Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Imaginary Rotating Gluonic Matter at Strong Coupling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For imaginary-rotating pure gluonic matter at strong coupling, the deconfinement transition temperature increases with $r\Omega_I$, a result derived from a resummed Polyakov-loop effective theory.

desk verdict A transparent strong-coupling estimate that lands on the model/perturbative side of the rotation controversy, but the key resummation step is asserted rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03560 v1 pith:XHF2NS3N submitted 2025-06-04 hep-ph hep-lathep-th

Kenji Fukushima , Yusuke Shimada This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-lathep-th
keywords deconfinementPolyakovloopimaginaryrotationstrong-couplingexpansiongluonicmatterchair-typecriticaltemperaturelatticegaugetheory
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 asks how an imaginary angular velocity $\Omega_I$ changes confinement in pure gluonic matter, and answers with a strong-coupling expansion on a lattice that keeps the Polyakov loop unintegrated. Its central result is an effective nearest-neighbor Polyakov-loop interaction whose coupling is multiplied by a factor $f(N_\tau, r\Omega_I)$ that decreases as $r\Omega_I$ grows. Because the deconfinement transition in $SU(3)$ occurs at a fixed critical coupling $6J_c = 0.515$, the decreasing factor pushes the transition to larger temperature, so $T_c(r\Omega_I)/T_c(0)$ rises. The paper quantifies this rise and finds it stays below roughly 15% for the strong-coupling parameters it adopts, consistent with effective-model and high-temperature perturbative predictions. It also flags that the lattice action used breaks the exact $2\pi$ periodicity in $\Omega_I/T$ and axial symmetry, so the upward trend may be an artifact of the lattice implementation.

What carries the argument

The engine is the strong-coupling expansion of the lattice gauge action with the Polyakov loop (the gauge-field loop winding the temporal circle) left unintegrated. Rotation enters through chair-type loops—four-link combinations of two adjacent plaquettes that encode the metric-induced cross terms like $F_{xy}F_{y\tau}$—inserted along the temporal direction. Resumming all possible insertions produces the binomial factor $f(N_\tau,x)$ of Eq. (15); the mean-field effective potential with the $SU(3)$ Haar measure fixes the transition at $6J_c=0.515$, and the lattice relation $J=e^{-\sigma a/T}$ converts that critical coupling into a critical temperature.

What would settle it

Run a lattice Monte Carlo simulation of $SU(3)$ gluodynamics at imaginary angular velocity using an improved lattice action that preserves the exact periodicity $\Omega_I/T \to \Omega_I/T + 2\pi$ and, ideally, axial symmetry. If the measured ratio $T_c(r\Omega_I)/T_c(0)$ does not increase monotonically with $r\Omega_I$, or if the Polyakov-loop coupling extracted from correlations lacks the decreasing factor $f(N_\tau,r\Omega_I)$, the paper's central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The claim is that imaginary-rotating SU(3) gluonic matter deconfines later, at higher temperature, than static matter. The nearest-neighbor Polyakov-loop interaction $J$ is replaced by direction-dependent couplings $J f(N_\tau,x\Omega_I)$, $J f(N_\tau,y\Omega_I)$, and $J f(N_\tau,r\Omega_I)$, where $f(N_\tau,x)=\sum_{k=0}^{N_\tau/2} \frac{N_\tau}{N_\tau-k} \binom{N_\tau-k}{k} (-x^2/8)^k \simeq e^{-N_\tau x^2/8}$. Since $f$ decreases with its argument, the effective $J$ at fixed temperature is weaker, and the critical condition $6J_c=0.515$ (fixed by the $SU(3)$ Haar measure) is met only at larger $T$. The paper gives an iterative formula for $T_c(r\Omega_I)/T_c(0)$ and shows it increasing with $r\Omega_I$, interpreting the effect as an imaginary-rotation-induced increase of the effective string tension. The result agrees with model and perturbative calculations but disagrees with numerical lattice simulations, a tension the authors trace to the same lattice action's failure to satisfy the expected periodicity $\Omega_I/T \to \Omega_I/T+2\pi$ and axial symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the lattice action with chair-type loops, Eq. (7), faithfully represents imaginary-rotating gluonic matter; the authors themselves note this action breaks the exact $\Omega_I/T$ periodicity and axial symmetry, so their rising-$T_c$ conclusion could be an artifact of an incomplete lattice implementation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, deconfinement in imaginary-rotating pure gluonic matter is delayed: $T_c$ increases with $r\Omega_I$, by up to about 15% for the adopted parameters.
  • Because $f(N_\tau,x)$ decreases for all $N_\tau$, the sign of the shift is not a fine-tuning: within this action, stronger imaginary rotation always requires a larger $J$, hence a larger temperature.
  • The exponential approximation $f\simeq e^{-N_\tau x^2/8}$ lets the effect be read as an increase of the effective string tension, meaning imaginary rotation effectively strengthens confinement.
  • The same mechanism applies to other gauge groups, since only the Haar-measure constant in Eq. (13) changes; the qualitative increase of $T_c$ is group-independent.
  • The result places the strong-coupling expansion on the same side as effective models and high-$T$ perturbation theory, leaving the numerical lattice simulations as the outlier.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A Monte Carlo test with the same lattice action, but without the mean-field reduction, would isolate whether the chair-loop resummation (Eq. 15) or the Haar-measure ansatz drives the predicted rise.
  • A lattice action enforcing the exact periodicity would likely replace $f(N_\tau,x)$ by a periodic function, so the monotonic increase found here may not persist to large $r\Omega_I$.
  • The symmetric-point prescription used in Eq. (16) is one way to minimize the square-lattice artifact; an alternative averaging over directions could change the numerical coefficient in Eq. (18) but probably not its positive sign.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs an effective theory for the Polyakov loop in pure gluonic matter on a lattice with imaginary angular velocity ΩI. Starting from the lattice action proposed in Ref. [28], the authors perform a strong-coupling expansion and resum contributions from chair-type loops along the temporal direction, obtaining a modified nearest-neighbor Polyakov-loop interaction with a multiplicative factor f(Nτ,x) given in Eq. (15). Because this factor decreases with the local linear velocity rΩI, the mean-field critical coupling is reached at a higher temperature, so the paper concludes that Tc(rΩI)/Tc(0) increases with rΩI, in agreement with effective-model and perturbative predictions and in tension with numerical lattice simulations. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the lattice action and the resulting effective theory violate the expected periodicity in ΩI/T and break axial symmetry.

Significance. If Eq. (15) is correct, this would be a valuable analytical strong-coupling contribution to the debate on rotating gluonic matter, providing a semi-quantitative prediction without inserting Ω-dependent parameters by hand. The authors clearly state the limitations of their lattice action and give an explicit formula, Eq. (18), that can be compared with future work. The central weakness is that the key factor f(Nτ,x) is asserted after a schematic combinatorial argument rather than derived from the strong-coupling group integrals; until that derivation is supplied, the quantitative claim remains unverified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (5)–(6) and (14)–(15)] The function f(Nτ,x) is introduced after a schematic combinatorial argument, but the group integrations that produce the factors (−x^2/8)^k are not shown. In particular, the k=1 term should follow by expanding Eq. (7) to second order in the chair-loop terms and performing the SU(Nc) integrals over spatial links with the temporal links held fixed. Because the variables Vμνρ in Eqs. (5)–(6) are signed averages over four orientations, the sign and coefficient of the ΩI^2 term are nontrivial; a sign error there would reverse the direction of the Tc shift. Please provide the explicit group-integral derivation, at least for the k=1 contribution, and also show the counting of insertions on the temporal circle including the configurations that straddle the periodic edge.
  2. [§4 and §2, Eq. (7)] The authors themselves state in Sec. 4 that the final results do not maintain the periodicity ΩI/T → ΩI/T + 2π, which is a robust property of imaginary-rotating field theories. Since the entire ΩI dependence in Eq. (14) originates from the lattice action (7), the predicted increase of Tc may be an artifact of using a non-periodic action. The paper should either adopt a lattice action that respects the periodicity or demonstrate that the leading ΩI^2 coefficient in f is insensitive to periodicity-restoring improvements. Without this, the central claim remains conditional.
  3. [§3, Eq. (16)] The mean-field treatment replaces the anisotropic, position-dependent couplings in Eq. (14) by a single quantity ~J evaluated at the symmetric point x=y=r/√2. The justification that the transition is governed by this local average is given as a "natural expectation" rather than a derivation. If the Polyakov-loop condensate is allowed to be inhomogeneous, the transition condition in Eq. (17) could change. Please either justify the homogeneous ansatz more rigorously or estimate the error introduced by this approximation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3, after Eq. (16)] The statement that f(Nτ,x) is a decreasing function is not true for all x; for example, for Nτ=4, f(x)=1−x^2/2+x^4/32 has derivative x(x^2/8−1), which changes sign at x=2√2. The claim should be restricted to the small-x or large-Nτ regime relevant for the physical results.
  2. [Fig. 5 and Eq. (18)] The numerical results use the exponential approximation f≃exp(−Nτx^2/8), while Eq. (15) defines the exact sum; the figure caption and text should state explicitly that the approximation is used and give the value of Nτ.
  3. [Eq. (18)] The notation Tc on the right-hand side of Eq. (18) is ambiguous because the equation is meant to give Tc(rΩI)/Tc(0); please write Tc(0) explicitly on the right-hand side.
  4. [§3, last paragraph] The phrase "spin helicity effects r=0" is unclear; consider rephrasing to describe the issue of placing adjacent Polyakov loops at the rotation center.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Omega_I dependence of Tc is obtained from an explicit strong-coupling sum, not from a fit or from the authors' earlier perturbative results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained for the central claim. Starting from the lattice action in Eq. (7), the paper constructs chair-type loop insertions and resums them combinatorially to obtain the factor f(N_tau, x) in Eqs. (14)-(15). The rotation dependence enters only through this explicit power series, with no parameter fitted to the target Tc(r Omega_I) behavior. The inputs Jc = 0.515, sigma, a, and Tc(0) = 170 MeV come from the Haar-measure critical condition and standard strong-coupling phenomenology, and none of them encodes the Omega_I dependence. The conclusion that Tc increases follows directly from f(N_tau, x) being decreasing in x, which is visible in the definition Eq. (15) and Fig. 4. Self-citations [26,27] are used only for qualitative comparison with perturbative results and for the periodicity caveat, not as a load-bearing premise that forces the new result. The paper explicitly flags the loss of periodicity and the breaking of axial symmetry as limitations of the adopted lattice action, which is a correctness concern rather than a circularity. Even if the unshown group integrations for the V-loop vertices were questionable, that would be an omitted proof or error, not an equivalence between input and output. Thus no circular step is identifiable.

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

No new physical entities are introduced; chair-type loops are lattice objects used to build the effective theory. The main load-bearing assumptions are the validity of the lattice action and the resummation formula, both of which the authors partly flag. The free parameters are standard strong-coupling inputs that fix the physical scale but do not encode the rotation dependence.

free parameters (1)
  • strong-coupling scale and string tension (a, sigma) = a^{-1} approximately 433 MeV, sigma approximately (425 MeV)^2
    Imported from earlier phenomenological strong-coupling fits to meson spectra (Refs. [40,46,47,50]). These set the absolute temperature scale and control the quantitative slope of the Tc ratio in Eq. (18); the dimensionless product sigma a^2 is not computed independently.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Strong-coupling expansion: beta = 2 Nc / g^2 << 1, and e^{-S_G} is expanded in powers of beta, keeping only color-singlet group integrations.
    This is the standard lattice strong-coupling framework used throughout Sec. 2, following Refs. [2,41,46,47].
  • domain assumption The lattice action (7), including spatially averaged plaquettes and chair-type loops, correctly represents imaginary-rotating gluonic matter.
    Adopted from Yamamoto and Hirono [28]. The paper itself notes that this action lacks the expected Omega_I/T periodicity and breaks continuous rotation symmetry, so the central result inherits these caveats.
  • ad hoc to paper All insertions of chair-type loop pairs are of the same order in beta, so their complete resummation is necessary, and the binomial counting in Eq. (15) correctly accounts for them.
    Stated in Sec. 2 around Fig. 3; the group-integration steps and the orientation multiplicity are only sketched, not demonstrated in detail.
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation with a homogeneous Polyakov loop and the relation J = exp(-sigma a / T) remain valid in the rotating case.
    The mean-field potential (11) and the J-T relation are carried over from the non-rotating strong-coupling treatment of Refs. [46,47], and are used in Sec. 3 to convert the modified J into a critical temperature.
  • ad hoc to paper The square-lattice artifact is minimized at the symmetric point x = y = r / sqrt(2), so the Omega_I dependence there approximates the continuum result.
    Introduced in Sec. 2 after Eq. (14); no derivation shows that this choice properly restores axial symmetry, and the authors acknowledge the approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imaginary Rotating Gluonic Matter at Strong Coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XHF2NS3N

@misc{pith2026250603560,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imaginary Rotating Gluonic Matter at Strong Coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XHF2NS3N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03560}
}
read the original abstract

We write down an effective theory of the Polyakov loop to investigate the deconfinement phase transition of imaginary-rotating gluonic matter using the strong-coupling expansion. We find the strength of the nearest-neighbor Polyakov-loop interaction modified by the sum of contributions involving the chair-type loops along the temporal direction. Our results show that the deconfinement transition temperature increases with increasing imaginary angular velocity, which agrees with the predictions from the models and the high-temperature perturbative calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03560 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Leading-order contribution to the partition function that results in the e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effective potential shapes at J = Jc (solid curve) and J = Jc ± 0.1 (dashed curves) for the S U(2) and the S U(3) cases. The potential offset is chosen to adjust Veff = 0 at | tr L| = 0. For the S U(2) case, the deconfinement phase transition is of second order and the critical condition of vanishing quadratic coefficient immediately leads to 6Jc = 1/4. Since the first-order phase transition occurs for the S U(3) ca… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of Ω4 I -contributions to the effective action of the same order of β. Chair-type loops extend two spatial directions which are schematically represented by the directions parallel and normal to the cylinder surface. The pairs of chair-type loops can have different orientations as contrasted in the left and the right panels. The cylinder represents the temporal S 1 and the spatial R 3 . (where a is the latt… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the exact sum defined in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Critical temperature ratio of the deconfinement phase transition as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Chromomagnetic condensation and perturbative confinement induced by imaginary rotation in SU(2) Yang-Mills Theory

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In SU(2) Yang-Mills, imaginary rotation is shown to induce a chromomagnetic condensate and to turn the perturbative confinement transition first-order, with phase boundary approaching Ω̃_c = π/√3.

  2. Static Quark-Antiquark Interactions Under Rotation

    hep-lat 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In quenched SU(3) lattice gluodynamics, imaginary rotation suppresses bare Polyakov free energies above Tc with a bulk shift well fit by A R_xy^2 + B, while the T≈0 static potential shows no significant rotation dependence.

  3. A Chromomagnetic Mechanism for the Rotational Phase Transition of Gluonic Matter

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using a rotation–magnetic holographic dictionary calibrated to lattice QCD, the paper predicts real rotation raises T_c and induces a negative total moment of inertia in pure gluonic matter near deconfinement.

  4. Chromomagnetic Condensate in Finite-Temperature SU(2) Yang-Mills Theory under Imaginary Rotation

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    At one loop, imaginary rotation in the SU(2) Savvidy model enhances the chromomagnetic condensate and effective coupling, can suppress the Nielsen-Olesen instability in a finite window, and gives a negative moment-of-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [28]

    Yamamoto and Y

    A. Yamamoto and Y . Hirono, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 081601 (2013), arXiv:1303.6292 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2013

  2. [1]

    A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 59, 82 (1975)

    work page 1975

  3. [2]

    A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 72, 477 (1978)

    work page 1978

  4. [3]

    K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  5. [4]

    Weiss, Phys

    N. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 24, 475 (1981)

    work page 1981

  6. [5]

    Weiss, Phys

    N. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2667 (1982)

    work page 1982

  7. [6]

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

    work page 1981

  8. [7]

    C. P. Korthals Altes, Nucl. Phys. B 420, 637 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9310195

    work page Pith review arXiv 1994

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    Gocksch and R

    A. Gocksch and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. B 402, 657 (1993), arXiv:hep- ph/9302233

    1993

  2. [9]

    Fukushima and V

    K. Fukushima and V . Skokov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 96, 154 (2017), arXiv:1705.00718 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Endrodi, Prog

    G. Endrodi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 141, 104153 (2025), arXiv:2406.19780 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Adamczyk et al

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

    2017 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Becattini, V

    F. Becattini, V . Chandra, L. Del Zanna, and E. Grossi, Annals Phys.338, 32 (2013), arXiv:1303.3431 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [13]

    H.-L. Chen, K. Fukushima, X.-G. Huang, and K. Mameda, Phys. Rev. D 93, 104052 (2016), arXiv:1512.08974 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Jiang and J

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

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    M. N. Chernodub and S. Gongyo, JHEP 01, 136, arXiv:1611.02598 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    X. Wang, M. Wei, Z. Li, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 99, 016018 (2019), arXiv:1808.01931 [hep-ph] . 14

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Chen, Z.-B

    H.-L. Chen, Z.-B. Zhu, and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 054006 (2023), arXiv:2306.08362 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    F. Sun, K. Xu, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 096007 (2023), arXiv:2307.14402 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    R. M. Nunes, R. L. S. Farias, W. R. Tavares, and V . S. Tim´oteo, Phys. Rev. D 111, 056026 (2025), arXiv:2412.14541 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y . Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, and Y . Hidaka, Phys. Lett. B 816, 136184 (2021), arXiv:2101.09173 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [21]

    X. Chen, L. Zhang, D. Li, D. Hou, and M. Huang, JHEP 07, 132, arXiv:2010.14478 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [22]

    N. R. F. Braga, L. F. Faulhaber, and O. C. Junqueira, Phys. Rev. D 105, 106003 (2022), arXiv:2201.05581 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Yadav, Phys

    G. Yadav, Phys. Lett. B 841, 137925 (2023), arXiv:2203.11959 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Wang and S.-Q

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

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

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

    arXiv

  19. [26]

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

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    S. Chen, K. Fukushima, and Y . Shimada, Phys. Lett. B 859, 139107 (2024), arXiv:2404.00965 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    V . V . Braguta, A. Y . Kotov, D. D. Kuznedelev, and A. A. Roenko, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094515 (2021), arXiv:2102.05084 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    M. N. Chernodub, V . A. Goy, and A. V . Molochkov, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114502 (2023), arXiv:2209.15534 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    V . V . Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, and A. A. Roenko, (2023), arXiv:2312.13994 [hep-lat] . 15

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Yang and X.-G

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

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cao, Phys

    G. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 109, 014001 (2024), arXiv:2310.03310 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jiang, Phys

    Y . Jiang, Phys. Lett. B 853, 138655 (2024), arXiv:2312.06166 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mameda and K

    K. Mameda and K. Takizawa, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138317 (2023), arXiv:2308.07310 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

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

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y . Chen, X. Chen, D. Li, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 111, 046006 (2025), arXiv:2405.06386 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J.-X. Chen, S. Wang, D. Hou, and H.-C. Ren, Phys. Rev. D 111, 026020 (2025), arXiv:2410.04763 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    I. I. Gaspar, L. A. Hern ´andez, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094020 (2023), arXiv:2305.00101 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Fukushima, Prog

    K. Fukushima, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 153, 204 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0312057

    2004

  33. [41]

    Green and F

    F. Green and F. Karsch, Nucl. Phys. B 238, 297 (1984)

    1984

  34. [42]

    Kawamoto, K

    N. Kawamoto, K. Miura, A. Ohnishi, and T. Ohnuma, Phys. Rev. D 75, 014502 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0512023

    2007 arXiv

  35. [43]

    de Forcrand, J

    P. de Forcrand, J. Langelage, O. Philipsen, and W. Unger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 152002 (2014), arXiv:1406.4397 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Wang, J.-X

    S. Wang, J.-X. Chen, D. Hou, and H.-C. Ren, (2025), arXiv:2505.15487 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Iwasaki, (1983), arXiv:1111.7054 [hep-lat]

    Y . Iwasaki, (1983), arXiv:1111.7054 [hep-lat]

    1983 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Fukushima, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B 553, 38 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0209311

    2003 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Fukushima, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev. D 68, 045004 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303225

    2003 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Dumitru, Y

    A. Dumitru, Y . Hatta, J. Lenaghan, K. Orginos, and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D 70, 034511 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0311223 . 16

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Reinhardt, Mod

    H. Reinhardt, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 11, 2451 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9602047

    1996 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kawamoto and J

    N. Kawamoto and J. Smit, Nucl. Phys. B 192, 100 (1981)

    1981

  43. [51]

    M. N. Chernodub, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054027 (2021), arXiv:2012.04924 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hasenfratz and F

    P. Hasenfratz and F. Karsch, Phys. Lett. B 125, 308 (1983). 17

    1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.