Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 95 references

Spectral sum rules and phase transition in strongly coupled QCD

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Strongly coupled quark propagators satisfy Fermi-Dirac statistics only through two-dimensional spectral densities in the complex energy plane.

desk verdict Sum rules are real, the transition is an extrapolation—worth refereeing for the sum rules alone. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20165 v1 pith:5CEVPYAD submitted 2024-12-28 hep-th hep-lathep-phnucl-th

Yi-Lun Du , Nan Su , Konrad Tywoniuk This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-lathep-phnucl-th MSC 81T1381T2881V05 PACS 11.10.Wx12.38.-t12.38.Mh
keywords spectralsumrulesquarkfunctionGribov-ZwanzigerquantizationthermalQCDmagneticscaledeconfinementtransitionmassLorentzsymmetrybreaking
topics Yang-Mills Mass Gap
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 aims to establish the quark spectral function of finite-temperature QCD when both the electric ($gT$) and magnetic ($g^2T$) scales are included, using the Gribov-Zwanziger (GZ) quantization. It claims that, unlike QED or weakly coupled QCD, where spectral information lives on the real energy axis as poles and branch cuts, the strongly coupled quark propagator is non-analytic only in two-dimensional regions of the complex energy plane, and that a new set of spectral sum rules, Eqs. (20a)-(20c), holds as a consistency check dictated by Fermi-Dirac statistics. From these sum rules it derives an intrinsic QCD transition at $g_* \approx 4.56$: at small coupling the system has three modes (two massive quark modes and one massless hydro-like GZ mode), and at large coupling only one massless pole remains, with Lorentz symmetry restored and the thermal mass vanishing as an order parameter. The wider stake is that this mechanism ties the magnetic scale to confinement and the deconfinement transition within a single systematic framework.

What carries the argument

Two ingredients carry the argument. The first is the Gribov-Zwanziger gluon propagator $D(P) = \frac{P^2}{P^4+\gamma_G^4}\left(\delta_{\mu\nu} - (1-\xi)\frac{P_\mu P_\nu}{P^2}\right)$, whose complex conjugate poles at $P^2 = \pm i\gamma_G^2$ encode the magnetic scale, with $\gamma_G = \frac{D-1}{D}\frac{N_c}{4\sqrt{2\pi}}g^2T$ from the one-loop gap equation. The second is the spectral density $d_\pm(p_0,p) = 2\, \partial \Delta_\pm/\partial \bar{z}$ defined through the Wirtinger derivative; Green's theorem turns contour integrals of the propagator into area integrals of this density, so the sum rules of Eqs. (20a)-(20c) become the statement that the integrated density reproduces the low-momentum expansion of the propagator. The massless pole's residue $Z_0 = 1/(1-\alpha_G)$ sets the critical coupling through $\alpha_G = 1$, and the partial sum rules $S^{(i)}(R,p)$ verify that a large-enough contour captures all non-analytic structures.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop correction to the Gribov gap equation at high temperature: if $\gamma_G$ acquires corrections comparable to the one-loop value at $g \sim 4$, the pole merging and critical coupling would shift or disappear. Alternatively, a lattice determination of the quark thermal mass at strong coupling that stays nonzero would falsify the vanishing order parameter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the one-loop hard-thermal-loop resummed quark propagator in the Gribov-Zwanziger quantization, the paper's central claim is that the non-analytic structure in the complex energy plane is not confined to the real axis: the contour integrals of $\Delta_+(z,p)$, $z\Delta_+(z,p)$, and $z^2\Delta_+(z,p)$ around all non-analytic regions give $1$, $\pm p$, and $p^2 + \tilde{m}_q^2(\gamma_G)$, respectively, where $\tilde{m}_q(\gamma_G)$ reduces to the usual thermal mass in the $\gamma_G\to 0$ limit. These sum rules, verified numerically through partial sum rules, guarantee that strongly coupled quarks still obey anti-commutation relations. Because the Gribov parameter $\gamma_G$ grows with $g^2$, increasing the coupling moves the complex-plane structures: the two massive poles and the massless GZ pole merge, and at $g_* \approx 4.562$ a transition occurs to a phase with a single light-like pole at $\omega = p$ and an otherwise analytic propagator. The vanishing thermal mass $m_q(\gamma_G)$ is the order parameter, the massless GZ mode is identified as the Goldstone mode of Lorentz symmetry breaking, and the absence of a real-axis branch cut means no Landau damping.

Load-bearing premise

The one-loop gap equation for $\gamma_G$ and the one-loop hard-thermal-loop self-energy, both derived for asymptotically high temperature and small coupling, are assumed to remain quantitatively accurate up to $g \approx 4.56$, far outside their controlled regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strongly coupled quarks satisfy the Fermi-Dirac spectral sum rule even though spectral weight lives in two-dimensional regions of the complex energy plane rather than on the real axis.
  • At couplings above $g_* \approx 4.56$ the only surviving excitation is a single light-like pole, meaning Lorentz symmetry is restored and the thermal quark mass has vanished.
  • The massless, positivity-violating GZ mode exists at every coupling with $\gamma_G > 0$ and is identified as the Goldstone mode of broken Lorentz symmetry.
  • The vanishing thermal mass, serving as the order parameter, connects the GZ description to Dyson-Schwinger and gauge/gravity predictions of a massless strong-coupling mode.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The contour-integral technology developed here could be transferred to other strongly correlated fermionic systems whose spectral weight leaves the real axis, such as quantum spin liquids, an application the authors mention in passing.
  • Because $\alpha_G$ depends only on $\gamma_G/T$, the critical coupling $g_*$ is predicted to be temperature independent; computing two-loop corrections to $\gamma_G$ would test whether this robustness survives beyond one loop.
  • If the one-mode phase is physical, Euclidean lattice correlation functions at strong coupling should show a single sharp quasiparticle peak at $\omega \approx p$, which is a concrete checkable signature.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies the retarded quark propagator in finite-temperature QCD within the Gribov-Zwanziger (GZ) quantization, where the gluon propagator has complex conjugate poles and the Gribov parameter gamma_G introduces the magnetic scale g^2 T. After writing the one-loop HTL-resummed quark self-energy in Eqs. (5)-(9), the authors analyze the analytic structure of Delta_+(p0,p) in the complex p0 plane, where non-analytic regions appear away from the real axis. They use a large-p0 expansion of the Cauchy integral to derive the spectral sum rules in Eqs. (20a)-(20c): the contour integrals of Delta_+, z Delta_+, and z^2 Delta_+ equal 1, +/- p, and p^2 + m~_q^2(gamma_G), respectively. They introduce a two-dimensional spectral density d_+(p0,p) via Green's theorem and compute it numerically. The paper then identifies an intrinsic transition: at small coupling there are three modes (two massive quark modes and one massless GZ mode), while at g_* ≈ 4.562 the modes merge and only a single massless pole remains, which the authors interpret as a phase transition with vanishing thermal mass and restored Lorentz symmetry.

Significance. If the central claims were established beyond the one-loop model, this would be a valuable contribution: it provides a nontrivial consistency check of GZ quantization through a fermionic spectral sum rule, introduces a useful two-dimensional spectral density for non-analytic structures in the complex plane, and offers a possible mechanism connecting the magnetic scale to a QCD transition. The derivation of the sum rules is internally coherent and is supported by numerical checks of the n=0 partial sum rule in Figs. 5 and 10. The paper is also commendable for being parameter-free in the sense that no quantities are fitted to data; the only input is the coupling g and the GZ parameter from the gap equation. However, the physical significance of the phase-transition claim is currently limited because the one-loop HTL self-energy and the asymptotic gap solution are used at g ≈ 4.56, far outside their controlled regime, and because the identification of the transition as a genuine phase transition rests on pole-merging phenomenology rather than on a demonstrated non-analyticity in a thermodynamic quantity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. I, Eq. (3); Sec. III B, Eq. (34)] The derivation of the transition at g* ≈ 4.562 uses the one-loop asymptotic gap solution gamma_G = (D-1)/D * N_c/(4 sqrt(2 pi)) g^2 T and the one-loop HTL self-energy in Eqs. (5)-(9) at couplings where these ingredients are not controlled. For D=4 and N_c=3, Eq. (3) gives gamma_G/T ≈ 4.67 at g*, while gT ≈ 4.56 T, so the hierarchy gamma_G ≪ gT ≪ T is badly violated. The HTL reduction leading to Eq. (34), the critical condition alpha_G = 1, and the pole merging in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 therefore have no controlled domain at the claimed critical point. The manuscript should either supply a controlled strong-coupling treatment of gamma_G and the quark self-energy or explicitly present the transition as a property of the one-loop GZ model rather than as a QCD prediction.
  2. [Sec. III B] The identification of alpha_G = 1 as a phase transition is not established by the quantities computed. The divergence of Z0 = 1/(1 - alpha_G) shows only that the linearized expansion in Eq. (35) breaks down; no thermodynamic potential, susceptibility, or other non-analytic physical observable is calculated. The thermal mass m_q(gamma_G) vanishes continuously at g*, which is equally consistent with a smooth crossover. To support the claim of a genuine phase transition, the paper should either demonstrate a non-analyticity in a physical observable or formulate an explicit criterion that distinguishes a transition from a crossover within the model.
  3. [Sec. III A and Sec. V] The interpretation of the massless space-like mode as the Goldstone mode of spontaneously broken Lorentz symmetry is adopted from Ref. [68] and is used as the mechanism for the transition, but the paper does not show that the finite-temperature GZ action actually breaks Lorentz symmetry spontaneously, nor does it construct the associated order parameter. As written, this is an interpretive assumption. It should be labeled as such or supported by an explicit effective-action analysis, since the claim that Lorentz symmetry restoration drives the transition is load-bearing for the physical narrative.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. II B, Eq. (20)] The contour Gamma_2 is defined only pictorially in Fig. 1; please provide a precise definition, e.g., a closed curve that encloses all non-analyticities of Delta_+ and no other singularities, so that the identities in Eqs. (20a)-(20c) are unambiguous.
  2. [Sec. III B, Fig. 4] The sentence 'hence Z0 = Z- = 0' is confusing because Z0 was introduced as the residue of the massless GZ pole, while the single remaining pole at large coupling sits at omega = 0; please clarify how the residues are relabeled across the transition.
  3. [Sec. III B and Sec. IV B] The notation m_q(gamma_G) for the pole mass and m~_q(gamma_G) for the n=2 sum-rule coefficient is potentially confusing; please use clearly distinct symbols for these two quantities.
  4. [Sec. II C, Eq. (28)] The definition of the local spectral density uses limits of Delta_+- at fixed complex argument; for points where the propagator has poles or branch points the limits should be understood in a distributional sense, and the midpoint rule used to obtain Eq. (28) assumes continuity. Please state the appropriate interpretation.
  5. [Sec. V] The phrase 'positive violation' should read 'positivity violation'.
  6. [Sec. IV A] The term 'anti-plasmino' appears once, while elsewhere the negative-energy hole is called the plasmino or anti-quark hole; please standardize the nomenclature.
  7. [Sec. III C and Sec. IV C] Only the n=0 partial sum rule S^(0)(R,p) is numerically shown, in Figs. 5 and 10; presenting S^(1) and S^(2) for at least one representative coupling would make the verification of Eqs. (20b) and (20c) explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral sum rules are exact coefficient identities derived for the assumed GZ/HTL propagator and are checked numerically, while the g*≈4.562 transition is a derived pole-merging condition rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained once the GZ gluon propagator (Eq. 2), the asymptotic gap solution (Eq. 3), and the one-loop HTL quark self-energy (Eqs. 5-9) are accepted as inputs. The spectral sum rules (Eqs. 20a-20c) are obtained by expanding the Cauchy representation (Eq. 15) at large p0 and matching the 1/p0^n coefficients of the known propagator. This is a mathematical identity for the assumed analytic structure; no quantity in Eqs. (20a)-(20c) is fitted to data. The n=2 coefficient m_tilde_q^2(γG) is defined by the expansion itself and reduces to the standard screening mass in the γG=0 limit, so the sum rule is not circular. The claimed transition at g*≈4.562 is determined by the condition αG=1 in Eq. (34), i.e., by the divergence of the residue Z0=1/(1-αG); the merging of the poles and the vanishing thermal mass are numerically solved consequences of the input propagator, not assumptions. The paper explicitly checks the sum rule via the partial sum rules in Figs. 5 and 10. The main reliance on prior literature is the GZ/HTL framework, including Refs. [31] and [34] which involve the present authors. These are published, parameter-free results whose stated assumptions do not include the target spectral sum rules or the transition; they are independent inputs rather than a self-citation chain forbidding alternatives. The identification of the massless mode as a Goldstone mode (Ref. [68]) is an interpretive post hoc step, not a load-bearing derivation. The paper also flags its own limitation in Sec. I: the refined GZ action is in better agreement with lattice data than the simple GZ action used here, and the one-loop HTL and asymptotic gap equation are used at g≈4.56 where their quantitative control is questionable. These are validity and robustness concerns about whether the simplified ansatz describes real QCD, not evidence that a result is being assumed as its own output. I therefore find no circular step in the derivation; the central claims are conditional predictions of the GZ-ansatz propagator, consistently derived and numerically verified.

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

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The massless GZ mode and the spectral density are structures within the GZ framework. The main unacknowledged burdens are the extrapolation of asymptotic one-loop formulas to strong coupling and the interpretational leap from pole structure to a physical QCD phase transition.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Canonical Fermi-Dirac spectral sum rule integral d omega/(2 pi) rho(omega,p) = 1 holds at operator level (Eq. 1).
    Standard thermal QFT identity from fermionic anticommutation relations, used as the n=0 benchmark for the new sum rules.
  • domain assumption GZ quantization with complex-conjugate gluon poles is a valid strong-coupling description of SU(N) Yang-Mills at finite temperature (Eq. 2).
    The paper calls the GZ action a simple demonstration and notes that the refined GZ action is in better agreement with lattice data. All subsequent results inherit this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The one-loop gap solution gamma_G = (D-1)/D * N_c/(4 sqrt(2 pi)) g^2 T (Eq. 3) remains valid for all g up to and beyond g* roughly 4.56.
    Derived for asymptotically high temperature and small g, but used across the full coupling scan without flagging the extrapolation. The phase transition occurs where this approximation is most stressed.
  • ad hoc to paper The one-loop HTL-resummed quark self-energy (Eqs. 5-9) captures the relevant physics at strong coupling.
    HTL is a small-g resummation; using it to define the spectral function at g around 4.5 is an uncontrolled extrapolation.
  • domain assumption All non-analytic features of Delta_+ are confined to a bounded region near the origin, so the contour Gamma_2 and the Cauchy expansion in Eq. (19) are valid.
    This is required by the derivation of the sum rules. Numerical evidence is given, but no theorem guarantees boundedness for all couplings.
  • ad hoc to paper The massless space-like pole is a Goldstone mode of spontaneously broken Lorentz symmetry (Sec. III A and Sec. V).
    Finite temperature explicitly breaks Lorentz symmetry; spontaneous breaking is not demonstrated. The identification is load-bearing for the claimed connection to deconfinement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral sum rules and phase transition in strongly coupled QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5CEVPYAD

@misc{pith2026241220165,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral sum rules and phase transition in strongly coupled QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5CEVPYAD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20165}
}
abstract

By incorporating contributions from both the (chromo)electric scale $gT$ and (chromo)magnetic scale $g^2T$, we establish spectral sum rules of quarks for strongly coupled QCD that respect Fermi-Dirac statistics as required by quantum mechanics. In sharp contrast to QED and weakly coupled QCD whose spectral functions consist of discontinuous zero-dimensional (poles) and one-dimensional (branch cuts) non-analytic contributions from real energy $p_0 \in \mathbb{R}$, the derived spectral function for strongly coupled quarks features continuous but non-analytic contributions from complex energy $p_0 \in \mathbb{C}$ that are two-dimensional in nature. In light of the novel sum rules, we uncover an intrinsic QCD transition between a three-mode phase at small coupling and a one-mode phase at large coupling. The transition is induced by the magnetic scale that generates a massless hydro-like mode with the genuine non-Abelian feature of positivity violation and serving as the Goldstone mode of the Lorentz symmetry breaking. The thermal mass serves as an order parameter of the transition and vanishes at large coupling in line with phenomenological predictions from Dyson-Schwinger equations and gauge/gravity duality. This result provides novel insights into the mechanism of the QCD deconfinement transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20165 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The analytic structure of the propagator ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plots of the real part of the spectral density in the static limit, Re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Discontinuities in the imaginary part of the propa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The partial sum rule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The mass (upper panel) and residues (lower panel) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. An enhanced view of the real part of the spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Plots of the real part of the spectral density at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The absolute value of the speed of sound, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Dispersion relations (upper panel) and residues (lower [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The partial sum rule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Su and K

    N. Su and K. Tywoniuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 161601 (2015), arXiv:1409.3203 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [68]

    Ojima, Lett

    I. Ojima, Lett. Math. Phys. 11, 73 (1986)

    1986

  3. [1]

    Alkofer and J

    R. Alkofer and J. Greensite, J. Phys. G 34, S3 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610365

    arXiv 2007

  4. [2]

    Shuryak, Rev

    E. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035001 (2017), arXiv:1412.8393 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [3]

    Ratti and R

    C. Ratti and R. Bellwied, The Deconfinement Transi- tion of QCD: Theory Meets Experiment , Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 981 (2021)

    2021

  6. [4]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1340011 (2013), arXiv:1301.5893 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [5]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2013

  8. [6]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 339 (2018), arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 95 references
  1. [7]

    Casalderrey-Solana, H

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, H. Liu, D. Mateos, K. Rajagopal, and U. A. Wiedemann, Gauge/String Duality, Hot QCD and Heavy Ion Collisions (Cambridge University Press,

  2. [8]

    C. S. Fischer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 105, 1 (2019), arXiv:1810.12938 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Dupuis, L

    N. Dupuis, L. Canet, A. Eichhorn, W. Metzner, J. M. Pawlowski, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rept. 910, 1 (2021), arXiv:2006.04853 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [10]

    M. L. Bellac, Thermal Field Theory , Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  5. [11]

    Alkofer and L

    R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rept. 353, 281 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0007355

    2001 arXiv

  6. [12]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 96, 289 (1980)

    1980

  7. [13]

    D. J. Gross, R. D. Pisarski, and L. G. Yaffe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53, 43 (1981)

    1981

  8. [14]

    Buchmuller and O

    W. Buchmuller and O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B 443, 47 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9411334

    1995 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Alexanian and V

    G. Alexanian and V. P. Nair, Phys. Lett. B 352, 435 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9504256

    1995 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Jackiw and S.-Y

    R. Jackiw and S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Lett. B 368, 131 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9511051

    1996 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Jackiw and S.-Y

    R. Jackiw and S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Lett. B 403, 297 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9703226

    1997 arXiv

  12. [18]

    J. M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3694 (1998), arXiv:hep- th/9710128

    1998

  13. [19]

    Blaizot and E

    J.-P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, Phys. Rept. 359, 355 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0101103

    2002 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Kraemmer and A

    U. Kraemmer and A. Rebhan, Rept. Prog. Phys. 67, 351 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310337

    2004 arXiv

  15. [21]

    J. O. Andersen and M. Strickland, Annals Phys. 317, 281 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404164

    2005 arXiv

  16. [22]

    P. B. Arnold, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 16, 2555 (2007), arXiv:0708.0812 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Su, Commun

    N. Su, Commun. Theor. Phys. 57, 409 (2012), arXiv:1204.0260 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [24]

    V. N. Gribov, Nucl. Phys. B 139, 1 (1978)

    1978

  19. [25]

    Zwanziger, Nucl

    D. Zwanziger, Nucl. Phys. B 323, 513 (1989)

    1989

  20. [26]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer and D. E. Kharzeev, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 54, 487 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0404216

    2004 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Vandersickel and D

    N. Vandersickel and D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rept. 520, 175 (2012), arXiv:1202.1491 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Maas, Phys

    A. Maas, Phys. Rept. 524, 203 (2013), arXiv:1106.3942 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Zwanziger, Phys

    D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 182301 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0407103

    2005 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Zwanziger, Phys

    D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. D 76, 125014 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610021

    2007 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Fukushima and N

    K. Fukushima and N. Su, Phys. Rev. D 88, 076008 (2013), arXiv:1304.8004 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Cooper and D

    P. Cooper and D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. D 93, 105026 (2016), arXiv:1512.08858 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [33]

    F. E. Canfora, D. Dudal, I. F. Justo, P. Pais, L. Rosa, and D. Vercauteren, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 326 (2015), arXiv:1505.02287 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Hidaka, D

    Y. Hidaka, D. Satow, and T. Kunihiro, Nucl. Phys. A 876, 93 (2012), arXiv:1111.5015 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Satow, Phys

    D. Satow, Phys. Rev. D 87, 096011 (2013), arXiv:1303.2684 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Blaizot and D

    J.-P. Blaizot and D. Satow, Phys. Rev. D 89, 096001 (2014), arXiv:1402.0241 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Policastro, D

    G. Policastro, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, JHEP 12, 054, arXiv:hep-th/0210220

    arXiv

  32. [39]

    P. K. Kovtun and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. D 72, 086009 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0506184

    2005 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Kitazawa, T

    M. Kitazawa, T. Kunihiro, and Y. Nemoto, Phys. Lett. B 633, 269 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0510167

    2006 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Kitazawa, T

    M. Kitazawa, T. Kunihiro, and Y. Nemoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 117, 103 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0609164

    2007 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Kitazawa, T

    M. Kitazawa, T. Kunihiro, K. Mitsutani, and Y. Nemoto, Phys. Rev. D 77, 045034 (2008), arXiv:0710.5809 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [43]

    S.-x. Qin, L. Chang, Y.-x. Liu, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D 84, 014017 (2011), arXiv:1010.4231 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Gao, S.-X

    F. Gao, S.-X. Qin, Y.-X. Liu, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 89, 076009 (2014), arXiv:1401.2406 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Wang and L

    Z. Wang and L. He, Phys. Rev. D 98, 094031 (2018), arXiv:1808.08535 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Tripolt, D

    R.-A. Tripolt, D. H. Rischke, L. von Smekal, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D 101, 094010 (2020), arXiv:2003.11871 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Cucchieri, T

    A. Cucchieri, T. Mendes, and A. R. Taurines, Phys. Rev. D 71, 051902 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0406020

    2005 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Sternbeck, E

    A. Sternbeck, E. M. Ilgenfritz, M. Muller-Preussker, A. Schiller, and I. L. Bogolubsky, PoS LA T2006, 076 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0610053

    2006 arXiv

  42. [49]

    P. O. Bowman, U. M. Heller, D. B. Leinweber, M. B. Parappilly, A. Sternbeck, L. von Smekal, A. G. Williams, and J.-b. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 76, 094505 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0703022

    2007 arXiv

  43. [50]

    P. J. Silva, O. Oliveira, D. Dudal, P. Bicudo, and N. Car- doso, PoS QCD-TNT-III, 040 (2013), arXiv:1401.1554 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Alkofer, W

    R. Alkofer, W. Detmold, C. S. Fischer, and P. Maris, Phys. Rev. D 70, 014014 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309077

    2004 arXiv

  45. [52]

    A. Maas, J. Wambach, B. Gruter, and R. Alkofer, Eur. Phys. J. C 37, 335 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0408074

    2004 arXiv

  46. [53]

    A. Maas, J. Wambach, and R. Alkofer, Eur. Phys. J. C 42, 93 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504019

    2005 arXiv

  47. [54]

    C. S. Fischer, A. Maas, and J. M. Pawlowski, Annals Phys. 324, 2408 (2009), arXiv:0810.1987 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Fister and J

    L. Fister and J. M. Pawlowski, (2011), arXiv:1112.5440 [hep-ph]. 13

    2011 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Strauss, C

    S. Strauss, C. S. Fischer, and C. Kellermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 252001 (2012), arXiv:1208.6239 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Karsch and M

    F. Karsch and M. Kitazawa, Phys. Rev. D 80, 056001 (2009), arXiv:0906.3941 [hep-lat]

    2009 arXiv

  51. [58]

    J. A. Mueller, C. S. Fischer, and D. Nickel, Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 1037 (2010), arXiv:1009.3762 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Qin and D

    S.-x. Qin and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 88, 056007 (2013), arXiv:1304.6547 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Dudal, J

    D. Dudal, J. A. Gracey, S. P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel, and H. Verschelde, Phys. Rev. D 78, 065047 (2008), arXiv:0806.4348 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  54. [61]

    V. V. Klimov, Sov. Phys. JETP 55, 199 (1982)

    1982

  55. [62]

    H. A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2007 (1983)

    1983

  56. [63]

    Braaten and R

    E. Braaten and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. B 337, 569 (1990)

    1990

  57. [64]

    Note the sign indicating a fermionic spectral function

  58. [65]

    M. L. Bellac, Thermal Field Theory (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 1996)

    1996

  59. [66]

    H¨ ormander,The Analysis of Linear Partial Differen- tial Operators I: Distribution Theory and Fourier Anal- ysis (Springer-Verlag, 1990)

    L. H¨ ormander,The Analysis of Linear Partial Differen- tial Operators I: Distribution Theory and Fourier Anal- ysis (Springer-Verlag, 1990)

    1990

  60. [67]

    For any analytic function f , D(f ) = 0

    In general, the contour integral of a product of two functions f and g becomes ‌ ∂S dz 2πi f (z)g(z) =˜ S dz∧d¯z π D(f )g + f D(g) , where the operator D gives the two Cauchy-Riemann conditions, D(f ) = ∂x Re f − ∂y Im f + i ∂y Re f + ∂x Im f , with z = x + iy. For any analyti...

  61. [69]

    Leutwyler, Helv

    H. Leutwyler, Helv. Phys. Acta 70, 275 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9609466

    1997 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Nakkagawa, H

    H. Nakkagawa, H. Yokota, and K. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 85, 031902 (2012), arXiv:1111.0117 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Nakkagawa, H

    H. Nakkagawa, H. Yokota, and K. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 86, 096007 (2012), arXiv:1208.6386 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Seo, S.-J

    Y. Seo, S.-J. Sin, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 723, 207 (2013), arXiv:1205.3377 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Seo, S.-J

    Y. Seo, S.-J. Sin, and Y. Zhou, JHEP 06, 076, arXiv:1305.1446 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Cuteri, O

    F. Cuteri, O. Philipsen, and A. Sciarra, JHEP 11, 141, arXiv:2107.12739 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    T. Kojo, Y. Hidaka, L. McLerran, and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. A 843, 37 (2010), arXiv:0912.3800 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  68. [76]

    T. Kojo, Y. Hidaka, K. Fukushima, L. D. McLerran, and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. A 875, 94 (2012), arXiv:1107.2124 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Kojo and N

    T. Kojo and N. Su, Phys. Lett. B 720, 192 (2013), arXiv:1211.7318 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Bandyopadhyay, N

    A. Bandyopadhyay, N. Haque, M. G. Mustafa, and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D 93, 065004 (2016), arXiv:1508.06249 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Florkowski, R

    W. Florkowski, R. Ryblewski, N. Su, and K. Tywoniuk, Acta Phys. Polon. B 47, 1833 (2016), arXiv:1504.03176 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Hattori, T

    K. Hattori, T. Kojo, and N. Su, Nucl. Phys. A 951, 1 (2016), arXiv:1512.07361 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Florkowski, R

    W. Florkowski, R. Ryblewski, N. Su, and K. Tywoniuk, Phys. Rev. C 94, 044904 (2016), arXiv:1509.01242 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Begun, W

    V. Begun, W. Florkowski, and R. Ryblewski, Acta Phys. Polon. B 48, 125 (2017), arXiv:1602.08308 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Jaiswal and N

    A. Jaiswal and N. Haque, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135936 (2020), arXiv:2005.01303 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Madni, A

    S. Madni, A. Mukherjee, A. Bandyopadhyay, and N. Haque, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137714 (2023), arXiv:2210.03076 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Haque, and B

    Sumit, N. Haque, and B. K. Patra, Phys. Lett. B 845, 138143 (2023), arXiv:2305.08525 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Debnath, R

    M. Debnath, R. Ghosh, and N. Haque, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 313 (2024), arXiv:2305.16250 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Bandyopadhyay, (2023), arXiv:2307.09656 [hep-ph]

    A. Bandyopadhyay, (2023), arXiv:2307.09656 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Debnath, R

    M. Debnath, R. Ghosh, M. Y. Jamal, M. Kurian, and J. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D 109, L011503 (2024), arXiv:2311.16005 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Mukherjee, N

    Sumit, A. Mukherjee, N. Haque, and B. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114043 (2024), arXiv:2311.18560 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Madni, A

    S. Madni, A. Mukherjee, A. Jaiswal, and N. Haque, (2024), arXiv:2401.08384 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Madni, L

    S. Madni, L. Thakur, and N. Haque, (2024), arXiv:2404.09767 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    M. B. Stone, I. A. Zaliznyak, T. Hong, C. L. Broholm, and D. H. Reich, Nature 440, 187 (2006)

    2006

  85. [93]

    P. A. Lee, Reports on Progress in Physics 71, 012501 (2007)

    2007

  86. [94]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. Cava, S. Kivelson, D. Nocera, M. Nor- man, and T. Senthil, Science 367, eaay0668 (2020)

    2020

  87. [2014]

    arXiv:1101.0618 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.