Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Quark number susceptibility and conserved charge fluctuation for (2+1)-flavor QCD with M\"obius domain wall fermions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Möbius domain wall fermion results put low-temperature electric charge fluctuations closer to hadron resonance gas predictions than staggered fermion calculations do.

desk verdict Solid preliminary MDWF susceptibility results; the chi_Q^2 vs staggered gap is a single-spacing observation, not a demonstrated discrepancy. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03509 v1 pith:JVPTDRYA submitted 2025-01-07 hep-lat hep-ph

Jishnu Goswami , Yasumichi Aoki , Hidenori Fukaya , Shoji Hashimoto , Issaku Kanamori , Takashi Kaneko , Yoshifumi Nakamura , Yu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-ph
keywords quarknumbersusceptibilityconservedchargefluctuationMöbiusdomainwallfermionslatticeQCDhadronresonancegaschemicalpotentialkurtosis
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 works out second- and fourth-order quark number susceptibilities and the corresponding fluctuations of baryon number, electric charge, and strangeness for (2+1)-flavor QCD, using Möbius domain wall fermions with a 135 MeV pion mass. The central result is that below the QCD crossover temperature, the electric charge susceptibility $\chi^Q_2$ computed with this chirally symmetric fermion formulation is larger than published staggered-fermion results and closer to hadron resonance gas model predictions. If the calculation is right, the discrepancy is a signal that staggered discretizations may distort this observable at finite lattice spacing, and the domain-wall data become a benchmark for a continuum-extrapolated determination. At high temperature the same susceptibilities approach the $\mathcal{O}(g^2)$ perturbative band, and the leading-order kurtosis ratios $\chi^Q_4/\chi^Q_2$ and $\chi^S_4/\chi^S_2$ are reported for comparison with heavy-ion freeze-out analyses.

What carries the argument

The organizing object is the set of generalized quark number susceptibilities $\chi^{uds}_{ijk}$, the Taylor coefficients of the QCD pressure in the quark chemical potentials $\hat\mu_u,\hat\mu_d,\hat\mu_s$. These are computed as expectation values of derivatives $D^f_n = \partial^n \ln \det M_f / \partial \hat\mu_f^n$, where the Möbius domain wall fermion determinant $M_f$ carries the chemical potential through modified temporal gauge links $U_{\pm 4} \to e^{\pm \hat\mu_f} U_{\pm 4}$. Möbius domain wall fermions are a lattice fermion formulation that keeps chiral symmetry to good accuracy at finite lattice spacing. The same coefficients are linearly transformed to conserved charge susceptibilities $\chi_2^B,\chi_2^Q,\chi_2^S$ and the fourth-order combinations. A useful structural fact exploited here is that, with degenerate $u$ and $d$ quarks, $(D^u_1 D^d_1) = (D^u_1)^2$ in the expectation values, which cancels part of the noise and makes $\chi^Q_2$ the cleanest of the second-order observables.

What would settle it

Compute $\chi^Q_2$ with the same Möbius domain wall action on a finer lattice, for example $N_\tau = 16$, at the same physical pion mass and temperatures between roughly 140 and 160 MeV. If the values move toward the staggered results as the spacing decreases, the low-temperature discrepancy is a discretization effect; if they stay near the hadron resonance gas curves, the staggered calculations are the ones being displaced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a (2+1)-flavor lattice QCD calculation with Möbius domain wall fermions, at a single lattice spacing set by $N_\tau = 12$ and a physical light quark mass ($m_l/m_s = 1/27.4$, pion mass 135 MeV), produces second-order conserved charge fluctuations that behave differently from staggered-fermion results in the hadronic phase. In particular, for temperatures below about 160 MeV the electric charge susceptibility $\chi^Q_2$ lies above the staggered values and in better agreement with both the 3/4-star resonance gas model and the QMHRG2020 hadron resonance gas model, while the baryon, strangeness, and mixed susceptibilities show no such tension. Fourth-order susceptibilities are noisier but consistent with the free-quark gas and $\mathcal{O}(g^2)$ perturbation theory above $T_{pc}$; the resulting leading-order kurtosis ratios are $R^Q_{42} = 1.05 \pm 0.46$ at $T = 149.7$ MeV and $R^S_{42} = 1.38 \pm 0.09$ at the same temperature, quantities relevant for locating the QCD critical point in heavy-ion data.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison with hadron resonance gas models presumes that the single coarse lattice spacing used here ($N_\tau = 12$) does not introduce a significant discretization error in $\chi^Q_2$; without a second lattice spacing or a continuum extrapolation, the low-temperature difference from staggered results could just as easily be a lattice artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A continuum-extrapolated MDWF calculation would decide whether the staggered-fermion $\chi^Q_2$ below $T_{pc}$ is shifted by discretization effects.
  • The $\chi^Q_2$ agreement with hadron resonance gas models strengthens the hadronic degrees-of-freedom interpretation of the transition region, without requiring extra states beyond the resonance list for the non-strange sector.
  • The leading-order kurtosis ratios $R^Q_{42}$ and $R^S_{42}$ give baseline lattice predictions that can be confronted with heavy-ion freeze-out analyses once experimental errors shrink.
  • The high-temperature approach to the $\mathcal{O}(g^2)$ band confirms that degrees of freedom in the quark-gluon plasma are weakly interacting at $T \gtrsim 180$ MeV, consistent with previous staggered results for diagonal susceptibilities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the $\chi^Q_2$ enhancement survives a continuum extrapolation, freeze-out parameters extracted from staggered $\chi^Q_2$ in heavy-ion analyses would need to be re-examined, because the electric charge susceptibility is the observable most directly tied to the net-charge cumulants measured in experiment.
  • Beyond the paper: the fact that only $\chi^Q_2$ shows the discrepancy points toward taste-breaking or rooting artifacts that couple to electric charge rather than to baryon number; testing the ratio $\chi^Q_2/\chi^B_2$ on the same ensembles would sharpen this.
  • Beyond the paper: a natural next step the authors do not report is to compute the same observables with two lattice spacings and perform a continuum extrapolation using the $N_\tau = 12$ data together with a planned $N_\tau = 16$ ensemble, which would directly test the weakest assumption.
  • Beyond the paper: the noise pattern suggests that $\chi^Q_2$ is the observable where domain-wall fermions have the best chance of beating staggered results; future high-statistics comparisons should focus there rather than on $\chi^B_2$, where the stochastic error is larger.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This LATTICE2024 proceedings paper from the JLQCD collaboration presents second- and fourth-order quark number susceptibilities and the derived second-order conserved charge (B, Q, S) fluctuations for (2+1)-flavor QCD with Möbius domain wall fermions (MDWF) at a pion mass of 135 MeV. The simulations use a 36^3×12 lattice with L_s=12, M_5=1, three-level stout smearing, and m_l/m_s=1/27.4 along a line of constant physics. The results are compared with the PDGHRG and QMHRG2020 hadron resonance gas models below T_pc, with O(g^2) perturbation theory at high temperature, and with staggered fermion results at Nτ=16 (HISQ and stout). The paper's central new observation is that χ_Q^2 from MDWF lies above the staggered values and closer to the HRG predictions below about 160 MeV (Fig. 2), along with preliminary leading-order kurtosis ratios R^Q_42 and R^S_42 (Eq. 20). The paper explicitly labels the results preliminary and defers additional lattice spacings and continuum extrapolation to future work.

Significance. If the χ_Q^2 discrepancy between MDWF and staggered fermions survives a continuum check, the paper would provide a genuinely valuable independent, chirally symmetric determination of these fluctuation observables and a concrete hint of discretization effects in staggered calculations. The manuscript has real strengths: the cumulant formalism in Eqs. (1)–(18) is standard, correctly stated, and correctly reduced to the K-term expectation values; the statistical errors are shown; the statistics are substantial at about 20,000 trajectories per temperature; and the authors are honest that these are preliminary results. The main limitation is that the load-bearing comparison rests on a single MDWF lattice spacing, so the strength of the central claim is currently capped; the requested changes are targeted at making that limitation explicit and quantitative rather than at any error in the derivation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Fig. 2] The central observation that χ_Q^2 from MDWF is closer to the HRG predictions than the staggered results below T≈160 MeV rests on a single MDWF lattice spacing (Nτ=12, a≈0.11 fm at T≈150 MeV) compared with staggered data at the finer Nτ=16. Without a second MDWF spacing, the gap is as easily explained by an O(a^2) artifact in the MDWF data as by a discretization effect in the staggered data, and agreement with an HRG model is not a substitute for a continuum check. The paper's own statement that additional spacings will be studied in the future should be moved to the point of the claim and strengthened: the claim should be explicitly qualified as a single-spacing observation, or the comparison should include the continuum-extrapolated staggered results from Ref. [20], which would test whether the Nτ=12 MDWF point is actually closer to the continuum than the Nτ=16 staggered points.
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (20), Fig. 4] The statement that "HRG model calculations of R^Q_42 overshoot the lattice data" is not quantitatively supported as written: the quoted values are R^Q_42 = 1.05±0.46 at T=149.7 MeV and 1.00±0.53 at T=154.6 MeV, while the HRG predictions are not given in the text. The paper should quote the PDGHRG and QMHRG2020 values used and state the separation in units of the combined uncertainty; with errors of this size, the difference is at most 1–2σ and the word "overshoot" overstates the case. The analogous claim that R^S_42 is "consistent with both HRG models" should also be documented with the model numbers rather than left implicit in the figure.
  3. [§4.1, Eqs. (17)–(18)] Since χ_B^2 and χ_S^2 in Fig. 2 show no obvious MDWF–staggered discrepancy, the χ_Q^2 difference must originate in a specific combination of the diagonal and off-diagonal light-quark terms, for example χ_u^2 and χ_ud^11. The paper does not identify which contribution drives the effect. A table or panel showing the individual MDWF components alongside the staggered ones would let the reader judge whether the discrepancy is a light-quark or disconnected-sector effect, which is directly relevant to the paper's main claim and would make the preliminary result substantially more informative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2, text after Eq. (3)] The operator is called the "MDMF Dirac operator" but should read "MDWF", and the display equation for the link substitution contains a stray period after the arrow.
  2. [§4.1, first paragraph] The phrase "weakly interacting gas of hadrons and gluons" is imprecise: the ideal-gas limit discussed here is a gas of quarks and gluons, not hadrons.
  3. [§3] The residual mass m_res is used to correct the bare quark masses and to define the line of constant physics, but its value in lattice units is not reported; since it is taken from a different mass-ratio ensemble, the value and its assumed β-dependence should be stated so the reader can assess the LCP definition.
  4. [§3 and §4] The paper reports statistical errors but does not discuss any systematic error budget; at a minimum, the size of the scale-setting uncertainty, the m_res uncertainty, and finite-volume effects should be estimated or explicitly argued to be negligible relative to the statistical errors.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption and Fig. 2 caption] The Fig. 3 caption has a stray "and." after "free quark gas", and the Fig. 2 caption should say "at finite lattice spacing" rather than "at finite lattice".
  6. [§4.2 and Eq. (19)] The noise discussion in §4.2 would be more useful if the number of stochastic sources and the dilution scheme used for the D_n^f estimates were reported, and Eq. (19) should define the shorthand X=Q,S before it is used in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the susceptibilities are computed directly from the MDWF partition function and compared with external HRG and perturbative benchmarks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained on the lattice side. The susceptibilities are defined from ln Z (Eqs. 1-2) and are computed directly from MDWF gauge ensembles through the derivative operators in Eqs. (5)-(15); no quantity entering those equations is defined in terms of the final chi_Q2, chi_B2, chi_S2, or fourth-order results. The LCP parameters (m_s, a(beta), Z_m, and m_res) are calibrated in earlier work [5,10,11], but these are independent scale-setting and residual-mass inputs, not fits to the reported susceptibilities. The HRG and O(g^2) comparisons in Sec. 4.1 are external benchmarks; the paper does not tune any parameter to force agreement with PDGHRG, QMHRG2020, or perturbation theory. The one self-citation used as a technical observation, '[9]' for the noise contribution of (D^f_1)^2, is not a premise from which the susceptibilities are derived. The paper also states, 'In future, we will study these results with an additional lattice spacings,' which is a limitation about discretization error rather than circularity: a single-spacing artifact could weaken the physical interpretation of the MDWF-versus-staggered difference, but it would not make the derived susceptibilities equivalent to their inputs. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, or author-imported uniqueness argument is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are numerical measurements from lattice QCD. They rest on standard QCD path integral techniques and on specific simulation choices from prior JLQCD calibrations. The two most consequential untested inputs are the transfer of the residual mass from a 1/10 mass-ratio run to the physical 1/27.4 ratio, and the adequacy of a single lattice spacing for the comparison claim. No free parameters are fitted to the target observables; the listed parameters are lattice setup and benchmarking inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • m_l/m_s ratio = 1/27.4
    Chosen so the pion mass is 135 MeV in the continuum, using the calibration from [5]. Not fitted to the target susceptibilities.
  • Temporal lattice extent N_tau = 12
    Single lattice spacing used for all results; no continuum extrapolation, so the discretization scale may affect the comparison claim.
  • Spatial lattice extent N_sigma = 36
    Sets the finite volume; aspect ratio N_sigma/N_tau = 3. Finite volume effects are not estimated.
  • MDWF parameters L_s, M_5, b, c = L_s=12, M_5=1, b=3/2, c=1/2
    Chosen to minimize chiral symmetry breaking, as described in Section 3 and [10,11]. Affects residual mass and thus the light quark mass.
  • Perturbative scale factor k_T = 4 <= k_T <= 8
    The gray band in Figures 1 and 3 is from varying the renormalization scale in the two-loop running coupling; this is a theory uncertainty, not a fit.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Euclidean path integral defines the QCD partition function at finite temperature; the pressure is ln Z/(VT^3).
    Section 2 uses this as the starting point for all susceptibility definitions.
  • domain assumption The Taylor expansion of ln Z in chemical potentials can be truncated at fourth order.
    Section 2 defines susceptibilities as Taylor coefficients; convergence is assumed at the temperatures and chemical potentials considered.
  • domain assumption The Möbius domain wall fermion action with L_s=12, M_5=1 and stout smearing provides sufficiently controlled chiral symmetry.
    Section 3 states this choice is aimed at minimizing chiral symmetry violations; residual mass corrections are applied.
  • domain assumption The residual mass measured at m_l/m_s = 1/10 applies at m_l/m_s = 1/27.4 because m_res is nearly independent of the light quark mass.
    Section 3 uses this to set the physical point; no reference is given for the independence claim.
  • domain assumption The line of constant physics is achieved using the strange quark mass and lattice spacing calibration of [5] with m_s^phys = 92 MeV.
    Section 3 fixes the strange mass and temperature using this earlier calibration.
  • domain assumption O(g^2) perturbation theory with a two-loop running coupling and scale variation k_T in [4,8] is a valid high-temperature benchmark.
    Section 4.1 uses this benchmark for comparison; the band is a scale-uncertainty estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quark number susceptibility and conserved charge fluctuation for (2+1)-flavor QCD with M\"obius domain wall fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JVPTDRYA

@misc{pith2026250103509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quark number susceptibility and conserved charge fluctuation for (2+1)-flavor QCD with M\"obius domain wall fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JVPTDRYA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03509}
}
abstract

We present quark number susceptibilities and conserved charge fluctuations for (2+1)-flavor QCD using M\"obius Domain Wall fermions with a pion mass of \(135~\rm{MeV}\). Our results are compared with hadron resonance gas models below the QCD transition temperature and with \(\mathcal{O}(g^2)\) perturbation theory at high temperatures. Additionally, we compare our findings with results from staggered fermion discretizations. Furthermore, we also present results of leading order Kurtosis of electric charge and strangeness fluctuations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03509 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagonal (left) and off-diagonal (right) quark number susceptibilities for the coarse lattice (𝑁𝜏 = 12) with a physical light quark mass (𝑚𝑙 = 𝑚𝑠/27.4) along the line of constant physics. The black line represents the free quark gas. The gray band is from O (𝑔 2 ) perturbation theory. susceptibilities increase smoothly as a function of temperature within the explored temperature range. In contrast, the off-diagonal … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Second order conserved charge cumulants compared with staggered discretization scheme at finite lattice. We also compare the results with PDGHRG and QMHRG2020 model calculations. The HISQ data are taken from [20] and the stout data are taken from [21]. 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 T[MeV] χ f 4 ml = ms/27.4 f = u f = s 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 T[Me… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagonal (left) and off-diagonal (right) fourth order quark number susceptibilities for the coarse lattice (𝑁𝜏 = 12) with a physical light quark mass (𝑚𝑙 = 𝑚𝑠/27.4) along the line of constant physics. The black line represents the free quark gas and. The gray band is from O (𝑔 2 ) perturbation theory. 4.2 Fourth quark number susceptibilities and conserved charge fluctuations In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Leading order 𝑅 𝑋 42, where 𝑋 = 𝑄 (left) and 𝑆 (right) calculated using MDWF. 4.3 Ratio of fourth order to second order The ratio of fourth-order to second-order cumulants of electric charge and strangeness, 𝜒 𝑋 4 /𝜒 𝑋 2 , could serve as an observable for determining t…

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. Perturbative quantum electrodynamics with generalized domain wall fermions

    hep-lat 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For generalized domain-wall fermions, the O(e^2) electromagnetic expansion requires new local seagull and anti-quark contact vertices, derived here for the first time.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [20]

    Bollweg, J

    D. Bollweg, J. Goswami, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky et al.,Second order cumulants of conserved charge fluctuations revisited: Vanishing chemical potentials, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) [2107.10011]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    Aoki et al.,The Order of the quantum chromodynamics transition predicted by the standard model of particle physics,Nature443(2006) 675 [hep-lat/0611014]

    Y. Aoki et al.,The Order of the quantum chromodynamics transition predicted by the standard model of particle physics,Nature443(2006) 675 [hep-lat/0611014]

    arXiv 2006

  3. [2]

    M. A. Stephanov,QCD Phase Diagram and the Critical Point,Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.153 (2004) 139 [hep-ph/0402115]

    arXiv 2004

  4. [3]

    R. C. Brower, H. Neff and K. Orginos,The Möbius domain wall fermion algorithm,Comput. Phys. Commun.220 (2017) 1 [1206.5214]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [4]

    Large-scale simulations with chiral symmetry

    T. Kaneko et al.,Large-scale simulations with chiral symmetry,PoSLATTICE2013(2014) 125 [1311.6941]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  6. [5]

    Aoki et al.,2+1 flavor fine lattice simulation at finite temperature with domain-wall fermions, PoSLATTICE2021(2022) 609 [2112.11771]

    Y. Aoki et al.,2+1 flavor fine lattice simulation at finite temperature with domain-wall fermions, PoSLATTICE2021(2022) 609 [2112.11771]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    Aoki et al.,Thermodynamics with Möbius domain wall fermions near physical point II, PoSLATTICE2022(2023) 176 [2303.05884]

    S. Aoki et al.,Thermodynamics with Möbius domain wall fermions near physical point II, PoSLATTICE2022(2023) 176 [2303.05884]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    M. A. Stephanov,On the sign of kurtosis near the QCD critical point, Phys. Rev. Lett.107 (2011) 052301 [1104.1627]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 30 references
  1. [8]

    J. C. R. Bloch and T. Wettig,Domain-wall and overlap fermions at nonzero quark chemical potential,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 114511 [0709.4630]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [9]

    8 (2+1)-Flavor QCD with MDW Fermions Jishnu Goswami

    JLQCD collaboration,Characterizing Strongly Interacting Matter at Finite Temperature: (2+1)-Flavor QCD with Möbius Domain Wall fermions, PoSLATTICE2023(2024) 187. 8 (2+1)-Flavor QCD with MDW Fermions Jishnu Goswami

    2024

  3. [10]

    Hashimoto et al.,Residual mass in five-dimensional fermion formulations,PoS LATTICE2013(2014) 431

    S. Hashimoto et al.,Residual mass in five-dimensional fermion formulations,PoS LATTICE2013(2014) 431

    2014

  4. [11]

    JLQCD collaboration,Form factors of B→𝜋ℓ𝜈 and a determination of |Vub| with Möbius domain-wall fermions, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 054502 [2203.04938]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Vuorinen,The Pressure of QCD at finite temperatures and chemical potentials,Phys

    A. Vuorinen,The Pressure of QCD at finite temperatures and chemical potentials,Phys. Rev. D 68(2003) 054017 [hep-ph/0305183]

    2003 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Mogliacci, J

    S. Mogliacci, J. O. Andersen, M. Strickland, N. Su and A. Vuorinen,Equation of State of hot and dense QCD: Resummed perturbation theory confronts lattice data, JHEP12(2013) 055 [1307.8098]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bazavov, H

    A. Bazavov, H. T. Ding, P. Hegde, F. Karsch, C. Miao, S. Mukherjee et al.,Quark number susceptibilities at high temperatures,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 094021 [1309.2317]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [15]

    H. T. Ding, S. Mukherjee, H. Ohno, P. Petreczky and H. P. Schadler,Diagonal and off-diagonal quark number susceptibilities at high temperatures, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 074043 [1507.06637]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Bellwied, S

    R. Bellwied, S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, A. Pasztor, C. Ratti et al.,Fluctuations and correlations in high temperature QCD,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 114505 [1507.04627]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Bollweg, J

    D. Bollweg, J. Goswami, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky et al.,Taylor expansions and Padé approximants for cumulants of conserved charge fluctuations at nonvanishing chemical potentials, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 074511 [2202.09184]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti and K. Szabo,Fluctuations of conserved charges at finite temperature from lattice QCD, JHEP01(2012) 138 [1112.4416]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Bazavov et al.,The chiral and deconfinement aspects of the QCD transition,Phys

    A. Bazavov et al.,The chiral and deconfinement aspects of the QCD transition,Phys. Rev. D 85(2012) 054503 [1111.1710]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bellwied, S

    R. Bellwied, S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. Günther, S. D. Katz, C. Ratti et al.,The QCD phase diagram from analytic continuation, Phys. Lett. B751 (2015) 559 [1507.07510]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    113(2014)092301[ 1402.1558]

    STARcollaboration,Beam energy dependence of moments of the net-charge multiplicity distributionsinAu+AucollisionsatRHIC ,Phys.Rev.Lett. 113(2014)092301[ 1402.1558]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    PHENIXcollaboration, Measurement of higher cumulants of net-charge multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at√𝑠 𝑁 𝑁 = 7.7− 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C93(2016) 011901 [1506.07834]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Boyle, A

    P. Boyle, A. Yamaguchi, G. Cossu and A. Portelli,Grid: A next generation data parallel C++ QCD library, 1512.03487. 9 (2+1)-Flavor QCD with MDW Fermions Jishnu Goswami

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Grid: Data parallel c++ mathematical object library

    P. Boyle, “Grid: Data parallel c++ mathematical object library.” https://github.com/paboyle/Grid

  18. [26]

    Ueda et al.,Development of an object oriented lattice QCD code ’Bridge++’, J

    S. Ueda et al.,Development of an object oriented lattice QCD code ’Bridge++’, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.523(2014) 012046

    2014

  19. [27]

    Aoyama et al.,Bridge++ 2.0: Benchmark results on supercomputer Fugaku,PoS LATTICE2022(2023) 284 [2303.05883]

    T. Aoyama et al.,Bridge++ 2.0: Benchmark results on supercomputer Fugaku,PoS LATTICE2022(2023) 284 [2303.05883]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Lattice qcd code bridge++

    “Lattice qcd code bridge++.”http://bridge.kek.jp/Lattice-code/, 30 June 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Altenkort, D

    L. Altenkort, D. A. Clarke, J. Goswami and H. Sandmeyer,Streamlined data analysis in Python, in40th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, 8, 2023,2308.06652

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Analysistoolbox

    D. A. Clarke et al., “Analysistoolbox.” https://github.com/LatticeQCD/AnalysisToolbox. 10

Pith tools

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