Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 55 references

Tricritical dynamics in $\mathrm{^3He}$-$\mathrm{^4He}$ mixtures and QCD

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that near a tricritical point in three dimensions, the order parameter and the conserved $O(N)$ charge densities relax with the same dynamic exponent $z = 3/2$, while a conserved energy-like density is subdiffusive with…

desk verdict New rFRG flows for an SSS model with a conserved energy-like density give a solid strong-scaling result for N>2, but the N=2 d=3 claim for 3He-4He relies on a truncation-dependent coincidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11065 v1 pith:RQE2TVIT submitted 2026-08-11 hep-ph

Maneesha Pradeep , Johannes V. Roth , Lorenz von Smekal This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords tricriticalpointdynamiccriticalexponentstrongscalingModelGHfunctionalrenormalizationgroupQCD3He-4Hemixtures
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 asks what happens to critical slowing-down at a tricritical point when an extra conserved, energy-like density is present. The answer it argues for is that strong dynamic scaling survives: the order parameter and the conserved $O(N)$ charge densities relax at the same rate, with dynamic exponent $z = 3/2$ in three spatial dimensions, while the energy-like density diffuses more slowly with $z = 3$. This matters because tricritical points appear in both liquid $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures and the conjectured chiral phase diagram of QCD, so the same dynamic law could connect the two. The paper also shows that explicit symmetry breaking in QCD turns the energy-like density and the $Z_2$ order parameter into a mixed slow mode, recovering the entropy-per-baryon diffusion expected near the QCD critical point.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SSS' model, the $N$-component generalization of Model G supplemented by a conserved energy-like density coupled to $\phi^2$; for $N = 2$ it reduces to Model F' of $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures. The argument runs through the real-time functional renormalization group, which yields non-perturbative flow equations for the kinetic coefficients $\Gamma_\phi$, $\gamma$, and $\mu$. The load-bearing identities are the flow equations for the dimensionless relaxation-time ratios $w_n$ and $w_\epsilon$ and the mode-coupling parameter $f$; their fixed-point values decide between strong and weak dynamic scaling. The static anchor is the Gaussian fixed point of $\phi^6$ theory at $d = 3$, where $\alpha_t/\nu_t = 1$ gives $z_\epsilon = 3$.

What would settle it

Simulate the $N = 2$ version of the model (Model F') in three dimensions by Langevin or lattice methods, measure the correlation-time scaling of the order parameter and of the conserved charge density over at least a decade of correlation lengths, and check whether both exponents equal $3/2$ and the energy diffusion coefficient scales as $\xi^{-1}$; unequal exponents would falsify the strong-scaling claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that supplementing the $N$-component model with a conserved energy-like density does not destroy the strong-scaling property at the tricritical point. For all $N \ge 2$ in $d = 3$, the dynamic critical exponents satisfy $z_\phi = z_n = 3/2$, so order-parameter and charge-density fluctuations share one relaxation time, while the energy-like density is subdiffusive with $z_\epsilon = 2 + \alpha_t/\nu_t = 3$. The $N = 2$ case, which describes $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures, is singled out as a limiting case: the strong-scaling fixed point merges with the weak-scaling fixed point exactly at $d = 3$. With explicit symmetry breaking, the linearized equations show the energy-like density mixing with the chiral order parameter; the surviving slow mode becomes the diffusive entropy-per-baryon fluctuation characteristic of the QCD critical point, with a diffusion coefficient that scales as $\xi^{-(1+x_\eta)}$ once momentum modes are included.

Load-bearing premise

The $N = 2$ strong-scaling result depends on the strong-scaling fixed point merging with the weak-scaling fixed point exactly at $d = 3$, where the Gaussian fixed point that anchors the calculation is only valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If strong scaling holds, the order-parameter and conserved-charge fluctuations in $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures near tricriticality relax with the same correlation-length exponent $3/2$, so measurements of one can predict the other.
  • In two-flavor QCD, the tricritical point inherits Model G dynamics, and the energy-like density is subdiffusive; searches for critical slowing-down near the chiral tricritical point should use $z = 3/2$ and $z = 3$, respectively.
  • With finite quark masses, the slow mode near the $Z_2$ line is a mixture of energy density and chiral order parameter with $D \sim \xi^{-(1+x_\eta)}$, nearly indistinguishable from tricritical subdiffusion $D \sim \xi^{-1}$, which ties heavy-ion phenomenology to tricritical scaling.
  • Shear modes do not change the heat-conductivity exponent at the tricritical point in $d = 3$, so the subdiffusive energy mode is robust to advection.
  • For $N = 2$, strong scaling at the tricritical point is a $d \to 3^-$ limiting case, predicting that the $\lambda$-line and tricritical dynamics in $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures are governed by the same exponents.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fixed-point merging picture suggests a testable crossover: in dimensions slightly below 3, strong scaling should be visible in Model F' simulations, while slightly above 3 weak scaling should appear; this is a sharper signature than measuring only the $d = 3$ exponents.
  • The same reasoning may apply to other tricritical points with a positive specific-heat exponent, such as magnets with competing anisotropies, where an energy-like density becomes dynamically relevant.
  • The closeness of $z = 3$ (tricritical subdiffusion) and $z = 3 + x_\eta$ (Model H) means experimental or numerical data may not easily distinguish the two; distinguishing them requires measuring the order-parameter exponent $z_\phi$, not just the slow diffusion mode.
  • The explicit-symmetry-breaking mechanism could be tested by Langevin simulations of the $N = 4$ model with a small external field $H$, checking whether the pionic mode decouples on timescales of order $H^{-3/5}$.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the universal critical dynamics near tricritical points in a model that couples an N-component order parameter to conserved O(N) charge densities n_ab and to a conserved energy-like density ε, with applications to the tricritical point of 3He-4He mixtures and to QCD with two massless flavors. Using the real-time functional renormalization group, the authors derive flow equations for the effective potential and for the kinetic coefficients Γ_φ, γ, and μ. At the Gaussian fixed point of the φ^6 theory in d=3 they recover the mean-field static exponents and find that for N>2 a finite fixed-point ratio w_n^* of order-parameter and charge relaxation times enforces strong dynamic scaling z_φ=z_n=3/2, while the energy-like density becomes subdiffusive with z_ε=3. For N=2, the case relevant to 3He-4He, Eq. (88) has no nontrivial solution and the stable fixed point is the weak-scaling point w_n^*=0; the paper nevertheless concludes strong scaling by evaluating the LPA exponents at d=3 and by a fixed-point merging picture as d→3^-. The last part treats explicit chiral symmetry breaking in mean field, obtaining mixing of the energy density with the Z2 order parameter and a crossover to Model B/H dynamics.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides concrete dynamic-universality predictions for the tricritical point in QCD and in 3He-4He mixtures, namely z_φ=z_n=3/2 and z_ε=3, together with a physically appealing connection to the slow entropy-per-baryon mode near the QCD critical point. The rFRG machinery is applied in a self-contained way: the static Gaussian fixed point and mean-field exponents are reproduced, the flow of the kinetic coefficients is derived diagrammatically, and the non-renormalization of the mode-coupling constant and the absence of flow of μ are obtained from symmetries. The authors are transparent about the limitations of their LPA truncation and explicitly call for numerical verification. The main risk is the N=2 case, where the strong-scaling conclusion rests on a marginal equality inside the truncation rather than on a robust fixed-point argument.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Eqs. (88)-(92), and Sec. VI] For N=2 in d=3, Eq. (88) has no nontrivial solution, and the stable fixed point is the weak-scaling point w_n^*=0 of Eq. (90). At this point Eq. (78) does not impose any relation between x_Γ and x_γ; the equality x_Γ=x_γ=1/2 used for z_φ=z_n=3/2 follows only after inserting d=3 into the LPA expressions (92) with w_n=0 and the Gaussian fixed-point value v^*. This appears to be a marginal coincidence within the truncation rather than a protected fixed-point relation. The summary statement in Sec. VI that strong scaling holds for all N≥2 therefore needs either an independent argument that the w_n=0 fixed point still yields equal dynamic exponents for the order parameter and charges, or a clear qualification that for N=2 the result is only a limiting LPA equality to be verified by other methods.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 6, and Appendix D] The d→3^- merging argument cannot serve as independent evidence for the N=2 result because below d=3 the Gaussian fixed point no longer describes the tricritical point, as the authors themselves state at the end of Sec. IV B and in Appendix D. The strong-scaling fixed point used in Fig. 6 for d<3 is therefore obtained by continuing the Gaussian fixed point outside its domain of validity. The sentence 'it is not surprising that the strong-scaling behavior persists in exactly d=3' overstates the support; the figure should be presented as an illustration of the LPA equations only, and the persistence claim should be either justified by a controlled calculation or softened.
  3. [Sec. V B, Eq. (116)] Eq. (116) gives the diffusion coefficient of the slow eigenmode as D = μ/χ_ε + σ_0^2 ι^2 χ_ε^2/(N m_σ^2). As written, this D diverges for m_σ→0, which contradicts the subsequent Eq. (118), where D∼m_σ^2→0. The correct expression appears to be D = (μ/χ_ε)/(1 + σ_0^2 ι^2 χ_ε^2/(N m_σ^2)) or an equivalent reciprocal form, which yields the stated slow-mode scaling. Please correct Eq. (116) and check the derivation, since this formula is the basis for identifying the Model B/H crossover.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Introduction] The word 'underyling' in the paragraph following Fig. 1 should be 'underlying'.
  2. [Sec. IV B, below Eq. (92)] The statement that the first-order ε expansion is 'in agreement with Model F'' should explicitly remind the reader that this is a first-order result and that at d=3, where ε=1, the O(ε^2) terms need not be small.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption should state more prominently that the curves for d<3 are obtained by continuing the Gaussian fixed point beyond its range of validity; currently this important caveat appears only in the main text after the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: dynamic exponents are read off from derived fixed-point flow equations; self-citations supply framework ingredients, not the tricritical conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not equivalent to any input by construction. The dynamic exponents are extracted from the fixed-point structure of explicitly written rFRG flow equations, Eqs. (78)-(85), with no parameter fitted to the target exponents. The static tricritical exponents are obtained from the Gaussian fixed point (73) and reproduce the known mean-field values; z_epsilon = 3 follows from Eq. (75) together with Eq. (86). For N > 2, strong scaling is enforced by the fixed-point conditions for finite w_n^* and f^* in Eqs. (78)-(80). For N = 2, the equality x_Gamma = x_gamma at d = 3 is an explicit algebraic consequence of Eq. (92) evaluated at d = 3, not an assumed input. The paper does import the rFRG formalism and the n_ab diagram result from the authors' prior Refs. [13,14], but these are used as computational ingredients, not as statements of the tricritical scaling conclusion, and the results are benchmarked against known Model F' and Model G dynamics. The d -> 3^- merging argument for N = 2 is a fragility or extrapolation concern that the authors themselves flag and ask to verify numerically; it does not reduce the derivation to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is carried by the model choice (LGW functional with energy density), the identification of the O(4) transition with Model G, the Gaussian fixed point at d=3, and the rFRG truncation. No experimental fitting occurs. The weakest points are the ad hoc truncation and the fixed-point merging argument for N=2, both acknowledged by the authors.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The LGW functional (3) with O(N) order parameter, charge densities, and an energy-like density is the correct effective description of tricritical dynamics in QCD and in 3He-4He mixtures.
    Introduced in Sec. II as the starting point. Requires strong U(1)_A anomaly, PCAC, and that the energy-like density has non-zero overlap with diffusing entropy per baryon (Refs. [18,24,29,30]).
  • domain assumption The dynamic universality class of the O(4) chiral transition is Model G (SSS) as argued by Rajagopal-Wilczek.
    Used in Sec. II to motivate the model; if the O(4) transition were not Model G, the tricritical dynamics studied here would not connect to QCD.
  • domain assumption At d=3 the Gaussian fixed point of the phi^6 theory describes the tricritical point with mean-field exponents, alpha_t = nu_t = 1/2.
    Used in Sec. IV A to locate the fixed point (73) and to derive alpha_t/nu_t = 4-d; the authors note the dangerously irrelevant kappa issue for d>3.
  • ad hoc to paper The rFRG truncation, LPA potential (19) and effective average action (47) with scale-dependent kinetic coefficients, captures all RG-relevant couplings; regulators for epsilon and n are unnecessary.
    Assumed in Sec. III B; all flow equations and fixed-point results depend on it. Paper says systematic truncation errors remain to be assessed (Sec. VI).
  • domain assumption Shear modes do not affect the tricritical dynamic exponents, specifically x_mu = 0 in d=3.
    Argued in Sec. IV C with a mode-coupling estimate; the authors note no existing study of shear modes for Model F' tricritical point.
  • ad hoc to paper For N=2, the strong-scaling exponents at d=3 follow from merging of the strong- and weak-scaling fixed points as d approaches 3 from below.
    Used in Sec. IV B and Appendix D to conclude strong scaling in the 3He-4He case although the fixed point has w_n* = 0; authors call for numerical verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tricritical dynamics in $\mathrm{^3He}$-$\mathrm{^4He}$ mixtures and QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQE2TVIT

@misc{pith2026260811065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tricritical dynamics in $\mathrm^3He$-$\mathrm^4He$ mixtures and QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQE2TVIT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11065}
}
abstract

In this paper we study the universal critical dynamics near the tricritical points in $\mathrm{^3He}$-$\mathrm{^4He}$ mixtures and QCD with two massless quark flavors. In particular, we use the real-time formulation of the functional renormalization group to understand how the tricritical region connects the $O(4)$ Model G dynamics of the two-flavor chiral phase transition to that of Model H for the QCD critical point with explicitly broken chiral symmetry. We show that in presence of an additional subdiffusive energy-like density, the tricritical dynamics inherits the strong dynamic scaling of Model G, where the critical fluctuations of order parameter and conserved $O(N)$ charges relax at identical rates. The strong scaling in the planar $O(2)$ case relevant for the $\lambda$-line and the tricritical point in the liquid $\mathrm{^3He}$-$\mathrm{^4He}$ mixtures arises as an interesting limiting case. Including the explicit symmetry breaking by the finite light-quark masses in QCD, the energy-like density of the tricritical dynamics mixes linearly with the $Z_2$ order parameter to eventually produce the characteristic slow fluctuations of the entropy per baryon near the QCD critical point.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11065 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Phase diagram of liquid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diagrammatic representations of the various propagators and the regulator derivative. Color indicates the type of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Flow of statistical 2-point functions at vanishing field expectation values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. FRG flow in the compactified ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Critical exponents ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Transition line that separates weak-scaling and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    R. J. Birgeneau, G. Shirane, M. Blume, and W. C. Koehler, Phys. Rev. Lett.33, 1098 (1974)

    work page 1974

  3. [3]

    J. M. Kosterlitz, D. R. Nelson, and M. E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B13, 412 (1976)

    work page 1976

  4. [4]

    A. R. King and H. Rohrer, Phys. Rev. B19, 5864 (1979)

    work page 1979

  5. [5]

    R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. Lett.24, 715 (1970)

    1970

  6. [6]

    R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D29, 338 (1984)

    1984

  7. [7]

    A. M. Halasz, A. D. Jackson, R. E. Shrock, M. A. Stephanov, and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. D 58, 096007 (1998), hep-ph/9804290

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Pobell, Matter and methods at low temperatures, 3rd ed., Springer, Berlin, 2007

    Wikipedia contributors, Helium Phase Diagram, 2014, see F. Pobell, Matter and methods at low temperatures, 3rd ed., Springer, Berlin, 2007

    work page 2014

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    H. T. Dinget al., Phys. Rev. D109, 114516 (2024), 2403.09390

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Rajagopal and F

    K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B399, 395 (1993), hep-ph/9210253

    1993 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Nakano, V

    E. Nakano, V. Skokov, and B. Friman, Phys. Rev. D85, 096007 (2012), 1109.6822

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    I. D. Lawrie, J. Phys. A12, 919 (1979)

    1979

  5. [13]

    J. V. Roth, Y. Ye, S. Schlichting, and L. von Smekal, JHEP01, 118 (2025), 2403.04573

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. V. Roth, Y. Ye, S. Schlichting, and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rev. D111, L111901 (2025), 2409.14470

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. V. Roth, Y. Ye, S. Schlichting, and L. von Smekal, (2026), 2603.17874

    2026

  8. [16]

    D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D70, 056001 (2004), hep-ph/0401052

    2004 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ohta and K

    T. Ohta and K. Kawasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys.55, 1384 (1976)

    1976

  10. [18]

    Fujii and M

    H. Fujii and M. Ohtani, Phys. Rev. D70, 014016 (2004), hep-ph/0402263

    2004 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sasv´ ari, F

    L. Sasv´ ari, F. Schwabl, and P. Sz´ epfalusy, Physica A: Sta- tistical Mechanics and its Applications81, 108 (1975)

    1975

  12. [20]

    Kawasaki and J

    K. Kawasaki and J. D. Gunton, Phys. Rev. Lett.29, 1661 (1972)

    1972

  13. [21]

    M. K. Grover and J. Swift, J. Low. Temp. Phys.11, 751– (1973)

    1973

  14. [22]

    E. D. Siggia and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B15, 1427 (1977)

    1977

  15. [23]

    Folk and G

    R. Folk and G. Moser, J. Low. Temp. Phys.150, 689– (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 202302 (2002), hep-ph/0111100

    2002 arXiv

  17. [25]

    D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D66, 076011 (2002), hep-ph/0204226

    2002 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bazavovet al., Phys

    HotQCD, A. Bazavovet al., Phys. Rev. D90, 094503 (2014), 1407.6387

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. A. Lipa, J. A. Nissen, D. A. Stricker, D. R. Swanson, and T. C. P. Chui, Phys. Rev. B68, 174518 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    Takada and T

    T. Takada and T. Watanabe, J. Low. Temp. Phys.41, 221 (1980)

    1980

  21. [29]

    E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii,Statistical Physics, Part 2,Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 9 (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1980)

    1980

  22. [30]

    Kovtun, J

    P. Kovtun, J. Phys. A45, 473001 (2012), 1205.5040

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Dzyaloshinskii and G

    I. Dzyaloshinskii and G. Volovick, Annals of Physics125, 67 (1980)

    1980

  24. [32]

    Folk and G

    R. Folk and G. Moser, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and General39, R207 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    Onuki, J

    A. Onuki, J. Low. Temp. Phys.53, 189 (1983)

    1983

  26. [34]

    Wetterich, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B301, 90 (1993), 1710.05815

    1993 arXiv

  27. [35]

    D. F. Litim, Phys. Rev. D64, 105007 (2001), hep- th/0103195

    2001

  28. [36]

    L. M. Sieberer, A. Chiocchetta, A. Gambassi, U. C. T¨ auber, and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. B92, 134307 (2015), 1505.00912

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Canet, B

    L. Canet, B. Delamotte, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. E91, 053004 (2015), 1411.7778

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Berges and D

    J. Berges and D. Mesterhazy, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 228, 37 (2012), 1204.1489

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Huelsmann, S

    S. Huelsmann, S. Schlichting, and P. Scior, Phys. Rev. D102, 096004 (2020), 2009.04194

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    B. I. Halperin, P. C. Hohenberg, and S.-k. Ma, Phys. Rev. B10, 139 (1974)

    1974

  33. [41]

    Mesterh´ azy, J

    D. Mesterh´ azy, J. H. Stockemer, L. F. Palhares, and J. Berges, Phys. Rev. B88, 174301 (2013), 1307.1700

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M. E. Fisher, Scaling, universality and renormalization group theory, inCritical Phenomena, edited by F. J. W. Hahne, pp. 1–139, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1983, Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    1983

  35. [43]

    Berche, T

    B. Berche, T. Ellis, Y. Holovatch, and R. Kenna, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes60, 1 (2022), 2204.04761

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    U. C. T¨ auber,Critical Dynamics: A Field Theory Ap- proach to Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Scaling Be- havior(Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Arcovito, C

    G. Arcovito, C. Faloci, M. Roberti, and L. Mistura, Phys. Rev. Lett.22, 1040 (1969)

    1969

  38. [46]

    M. S. Pradeep and M. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D100, 056003 (2019), 1905.13247

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. D60, 114028 (1999), hep-ph/9903292

    1999 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Florio, E

    A. Florio, E. Grossi, A. Soloviev, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. D105, 054512 (2022), 2111.03640

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Engels, L

    J. Engels, L. Fromme, and M. Seniuch, Nucl. Phys. B 675, 533 (2003), hep-lat/0307032

    2003 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Chattopadhyay, R

    C. Chattopadhyay, R. Maguire, J. Ott, T. Schaefer, and V. V. Skokov, (2026), 2603.21479

    2026

  43. [51]

    Florio, E

    A. Florio, E. Grossi, A. Mazeliauskas, A. Soloviev, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 242303 (2025), 2504.03516

    2025

  44. [52]

    Florio, E

    A. Florio, E. Grossi, A. Mazeliauskas, A. Soloviev, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. D112, 114019 (2025), 2504.03514

    2025

  45. [53]

    Devetaket al., JHEP06, 044 (2020), 1909.10485

    D. Devetaket al., JHEP06, 044 (2020), 1909.10485

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    P. Lu, R. Kavak, A. Dubla, S. Masciocchi, and I. Se- lyuzhenkov, Nucl. Sci. Tech.36, 142 (2025), 2407.09207

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hatta and T

    Y. Hatta and T. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. D67, 014028 (2003), hep-ph/0210284

    2003 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.