Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Critical behavior and critical exponents of rotating QCD matter

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Near the chiral critical endpoint, rotating quark matter displays the same mean-field scaling exponents as non-rotating matter, with angular velocity shifting only the endpoint's location.

desk verdict A solid, workmanlike mean-field NJL extraction of effective critical exponents in the (T,ω) plane that confirms expected Landau values; the main caveat is the asserted rather than derived identification of rotational polarization as the scaling order parameter. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13469 v1 pith:PEAG6URO submitted 2026-08-13 hep-ph

Kai Xiao , Fei Sun , Shuang Li , Xun Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.Mh11.30.Rd05.70.Jk
keywords rotatingQCDmatterNJLmodelcriticalendpointexponentschiralphasetransitionrotationalpolarizationmean-fieldapproximationangularvelocity
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

Off-center heavy-ion collisions produce quark matter with enormous vorticity, which makes angular velocity a natural additional control parameter alongside temperature. This paper works out the thermodynamics of the two-flavor Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model in a rotating frame at mean-field level and locates the critical endpoint of the chiral transition in the temperature–angular-velocity plane. Its central claim is that near that endpoint the specific heat, the discontinuity and the susceptibility of the rotational polarization $J=-\partial\Omega/\partial\omega$, and the critical-isotherm polarization all scale with the mean-field Ising exponents $\alpha\simeq 0$, $\beta\simeq 1/2$, $\gamma\simeq 1$, $\delta\simeq 3$, which satisfy the scaling relations $\alpha+2\beta+\gamma=2$ and $\alpha+\beta(1+\delta)=2$. If correct, rotation shifts the location of the critical point but leaves the universality class of the chiral transition untouched, and the rotational polarization becomes a workable probe of criticality in vortical matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the rotational polarization $J=-\partial\Omega/\partial\omega$, the thermodynamic conjugate of the angular velocity. It is not the chiral condensate, but the paper argues it couples to the chiral critical mode through the mixed dependence of $\Omega$ on the constituent mass $M$ and $\omega$, so its discontinuity, susceptibility, and isotherm response are claimed to inherit the order-parameter scaling. The companion identity is the rotational susceptibility $\chi_\omega=\partial J/\partial\omega$, evaluated as a total derivative along the gap-equation trajectory; it splits into a direct response $-\partial^2\Omega/\partial\omega^2$ plus a chiral-fluctuation term $(\partial^2\Omega/\partial\omega\,\partial M)^2\,(\partial^2\Omega/\partial M^2)^{-1}$. The singular amplification of $\chi_\omega$ near the endpoint is driven by the vanishing curvature $\partial^2\Omega/\partial M^2\to 0$, which softens the chiral mode. Each exponent is read off from a local logarithmic slope in $\ln|t|$ or $\ln|\tilde\omega|$ between adjacent numerical points, a procedure chosen to avoid arbitrary fitting windows.

What would settle it

Extract the same exponents from the chiral condensate itself, for instance $\beta$ from the jump $\Delta M$ along the first-order line, $\gamma$ from the curvature $\partial^2\Omega/\partial M^2$, and $\delta$ from the isotherm of $M$, and compare with the values obtained from $J$; unequal exponents would show that $J$ is not a faithful order-parameter proxy. A second, purely numerical check is to rerun the extraction with a larger angular-momentum cutoff $n$ and several radial positions $r$, and test whether the plateau regions of $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$ and the endpoint location itself survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in a co-rotating frame, the authors add the rotation to the NJL Lagrangian through orbital and spin couplings linear in $\omega$, so the quasiparticle energies become $\varepsilon_n = E_k + (n+\tfrac12)\omega$, and derive the mean-field thermodynamic potential $\Omega(T,\omega,M)$. The stationary condition $\partial\Omega/\partial M=0$ defines the equilibrium trajectory, and the chiral critical endpoint is found at $T_{\mathrm{CEP}}\simeq 0.0202339062$ GeV and $\omega_{\mathrm{CEP}}\simeq 0.6440126597$ GeV, where the curvature $\partial^2\Omega/\partial M^2$ vanishes. Approaching the endpoint along four distinct thermodynamic paths, the paper extracts effective exponents from local logarithmic slopes: the specific heat density $C_\omega=-T\,\partial^2\Omega/\partial T^2$ gives $\alpha_\omega\simeq 0$; the jump $\Delta J$ of the rotational polarization $J=-\partial\Omega/\partial\omega$ across the first-order line gives $\beta_\omega\simeq 1/2$; the rotational susceptibility $\chi_\omega=\partial J/\partial\omega$ diverges with $\gamma_\omega\simeq 1$; and the critical-isotherm response $\tilde J\sim|\tilde\omega|^{1/\delta}$ at $T=T_{\mathrm{CEP}}$ gives $\delta_\omega\simeq 3$. The four exponents obey $\alpha+2\beta+\gamma=2$ and $\alpha+\beta(1+\delta)=2$, the relations expected for Landau mean-field Ising behavior. The paper concludes that rotation extends the control-parameter space and moves the phase boundary, but does not change the mean-field critical scaling structure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the rotational polarization $J=-\partial\Omega/\partial\omega$ inherits the full singular behavior of the chiral order parameter near the endpoint, so that its jump, susceptibility, and isotherm scaling genuinely measure the chiral critical exponents; the paper asserts this coupling rather than deriving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Angular velocity joins temperature as a genuine control parameter: the $(T,\omega)$ plane contains its own critical endpoint, and rotation shifts the phase boundary without erasing the critical point.
  • The rotational susceptibility $\chi_\omega$ diverges at the endpoint, so the response of vortical matter to changes in angular velocity offers a new probe of criticality in rotating systems.
  • The four exponents are extracted independently and still satisfy both standard scaling relations, an internal consistency check that supports the mean-field identification.
  • The rotation-induced endpoint belongs to the same mean-field Ising scaling class as the conventional $(T,\mu_B)$ endpoint, so methods developed for the chemical-potential plane carry over to the rotational control parameter.
  • The work supplies a systematic characterization of rotation-induced critical phenomena, which the paper frames as the baseline for extending rotating QCD studies beyond the mean-field approximation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct internal test suggests itself: extract $\beta$ from the jump of the constituent quark mass $M$ itself and $\gamma$ from $\partial^2\Omega/\partial M^2$, then compare with the values obtained from $J$; agreement would confirm that the rotational polarization inherits the chiral singular part rather than contributing a singular behavior of its own.
  • The fixed radial coordinate $r=0.1$ GeV$^{-1}$ and angular-momentum cutoff $n=5$ are used without convergence checks; repeating the extraction at larger $n$ and several $r$ would show whether the exponent plateaus are numerical artifacts or genuine scaling.
  • If $J$ is a faithful critical proxy, higher-order cumulants of the rotational polarization, analogues of the kurtosis used in beam-energy scans, should diverge near the endpoint with exponents tied to $\gamma$ and $\delta$; that would amount to a sharper, possibly measurable rotational signature of the critical point.
  • A fluctuation-corrected treatment could either confirm the mean-field Ising class or expose rotation-sensitive corrections, and the present calculation fixes the baseline such a comparison needs, a step the authors themselves flag.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies rotating two-flavor QCD matter in the two-flavor NJL model at mean-field level. Working in a rotating frame, the authors write down a thermodynamic potential, solve the gap equation, and locate a critical endpoint in the temperature–angular-velocity (T, ω) plane, reporting T_CEP ≈ 0.0202339062 GeV and ω_CEP ≈ 0.6440126597 GeV for fixed radial coordinate r = 0.1 GeV^-1 and angular-momentum cutoff n = 5. They define effective critical exponents α_ω, β_ω, γ_ω, and δ_ω from the specific heat density, the discontinuity of the rotational polarization J = −∂Ω/∂ω, the rotational susceptibility χ_ω = ∂J/∂ω, and the critical-isotherm response of J, respectively. From numerical logarithmic slopes they report α_ω ≈ 0, β_ω ≈ 1/2, γ_ω ≈ 1, and δ_ω ≈ 3, which satisfy the mean-field scaling relations α + 2β + γ = 2 and α + β(1 + δ) = 2. The paper concludes that rotation shifts the location of the CEP but does not change the underlying mean-field Ising scaling class.

Significance. If the claimed results are correct, the paper would provide a systematic critical-exponent analysis for rotating QCD matter in a widely used effective model, with explicit expressions for the specific heat, rotational polarization, and rotational susceptibility. The extracted exponents are consistent with each other through the standard scaling relations, and the authors are appropriately explicit that the calculation is confined to the mean-field approximation and that fluctuations are neglected. The paper also identifies concrete extensions beyond mean field. However, the central identification of J as an order-parameter-like quantity is asserted rather than derived, and the δ_ω extraction rests on an unverified assumption about the direction of the ordering field in the (T, ω) plane. These points are load-bearing for the claim that the exponents characterize the chiral CEP, so the significance of the paper will be established only after those gaps are closed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (9) and Eq. (10)] The statement in Eq. (9) that the stationarity condition removes the implicit M(T) dependence from the second temperature derivative is not correct. One has dΩ/dT = ∂Ω/∂T at the stationary point, but d²Ω/dT² = ∂²Ω/∂T² + 2∂²Ω/∂T∂M dM/dT + ∂²Ω/∂M² (dM/dT)², so the correct specific heat is C_ω = −T[∂²Ω/∂T² − (∂²Ω/∂T∂M)²/∂²Ω/∂M²]. The correction term shown in Eq. (10), which has a numerator involving (2n+1) ε f_+f_- and a denominator involving (2n+1)²(f_+² + f_-²), does not match the required ∂²Ω/∂T∂M and ∂²Ω/∂M², the latter being 1/(2G) − B with B defined in Eq. (18). Please derive Eq. (10) explicitly and state which expression was actually used in the α_ω extraction.
  2. [Eqs. (11)–(14), Sec. III] The assertion that the rotational polarization J is 'coupled to the chiral critical mode' and therefore inherits the chiral order-parameter scaling is not derived. For β_ω to equal the chiral order-parameter exponent, the singular part of ΔJ must be proportional to ΔM; this requires, at minimum, that ∂J/∂M evaluated at the CEP is nonzero, or that a different argument establishes the proportionality when M_c ≠ 0. The paper provides no proof and no numerical check of this condition. Please show explicitly that J = J_c + A(M − M_c) + ... with A ≠ 0 in the critical region, or demonstrate numerically that ΔJ/ΔM is finite and nonzero as the CEP is approached.
  3. [Eq. (20) and Fig. 9] Extracting δ_ω by varying pure ω at T = T_CEP implicitly assumes that the pure-ω direction coincides with the 'magnetic' scaling field of the CEP. In general, the two relevant scaling fields near the CEP are linear combinations of δT and δω; if the chosen path has a nonzero thermal component, the apparent exponent tends to 1/β = 2 in mean-field theory rather than δ = 3. The paper should determine the mixing angle, for example from the tangent direction of the first-order transition line in the (T, ω) plane at the CEP, and extract δ along the orthogonal ordering-field direction, or show explicitly that the pure-ω direction is the magnetic direction. Without this step, the agreement δ_ω ≈ 3 cannot yet be taken as evidence for the mean-field Ising class.
  4. [Sec. III, numerical setup] The exponents are quoted from visual plateaus without quantitative uncertainties, and the two truncation parameters — the angular-momentum cutoff n = 5 and the fixed radial coordinate r = 0.1 GeV^-1 — are not varied. The CEP coordinates are quoted to ten significant digits, which is not meaningful without a convergence study in n and a test of sensitivity to r. Please report a sensitivity analysis (for example n = 3, 5, 7, 10 and r = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 GeV^-1) and give the resulting ranges for the CEP location and for each exponent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] Equation (2) contains an unexplained γ^0 μ term in the Lagrangian even though the thermodynamic potential is evaluated at zero chemical potential; please either define μ or remove the term.
  2. [Eq. (12)] The sign in Eq. (12) appears inconsistent with the definition J = −∂Ω/∂ω. From Eq. (4), ∂Ω/∂ω is proportional to (f_+ − f_-), so J should be proportional to (f_- − f_+); please check the sign and the corresponding expressions in Eqs. (15)–(17).
  3. [Eq. (17)] The direct term in Eq. (17), −∂²Ω/∂ω², evaluated from Eq. (4) gives N_f N_c/(2π² T) Σ ∫ J_n (n+1/2)² f_+f_-, whereas Eq. (17) has N_f N_c/(4π² T); please verify the prefactors in Eqs. (10), (12), and (17) for consistency.
  4. [Figs. 3, 4, 7, 9] For each quoted exponent, the paper should specify the range of ln|t| or ln|ω̃| over which the plateau value was averaged, together with the resulting statistical or numerical uncertainty.
  5. [General presentation] There are several typographical and editorial issues, including a duplicated paragraph defining α_ω in Sec. III, 'Sezionedi' in the affiliation, 'V .' in the reference list, and the capitalization in the first sentence of the Conclusions; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the effective exponents are read off from derivatives of the model's thermodynamic potential, not fitted to the claimed values, and the mean-field scaling conclusion is an internal consistency check rather than a reduction of input to output.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. The input is the two-flavor NJL thermodynamic potential (Eq. 4), taken from the standard rotating-frame formalism [28,33]. The CEP is located by the stationary condition (Eq. 5), and the observables C_omega, J, and chi_omega are defined as derivatives of this potential (Eqs. 8-20). The effective exponents alpha_omega, beta_omega, gamma_omega, and delta_omega are extracted as local logarithmic slopes of these derivatives near the CEP, not obtained by fitting parameters to the claimed mean-field values. The statements that J inherits the chiral critical scaling and that the CEP shows mean-field Ising exponents are consequences of the mean-field Landau form of the potential; they are model predictions, not premises. The identification of J as order-parameter-like is an assumption that could fail if the coupling between J and the chiral mode vanished, but that is a validity/correctness concern rather than circularity, and the reported divergence of chi_omega and vanishing of Delta J are consistent with a nonzero coupling. Self-citations [28,33,40] support the rotating-NJL formalism and do not carry the exponent result; no uniqueness theorem or fitted input is invoked. The central claim is therefore self-contained against the mean-field benchmark values (alpha about 0, beta about 1/2, gamma about 1, delta about 3).

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

No new particles, forces, or fields are introduced; rotational polarization J is a derived thermodynamic observable, not an invented entity. The central claim rests on the NJL model inputs, the mean-field approximation, the linear-in-omega rotating frame treatment, the fixed-radius local approximation, and the asserted critical scaling of J.

free parameters (5)
  • current quark mass m = 0.005 GeV
    Input from Ref. [80], fitted to pion properties in earlier literature; affects the absolute CEP location but not the mean-field exponents.
  • four-fermion coupling G = 3.672 GeV^-2
    Input from Ref. [80]; model parameter fitted to hadronic observables, not fitted in this paper.
  • three-momentum cutoff Lambda = 0.6816 GeV
    Input from Ref. [80]; regularization scale of the NJL model, not fitted in this paper.
  • radial coordinate r = 0.1 GeV^-1
    Chosen by hand in Sec. III; the thermodynamic potential and phase structure depend on r, and no sensitivity study is provided.
  • angular momentum cutoff n = 5
    Chosen by hand in Sec. III; the sum over angular momentum modes is truncated or restricted to one mode, with no convergence check.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation: the thermodynamic potential is evaluated at the stationary point of the gap equation and fluctuations are neglected.
    All observables are derived from the mean-field potential; the paper acknowledges in Sec. IV that fluctuations may change the real QCD critical behavior.
  • domain assumption The rotating-frame Lagrangian keeps only terms linear in angular velocity (Eq. 2).
    Higher-order terms in omega are dropped without quantitative justification; this is a modeling choice inherited from Ref. [28].
  • ad hoc to paper The system is treated at a fixed radial coordinate rather than integrated over a finite cylinder with boundary conditions.
    The thermodynamic potential in Eq. (4) is evaluated at a single r with Bessel functions; no volume average or boundary is imposed, so the result is a local approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper The rotational polarization J is assumed to inherit the critical scaling of the chiral order parameter.
    The coupling of J to the chiral critical mode is asserted in Sec. III around Eqs. (11)-(20) but not derived from the model.
  • standard math Standard finite-temperature field theory with Matsubara sums and Bessel-mode decomposition is used to derive the thermodynamic potential.
    The derivation follows standard curved-spacetime Dirac theory and finite-temperature formalism; this is background methodology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Critical behavior and critical exponents of rotating QCD matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PEAG6URO

@misc{pith2026260813469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Critical behavior and critical exponents of rotating QCD matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PEAG6URO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13469}
}
abstract

We investigate the thermodynamic properties and critical behavior of rotating strongly interacting matter within the two-flavor Nambu--Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model in the mean-field approximation. The phase structure and the critical endpoint (CEP) are determined in the temperature--angular velocity \((T,\omega)\) plane. By analyzing the singular behavior of thermodynamic observables near the CEP, we extract the corresponding effective critical exponents characterizing the scaling behavior of the specific heat density, the rotational polarization discontinuity, the rotational susceptibility, and the critical-isotherm behavior of the rotational polarization. The obtained exponents approach the expected mean-field values and satisfy the corresponding scaling relations, indicating that the rotational degree of freedom does not alter the underlying mean-field critical scaling behavior within the present framework. These results provide a systematic characterization of rotation-induced critical phenomena and establish a basis for further studies of rotating QCD matter beyond the mean-field approximation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13469 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Shifted grand-potential density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Effective critical exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Specific heat density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) Effective critical exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Rotational polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Scaled rotational susceptibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) Effective critical exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, Rept. Prog. Phys.74, 014001 (2011), arXiv:1005.4814 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Sch ¨afer, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1455 (2008), arXiv:0709.4635 [hep-ph]. 8

    arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    Braun-Munzinger, V

    P. Braun-Munzinger, V . Koch, T. Sch¨afer, and J. Stachel, Phys. Rept.621, 76 (2016), arXiv:1510.00442 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Bazavov and others, Phys

    A. Bazavov and others, Phys. Rev. D95, 054504 (2017), arXiv:1701.04325 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    S. J. Barnett, Phys. Rev.6(1915)

    1915

  6. [6]

    S. J. Barnett, Rev. Mod. Phys.7, 129 (1935)

    1935

  7. [7]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 102301 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0410079

    arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C98, 014910 (2018), arXiv:1805.04400 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 162301 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 131, 089901 (2023)], arXiv:2012.13601 [nucl-ex]

    2021

  3. [11]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 012301 (2020), arXiv:1910.14408 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    V . V . Braguta, A. Y . Kotov, D. D. Kuznedelev, and A. A. Roenko, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.112, 9 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    V . V . Braguta, A. Y . Kotov, D. D. Kuznedelev, and A. A. Roenko, Phys. Rev. D103, 094515 (2021), arXiv:2102.05084 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    V . V . Braguta, A. Kotov, A. Roenko, and D. Sychev, PoSLA T- TICE2022, 190 (2023), arXiv:2212.03224 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    M. N. Chernodub, V . A. Goy, and A. V . Molochkov, Phys. Rev. D107, 114502 (2023), arXiv:2209.15534 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    V . V . Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, A. A. Roenko, and D. A. Sychev, Phys. Lett. B852, 138604 (2024), arXiv:2303.03147 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    V . V . Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, and A. A. Roenko, Phys. Lett. B855, 138783 (2024), arXiv:2312.13994 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Yang and X.-G

    J.-C. Yang and X.-G. Huang, (2023), arXiv:2307.05755 [hep- lat]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    V . V . Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, Y . A. Gershtein, and A. A. Roenko, JHEP09, 079 (2025), arXiv:2411.15085 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Braguta, M

    V . Braguta, M. Chernodub, E. Eremeev, I. Kudrov, A. Roenko, and D. Sychev (2025) arXiv:2512.04070 [hep-lat]

    2025

  13. [21]

    H.-T. Ding, O. Kaczmarek, R. Luo, and H.-T. Shu, (2026), arXiv:2607.26939 [hep-lat]

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Liu and I

    Y . Liu and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 032001 (2018), arXiv:1711.08354 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cao and L

    G. Cao and L. He, Phys. Rev. D100, 094015 (2019), arXiv:1910.02728 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chen, X.-G

    H.-L. Chen, X.-G. Huang, and K. Mameda, JHEP02, 216 (2024), arXiv:1910.02700 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Hou, and J. Liao, Chin. Phys. C44, 111001 (2020), arXiv:1812.11787 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cao, Eur

    G. Cao, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 148 (2021), arXiv:2008.08321 [nucl- th]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    H.-L. Chen, K. Fukushima, X.-G. Huang, and K. Mameda, Phys. Rev. D93, 104052 (2016), arXiv:1512.08974 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Jiang and J

    Y . Jiang and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 192302 (2016), arXiv:1606.03808 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [30]

    M. N. Chernodub and S. Gongyo, JHEP01, 136 (2017), arXiv:1611.02598 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [31]

    M. N. Chernodub and S. Gongyo, Phys. Rev. D95, 096006 (2017), arXiv:1702.08266 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [32]

    X. Wang, M. Wei, Z. Li, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D99, 016018 (2019), arXiv:1808.01931 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Sun and A

    F. Sun and A. Huang, Phys. Rev. D106, 076007 (2022), arXiv:2104.14382 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [34]

    K. Xu, F. Lin, A. Huang, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D106, L071502 (2022), arXiv:2205.02420 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [35]

    F. Sun, K. Xu, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D108, 096007 (2023), arXiv:2307.14402 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [36]

    X. Chen, L. Zhang, D. Li, D. Hou, and M. Huang, JHEP07, 132 (2021), arXiv:2010.14478 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Chen, Z.-B

    H.-L. Chen, Z.-B. Zhu, and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D108, 054006 (2023), arXiv:2306.08362 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [38]

    N. R. F. Braga and O. C. Junqueira, (2023), arXiv:2306.08653 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    V . E. Ambrus ¸ and M. N. Chernodub, (2023), arXiv:2304.05998 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [40]

    F. Sun, J. Shao, R. Wen, K. Xu, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 116017 (2024), arXiv:2402.16595 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Wang and S.-Q

    J.-H. Wang and S.-Q. Feng, Phys. Rev. D109, 066019 (2024), arXiv:2403.01814 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Hua and S.-Q

    Y . Hua and S.-Q. Feng, (2024), arXiv:2412.06398 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Y .-Q. Zhao, S. He, D. Hou, L. Li, and Z. Li, JHEP04, 115 (2023), arXiv:2212.14662 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [44]

    A. A. Golubtsova and N. S. Tsegelnik, Phys. Rev. D107, 106017 (2023), arXiv:2211.11722 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Y . Chen, D. Li, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D106, 106002 (2022), arXiv:2208.05668 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [46]

    S. Chen, K. Fukushima, and Y . Shimada, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 242002 (2022), arXiv:2207.12665 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Yadav, Phys

    G. Yadav, Phys. Lett. B841, 137925 (2023), arXiv:2203.11959 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [48]

    N. R. F. Braga, L. F. Faulhaber, and O. C. Junqueira, Phys. Rev. D105, 106003 (2022), arXiv:2201.05581 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Cartwright, M

    C. Cartwright, M. G. Amano, M. Kaminski, J. Noronha, and E. Speranza, (2021), arXiv:2112.10781 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [50]

    A. A. Golubtsova, E. Gourgoulhon, and M. K. Usova, Nucl. Phys. B979, 115786 (2022), arXiv:2107.11672 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [51]

    M. N. Chernodub, Phys. Rev. D103, 054027 (2021), arXiv:2012.04924 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y . Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, and Y . Hidaka, Phys. Lett. B816, 136184 (2021), arXiv:2101.09173 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [53]

    F. Sun, S. Li, R. Wen, A. Huang, and W. Xie, (2023), arXiv:2310.18942 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Costa, M

    P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, and C. A. de Sousa, Phys. Rev. D77, 096001 (2008), arXiv:0801.3417 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  46. [55]

    DeWolfe, S

    O. DeWolfe, S. S. Gubser, and C. Rosen, Phys. Rev. D83, 086005 (2011), arXiv:1012.1864 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Y .-L. Du, Y . Lu, S.-S. Xu, Z.-F. Cui, C. Shi, and H.-S. Zong, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A30, 1550199 (2015), arXiv:1506.04368 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [57]

    J. Chen, S. He, M. Huang, and D. Li, JHEP01, 165 (2019), arXiv:1810.07019 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [58]

    X. Chen, D. Li, and M. Huang, Chin. Phys. C43, 023105 (2019), arXiv:1810.02136 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [59]

    W.-j. Fu, J. M. Pawlowski, and F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev. D101, 054032 (2020), arXiv:1909.02991 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Gao and J

    F. Gao and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Lett. B820, 136584 (2021), arXiv:2010.13705 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [61]

    P. J. Gunkel and C. S. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D104, 054022 (2021), arXiv:2106.08356 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Y .-Q. Zhao, S. He, D. Hou, L. Li, and Z. Li, Phys. Rev. D109, 086015 (2024), arXiv:2310.13432 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Q. Fu, S. He, L. Li, and Z. Li, (2024), arXiv:2404.12109 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Chen, W.-j

    H.-L. Chen, W.-j. Fu, X.-G. Huang, and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 032302 (2025), arXiv:2410.20704 [hep-ph]

    2025

  56. [65]

    R.-G. Cai, S. He, L. Li, and H.-A. Zeng, (2024), arXiv:2406.12772 [hep-th]. 9

    2024

  57. [66]

    F. Sun, X. Chen, S. Li, and A. Watanabe, (2025), arXiv:2503.17642 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Z. Li, D. Li, and M. Huang, (2026), arXiv:2607.19149 [hep- ph]

    2026 arXiv

  59. [68]

    W.-j. Fu, C. Huang, J. M. Pawlowski, F. Rennecke, R. Wen, and S. Yin, (2026), arXiv:2603.13455 [hep-ph]

    2026

  60. [69]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 092301 (2021), arXiv:2001.02852 [nucl-ex]

    2021

  61. [70]

    Basar, Phys

    G. Basar, Phys. Rev. C110, 015203 (2024), arXiv:2312.06952 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [71]

    D. A. Clarke, P. Dimopoulos, F. Di Renzo, J. Goswami, C. Schmidt, S. Singh, and K. Zambello, Phys. Rev. D112, L091504 (2025), arXiv:2405.10196 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [72]

    H. Shah, M. Hippert, J. Noronha, C. Ratti, and V . V ovchenko, Phys. Rev. C113, L012201 (2026), arXiv:2410.16206 [hep-ph]

    2026

  64. [73]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, P. Parotto, A. Pasztor, C. Ratti, V . V ovchenko, and C. H. Wong, Phys. Rev. D112, L111505 (2025), arXiv:2502.10267 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [74]

    A. Adam, S. Bors ´anyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, P. Kumar, P. Parotto, A. P ´asztor, and C. H. Wong, Phys. Rev. D113, 074525 (2026), arXiv:2507.13254 [hep-lat]

    2026 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Nambu and G

    Y . Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.122, 345 (1961)

    1961

  67. [76]

    Nambu and G

    Y . Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.124, 246 (1961)

    1961

  68. [77]

    S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys.64, 649 (1992)

    1992

  69. [78]

    Hatsuda and T

    T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept.247, 221 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9401310

    1994 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Buballa, Phys

    M. Buballa, Phys. Rept.407, 205 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0402234

    2005

  71. [80]

    Kohyama, D

    H. Kohyama, D. Kimura, and T. Inagaki, Nucl. Phys. B906, 524 (2016), arXiv:1601.02411 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Braun, B

    J. Braun, B. Klein, and H. J. Pirner, Phys. Rev. D72, 034017 (2005)

    2005

  73. [82]

    Klein, Phys

    B. Klein, Phys. Rept.707–708, 1 (2017)

    2017

  74. [83]

    Ebihara, K

    S. Ebihara, K. Fukushima, and K. Mameda, Phys. Lett. B764, 94 (2017), arXiv:1608.00336

    2017 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Xu and M

    K. Xu and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D101, 074001 (2020)

    2020

  76. [85]

    E. B. S. Corr ˆea and M. S. R. Sarges, Nucl. Phys. A1040, 122749 (2023)

    2023

  77. [86]

    P. N. Meisinger and M. C. Ogilvie, Phys. Lett. B379, 163 (1996), arXiv:hep-lat/9512011

    1996 arXiv

  78. [87]

    P. N. Meisinger, T. R. Miller, and M. C. Ogilvie, Phys. Rev. D 65, 034009 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0108009

    2002 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Fukushima, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B591, 277 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0310121

    2004

  80. [89]

    Mocsy, F

    A. Mocsy, F. Sannino, and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 182302 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0308135

    2004 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Megias, E

    E. Megias, E. Ruiz Arriola, and L. L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev. D 74, 065005 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0412308

    2006 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Ratti, M

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

    2006 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Fukushima, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev. D77, 114028 (2008), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 78, 039902 (2008)], arXiv:0803.3318 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.