The chiral critical point from the strong coupling expansion

Jangho Kim; Pratitee Pattanaik; Wolfgang Unger

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 16 references

The chiral critical point from the strong coupling expansion

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

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

Pith's one-line read If the gauge-coupling dependence seen in these strongly coupled lattice simulations holds, the chiral tri-critical point found at beta=0 persists up to beta=1, supporting the possibility that a QCD critical endpoint survives in the…

desk verdict A well-constructed O(beta^2) strong-coupling vertex-model simulation whose headline beta-invariance claim is still preliminary because it rests on small-volume susceptibility peaks without finite-size scaling or error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06679 v1 pith:UHNITQYS submitted 2025-02-10 hep-lat

Jangho Kim , Pratitee Pattanaik , Wolfgang Unger This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-lat

keywords strongcouplingexpansionchiraltri-criticalpointQCDphasediagramfinitebaryondensityvertexmodeldualrepresentationsignproblemstaggeredfermions

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 uses the strong-coupling expansion of staggered lattice QCD to ask what happens to the chiral tri-critical point when the gauge coupling is turned on. Working at $\mathcal{O}(\beta)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\beta^2)$ in the inverse gauge coupling, the authors simulate the dual representation as a vertex model on $8^3\times4$, $12^3\times4$, and $16^3\times4$ lattices at $\beta$ from 0 to 1, in the chiral limit. They find that the location of the tri-critical point shifts only slightly as $\beta$ grows, and that the shift toward smaller baryon chemical potential is consistent between the two orders of the expansion. If the near-invariance survives at higher orders and on larger volumes, the critical point found at strong coupling could persist toward the continuum limit, giving a physically relevant QCD critical endpoint.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a vertex model derived from the strong-coupling dual representation of staggered lattice QCD, in which gauge links have been integrated out exactly in a Taylor expansion in $\beta$. The degrees of freedom are local vertices built from monomers, dimers, baryon loops, plaquette occupation numbers, and decoupling operator indices; each vertex has a tabulated weight containing the quark mass, anisotropy, chemical potential, and $\beta$. Because the weights are local, the partition function can be sampled with a parallel heat-bath algorithm using plaquette and line updates, avoiding expensive tensor contractions in 3+1 dimensions. This conversion is what makes $\mathcal{O}(\beta^2)$ simulations practical and what turns the sign problem into a mild, mostly geometric one that permits scans of the full $\mu_B$-$T$ plane.

What would settle it

Run the same simulations on substantially larger spatial volumes at $\beta=1$ and extrapolate the chiral susceptibility peak to infinite volume; if the extrapolated tri-critical chemical potential differs significantly from the $\beta=0$ value, the paper's claim of a very weak $\beta$-dependence fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, its central claim is that the chiral tri-critical point of one-flavor lattice QCD in the strong-coupling regime has a very weak dependence on the inverse gauge coupling $\beta$ up to $\beta=1$. At $\beta=0$, the strong-coupling limit, the tri-critical point sits at $T=0.83$ and $\mu_B=2.07$ in lattice units on $N_\tau=4$ lattices. After extending the dual monomer-dimer-polymer representation with $\mathcal{O}(\beta)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\beta^2)$ corrections, the transition can be located from peaks in the baryon and chiral susceptibilities; the peaks move slightly toward smaller $\mu_B$ as $\beta$ increases, consistently for both orders. The paper states that the tri-critical point is 'almost invariant' in this regime and that finite-size scaling is not yet feasible at $\beta=1$ because the sign problem becomes severe, with the available volumes described as rather small. Its stated outlook is that if the invariance persists at higher orders in $\beta$, the critical point might also exist in the continuum.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that susceptibility peaks on the rather small $8^3\times4$, $12^3\times4$, and $16^3\times4$ lattices track the infinite-volume chiral transition; the paper admits that finite-size scaling is not yet feasible at $\beta=1$ because the sign problem becomes severe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the near-invariance is real, the chiral tri-critical point is not just a strong-coupling artifact: it survives to $\beta\simeq1$ and may survive toward the continuum.
The consistency between $\mathcal{O}(\beta)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\beta^2)$ peak shifts suggests that second-order truncation is adequate for locating the transition in this regime, since a breakdown of the expansion would show up as a strong order-by-order difference.
The average plaquette shows no imprint of the chiral transition, so gauge observables and fermionic observables respond differently to $\beta$; locating the critical point requires fermionic susceptibilities.
Confirming the $\beta$-independence requires work around the severe sign problem at $\beta=1$, either through resummation into a character expansion or through quantum simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

Not explored in the paper: a direct finite-size test on larger spatial volumes at fixed $\beta=1$ would separate genuine $\beta$-dependence from finite-size shifts; if the extrapolated peak position stays at the strong-coupling value, the invariance claim is confirmed, and if it moves, the small-volume shifts seen here are artifacts.
A further consequence of the near-constancy is that the strong-coupling expansion may be more trustworthy for phase boundaries than for bulk observables: the plaquette changes visibly with $\beta$, yet the transition location barely moves.
Applying the same vertex-model approach to $N_f=2$ or to an alternative resummation would give a predicted $\beta$-trajectory for the critical endpoint that could be cross-checked against other finite-density methods.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — this is a solid methods paper with a physics claim that outruns its data. What's genuinely new: the extension of the strong-coupling dual representation to O(beta^2) by mapping to a vertex model, with roughly 50k distinct vertices, and actual Monte Carlo sampling of the (n_p, n_bar_p) sectors beyond O(beta). The simulations are crosschecked against exact enumeration on small volumes and against hybrid Monte Carlo at zero chemical potential, and the paper gives a clear decomposition of the sign problem into geometric and tensor contributions. That is real work, and it advances the program.

The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test flags. The claim that the chiral tri-critical point is almost beta-invariant for beta up to 1 is based on susceptibility peak positions in Fig. 4 on 8^3x4, 12^3x4 and 16^3x4 lattices. There are no error bars on the peak locations, and no finite-size scaling at nonzero beta; the paper itself says finite-size scaling is not yet feasible at beta=1 because the sign problem gets severe, and calls the volumes 'rather small.' At beta=0 the peaks sit slightly above the thermodynamic-limit extrapolation, so the finite-volume shift is non-negligible. If that shift changes with beta, the apparent weak beta-dependence could be a finite-size artifact. The sentence in Section 5 that higher orders 'would certainly not yield different results' is overreach on the evidence shown.

I don't think this is a fatal flaw for what it is: a proceedings paper reporting a methods advance and a preliminary result. The authors are explicit about the limitations. But the central physics conclusion should be labeled as preliminary unless they either add finite-size scaling at O(beta^2) or show a version with reliable error bars on the peaks. The paper deserves a serious referee: the machinery is novel and crosschecked, the sign-problem analysis is informative, and the beta-invariance question is important enough to warrant careful scrutiny rather than a desk rejection.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, treat it as a methods-first contribution, and require the authors to either temper the beta-invariance claim or support it with a proper finite-volume analysis. The third-order extrapolation sentence should go.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This proceedings paper extends the strong-coupling expansion of one-flavor staggered lattice QCD to O(beta) and O(beta^2) by mapping the dual degrees of freedom onto a vertex model sampled with a heatbath algorithm. Simulations on 8^3x4, 12^3x4 and 16^3x4 lattices are used to study baryon-number and chiral susceptibilities near the strong-coupling tri-critical point for 0 <= beta <= 1. The authors find that the susceptibility peaks move only slightly toward smaller mu_B as beta increases and conclude that the tri-critical point has a weak beta-dependence and might persist toward the continuum. The paper also discusses the sign problem at finite beta and the rapid growth of the vertex set with truncation order.

Significance. If the claimed near-invariance of the chiral tri-critical point for beta up to 1 were established, this would be an important result: it would connect the solvable strong-coupling limit to a regime of moderate gauge coupling and would identify a concrete target for methods that can go further toward the continuum. The paper has real strengths: the vertex-model formulation is explicit, the numbers of vertex types are tabulated, and the simulations are crosschecked against exact enumeration in small volumes and against hybrid Monte Carlo at mu_B=0. The beta-dependence is not obtained by fitting a free parameter; it is a direct comparison of O(beta) and O(beta^2) ensembles. The main limitation is that the physics conclusion currently rests on susceptibility peaks on small volumes without finite-size scaling, without quoted error bars, and without a direct determination of the tri-critical point.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 4, Fig. 4] The central claim of a weak beta-dependence of the tri-critical point rests on the positions of the baryon and chiral susceptibility maxima on 8^3x4, 12^3x4 and 16^3x4 lattices. These peak positions are quoted without statistical errors and without any finite-size scaling for beta>0; the paper itself states in Sec. 3 that finite-size scaling is not yet feasible at beta=1. At beta=0 the peaks are acknowledged to sit at a 'slightly larger value' than the thermodynamic-limit extrapolation, so the volume shift is already non-negligible at strong coupling. If the volume shift at beta=1 differs from that at beta=0, the apparent movement of the peaks toward smaller mu_B with increasing beta could be a finite-size artifact. Please provide error bars on the peak positions and either a finite-size extrapolation at each beta or an explicit estimate of the remaining finite-volume systematic.
[Sec. 4, Figs. 3-4] The data are mu_B scans at a fixed temperature below the strong-coupling TCP. Observing that the first-order transition peak shifts with beta at this fixed temperature does not determine the shift of the tri-critical point, which is the endpoint of the first-order line in the (T, mu_B) plane. To claim that the TCP is almost invariant, one would need to locate the endpoint at each beta, for example by scanning T at several mu_B or by extrapolating the peak heights or discontinuities to zero. As it stands, the paper establishes at most a weak beta-shift of the transition at one temperature, not of the TCP itself.
[Sec. 5] The statement that 'higher orders of the strong coupling expansion would certainly not yield different results' is stronger than the evidence. The expansion parameter entering Eq. (4) is beta/(2N_c)=1/6 at beta=1 for N_c=3, and Table 1 shows that the number of vertices grows from 51,125 at O(beta^2) to 681,013 at O(beta^3), so the omitted contributions are not obviously negligible for the location of a critical point. An estimate of the O(beta^3) correction, or a clear statement that the continuum extrapolation is a conjecture, is needed before the claim that 'the critical point might also exist in the continuum' can be supported.
[Sec. 3] The paper states that the sign problem at beta=1 is severe enough to make finite-size scaling infeasible, yet the beta=1 peak positions are still used as primary evidence. Please report the average sign or effective sample size for the ensembles entering Fig. 4, especially for O(beta^2) at beta=1, and explain how the peak positions were extracted from possibly sign-reweighted histograms. Without this information, the reader cannot judge whether the apparent peak shift is statistically significant.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, for example 'so war limited' in Sec. 2, 'shorty review' in Sec. 2, 'critial point' in Sec. 1, and 'prevent to determine' in Sec. 1.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (4)] The notation beta/(2N_c) is introduced without an explicit definition of N_c; earlier in the text the reduced gauge coupling is written as beta/(2N)=1/g^2. Please define the gauge group rank and use one consistent notation throughout.
[Figs. 3-5] The figure captions do not state the lattice volumes, temperatures, or quark masses used; these parameters are given only in the text. Adding them to the captions would make the figures self-contained.
[Sec. 3] The decomposition of the total sign into the geometric sign and the tensor sign is discussed only qualitatively; a short definition of the quantity Delta_f and of the two sign components would help the reader interpret Fig. 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the beta-dependence is a direct simulation result, checked against exact enumeration and HMC; the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is that the chiral tri-critical point has a weak beta-dependence for beta up to 1, inferred from susceptibility peaks in a vertex-model simulation that includes O(beta) and O(beta^2) corrections to the strong coupling expansion. The beta-dependence is not fitted or assumed; it emerges from the dual partition function whose vertex weights are derived from the gauge action expansion and Weingarten integrals. The strong-coupling TCP from reference [9] is used only as a normalization reference for plotting, not as an input that forces the beta-shift. The tensor formulation from reference [6] is prior work by the same group, but the paper states that all O(beta) and O(beta^2) results were compared to exact enumeration in small volumes and crosschecked with hybrid Monte Carlo at mu_B=0, providing independent validation of the new machinery. No equation introduces the predicted quantity as an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The finite-volume caveat noted in the text is a robustness or correctness concern, not evidence that the result is circular. Therefore the derivation is self-contained with respect to its central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this paper. The physical inputs (beta, baryon chemical potential, temperature via anisotropy, chiral limit) are scanned, not tuned to data. The reference tri-critical point location from reference [9] is an external input from earlier work, not a fit performed here. Assumptions are dominated by the truncation of the strong coupling expansion and by the reliability of sign reweighting at beta close to 1.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Truncation of the strong coupling expansion at O(beta^2) is sufficient for beta <= 1.
The method and the beta-invariance conclusion assume O(beta^3) plaquette occupations are negligible. Section 5 asserts this without a numerical O(beta^3) test.
domain assumption The residual sign problem can be controlled by reweighting for beta <= 1 on the volumes used.
Section 3 decomposes the sign into geometric and tensor contributions, but Section 5 admits finite-size scaling is not feasible at beta=1, so the assumption is strained exactly where the conclusion is drawn.
domain assumption The plaquette and line updates form an ergodic set for the vertex model.
Section 2 and Fig. 1 assert ergodicity by reference to [12] and crosschecks with exact enumeration and HMC at zero chemical potential; no proof is given in this paper.
standard math SU(N) 1-link integrals are correctly decoupled via orthogonal projectors and generalized Weingarten functions.
Section 2, Eqs. (2)-(3), relies on group integration theory from reference [6] and on the tensor program supplied by Gagliardi. The vertex model is checked against exact enumeration and HMC at mu=0.
domain assumption The chiral transition in the Nf=1 chiral limit remains first order for beta in [0,1], so susceptibility peaks mark the transition.
Section 4 expects first order from finite-size scaling at strong coupling [9], but no finite-beta finite-size scaling is shown. Peak identification assumes the transition remains first order.

invented entities (1)

Vertex model bond states v_b combining decoupling operator indices, fermion fluxes and plaquette occupations
purpose: Encode all local dual degrees of freedom so the partition function becomes a vertex model with tabulated weights, enabling heatbath Monte Carlo updates.
This is a computational representation rather than a physical entity. It has no external falsifiable handle, but internal consistency is checked by exact enumeration and by comparison with hybrid Monte Carlo at zero chemical potential.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The chiral critical point from the strong coupling expansion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHNITQYS

@misc{pith2026250206679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The chiral critical point from the strong coupling expansion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHNITQYS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06679}
}

abstract

The strong coupling expansion for staggered fermions allows for Monte Carlo simulations using a dual representation. It has a mild sign problem for low values of the inverse gauge coupling $\beta$, hence the phase diagram in the full $\mu_B - T$ plane can be evaluated. We have extended this framework to include $\mathcal{O}(\beta)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\beta^2)$ corrections, by mapping the degrees of freedom to a vertex model. We present results on the $\beta$-dependence of the chiral critical point from those simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06679 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Vertex updates (dimers and quark fluxes are plotted for illustration). Left: vertices updated along elementary plaquettes. Right: vertices updated along static lines. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Decomposition of the total sign (left) into tensor/vertex (center) sign and geometric sign (right), using Δ 𝑓 and for O (𝛽 2 ). The tensor sign dominates the total sign in the whole range of parameters. 3. The sign problem at finite 𝛽 As pointed out in the introduction, the reason to resort to the strong coupling expansion by means of the dual representation is that the residual sign problem is much milder compared … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Top: baryon density, bottom: chiral condensate; MC simulations for at O (𝛽) (left) or O (𝛽 2 ) (right). In the regime up to 𝛽 = 1, higher orders of the strong coupling expansion would certainly not yield different results and are thus not necessary to pursue. Only for 𝛽 > 1 plaquette occupation numbers with 𝑛𝑝, 𝑛¯ 𝑝 > 2 are necessary and might indicate a stronger dependence of the transition on 𝛽. To overcome the se… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Top: baryon susceptibility, bottom: chiral susceptibility; MC simulations for at O (𝛽) (left) or O (𝛽 2 ) (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Average plaquette from MC simulations for at O (𝛽) (left) or O (𝛽 2 ) (right). 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

Borsanyi, Z

S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, M. Giordano, S. D. Katz, D. Nogradi, A. Pasztor and C. H. Wong, Lattice simulations of the QCD chiral transition at real baryon density. Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.5, L051506.[arXiv:2108.09213 [hep-lat]]

arXiv 2022
[2]

Bollweget al.[HotQCD], Taylor expansions and Padé approximants for cumulants of conserved charge fluctuations at nonvanishing chemical potentials

D. Bollweget al.[HotQCD], Taylor expansions and Padé approximants for cumulants of conserved charge fluctuations at nonvanishing chemical potentials. Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.7, 074511,[arXiv:2202.09184 [hep-lat]]

arXiv 2022
[3]

[arXiv:2405.10196 [hep-lat]]

D.A.Clarke,P.Dimopoulos,F.DiRenzo,J.Goswami,C.Schmidt,S.SinghandK.Zambello, Searching for the QCD critical endpoint using multi-point Padé approximations. [arXiv:2405.10196 [hep-lat]]

arXiv
[4]

M. W. Hansen and D. Sexty, Testing dynamical stabilization of Complex Langevin simulations of QCD. [arXiv:2405.20709 [hep-lat]]

arXiv
[5]

Pietro Rossi and Ulli Wolff, Lattice QCD With Fermions at Strong Coupling: A Dimer System. Nucl. Phys. B248(1984) 105

work page 1984
[6]

A new dual representation for staggered lattice QCD

G. Gagliardi and W. Unger. New dual representation for staggered lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. D,101 (2020) no.3, 034509.[arXiv:1911.08389 [hep-lat]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[7]

de Forcrand, J

Ph. de Forcrand, J. Langelage, O. Philipsen, and W. Unger. Lattice QCD Phase Diagram In and Away from the Strong Coupling Limit. Phys. Rev. Lett.,113(2014) no.15, 152002.[arXiv:1406.4397 [hep-lat]]

arXiv 2014
[8]

J. Kim, P. Pattanaik and W. Unger, Nuclear liquid-gas transition in the strong coupling regime of lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no.9, 094514.[arXiv:2303.01467 [hep-lat]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 16 references

[9]

Kim and W

J. Kim and W. Unger, Quark Mass Dependence of the QCD Critical End Point in the Strong Coupling Limit. PoSLATTICE2016(2016), 035.[arXiv:1611.09120 [hep-lat]]

2016 arXiv
[10]

Unger, The phase diagram at finite baryon and isospin densities at strong coupling

W. Unger, The phase diagram at finite baryon and isospin densities at strong coupling. PoSLATTICE2023(2024), 176

2024
[11]

Wenger, Efficient simulation of relativistic fermions via vertex models

U. Wenger, Efficient simulation of relativistic fermions via vertex models. Phys. Rev. D80(2009), 071503.[arXiv:0812.3565 [hep-lat]]

2009 arXiv
[12]

J. Kim, P. Pattanaik and W. Unger, Chiral transition via Strong Coupling expansion. PoSLATTICE2023(2024), 197[arXiv:2312.14540 [hep-lat]]

2024 arXiv
[13]

Grassmannhigher-ordertensorrenormalizationgroupapproachfortwo-dimensionalstrong- coupling QCD,

J. Bloch and R. Lohmayer, “Grassmannhigher-ordertensorrenormalizationgroupapproachfortwo-dimensionalstrong- coupling QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B986 (2023), 116032[arXiv:2206.00545 [hep-lat]] . 9 The chiral critical point from the strong coupling expansion Wolfgang Unger

2023 arXiv
[14]

Langelage, M

J. Langelage, M. Neuman and O. Philipsen, Heavy dense QCD and nuclear matter from an effective lattice theory. JHEP09 (2014), 131 [arXiv:1403.4162 [hep-lat]]

2014 arXiv
[15]

J. Kim, T. Luu and W. Unger, U(N) gauge theory in the strong coupling limit on a quantum annealer. Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) no.7, 074501[arXiv:2305.18179 [hep-lat]]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Fromm, O

M. Fromm, O. Philipsen, W. Unger and C. Winterowd, Quantum gate sets for lattice QCD in the strong-coupling limit:𝑁𝑓 = 1. EPJ Quant. Technol.11 (2024) no.1, 24[arXiv:2308.03196 [hep-lat]] . 10

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Borsanyi, Z

S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, M. Giordano, S. D. Katz, D. Nogradi, A. Pasztor and C. H. Wong, Lattice simulations of the QCD chiral transition at real baryon density. Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.5, L051506.[arXiv:2108.09213 [hep-lat]]

arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Bollweget al.[HotQCD], Taylor expansions and Padé approximants for cumulants of conserved charge fluctuations at nonvanishing chemical potentials

D. Bollweget al.[HotQCD], Taylor expansions and Padé approximants for cumulants of conserved charge fluctuations at nonvanishing chemical potentials. Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.7, 074511,[arXiv:2202.09184 [hep-lat]]

arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

[arXiv:2405.10196 [hep-lat]]

D.A.Clarke,P.Dimopoulos,F.DiRenzo,J.Goswami,C.Schmidt,S.SinghandK.Zambello, Searching for the QCD critical endpoint using multi-point Padé approximations. [arXiv:2405.10196 [hep-lat]]

arXiv

[4] [4]

M. W. Hansen and D. Sexty, Testing dynamical stabilization of Complex Langevin simulations of QCD. [arXiv:2405.20709 [hep-lat]]

arXiv

[5] [5]

Pietro Rossi and Ulli Wolff, Lattice QCD With Fermions at Strong Coupling: A Dimer System. Nucl. Phys. B248(1984) 105

work page 1984

[6] [6]

A new dual representation for staggered lattice QCD

G. Gagliardi and W. Unger. New dual representation for staggered lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. D,101 (2020) no.3, 034509.[arXiv:1911.08389 [hep-lat]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[7] [7]

de Forcrand, J

Ph. de Forcrand, J. Langelage, O. Philipsen, and W. Unger. Lattice QCD Phase Diagram In and Away from the Strong Coupling Limit. Phys. Rev. Lett.,113(2014) no.15, 152002.[arXiv:1406.4397 [hep-lat]]

arXiv 2014

[8] [8]

J. Kim, P. Pattanaik and W. Unger, Nuclear liquid-gas transition in the strong coupling regime of lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no.9, 094514.[arXiv:2303.01467 [hep-lat]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023