Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Chiral vortical catalysis constrained by LQCD simulations

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 rotation can strengthen chiral symmetry breaking in quark matter when gluonic effects are put back into a quark model as an angular-velocity-dependent coupling fitted to lattice QCD data.

desk verdict A transparent NJL study that fits a running coupling to lattice Tc(omega) and thereby builds in the chiral vortical catalysis it then reports. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14541 v2 pith:BKNOCPZO submitted 2024-12-19 hep-ph hep-latnucl-th

Rodrigo M. Nunes , Ricardo L. S. Farias , William R. Tavares , Varese S. Timóteo This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-latnucl-th
keywords chiralvorticalcatalysisNambu-Jona-Lasiniomodelrotatingquark-gluonplasmarunningcouplinglatticeQCDcondensatecriticalendpointphasediagram
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to resolve a disagreement: lattice QCD says real rotation raises the chiral transition temperature of QCD matter, while effective quark models without gluons say rotation lowers it. The authors put a rotation-dependent coupling into the two-flavor Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model, fitting that coupling to the lattice pseudocritical temperatures. With this fitted coupling, rotation enhances the chiral condensate and the effective quark mass, strengthens chiral symmetry breaking (the effect called chiral vortical catalysis), makes the chiral susceptibility peak taller and hotter, and moves the critical end point to higher temperatures and chemical potentials. This matters because heavy-ion collisions create strongly rotating quark-gluon plasma, and effective models are the main tool for exploring the baryon-rich region where lattice methods are difficult.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the angular-velocity-dependent coupling $G(\omega)=G_\alpha+G_\beta\exp(\omega/\Omega)$, with parameters $G_\alpha=4.97667~\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$, $G_\beta=0.05840~\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$, and $\Omega=0.02457~\mathrm{GeV}$, fitted so the model's pseudocritical temperature reproduces the lattice relation $T_c(v)/T_c(0)=1+B_2 v^2/c^2$ with $B_2\approx 1.13153$ over the lattice range of $\omega$. This coupling enters the mean-field thermodynamic potential of the two-flavor NJL model in a rigid rotating cylinder, where the quark energy dispersion $\epsilon_n=\sqrt{M^2+p_z^2+p_t^2-(n+1/2)\omega}$ and the Bessel-function weights $J_n(p_t r)^2+J_{n+1}(p_t r)^2$ carry the rotation effects. Changing $G$ from a constant to $G(\omega)$ is what flips every qualitative result of the paper.

What would settle it

Look for the chiral condensate or the chiral susceptibility directly in lattice QCD at angular velocities beyond the fitted range ($\omega r$ between about 0.3 and 0.55): if the condensate stops rising or the pseudocritical temperature flattens or falls, the exponential running coupling is falsified. A second check would compare the model's prediction for the quark-mass dependence of $T_c(\omega)$ with a lattice calculation, since the fit currently uses only the $T_c(\omega)$ curve at one quark mass.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the rotational behavior of the NJL model reverses when gluonic effects are encoded in a running coupling $G(\omega)=G_\alpha+G_\beta e^{\omega/\Omega}$ fitted to lattice QCD's pseudocritical temperatures. With fixed $G$, increasing angular velocity lowers the chiral condensate and the crossover temperature, reproducing the generic quark-model result that disagrees with lattice data. With $G(\omega)$, increasing angular velocity raises the pseudocritical temperature along the lattice band, enhances the chiral condensate and effective quark mass at low temperature (chiral vortical catalysis), produces a stronger and hotter peak in the chiral susceptibility, and shifts both the crossover lines and the critical end point toward higher $T$ and $\mu$. The authors present this as evidence that gluonic degrees of freedom, normally absent from NJL-type models, are the decisive missing ingredient for rotating QCD matter.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prediction rests on one fitted curve: the assumption that a single momentum-independent coupling of the form $G(\omega)=G_\alpha+G_\beta e^{\omega/\Omega}$, fitted to lattice pseudocritical temperatures at small $\omega$, correctly captures all gluonic rotational effects and remains valid when extrapolated to larger angular velocities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At zero chemical potential the chiral crossover temperature increases with angular velocity, in quantitative agreement with the lattice band used for the fit.
  • The critical end point moves to higher temperature and slightly higher chemical potential, so rotating matter is predicted to keep a crossover over a larger region of the phase diagram.
  • Chiral condensate and effective quark mass are enhanced by rotation at low temperature, meaning chiral symmetry is more strongly broken in fast-spinning matter.
  • Chiral susceptibility peaks grow with $\omega$, indicating stronger fluctuations near the transition under rotation.
  • The constant-coupling case gives the opposite behavior, so quark-model studies of rotating matter that ignore gluon effects should be treated with caution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $G(\omega)$ is fitted only to $T_c(\omega)$, the predicted enhancement of the condensate is not an independent confirmation of chiral vortical catalysis; a lattice measurement of the condensate itself versus $\omega$ would test the mechanism directly.
  • The exponential form is extrapolated from the lattice range $\omega r \lesssim 0.3$ up to $\omega r \approx 0.55$; if lattice data at larger $\omega$ show $T_c$ flattening or decreasing, the catalysis prediction would fail.
  • The same fitting philosophy used for magnetic-field inverse catalysis is here applied to vorticity, suggesting a general strategy: absorb unmodeled gluonic effects into a medium-dependent coupling constrained by lattice data, then explore regions lattice cannot reach, such as high baryon density.
  • If the critical-end-point shift is real, rotation could serve as an experimental dial: collisions with higher vorticity might probe a different critical region than static matter.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the two-flavor Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model in a rigidly rotating cylinder in the mean-field approximation, with a homogeneous chiral condensate. To incorporate gluonic effects absent in the NJL model, the authors introduce an angular-velocity-dependent coupling G(omega)=G_alpha+G_beta exp(omega/Omega), Eq. (11), whose three parameters are fixed by requiring the model's pseudocritical temperature T_c(omega) at mu=0 to match the LQCD results of Ref. [27]. With this coupling, the chiral condensate and effective quark mass increase with omega, the chiral susceptibility peak moves to higher temperature and grows, and the CEP shifts to higher temperature and slightly higher chemical potential (Figs. 1-6). The constant-coupling case is presented throughout as a comparison, reproducing the usual suppression of T_c with omega.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine and timely problem: effective quark models under rotation disagree with LQCD, and a lattice-calibrated coupling is a reasonable phenomenological strategy, in the same spirit as magnetic-field-dependent couplings in the NJL literature. The derivation of the thermodynamic potential and gap equation follows standard steps, and the parameters are stated clearly. The main strength is the clean separation between constant- and running-coupling results, which makes the effect of the new ingredient transparent. However, the paper's central results are not independent predictions: because G(omega) is fitted to LQCD T_c(omega), the agreement with the lattice band in Fig. 5 is a restatement of the input, and the rising condensate follows from the monotonic increase of the fitted coupling. The CEP shift is a model-dependent extrapolation whose robustness is not demonstrated. If reframed as a controlled model study with sensitivity analysis, the paper would be a useful contribution; in its current form the conclusions overstate the strength of the LQCD constraint.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (11), and Fig. 5] The central phenomenon is enforced by construction. The parameters G_alpha, G_beta, and Omega are chosen so that the NJL T_c(omega) reproduces the LQCD pseudocritical temperatures of Ref. [27]; the authors explicitly state in Sec. IV that the fitting function "enforces" the parabolic T_c(omega) behavior. The agreement in Fig. 5 is therefore not a validation of chiral vortical catalysis. Moreover, since the gap equation is monotonic in the coupling, any increasing G(omega) will raise the condensate and T_c; the sign of the effect is built into the ansatz.
  2. [Sec. III, right panel of Fig. 2, and Sec. IV] The exponential form of G(omega) is chosen because the plotted G-versus-omega data "resembles" a shifted exponential, and the model is then applied up to omega r ~ 0.55 while the fitted LQCD data cover only omega r ≲ 0.3 (the authors state this in the text). The enhancement of the condensate at low temperature and the CEP location for omega=60 MeV thus rely on an uncontrolled extrapolation of an ad hoc functional form. The homogeneous-condensate approximation, which the authors note is valid only for "moderately small" angular velocities, is also used in this extrapolated regime without a quantitative check.
  3. [Eq. (11) and Fig. 5] No uncertainties are propagated from the lattice band (B2 = 1.13153 ± 0.03) into the fit parameters or into the predicted susceptibilities and CEP. The three fit parameters are quoted to five significant digits, but no fit quality measure (e.g., chi-squared or RMS) is reported, and no test with alternative functional forms is given. Because several simple forms can match the sparse lattice points, the quantitative CEP shift and the susceptibility enhancement are not robust predictions.
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (9), and Sec. III] The calibration of the angular velocity is not fully specified. The lattice input is expressed in terms of v = omega L_s / 2, while the NJL calculation uses a cylinder radius r = 5 GeV^-1; the relationship between L_s and r, and hence the conversion of omega values, is not stated. The fit parameters in Eq. (11) and all subsequent results depend on this mapping, so the manuscript should specify the conversion and test sensitivity to the choice of r.
  5. [Sec. III, Fig. 6] The phase diagram is obtained by applying a coupling fitted at mu=0 to finite chemical potential, which is an extrapolation not constrained by any lattice data. The CEP shift should be explicitly labeled as a model prediction under the assumed G(omega), and the numerical (T_CEP, mu_CEP) values for each omega should be reported so that the robustness of the shift can be assessed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 4] The axis labels "chi G" and "chi G(omega)" are ambiguous; please state the normalization of the susceptibility or indicate that it is plotted in arbitrary units.
  2. [Throughout] There are several language slips, e.g., "end o Sec.II" (end of Sec. II), "qualitative the same" (qualitatively the same), and "In order complete the analysis" (In order to complete the analysis).
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption describes the effective quark masses as a function of the angular velocity, while the horizontal axis is the temperature; please correct the caption.
  4. [Eq. (8)] Equation (8) uses m0 while the text and Eq. (2) use m and \hat m; please define m0 explicitly and state that m_u=m_d=m.
  5. [Sec. III] Please report the number of LQCD points used in the fit to Eq. (11) and the numerical goodness of fit, rather than only "very good agreement".
  6. [Sec. II] The term "running coupling" is nonstandard because G(omega) does not run with a momentum scale; consider "omega-dependent coupling" to avoid confusion with the usual QCD running coupling.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central catalysis signal is inherited from the exponential G(omega) fitted to LQCD T_c; the T_c(omega) agreement is a restatement of the fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II (coupling determination, after Eq. (9)) and Sec. III (Eq. (11), Fig. 5)]
    "In the next step, we used the lattice QCD pseudocritical temperature T_c at several values of the angular velocity omega, and determined the value of the NJL coupling required to reproduce the lattice QCD calculation of T_c at each value of the angular velocity. ... These parameters are determined by fitting the couplings, at different velocities, to the shifted exponential in Eq.(11), and correspond to the minimum of the root mean square error."

    The pseudocritical temperature as a function of omega is the very input used to fix G(omega). Presenting Fig. 5 as confirmation that the running coupling 'indeed gives a very good behavior of the pseudocritical temperature' is a restatement of the fitting procedure, not an independent prediction. The paper itself concedes in Sec. IV that Eq. (11) 'enforces the system to reproduce the parabolic behavior for T_c x omega, observed in LQCD [27]'.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III, Fig. 2 discussion]
    "when we look to the results with the running coupling at fixed temperatures, we observe the increase of the chiral condensate for the whole range of angular velocities considered, which is a direct consequence of the coupling being a function that increases with angular velocity."

    The headline chiral vortical catalysis (enhancement of the chiral condensate with omega) is described by the authors as a direct consequence of the chosen increasing G(omega). Since G(omega) was fitted to make the transition temperature rise with omega, and the gap equation responds monotonically to an increasing coupling, the catalysis is imposed by the ansatz rather than independently derived. The enhanced susceptibility peaks and the upward CEP shift are downstream outputs of the same fitted coupling, so they inherit this forced behavior rather than providing independent evidence.

full rationale

The paper fits G(omega) point by point to the LQCD pseudocritical temperature T_c(omega) and then exhibits the same T_c(omega) curve in Fig. 5 as evidence of agreement; this is a restatement of the input, and Sec. IV explicitly says the fitting function 'enforces' the parabolic T_c behavior. The central claim of chiral vortical catalysis is likewise acknowledged in the text to be 'a direct consequence of the coupling being a function that increases with angular velocity,' meaning the sign of the effect is built into the fitted ansatz rather than predicted. The susceptibility enhancement and the upward CEP shift are additional consequences of the same fitted coupling, and they are extrapolated to omega r approximately 0.55 beyond the lattice-fitted range, which adds robustness concerns. No load-bearing self-citation is present: the cited 'chiral vortical catalysis' work [75] is by a different author, and the lattice input is external. The circularity is therefore partial: the finite-mu CEP location is not directly fitted, but it is forced by the same fitted coupling and by the exponential form chosen because 'the plot for G x omega resembles a shifted exponential.'

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

The central claim rests on the LQCD T_c(omega) input, the ad hoc exponential form of G(omega), and the homogeneous mean-field approximation. The three coupling coefficients and the cylinder radius are free parameters chosen to make the model match the target.

free parameters (4)
  • G_alpha (constant part of running coupling) = 4.97667 GeV^-2
    Fitted so the NJL pseudocritical temperature matches LQCD T_c values at several angular velocities.
  • G_beta (exponential amplitude) = 0.05840 GeV^-2
    Second fit coefficient in G(omega); determined jointly with G_alpha and Omega.
  • Omega (exponential scale) = 0.02457 GeV
    Third fit coefficient; controls how quickly the coupling grows with angular velocity.
  • Cylinder radius r = 5 GeV^-1
    Chosen by hand to satisfy causality (omega r < 1) and to set the rotation range; controls the maximum omega and the extrapolation limit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LQCD pseudocritical temperature relation T_c(v)/T_c(0) = 1 + B2 v^2/c^2 with B2 = 1.13153 (m_ps/m_v = 0.80) is correct input.
    Used as the constraint for the fit (Eq. 9); if this lattice relation is inaccurate, the fitted coupling and all results inherit the error.
  • ad hoc to paper A single global coupling G(omega) fully represents gluonic effects on the chiral transition in the NJL model.
    The functional form (Eq. 11) is chosen because the G vs omega plot 'resembles a shifted exponential'; no dynamical derivation is provided.
  • domain assumption Chiral condensate is homogeneous in the rotating cylinder.
    Explicitly assumed in Sec. II and valid only for moderately small omega; inhomogeneities can appear at large rotation (Refs. [30,76,90]).
  • domain assumption Standard NJL parameters (Lambda = 651 MeV, m = 5.5 MeV, G = 5.04 GeV^-2) remain valid in the rotating frame.
    Taken from Ref. [37] without modification; rotation could in principle renormalize these parameters beyond the coupling change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral vortical catalysis constrained by LQCD simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKNOCPZO

@misc{pith2026241214541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral vortical catalysis constrained by LQCD simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKNOCPZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14541}
}
read the original abstract

Evidences of vortical effects have been recently found by experiments in heavy ion collisions, instigating new insights into the phase diagram of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Considering the effect of rotations, lattice QCD data shows that the temperatures for deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration should increase with real angular velocity, and the dominant effects are related to gluonic degrees of freedom. These findings could be essential for quark models in rotating systems that lack gluonic interactions, which predicts the decreasing of the chiral temperature transition with the angular velocity. To address this issue properly, in this work we apply the two-flavor Nambu--Jona-Lasinio model to explore the phase diagram in a rotating rigid cylinder with constant angular velocity in the mean field approximation. To circumvent the absence of gluons, we propose the application of an effective coupling dependent of the angular velocity, fitted to match the pseudocritical temperature of chiral phase transition in the model through lattice QCD data. Our results indicate that the running coupling induces the enhancement of the chiral condensate as a function of angular velocity, strengthening the breaking of chiral symmetry, an effect previously dubbed as chiral vortical catalysis. For the chiral susceptibility we observe stronger fluctuations around the transition temperature when we consider the running coupling. The phase diagram is affected by these findings shifting the critical end point (CEP) to higher temperatures and chemical potentials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14541 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Chiral condensate as a function of the temperature with fixed value of angular velocity. In the left panel, the case with fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Chiral condensate as a function of the angular velocity and fixed values of temperature. In the left panel we consider the case with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Effective quark masses as a function of the angular velocity and fixed values of temperature. In the left panel we consider fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Chiral susceptibility as a function of the temperature for different values of angular velocity. In the left panel we assume fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Pseudocritical temperature of chiral transition as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Phase diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Imaginary Rotating Gluonic Matter at Strong Coupling

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    At strong coupling, imaginary rotation suppresses the Polyakov-loop interaction, so the predicted deconfinement temperature of pure gluonic matter increases with the imaginary angular velocity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [27]

    V. V. Braguta, A. Y. Kotov, D. D. Kuznedelev, and A. A. Roenko, Phys. Rev. D103, 094515 (2021), 2102.05084. 9

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    However, the running coupling induces the effective quark masses to be enhanced at low temperatures as we increase the angular velocity. This effect is more clear in the case of 𝜔 = 60 MeV, showing that the quark masses are more affected than the condensates, increasing 22% when compared to 𝜔 = 30 MeV case, as observed in right panel of Fig. 3. For compar...

    2020

  3. [2]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 339 (2018), 1802.04801

    arXiv 2018

  4. [3]

    Elfner and B

    H. Elfner and B. M¨ uller, J. Phys. G50, 103001 (2023), 2210.12056

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, Rept. Prog. Phys. 74, 014001 (2011), 1005.4814

    arXiv 2011

  6. [5]

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Sch ¨afer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1455 (2008), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.80.1455

    2008

  7. [6]

    Endrodi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19780 (2024)

    G. Endrodi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19780 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Nature 548, 62 (2017), 1701.06657

    arXiv 2017

Show all 92 references
  1. [8]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Nature 614, 244 (2023), 2204.02302

    2023

  2. [9]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 012301 (2020), 1910.14408

    2020 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 102301 (2005), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94. 102301

    2005 doi

  4. [11]

    Huang, P

    X.-G. Huang, P. Huovinen, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C84, 054910 (2011), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC. 84.054910

    2011 doi

  5. [12]

    L. P. Csernai, V. K. Magas, and D. J. Wang, Phys. Rev. C87, 034906 (2013), 1302.5310

    2013 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Jiang, Z.-W

    Y. Jiang, Z.-W. Lin, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. C94, 044910 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 049904 (2017)], 1602.06580

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C93, 064907 (2016), 1603.06117

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Becattini, F

    F. Becattini, F. Piccinini, and J. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. C 77, 024906 (2008), 0711.1253

    2008 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Dobrigkeit Chinellato, M

    D. Dobrigkeit Chinellato, M. A. Lisa, W. Matioli Serenone, C. Shen, J. Takahashi, and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. C 110, 054908 (2024), 2407.02212

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. Voloshin, and G. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 88, 1 (2016), 1511.04050

    2016 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Huang, Nucl

    X.-G. Huang, Nucl. Phys. A 1005, 121752 (2021), 2002.07549

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Ayala et al., Phys

    A. Ayala et al., Phys. Lett. B 810, 135818 (2020), 2003.13757

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Ayala, D

    A. Ayala, D. de la Cruz, L. A. Hern ´andez, S. Hern´andez-Ort´ız, and J. Salinas, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1602, 012025 (2020), 2006.08800

    2020 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Y. Xie, D. Wang, and L. P. Csernai, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 39 (2020), 1907.00773

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Karpenko and F

    I. Karpenko and F. Becattini, Nucl. Phys. A 982, 519 (2019), 1811.00322

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Yi, X.-Y

    C. Yi, X.-Y. Wu, D.-L. Yang, J.-H. Gao, S. Pu, and G.-Y. Qin, Phys. Rev. C109, L011901 (2024), 2304.08777

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev, V. D. Toneev, and V. Voronyuk, Phys. Rev. C97, 064902 (2018), 1801.07610

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    O. V. Teryaev and V. I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D 96, 096023 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.96. 096023

    2017 doi

  19. [26]

    Braguta, A

    V. Braguta, A. Y. Kotov, D. Kuznedelev, and A. Roenko, PoSLATTICE2021, 125 (2022), 2110.12302

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    V. V. Braguta, A. Kotov, A. Roenko, and D. Sychev, PoSLATTICE2022, 190 (2023), 2212.03224

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Yang and X.-G

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

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    V. V. Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, I. E. Kudrov, A. A. Roenko, and D. A. Sychev, Phys. Atom. Nucl.86, 1249 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    M. N. Chernodub, V. A. Goy, and A. V. Molochkov, Phys. Rev. D107, 114502 (2023), 2209.15534

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    F. Sun, J. Shao, R. Wen, K. Xu, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 116017 (2024), 2402.16595

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    V. V. Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, I. E. Kudrov, A. A. Roenko, and D. A. Sychev, Phys. Rev. D110, 014511 (2024), 2310.16036

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    V. V. Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, A. A. Roenko, and D. A. Sychev, Phys. Lett. B852, 138604 (2024), 2303.03147

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    V. V. Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, I. E. Kudrov, A. A. Roenko, and D. A. Sychev, PoSLATTICE2023, 181 (2024), 2311.03947

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Jiang and J

    Y. Jiang and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 192302 (2016), 1606.03808

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. N. Chernodub and S. Gongyo, JHEP 01, 136 (2017), 1611.02598

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    X. Wang, M. Wei, Z. Li, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 99, 016018 (2019), 1808.01931

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    F. Sun, S. Li, R. Wen, A. Huang, and W. Xie (2023), 2310.18942

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Sun and A

    F. Sun and A. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 076007 (2022), 2104.14382

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    H. M. Ghalati and N. Sadooghi, Phys. Rev. D 108, 054032 (2023), 2306.04472

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sadooghi, S

    N. Sadooghi, S. M. A. Tabatabaee Mehr, and F. Taghinavaz, Phys. Rev. D104, 116022 (2021), 2108.12760

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hua and S.-Q

    Y. Hua and S.-Q. Feng (2024), arXiv: 2412.06398

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Chen, W.-j

    H.-L. Chen, W.-j. Fu, X.-G. Huang, and G.-L. Ma (2024), arXiv: 2410.20704

    2024

  37. [45]

    F. Sun, K. Xu, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 096007 (2023), 2307.14402

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. M. A. Tabatabaee Mehr, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094042 (2023), 2306.11753

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Wei and M

    M. Wei and M. Huang, Chin. Phys. C 47, 104105 (2023), 2303.01897

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Chen, X.-G

    H.-L. Chen, X.-G. Huang, and J. Liao, Lect. Notes Phys. 987, 349 (2021), 2108.00586

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    S. M. A. T. Mehr and F. Taghinavaz, Annals Phys. 454, 169357 (2023), 2201.05398

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. Wei, Y. Jiang, and M. Huang, Chinese Physics C 46, 024102 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Chen, X.-G

    H.-L. Chen, X.-G. Huang, and K. Mameda, JHEP 02, 216 (2024), 1910.02700

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Hou, and J. Liao, Chin. Phys. C 44, 111001 (2020), 1812.11787

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Cao, Phys

    G. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 109, 014001 (2024), 2310.03310

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Singha, V

    P. Singha, V. E. Ambrus, and M. N. Chernodub, Phys. Rev. D110, 094053 (2024), 2407.07828

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    L. A. Hern ´andez and R. Zamora (2024), arXiv: 2410.17874

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    M. N. Chernodub, V. A. Goy, A. V. Molochkov, D. V. Stepanov, and A. S. Pochinok (2024), 2409.01847

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Chen, Z.-B

    H.-L. Chen, Z.-B. Zhu, and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 054006 (2023), 2306.08362

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Wan and M

    S.-S. Wan and M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094030 (2021), 2012.12577

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    X. Chen, L. Zhang, D. Li, D. Hou, and M. Huang, JHEP 07, 132 (2021), 2010.14478

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Y. Chen, X. Chen, D. Li, and M. Huang (2024), 2405.06386

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    N. R. F. Braga and O. C. Junqueira, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138330 (2024), 2306.08653

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    N. R. F. Braga, L. F. Ferreira, and O. C. Junqueira, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138265 (2023), 2301.01322

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Y.-Q. Zhao, S. He, D. Hou, L. Li, and Z. Li, JHEP 04, 115 (2023), 2212.14662

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Yadav, Phys

    G. Yadav, Phys. Lett. B 841, 137925 (2023), 2203.11959

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Siri and N

    E. Siri and N. Sadooghi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12581 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Siri and N

    E. Siri and N. Sadooghi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 036016 (2024), 2405.09481

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    V. E. Ambrus ¸ and M. N. Chernodub, Phys. Rev. D108, 085016 (2023), 2304.05998

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    K. K. Pradhan, B. Sahoo, D. Sahu, and R. Sahoo, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 936 (2024), 2304.05190

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, and Y. Hidaka, Phys. Lett. B 816, 136184 (2021), 2101.09173

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    S. Chen, K. Fukushima, and Y. Shimada, Phys. Lett. B 859, 139107 (2024), 2404.00965

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    I. I. Gaspar, L. A. Hern ´andez, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D108, 094020 (2023), 2305.00101

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    P. N. Meisinger, T. R. Miller, and M. C. Ogilvie, Phys. Rev. D65, 034009 (2002), hep-ph/0108009

    2002 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Fukushima, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B 591, 277 (2004), hep-ph/0310121

    2004 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Ratti, M

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

    2006 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Fukushima, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev. D 77, 114028 (2008), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 78, 039902 (2008)], 0803.3318

    2008 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Jiang, Eur

    Y. Jiang, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 949 (2022), 2108.09622

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    M. N. Chernodub, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054027 (2021), 2012.04924

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Mameda and K

    K. Mameda and K. Takizawa, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138317 (2023), 2308.07310

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Jiang, Phys

    Y. Jiang, Phys. Lett. B 853, 138655 (2024), 2312.06166

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Jiang, Phys

    Y. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054047 (2024), 2406.03311

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    J. O. Andersen, W. R. Naylor, and A. Tranberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 025001 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.88.025001

    2016

  74. [82]

    W. R. Tavares, R. L. S. Farias, S. S. Avancini, V. S. Tim´oteo, M. B. Pinto, and G. a. Krein, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 278 (2021), 2104.11117

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    R. L. S. Farias, V. S. Timoteo, S. S. Avancini, M. B. Pinto, and G. Krein, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 101 (2017), 1603.03847

    2017 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Endr ˝odi and G

    G. Endr ˝odi and G. Mark´o, JHEP 08, 036 (2019), 1905.02103

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    J. a. Moreira, P. Costa, and T. E. Restrepo, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 123 (2021), 2101.12004

    2021 arXiv

  78. [86]

    R. L. S. Farias, K. P. Gomes, G. Krein, and M. B. Pinto, Phys. Rev. C 90, 025203 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.90.025203

    2014

  79. [87]

    J. a. Moreira, P. Costa, and T. E. Restrepo, Phys. Rev. D102, 014032 (2020), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 102.014032

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    S. S. Avancini, R. L. S. Farias, M. Benghi Pinto, W. R. Tavares, and V. S. Tim´oteo, Phys. Lett. B 767, 247 (2017), 1606.05754

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ferreira, P

    M. Ferreira, P. Costa, O. Lourenc ¸o, T. Frederico, and C. Providˆencia, Phys. Rev. D89, 116011 (2014), 1404.5577. 10

    2014 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Zhuang, J

    P. Zhuang, J. H¨ ufner, and S. Klevansky, Nuclear Physics A576, 525 (1994)

    1994

  83. [91]

    V. V. Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, and A. A. Roenko, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138783 (2024), 2312.13994

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    H.-L. Chen, K. Fukushima, X.-G. Huang, and K. Mameda, Phys. Rev. D 93, 104052 (2016), 1512.08974

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.