model at finite μ with independent lattice input (for example, higher-order baryon susceptibilities or Taylor coefficients) or explicitly state that the μ dependence is an untested model prediction; the current wording presents it as a quantitative result. This is a limitation rather than an internal inconsistency, but it bears directly on the central claim.

minor comments (6)

[Global] There are numerous typographical errors that should be corrected: 'undertanding' in the Introduction, 'wehre' after Eq. (11), the malformed integral in Eq. (13), and the unclear determinant notation in Eq. (17).
[III.C] The sentence claiming that larger entropy 'significantly suppresses the production rate of heavy quark-antiquark pairs' is not supported by the preceding discussion and should either be removed or explained.
[III.D] The phrase 'the binding energy increases with rising temperature and chemical potential' is misleading because the physical statement is that the binding becomes weaker (E is less negative); the wording should be clarified.
[Fig. 3] The legend in Fig. 3 appears to contain 'T = 0.0 GeV' among the lattice data labels, which is likely a typo and should be corrected.
[Eq. (33)] The choice √λ=1 is stated without justification or sensitivity study; since the absolute values of the binding energy and single-quark free energy depend on this normalization, a brief test of its effect on the reported trends should be added.
[III.C] The divergence of the entropic force at Lmax in Fig. 5 follows from the maximum in L(z0); the paper should specify which branch of the string solution is used and whether the divergence is physical or an artifact of the branch choice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: parameters are fixed by external lattice data and quarkonium observables are out-of-sample predictions.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. The six model parameters (Table I) are taken from the authors' earlier Bayesian inference [88], but that inference is anchored to external lattice QCD data for the equation of state and baryon number susceptibility, so the parameters constitute independent evidence rather than a self-citation chain. The quarkonium observables are then computed from the string-frame Nambu-Goto action (Eqs. 21-30) in a fixed background, and the mu=0 heavy-quark potential is compared with HotQCD lattice data [105] that were not part of the fit; this is a genuine out-of-sample prediction. The trends in Lmax, V, S, Fe, E, and U with temperature and chemical potential are outputs of the metric, not fitted targets, so none of the central claims reduces by construction to the input data. There are non-circular correctness concerns: Eq. (31) writes S_QbarQ = -dF_QbarQ/dT = -(dF/dz_h)(dz_h/dT) and omits the dF/dz_0 contribution along curves of fixed separation L, so the plotted S(L) and entropic force may not be the fixed-separation thermodynamic quantities; Eq. (35) similarly appears to use z0 where z_h is required. The extrapolation to chemical potentials up to 0.6 GeV is not tested by finite-density lattice data in this paper. These are validity and error concerns, not input-output circularity. The paper's own limitation paragraph acknowledges that the Bayesian framework relies on specific assumptions about the holographic dual. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation or to a definitionally forced equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a bottom-up holographic model whose parameters were fitted in a prior paper, plus standard holographic dictionary entries. No new entities are postulated. The main free parameters are the six background parameters and the string normalization sqrt(lambda)=1 chosen by hand.

free parameters (7)

a = 0.252 (MAP); 0.229-0.282 (95% CL)
Warp factor parameter in Eq. (19), fitted to lattice EoS and baryon susceptibility in Ref. [88].
b = 0.023 (MAP); 0.019-0.027 (95% CL)
Warp factor parameter in Eq. (19), fitted to lattice data in Ref. [88].
c = -0.245 (MAP); -0.261 to -0.231 (95% CL)
Exponent in the gauge kinetic function f(z) in Eq. (20), fitted to lattice data in Ref. [88].
d = -0.135 (MAP); -0.143 to -0.127 (95% CL)
Warp factor parameter in Eq. (19), fitted to lattice data in Ref. [88].
k = -0.843 (MAP); -0.871 to -0.808 (95% CL)
Constant in the gauge kinetic function in Eq. (20), fitted to lattice data in Ref. [88].
G5 = 0.397 (MAP); 0.388-0.406 (95% CL)
Five-dimensional Newton constant; sets the overall normalization of the action and thermodynamic quantities, fitted in Ref. [88].
sqrt(lambda) or alpha' = 1 (chosen)
The string tension is set by alpha'=1 and AdS radius R=1, effectively fixing the 't Hooft coupling to 1; this normalization enters the potential and single-quark free energy (Eqs. 23, 30, 33) but is not fitted.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The five-dimensional EMD gravity action (Eq. 1) is a valid holographic dual for 2+1 flavor QCD at finite temperature and baryon chemical potential.
The entire calculation relies on gauge/gravity duality; validity is assumed from the literature.
ad hoc to paper The analytic background ansatz A(z)=d ln(1+a z^2)+d ln(1+b z^4) and f(z)=e^{c z^2 - A + k} (Eqs. 19-20) is flexible enough to capture QCD thermodynamics and the heavy-quark potential.
This specific functional form is chosen to enable analytic solutions; there is no derivation from QCD.
domain assumption The heavy quark-antiquark free energy is given by the on-shell Nambu-Goto action of a connected string with a single turning point z0 (Eqs. 26-30).
Standard holographic Wilson loop computation; assumes the connected string dominates and that the real part of the potential is sufficient.
ad hoc to paper The binding energy E_QbarQ = F_QbarQ - 2 F_Q with F_Q defined in Eq. (33) is a physically meaningful definition, and setting sqrt(lambda)=1 does not qualitatively change the conclusions.
Single-quark free energy is scheme-dependent in holography; the paper does not discuss the scheme dependence or the value of the 't Hooft coupling.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamics of Heavy Quarkonium in a Bayesian Holographic QCD model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4CFETCV5

@misc{pith2026250812756,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamics of Heavy Quarkonium in a Bayesian Holographic QCD model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4CFETCV5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12756}
}

read the original abstract

Leveraging high-precision lattice QCD data on the equation of state and baryon number susceptibility at vanishing chemical potential, we construct a Bayesian holographic QCD model and systematically analyze the thermodynamic properties of heavy quarkonium in QCD matter under varying temperatures and chemical potentials. We compute the quark-antiquark interquark distance, potential energy, entropy, binding energy, and internal energy. We present detailed posterior distribution results of the thermodynamic quantities of heavy quarkonium, including maximum a posteriori (MAP) value estimates and 95\% confidence levels (CL). Through numerical simulations and theoretical analysis, we find that increasing temperature and chemical potential decrease the quark distance, thereby facilitating the dissociation of heavy quarkonium and leading to suppressed potential energy. The increase in temperature and chemical potential also raise the entropy and entropy force, further accelerating the dissociation of heavy quarkonium. The calculated results of binding energy indicate that higher temperature and chemical potential enhance the tendency of heavy quarkonium to dissociate into free quarks. Internal energy also increases with rising temperature and chemical potential. These findings provide significant theoretical insights into the properties of strongly interacting matter under extreme conditions and lay a solid foundation for the interpretation and validation of future experimental data. Finally, we also present the results for the free energy, entropy, and internal energy of single quark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.12756 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: (a) The dependence of the potential energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: A comparison is made between the potential energy of quark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) The dependence of the entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: When selecting MAP value, (a) The dependence of the entropy force [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: (a) The dependence of the binding energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) The dependence of the internal energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10: The dependence of the single quark internal energy on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: The dependence of the single quark free energy on the tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9: The dependence of the single quark entropy on the temper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[88]

L. Zhu, X. Chen, K. Zhou, H. Zhang, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 112, 026019 (2025), arXiv:2501.17763 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025
[1]

Adcox et al

K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

arXiv 2005
[2]

M. M. Aggarwal et al. (STAR), (2010), arXiv:1007.2613 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2010
[3]

Chen et al

J. Chen et al. , Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 214 (2024), arXiv:2407.02935 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2024
[4]

Wang and J.-H

H. Wang and J.-H. Chen, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 33, 15 (2022)

2022
[5]

Wang and J.-H

H. Wang and J.-H. Chen, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 32, 2 (2021)

2021
[6]

Wang, J.-H

H. Wang, J.-H. Chen, Y .-G. Ma, and S. Zhang, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 30, 185 (2019)

2019
[7]

Z.-W. Xu, S. Zhang, Y .-G. Ma, J.-H. Chen, and C. Zhong, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29, 186 (2018)

2018

Show all 107 references

[8]

Jin, J.-H

X.-H. Jin, J.-H. Chen, Y .-G. Ma, S. Zhang, C.-J. Zhang, and C. Zhong, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29, 54 (2018)

2018
[9]

Liu, J.-H

P. Liu, J.-H. Chen, Y .-G. Ma, and S. Zhang, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 55 (2017), [Erratum: Nucl.Sci.Tech. 28, 89 (2017)]

2017
[10]

L. Zhu, Z. Gao, W. Ke, and H. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2506.00340 [hep-ph]

2025
[11]

Y . Li, S. Shen, S. Wang, and B.-W. Zhang, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 113 (2024), arXiv:2401.01706 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[12]

Xie, Q.-F

M. Xie, Q.-F. Han, E.-K. Wang, B.-W. Zhang, and H.-Z. Zhang, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 125 (2024), arXiv:2409.18773 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[13]

He, Y .-G

W.-B. He, Y .-G. Ma, L.-G. Pang, H.-C. Song, and K. Zhou, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 34, 88 (2023), arXiv:2303.06752 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[14]

J.-H. Chen, J. Chen, F.-K. Guo, Y .-G. Ma, C.-P. Shen, Q.-Y . Shou, Q. Shou, Q. Wang, J.-J. Wu, and B.-S. Zou, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 36, 55 (2025), arXiv:2411.18257 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[15]

Xu, Y .-J

Y .-F. Xu, Y .-J. Ye, J.-H. Chen, Y .-G. Ma, S. Zhang, and C. Zhong, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 27, 87 (2016)

2016
[16]

Ma, L.-G

Y .-G. Ma, L.-G. Pang, R. Wang, and K. Zhou, Chin. Phys. Lett. 40, 122101 (2023), arXiv:2311.07274 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[17]

Bulava, B

J. Bulava, B. H ¨orz, F. Knechtli, V . Koch, G. Moir, C. Morn- ingstar, and M. Peardon, Phys. Lett. B 793, 493 (2019), arXiv:1902.04006 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[18]

Y . Li, C. W. von Keyserlingk, G. Zhu, and T. Jochym- O’Connor, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043007 (2024), arXiv:2305.06389 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[19]

Yang and P.-H

Y . Yang and P.-H. Yuan, JHEP 12, 161, arXiv:1506.05930 [hep-th]

arXiv
[20]

J. Zhou, X. Chen, Y .-Q. Zhao, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 102, 086020 (2020), arXiv:2006.09062 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[21]

S. Shi, K. Zhou, J. Zhao, S. Mukherjee, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014017 (2022), arXiv:2105.07862 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[22]

K. Zhou, N. Xu, and P. Zhuang, Nucl. Phys. A 931, 654 (2014), arXiv:1408.3900 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[23]

K. Zhou, N. Xu, Z. Xu, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054911 (2014), arXiv:1401.5845 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[24]

Matsui and H

T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B 178, 416 (1986)

1986
[25]

J. M. Maldacena, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4859 (1998), arXiv:hep- th/9803002

1998
[26]

Z.-R. Zhu, S. Wang, X. Chen, J.-X. Chen, and D. Hou, Phys. Rev. D 110, 126008 (2024), arXiv:2407.03633 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[27]

Z.-R. Zhu, M. Sun, R. Zhou, Z. Ma, and J. Han, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1252 (2024), arXiv:2406.19661 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[28]

Andreev and V

O. Andreev and V . I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D 74, 025023 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604204

2006 arXiv
[29]

Andreev and V

O. Andreev and V . I. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B645, 437 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0607026

2007 arXiv
[30]

Andreev and V

O. Andreev and V . I. Zakharov, JHEP 04, 100, arXiv:hep- ph/0611304
[31]

S. He, M. Huang, and Q.-s. Yan, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 186, 504 (2010), arXiv:1007.0088 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[32]

Colangelo, F

P. Colangelo, F. Giannuzzi, and S. Nicotri, Phys. Rev. D 83, 035015 (2011), arXiv:1008.3116 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[33]

DeWolfe, S

O. DeWolfe, S. S. Gubser, and C. Rosen, Phys. Rev. D 83, 086005 (2011), arXiv:1012.1864 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[34]

D. Li, S. He, M. Huang, and Q.-S. Yan, JHEP 09, 041, arXiv:1103.5389 [hep-th]

arXiv
[35]

K. B. Fadafan, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1799 (2011), arXiv:1102.2289 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[36]

K. B. Fadafan and E. Azimfard, Nucl. Phys. B 863, 347 (2012), arXiv:1203.3942 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[37]

R.-G. Cai, S. He, and D. Li, JHEP 03, 033, arXiv:1201.0820 [hep-th]

arXiv
[38]

D. Li, M. Huang, and Q.-S. Yan, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2615 (2013), arXiv:1206.2824 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[39]

Z. Fang, S. He, and D. Li, Nucl. Phys. B 907, 187 (2016), arXiv:1512.04062 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[40]

Zhang, D.-f

Z.-q. Zhang, D.-f. Hou, and G. Chen, Nucl. Phys. A 960, 1 (2017), arXiv:1507.07263 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[41]

Ewerz, O

C. Ewerz, O. Kaczmarek, and A. Samberg, JHEP 03, 088, arXiv:1605.07181 [hep-th]

arXiv
[42]

Chen, S.-Q

X. Chen, S.-Q. Feng, Y .-F. Shi, and Y . Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 11 97, 066015 (2018), arXiv:1710.00465 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[43]

Aref’eva and K

I. Aref’eva and K. Rannu, JHEP 05, 206, arXiv:1802.05652 [hep-th]

arXiv
[44]

X. Chen, D. Li, and M. Huang, Chin. Phys. C 43, 023105 (2019), arXiv:1810.02136 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[45]

Bohra, D

H. Bohra, D. Dudal, A. Hajilou, and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Lett. B 801, 135184 (2020), arXiv:1907.01852 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[46]

X. Chen, D. Li, D. Hou, and M. Huang, JHEP 03, 073, arXiv:1908.02000 [hep-ph]

1908 arXiv
[47]

J. Zhou, X. Chen, Y .-Q. Zhao, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 102, 126029 (2021)

2021
[48]

X. Chen, L. Zhang, D. Li, D. Hou, and M. Huang, JHEP 07, 132, arXiv:2010.14478 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[49]

X. Chen, L. Zhang, and D. Hou, Chin. Phys. C 46, 073101 (2022), arXiv:2108.03840 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[50]

Fodor and S

Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz, Phys. Lett. B 534, 87 (2002), arXiv:hep-lat/0104001

2002 arXiv
[51]

Muroya, A

S. Muroya, A. Nakamura, C. Nonaka, and T. Takaishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 110, 615 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0306031

2003 arXiv
[52]

C. B. Lang and C. Rebbi, Phys. Lett. B 115, 137 (1982)

1982
[53]

J. Hoek, Z. Phys. C 35, 369 (1987)

1987
[54]

Michael and S

C. Michael and S. J. Perantonis, J. Phys. G 18, 1725 (1992)

1992
[55]

T. T. Takahashi, H. Suganuma, Y . Nemoto, and H. Matsufuru, Phys. Rev. D 65, 114509 (2002), arXiv:hep-lat/0204011

2002 arXiv
[56]

Y . Aoki, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, JHEP01, 089, arXiv:hep-lat/0510084

arXiv
[57]

Ratti, M

C. Ratti, M. A. Thaler, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D73, 014019 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506234

2006 arXiv
[58]

Bicudo, M

P. Bicudo, M. Cardoso, and O. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 77, 091504 (2008), arXiv:0704.2156 [hep-lat]

2008 arXiv
[59]

L ¨uscher, JHEP 08, 071, [Erratum: JHEP 03, 092 (2014)], arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]

M. L ¨uscher, JHEP 08, 071, [Erratum: JHEP 03, 092 (2014)], arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]

2014 arXiv
[60]

Hasenfratz and F

P. Hasenfratz and F. Karsch, Phys. Lett. B 125, 308 (1983)

1983
[61]

Jiang, Y .-Z

J.-J. Jiang, Y .-Z. Xiao, J. Qin, X. Li, and X. Chen, Chin. Phys. C 47, 013106 (2023), arXiv:2212.03541 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[62]

B. Yu, X. Guo, X. Chen, and X.-H. Li, Phys. Rev. D 108, 066007 (2023), arXiv:2305.19091 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[63]

K. Zhou, L. Wang, L.-G. Pang, and S. Shi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 135, 104084 (2024), arXiv:2303.15136 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[64]

S. He, M. Huang, Q.-S. Yan, and Y . Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C66, 187 (2010), arXiv:0710.0988 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[65]

B. A. Burrington, J. T. Liu, L. A. Pando Zayas, and D. Vaman, JHEP 02, 022, arXiv:hep-th/0406207

arXiv
[66]

Sakai and S

T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 114, 1083 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0507073

2005 arXiv
[67]

Sakai and S

T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 113, 843 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0412141

2005 arXiv
[68]

Erdmenger, N

J. Erdmenger, N. Evans, W. Porod, and K. S. Rigatos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 071602 (2021), arXiv:2009.10737 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[69]

N. R. F. Braga and R. a. da Rocha, Phys. Lett. B 776, 78 (2018), arXiv:1710.07383 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[70]

N. R. F. Braga, L. F. Ferreira, and R. a. Da Rocha, Phys. Lett. B 787, 16 (2018), arXiv:1808.10499 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[71]

L. F. Ferreira and R. da Rocha, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 375 (2020), arXiv:1907.11809 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[72]

S. He, M. Huang, and Q.-S. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 83, 045034 (2011), arXiv:1004.1880 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[73]

Jokela, M

N. Jokela, M. J ¨arvinen, and A. Piispa, Phys. Rev. D 110, 126013 (2024), arXiv:2405.02394 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[74]

I. Y . Aref’eva, Phys. Part. Nucl.54, 924 (2023)

2023
[75]

Rougemont, J

R. Rougemont, J. Grefa, M. Hippert, J. Noronha, J. Noronha- Hostler, I. Portillo, and C. Ratti, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 135, 104093 (2024), arXiv:2307.03885 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[76]

S.-J. Rey, S. Theisen, and J.-T. Yee, Nucl. Phys. B 527, 171 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9803135

1998 arXiv
[77]

Brandhuber, N

A. Brandhuber, N. Itzhaki, J. Sonnenschein, and S. Yankielowicz, Phys. Lett. B 434, 36 (1998), arXiv:hep- th/9803137

1998
[78]

Noronha, Phys

J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D 82, 065016 (2010), arXiv:1003.0914 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[79]

Zhang, C

Z.-q. Zhang, C. Ma, D.-f. Hou, and G. Chen, Adv. High En- ergy Phys. 2017, 8276534 (2017), arXiv:1604.04349 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[80]

X. Chen, B. Yu, P.-C. Chu, and X.-h. Li, Chin. Phys. C 46, 073102 (2022), arXiv:2112.06234 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[81]

Guo, J.-J

X. Guo, J.-J. Jiang, X. Liu, X. Chen, D. Xiang, and X.-H. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 101 (2024), arXiv:2306.06976 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[82]

Iatrakis and D

I. Iatrakis and D. E. Kharzeev, Phys. Rev. D 93, 086009 (2016), arXiv:1509.08286 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[83]

S. S. Jena, B. Shukla, D. Dudal, and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 105, 086011 (2022), arXiv:2202.01486 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[84]

T. Song, Y . Park, S. H. Lee, and C.-Y . Wong, Phys. Lett. B 659, 621 (2008), arXiv:0709.0794 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[85]

M. A. Escobedo, F. Giannuzzi, M. Mannarelli, and J. Soto, Phys. Rev. D 87, 114005 (2013), arXiv:1304.4087 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[86]

Chen and M

X. Chen and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 109, L051902 (2024), arXiv:2401.06417 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[87]

Chen and M

X. Chen and M. Huang, (2024), arXiv:2405.06179 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[89]

He, S.-Y

S. He, S.-Y . Wu, Y . Yang, and P.-H. Yuan, JHEP 04, 093, arXiv:1301.0385 [hep-th]

arXiv
[90]

Yang and P.-H

Y . Yang and P.-H. Yuan, JHEP11, 149, arXiv:1406.1865 [hep- th]

arXiv
[91]

Dudal and S

D. Dudal and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 96, 126010 (2017), arXiv:1708.06995 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[92]

Dudal and S

D. Dudal and S. Mahapatra, JHEP 07, 120, arXiv:1805.02938 [hep-th]

arXiv
[93]

Critelli, J

R. Critelli, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, I. Portillo, C. Ratti, and R. Rougemont, Phys. Rev. D 96, 096026 (2017), arXiv:1706.00455 [nucl-th]

2017 arXiv
[94]

Zhang and M

L. Zhang and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 096028 (2022), arXiv:2209.00766 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[95]

S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page, Commun. Math. Phys.87, 577 (1983)

1983
[96]

Natsuume, AdS/CFT Duality User Guide , V ol

M. Natsuume, AdS/CFT Duality User Guide , V ol. 903 (2015) arXiv:1409.3575 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[97]

Witten, Adv

E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 505 (1998), arXiv:hep- th/9803131

1998
[98]

Brandhuber, N

A. Brandhuber, N. Itzhaki, J. Sonnenschein, and S. Yankielowicz, JHEP 06, 001, arXiv:hep-th/9803263

arXiv
[99]

D. J. Gross and H. Ooguri, Phys. Rev. D 58, 106002 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9805129

1998 arXiv
[100]

Giataganas and N

D. Giataganas and N. Irges, Phys. Rev. D 85, 046001 (2012), arXiv:1104.1623 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[101]

Rey and J.-T

S.-J. Rey and J.-T. Yee, Eur. Phys. J. C 22, 379 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/9803001

2001 arXiv
[102]

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

arXiv
[103]

Brambilla, J

N. Brambilla, J. Ghiglieri, A. Vairo, and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014017 (2008), arXiv:0804.0993 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[104]

Laine, O

M. Laine, O. Philipsen, P. Romatschke, and M. Tassler, JHEP 03, 054, arXiv:hep-ph/0611300

arXiv
[105]

Bazavov, D

A. Bazavov, D. Hoying, R. N. Larsen, S. Mukherjee, P. Pe- treczky, A. Rothkopf, and J. H. Weber (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D 109, 074504 (2024), arXiv:2308.16587 [hep-lat] . 12

2024 arXiv
[106]

D. E. Kharzeev, Phys. Rev. D 90, 074007 (2014), arXiv:1409.2496 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[107]

Wu, Z.-q

P.-p. Wu, Z.-q. Zhang, and X. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C 46, 113103 (2022), arXiv:2207.06122 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [88]

L. Zhu, X. Chen, K. Zhou, H. Zhang, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 112, 026019 (2025), arXiv:2501.17763 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Adcox et al

K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

arXiv 2005

[3] [2]

M. M. Aggarwal et al. (STAR), (2010), arXiv:1007.2613 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2010

[4] [3]

Chen et al

J. Chen et al. , Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 214 (2024), arXiv:2407.02935 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2024

[5] [4]

Wang and J.-H

H. Wang and J.-H. Chen, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 33, 15 (2022)

2022

[6] [5]

Wang and J.-H

H. Wang and J.-H. Chen, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 32, 2 (2021)

2021

[7] [6]

Wang, J.-H

H. Wang, J.-H. Chen, Y .-G. Ma, and S. Zhang, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 30, 185 (2019)

2019

[8] [7]

Z.-W. Xu, S. Zhang, Y .-G. Ma, J.-H. Chen, and C. Zhong, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29, 186 (2018)

2018