Comparison of chiral limit studies in curvature mass versus on-shell renormalized quark-meson model using ChPT

Vivek Kumar Tiwari

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 146 references

Comparison of chiral limit studies in curvature mass versus on-shell renormalized quark-meson model using ChPT

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The quark-meson model's predicted Columbia-plot critical pion mass shifts from about 128 MeV to about 72 MeV depending on how quark one-loop vacuum fluctuations are renormalized.

desk verdict Useful QMVT Columbia-plot benchmark, but the QMVT-vs-RQM factor-of-two is partly an artifact of comparing different sigma mass definitions. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04597 v2 pith:RCJ3ZMB6 submitted 2025-07-07 hep-ph

Vivek Kumar Tiwari This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords quark-mesonmodelColumbiaplotchirallimitphasetransitioncurvaturemasson-shellrenormalizationperturbationtheoryquarkvacuumfluctuations

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 establishes that the treatment of quark one-loop vacuum fluctuations is not a minor technicality in quark-meson model studies of the QCD chiral transition. Using infrared-regularized U(3) chiral perturbation theory to continue the pion and kaon decay constants and $M_\eta^2$ from the physical point to the chiral limit, the author compares the Columbia plot obtained with curvature-mass parameter fixing (QMVT) against the on-shell renormalized model (RQM) and a functional-renormalization-group version. The first-order transition regions in the QMVT model are much smaller than in the RQM model and moderately smaller than in the FRG study; on the SU(3)-symmetric line the critical pion mass is $72.12$ MeV (QMVT), $86$ MeV (FRG), and $128.38$ MeV (RQM) for $m_\sigma=530$ MeV. The paper concludes that the widely different sizes of first-order regions in published quark-meson Columbia plots are largely a consequence of the vacuum-fluctuation scheme, not of the scalar-mass input alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the infrared-regularized U(3) chiral perturbation theory scaling of $f_\pi$, $f_K$, and $M_\eta^2=m_\eta^2+m_{\eta'}^2$, combined with the fixed-ratio chiral-limit path $\beta=m_\pi^{*}/m_\pi=m_K^{*}/m_K$. Equations (31), (32), and (36) give the $(m_\pi, m_K)$ dependence of these quantities to $O(1/f^2)$, allowing the model parameters $h_x$, $h_y$, $\lambda_2$, $c$, $m^2$, and $\lambda_1$ to be fixed away from the physical point without heuristic adjustment. The same ChPT input is then fed into two different renormalization schemes: curvature-mass parameter fixing, where the $\sigma$ mass stays an input, and on-shell renormalization, where pole masses dress the propagators and enlarge the effective 't Hooft coupling.

What would settle it

Rerun both parameter-fixing schemes with the next-order $O(1/f^4)$ infrared-regularized chiral perturbation theory expressions for the pion and kaon decay constants and the eta mass-squared sum: if the gap in $m_\pi^{c}$ between QMVT and RQM changes by more than a few tens of MeV or the ordering inverts, the claimed scheme dependence is an artifact of the one-loop chiral extrapolation rather than a property of the renormalization method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that two consistent ways of including the same quark vacuum term produce qualitatively different chiral phase diagrams. In the QMVT model, where parameters are fixed from curvature meson masses and the vacuum term is dimensionally regularized, the Columbia plot for $m_\sigma=530$ MeV has $(m_K^{\rm TCP}, m_\pi^{t}, m_\pi^{c})=(124.7,90.03,72.12)$ MeV; the same quantities in the on-shell renormalized RQM model are $(235.7,160.75,128.38)$ MeV, while the e-MFA FRG study gives $(169,110,86)$ MeV. The QMVT $\sigma$ curvature mass stays at $530$ MeV all the way to the chiral limit, whereas the FRG $\sigma$ mass decreases and the RQM curvature $\sigma$ mass increases from $376.74$ MeV at the physical point. The paper attributes the larger RQM first-order regions to the on-shell scheme enhancing the effective $U_A(1)$ anomaly coupling $c$, which remains at its tree-level value in the curvature-mass scheme; this, rather than the scalar-mass choice, drives most of the difference.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the one-loop infrared-regularized chiral perturbation theory expressions for the pion and kaon decay constants and the eta mass-squared sum remain valid all the way down to $m_\pi \approx 1$ MeV, even though the chiral logarithms in them grow as the masses decrease.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

First-order regions in both the $m_\pi$-$m_K$ and $\mu$-$m_K$ planes are much smaller in the curvature-mass QMVT model than in the on-shell RQM model, so published Columbia-plot differences of this size should not be read as scalar-mass or model uncertainty.
On the SU(3)-symmetric line, the critical pion mass at $m_\sigma=530$ MeV is predicted to be $72.12$ MeV in QMVT, $86$ MeV in the e-MFA FRG study, and $128.38$ MeV in RQM; a lattice search at $m_\pi$ around $100$ MeV can discriminate between them.
The vacuum sigma curvature mass behaves differently in each scheme: constant in QMVT, decreasing toward the chiral limit in the FRG study, and increasing from its physical-point minimum in RQM.
With the $U_A(1)$ anomaly switched off and $m_\sigma=400$ MeV, no first-order region exists at zero chemical potential in either model; first order reappears only above $\mu_c=225.4$ MeV (QMVT) or $204.6$ MeV (RQM).

Reading between the lines

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

Because the ChPT scaling is one-loop, the absolute values of the critical masses would likely move if higher-order chiral logarithms were included; the robust content may be the ordering QMVT $<$ FRG $<$ RQM and the factor-of-two separation, not the specific numbers in MeV.
The constancy of $m_\sigma$ in the QMVT scheme reflects the curvature-mass fixing procedure, where $m_\sigma$ is an input at every $\beta$; comparing it as a dynamical output with FRG curvature masses is not an apples-to-apples test.
A clean check would be to feed lattice-determined $f_\pi(m_\pi,m_K)$ and $M_\eta^2(m_\pi,m_K)$ into both renormalization schemes; if the hierarchy of first-order regions collapses, the scheme-dependence claim would be weakened.

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

You should look at this paper if you care about Columbia plots from chiral effective models. It does something genuinely new: it computes the QMVT (curvature-mass with vacuum term) Columbia plot with ChPT-based scaling of f_pi, f_K, M_eta, and compares it to the author's earlier RQM (on-shell) results and to the FRG study of Resch et al. The model equations are laid out in enough detail that a competent group could reproduce the numbers. The main output—critical pion mass m_pi^c=72 MeV for QMVT vs 128 MeV for RQM at nominal m_sigma=530 MeV—is a strong statement about how vacuum-fluctuation schemes change the first-order region.

But there is a real confound in that headline comparison. In the QMVT model, m_sigma=530 MeV is the vacuum curvature mass. In the RQM model, m_sigma=530 MeV is the pole mass, and the paper itself reports the corresponding curvature mass is only 376.7 MeV at the physical point. Lighter sigma curvature masses strengthen the first-order transition—the paper's own Table III shows m_pi^c drops by about 6 MeV when m_sigma goes from 530 to 400 in each model. So part of the factor of two is not the treatment of quark vacuum fluctuations; it is comparing a model with a 530 MeV sigma curvature mass to one with a 377 MeV sigma curvature mass. To isolate the scheme, the author should match curvature masses across models, e.g., choose an RQM pole mass that yields the same curvature mass as the QMVT input. The paper does not do that, and it over-attributes the difference to the enhanced UA(1) coupling in RQM.

The other soft spots are mostly the ones the reader flagged: no code or data, no error estimates, and the one-loop ChPT is pushed toward the chiral limit at beta=0.007. That last one is a minor issue for the headline numbers, since those are at m_pi~70-130 MeV, but it matters for the parameter trajectories. The attribution of QMVT-vs-FRG differences to the chiral-limit method is also more interpretation than controlled comparison, though the author is transparent about that.

Overall, this is a serious, citable model study, but the central quantitative claim needs revision. I'd send it to peer review with the condition that the author redo the RQM comparison at matched sigma curvature mass (or at least quantify the shift). Even if the factor of two shrinks, the QMVT Columbia plot is a new useful benchmark.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper computes the Columbia plot of the 2+1 flavor quark-meson model with the quark one-loop vacuum term (QMVT), using O(1/f^2) infrared-regularized U(3) ChPT expressions for f_pi(m_pi,m_K), f_K(m_pi,m_K), and M_eta^2 = m_eta^2 + m_eta'^2 to fix model parameters as the pion and kaon masses are reduced toward the chiral limit. It reports critical quantities (m_K^TCP, m_pi^t, m_pi^c) = (124.7, 90.03, 72.12) MeV at m_sigma = 530 MeV and compares them with the on-shell renormalized QM (RQM) results (235.7, 160.75, 128.38) MeV and with the e-MFA QM FRG results (169, 110, 86) MeV, concluding that the treatment of quark vacuum fluctuations changes the size of the first-order regions by roughly a factor of two. The paper also maps the results into the (m_ud, m_s) plane and compares the sigma-mass behavior toward the chiral limit.

Significance. If the central comparison were cleanly established, the paper would provide a useful quantification of how different implementations of quark vacuum fluctuations affect the Columbia plot in effective QCD models. The model equations and the parameter-fixing procedure are standard and described in sufficient detail to be reproduced, and the numerical outputs are concrete and falsifiable. The comparison with the e-MFA-FRG study and with lattice bounds on m_pi^c is informative. However, the main quantitative claim is weakened by a mass-matching issue between the two models being compared, and the ChPT extrapolation to the deep chiral limit is not validated. These issues affect the headline numbers and the attribution of the difference to the vacuum-fluctuation scheme.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III C, Fig. 5, Table III] The headline comparison between QMVT and RQM at m_sigma = 530 MeV compares a curvature mass in QMVT with a pole mass in RQM. As stated in Sec. III B and the caption of Fig. 3, the RQM sigma curvature mass at the physical point is m_sigma,c = 376.74 MeV, about 153 MeV lighter than the QMVT value. Since decreasing the sigma curvature mass strengthens the first-order transition (Table III: RQM m_pi^c = 128.38 MeV at m_sigma = 530 versus 134.16 MeV at m_sigma = 400; QMVT 72.12 versus 78.45 MeV), the reported factor-of-two difference between the QMVT and RQM first-order regions does not isolate the method of implementing quark vacuum fluctuations. The paper should compare the models at matched physical sigma curvature masses, or otherwise demonstrate that the m_sigma mismatch does not drive the difference, before making the attribution in the abstract and Sec. III C.
[Sec. II C and Table III] The O(1/f^2) ChPT expressions in Eqs. (31), (32), and (36) are extrapolated from the physical point to beta = 0.007246, i.e., m_pi^* about 1 MeV, and the tricritical point m_K^TCP is determined on the m_pi = 0 axis. Although the chiral logarithms in these expressions are multiplied by m^2 and hence vanish in the deep chiral limit, the expressions are truncated at one-loop order and no estimate of omitted higher-order terms is provided. Because the values of h_x, h_y, and hence the chiral critical line and m_K^TCP, depend on this extrapolation, the paper should validate the ChPT scaling in the deep chiral regime (for example, by comparing with two-loop ChPT or with a lattice-based extrapolation) or provide a quantitative uncertainty estimate.
[General] The quoted critical quantities are given to 0.01 MeV precision, but no error estimates are provided from the input experimental quantities (m_pi, m_K, f_pi, f_K, m_eta, m_eta') or from the ChPT LECs. Given that the paper's conclusions rest on changes of tens of MeV between models, propagation of the dominant input uncertainties would help establish that the QMVT versus RQM differences are significant rather than artifacts of parameter choices.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. III C] The text contains 'on-sell' where 'on-shell' is meant, and the acknowledgments contain 'tankful' instead of 'thankful'.
[Table III] The table header says 'm_sigma = 400 and 500 MeV' but the paper analyzes m_sigma = 400 and 530 MeV; the 500 MeV label appears to be a typo.
[Sec. III A and Table I] The text states m_pi = 138.0 and m_K = 496.0 MeV at the physical point, while Table I and other parts of the text use m_K = 495.6 MeV; these values should be made consistent.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption lists beta = 0.015 in the legend while the text refers to beta = 0.15; one of these is a typo and should be corrected.
[Eq. (36)] Please clarify explicitly that M_eta^2 denotes the sum m_eta^2 + m_eta'^2, and specify the renormalization scale at which the constants v_0^(2), v_1^(3), and v_2^(2) are defined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the QMVT critical masses are genuine outputs after external ChPT and experimental inputs, with only non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs are the QMVT Columbia-plot critical quantities (m_K^TCP, m_pi^t, m_pi^c) = (124.7, 90.03, 72.12) MeV for m_sigma=530 MeV. These are obtained by solving the QMVT grand potential after fixing parameters with experimental meson masses and the one-loop infrared-regularized ChPT expressions (31), (32) and (36) for f_pi(m_pi,m_K), f_K(m_pi,m_K) and M_eta^2(m_pi,m_K), whose LECs are taken from the external ChPT literature. The resulting critical masses are not fitted parameters: they emerge from locating the Z(2) critical line and its SU(3)-symmetric intersection in the computed phase diagram. No equation in the paper defines m_pi^c or m_K^TCP in terms of the input f_pi/f_K/M_eta values in a way that would make the output equal to the input by construction. The RQM comparison values are imported from the author's prior Ref. [132], and the QMVT/RQM parameter-fixing schemes cite the author's Refs. [106,128,129]; these are self-citations, but they are not load-bearing circular inputs—the RQM numbers are independent published calculations and are not adjusted to force agreement. The concern that 'm_sigma=530 MeV' represents a pole mass in RQM but a curvature mass in QMVT is a parameter-matching/correctness issue, not a circular reduction. Likewise, extrapolating one-loop ChPT to deep-chiral beta=0.007246 is a model-assumption risk, not circularity. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks; the low score reflects only the presence of normal, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the effective QM Lagrangian, the mean-field neglect of meson loops, and the ChPT scaling relations used to move away from the physical point. The numerical inputs include the sigma mass (400/530 MeV), the Yukawa coupling (not given numerically), and a set of ChPT low-energy constants fixed at the physical point. No new entities are introduced. The most fragile input is the extrapolation of one-loop ChPT to very small meson masses.

free parameters (3)

Scalar sigma mass m_sigma = 400 and 530 MeV
Chosen input for the scalar meson mass; controls the strength of the transition and all reported critical values (Tables I-III).
Yukawa coupling g = Not stated in text
Appears in quark masses (m_u = g x/2) and in the vacuum term (n = N_c g^4/32 pi^2); the numerical value is referenced to the parameter fixing of Ref. [106] but not given.
ChPT constants L4, L5, L6, L8, L7, v0^(2), v1^(3), v2^(2), f, q, M0 = L4=-0.7033e-3, L5=0.3708e-3, L6=-0.3915e-3, L8=0.511e-3, L7=-0.2272e-3, v1^(3)=0.095, v2^(2)=-0.1382, v0^(2)=-29.3…
Fitted to physical meson masses and decay constants in ChPT; used as external input for the scaling relations in Eqs. (31)-(36).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The QM model Lagrangian (Eqs. 1-2) with SU_L(3) x SU_R(3) symmetry and a 't Hooft determinant term captures the relevant low-energy dynamics.
Invoked at the start (Sec. II); the model is an effective theory, not derived from QCD.
domain assumption Mesonic thermal and quantum fluctuations are neglected; only the quark/antiquark one-loop vacuum and thermal contributions are included (e-MFA).
The grand potential in Eqs. (3)-(7) contains no meson loops; this is the mean-field approximation stated in Sec. II.
ad hoc to paper The O(1/f^2) infrared-regularized U(3) ChPT expressions (Eqs. 31, 32, 36) remain valid for arbitrary reduced masses down to the chiral limit.
The paper extrapolates one-loop ChPT to beta=0.007246 (Table I) without a convergence check; this is the weakest premise (see weakest_assumption).
standard math The vacuum divergences in the QMVT model can be dimensionally regularized and the scale dependence cancels exactly, as claimed in Ref. [106].
The cancellation is not shown in this paper but taken from Ref. [106]; it underpins Eq. (14).
domain assumption The chiral limit path m_pi^*/m_pi = m_K^*/m_K = beta with fixed ratio m_pi/m_K is representative for comparing models.
Defined in Sec. III A and used for all beta-dependent comparisons; the Columbia plot itself is a 2D plane, but temperature plots use this 1D path.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison of chiral limit studies in curvature mass versus on-shell renormalized quark-meson model using ChPT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RCJ3ZMB6

@misc{pith2026250704597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison of chiral limit studies in curvature mass versus on-shell renormalized quark-meson model using ChPT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RCJ3ZMB6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04597}
}

abstract

Consistent chiral limit has been investigated in the curvature mass parametrized quark-meson (QM) model with the quark one-loop vacuum term (QMVT) employing the infrared regularized Chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) predicted scaling of the pion,~kaon decay constants $f_{\pi}, f_{K} $ and $M_{\eta}^2 = m_{\eta}^2 + m_{\eta^{\prime}}^2 $ when the $\pi \ \text{and} \ K $ meson masses are reduced as one moves away from the physical point in the Columbia plot.~Comparing the QMVT model Columbia plots with the corresponding Columbia plots computed,~in the very recent work of Ref.~\cite{vkt25} using the on-shell renormalized QM (RQM) model and the earlier work of Ref.~\cite{Resch} using functional renormalization group techniques in the extended mean field approximation of QM (e-MFA:QM-FRG) model,~it has been estimated how the first, second and crossover chiral transition regions in the $m_{\pi}-m_{K}$($m_{ud}-m_{s}$) and the $\mu-m_{K}$($\mu-m_{s}$) planes,~get modified by different methods of implementing the quark one-loop vacuum fluctuations in the QM model.~Since both the e-MFA:QM-FRG and the QMVT model,~use curvature meson masses to fix the parameters and the dimensional regularization of vacuum divergences are incorporated equivalently,~the differences in their results can be attributed to different methods of approaching the chiral limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04597 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a)Temperature variations of the light condensate derivative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Temperature variations of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Columbia plot with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left panel (a) (right panel (b)), depicts the Columbia plot with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Columbia plot without the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Left panel (a) (Right panel (b)) shows the comparison of lines and regions in the vertical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Columbia plot with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Left panel (a) (right panel (b)), depicts the Columbia plot in the light-strange quark mass and chemical potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Left panel (a) (Right panel (b)) shows the comparison of lines and regions in the vertical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

146 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

[1]

The changes in pion, kaon decay constantsf π andf K are calcu- lated by putting the values of the reduced pion, kaon massesm ∗ π andm ∗ K respectively into the Eq

for the chiral limit study, are calculated by using the infrared regularized U(3) ChPT described in the section II C. The changes in pion, kaon decay constantsf π andf K are calcu- lated by putting the values of the reduced pion, kaon massesm ∗ π andm ∗ K respectively into the Eq. (31) and Eq. (32) while M η is calculated using the Eq.(36). The ratio m∗ π...
[2]

R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D29, 338 (1984)

1984
[3]

’t Hooft, Phys

G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 8 (1976)

1976
[4]

Fromm, J

M. Fromm, J. Langelage, S. Lottini, and O. Philipsen, JHEP01, 042 (2012)

2012
[5]

F. R. Brown, F. P. Butler, H. Chen, N. H. Christ, Z.-h. Dong, W. Schaffer, L. I. Unger and A. Vaccarino, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 2491 (1990)

1990
[6]

Reinosa, J

U. Reinosa, J. Serreau, and M. Tissier, Phys. Rev. D 92, 025021 (2015)

2015
[7]

Saito, S

H. Saito, S. Ejiri, S. Aoki, K. Kanaya, Y. Nakagawa, H. Ohno, K. Okuno, and T. Umeda, Phys. Rev. D89, 034507 (2014)

2014
[8]

Maelger, U

J. Maelger, U. Reinosa, and J. Serreau, Phys. Rev. D 98, 094020 (2018)

2018

Show all 146 references

[9]

C. S. Fischer, J. Luecker, and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D91, 014024 (2015)

2015
[10]

Borsanyi, G

S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 11, (2010) 077

2010
[11]

Bors´ anyi, Z

S. Bors´ anyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szab´ o, J. High Energy Phys. 09, (2010) 073

2010
[12]

Borsanyi, Z

S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg and K. K. Szabo,Phys. Lett. B730, 99-104 (2014)

2014
[13]

Bazavov et al., Phys

A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D85, 054503 (2012)

2012
[14]

Karsch, E

F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and A. Peikert, Nucl. Phys. B 23 605, 579 (2001)

2001
[15]

Bazavov et al., Phys

A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D90, 094503 (2014)

2014
[16]

Karsch, C

F. Karsch, C. R. Allton, S. Ejiri, S. J. Hands, O. Kacz- marek, E. Laermann, and C. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.129, 614 (2004)

2004
[17]

Karsch, E

F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and C. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B520, 41 (2001)

2001
[18]

Varnhorst, Proc

L. Varnhorst, Proc. Sci. LATTICE2014,(2015)193

2015
[19]

de Forcrand, S

P. de Forcrand, S. Kim and O. Philipsen, Proc. Sci. LATTICE2007,(2007)178 [arXiv:0711.0262]

2007 arXiv
[20]

Bazavov, H

A. Bazavov, H. T. Ding, P. Hegde, F. Karsch, E. Laer- mann, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, and C. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D95, 074505 (2017)

2017
[21]

X.-Y. Jin, Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, S. Takeda, and A. Ukawa, Phys. Rev. D91, 014508 (2015)

2015
[22]

de Forcrand and M.D’Elia Proc

P. de Forcrand and M.D’Elia Proc. Sci. LATTICE2016, (2017)081 [arXiv:1702.00330]

2017 arXiv
[23]

X.-Y. Jin, Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, S. Takeda, and A. Ukawa, Phys. Rev. D96, 034523 (2017)

2017
[24]

L. Dini, P. Hegde, F. Karsch, A. Lahiri, C. Schmidt, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D105, 034510 (2022)

2022
[25]

Rev.D 99, 076005 (2019)

Simon Resch, Fabian Rennecke and Bernd-Jochen Schaefer Phys. Rev.D 99, 076005 (2019)

2019
[26]

Bernhardt and C.-S

J. Bernhardt and C.-S. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D108, 114018 (2023)

2023
[27]

Zhang, Y

Y. Zhang, Y. Aoki, S. Hashimoto, I. Kanamori, T. Kaneko, and Y. Nakamura, Proc. Sci. LATTICE2023 (2024)203 [arXiv:2401.05066]

2024 arXiv
[28]

Fejos, Phys

G. Fejos, Phys. Rev. D105, L071506 (2022)

2022
[29]

S. R. Kousvos and A. Stergiou, SciPost Phys.15, 075 (2023)

2023
[30]

Lahiri, Proc

A. Lahiri, Proc. Sci. LATTICE2021(2022)003 [arXiv:2112.08164]

2022 arXiv
[31]

Fejos, T

G. Fejos, T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. D110, 016021 (2024)

2024
[32]

H. T. Ding, S. T. Li, S. Mukherjee, A. Tomiya, X. D. Wang, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 082001 (2021)

2021
[33]

V. Dick, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, S. Mukherjee, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D91, 094504 (2015)

2015
[34]

Bazavov, T

A. Bazavov, T. Bhattacharya, M. I. Buchoff, M. Cheng, N. H. Christ, H.-T. Dinget al., Phys. Rev. D86, 094503 (2012)

2012
[35]

Kaczmarek, L

O. Kaczmarek, L. Mazur, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D104, 094518 (2021)

2021
[36]

Kaczmarek, R

O. Kaczmarek, R. Shanker, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D108, 094051 (2023)

2023
[37]

Bhattacharya, M

T. Bhattacharya, M. I. Buchoff, N. H. Christ, H.-T. Ding, R. Gupta, C. Junget al., Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 082001 (2014)

2014
[38]

Tomiya, G

A. Tomiya, G. Cossu, S. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, and J. Noaki, Phys. Rev. D96, 034509 (2017);96, 079902(A) (2017)

2017
[39]

B. B. Brandt, A. Francis, H. B. Meyer, O. Philipsen, D. Robaina, and H. Wittig, J. High Energy Phys.12 (2016), 158

2016
[40]

S. Aoki, Y. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, C. Rohrhofer, and K. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 023B05 (2022)

2022
[41]

S. Aoki, Y. Aoki, G. Cossu, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, C. Rohrhofer, and K. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D103, 074506 (2021)

2021
[42]

Francesco Giaosa, Gyozo Kovacs, Peter Kovacs, R. D. Pisarski and Fabian Rennecke, Phys. Rev.D 111, 016014 (2025)

2025
[43]

R. D. Pisarski and F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 251903 (2024)

2024
[44]

Gomez Nicola, J

A. Gomez Nicola, J. Ruiz de Elvira, JHEP03, (2016) 186

2016
[45]

Gomez Nicola, J

A. Gomez Nicola, J. Ruiz de Elvira and R. Torres An- dres, Phys. Rev. D88, 076007 (2013)

2013
[46]

Gomez Nicola, J

A. Gomez Nicola, J. Ruiz de Elvira, Phys. Rev. D98, 014020 (2018)

2018
[47]

Gomez Nicola, J

A. Gomez Nicola, J. Ruiz de Elvira, Phys. Rev. D97, 074016 (2018)

2018
[48]

Meyer-Ortmanns and B

H. Meyer-Ortmanns and B. J. Schaefer, Phys. Rev.D 53, 6586 (1996)

1996
[49]

Ferreres-Sole, A

S. Ferreres-Sole, A. Gomez Nicola and A. Vioque- Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. D99, 036018 (2019)

2019
[50]

J. T. Lenaghan, Phys. Rev.D 63, 037901 (2001)

2001
[51]

J. T. Lenaghan, D. H. Rischke and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. RevD 62, 085008 (2000). J. T. Lenaghan, D. H. Rischke, J. Phys.G 26, 431 (2000)

2000
[52]

Jakovac, A

A. Jakovac, A. Patkos, Z. Szep, and P. Szepfalusy, Phys. Lett.B 582, 179 (2004)

2004
[53]

D. Roder,J. Ruppert and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev.D 68, 016003 (2003)

2003
[54]

Herpay and Zs

T. Herpay and Zs. Sz´ ep, Phys. Rev.D 74, 025008 (2006)

2006
[55]

Herpay, A

T. Herpay, A. Patk´ os, Zs. Sz´ ep and P. Sz´ epfalusy, Phys. Rev.D 71, 125017 (2005)

2005
[56]

Jakovac and Zs

A. Jakovac and Zs. Szep, Phys. Rev.D 82, 125038, (2010)

2010
[57]

Kov´ acs and Zs

P. Kov´ acs and Zs. Sz´ ep, Phys. Rev.D 75, 025015 (2007)

2007
[58]

Fejos, A

G. Fejos, A. Patkos, Phys. Rev.D 82, 045011 (2010)

2010
[59]

Marko and Zs

G. Marko and Zs. Szep, Phys. Rev.D 82, 065021 (2010)

2010
[60]

Mocsy, I

A. Mocsy, I. N. Mishustin, and P. J. Ellis, Phys. Rev. C 70, 015204 (2004)

2004
[61]

Scavenuius, A

O. Scavenuius, A. Mocsy, I. N. Mishustin, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. C64, 045202 (2001)

2001
[62]

Schaefer and J

B.-J. Schaefer and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev.D 75, 085015 (2007)

2007
[63]

Schaefer and J

B.-J. Schaefer and J. Wambach, Nucl. Phys.A 757, 479 (2005)

2005
[64]

E. S. Bowman and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev.C 79, 015202 (2009); J. I. Kapusta, and E. S. Bowman, Nucl. Phys.A 830, 721C (2009)

2009
[65]

B. J. Schaefer, J. M. Pawlowski, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev.D 76, 074023 (2007)

2007
[66]

The above defined fractionβ, also facilitates the comparison of our results with those of the Refs

at the physical point where the ChPT parameterq= 2m s mu+md = ms mud as the ratio of the strangem s to the average of light quark massm ud, also gets fixed. The above defined fractionβ, also facilitates the comparison of our results with those of the Refs. [23, 66, 132] for th...
[67]

B. J. Schaefer and M. Wagner, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 62, 381 (2009)

2009
[68]

B. J. Schaefer and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev.D 79, 014018 (2009)

2009
[69]

B. J. Schaefer, M. Wagner and J.Wambach,CPOD(2009)017,arXiv:0909.0289

2009 arXiv
[70]

B. J. Schaefer, M. Wagner, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D 81, 074013 (2010)

2010
[71]

H. Mao, J. Jin, and M. Huang, J. Phys.G 37, 035001
[72]

U. S. Gupta and V. K. Tiwari, Phys. Rev.D 81, 054019(2010)

2010
[73]

Ferroni, V

L. Ferroni, V. Koch, and M. B. Pinto, Phys. Rev.C 82, 055205 (2010)

2010
[74]

Pedro Costa, M. C. Ruivo, C. A. de Sousa and Yu. L. Kalinovsky, AIP Conf. Proc. 775, 173–181 (2005)

2005
[75]

Pedro Costa, M. C. Ruivo, C. A. de Sousa and Yu. L. Kalinovsky, Phys. Rev.D 71, 116002 (2005)

2005
[76]

Fukushima, Phys

K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev.D 77, 114028 (2008);78, 039902(E) (2008) . 24

2008
[77]

Berges, D.-U

J. Berges, D.-U. Jungnickel, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev.D 59, 034010 (1999)

1999
[78]

Berges, N

J. Berges, N. Tetradis, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rept. 363, 223 (2002)

2002
[79]

Gies and C

H. Gies and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev.D 69, 025001 (2004)

2004
[80]

Braun and H

J. Braun and H. Gies, JHEP06, 024 (2006)

2006
[81]

J. M. Pawlowski, Annals Phys.322, 2831 (2007)

2007
[82]

Fukushima,K

K. Fukushima,K. Kamikado and B. Klein, Phys. Rev. D 83, 116005 (2011)

2011
[83]

Grahl and D

M. Grahl and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev.D 88, 056014 (2013)

2013
[84]

Mitter and B.-J

M. Mitter and B.-J. Schaefer, Phys. Rev.D 89, 054027 (2014)

2014
[85]

Fejos, Phys

G. Fejos, Phys. Rev. D92, 036011 (2015)

2015
[86]

Rennecke, Phys

F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev.D 92, 076012 (2015)

2015
[87]

Braun, L

J. Braun, L. Fister, J. M. Pawlowski, and F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev.D 94, 034016 (2016)

2016
[88]

Fejos, A

G. Fejos, A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D94, 036005 (2016)

2016
[89]

D 96, 016009 (2017)

Fabian Rennecke, Bernd-Jochen Schaefer, Phys, Rev. D 96, 016009 (2017)

2017
[90]

Tripolt, B.-J

R.-A. Tripolt, B.-J. Schaefer, L. von Smekal, J. Wambach,Phys. Rev. D 97, 034022 (2018)

2018
[91]

Fejos, A

G. Fejos, A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D98, 036009 (2018)

2018
[92]

Fejos, A

G. Fejos, A. Patkos, Phys. Rev. D105, 096007 (2022)

2022
[93]

Fejos and A

G. Fejos and A. Patkos, Phys. Rev. D109, 036035 (2024)

2024
[94]

T. K. Herbst, J. M. Pawlowski, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D88, 014007 (2013)

2013
[95]

J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rept.658, 1 (2016)

2016
[96]

Wetterich, Phys

C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B301, 90 (1993)

1993
[97]

Schaefer and M

B.-J. Schaefer and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D85, 034027 (2012)

2012
[98]

Skokov, B

V. Skokov, B. Friman, E. Nakano, K. Redlich, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D82, 034029 (2010)

2010
[99]

Gatto, M

R. Gatto, M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D82, 054027 (2010)

2010
[100]

Kharzeev, K

D. Kharzeev, K. Landsteiner, A. Schmitt, H.-U. Yee (Eds.),Strongly Interacting Matter in Magnetic Fields, Lecture Notes in Phys. 871,Spriner (2013)

2013
[101]

A. J. Mizher, M. N. Chernodub, and E. S. Fraga, Phys. Rev. D82, 105016 (2010)

2010
[102]

Khan and L

R. Khan and L. T. Kyllingstad, AIP Conf. Proc.1343, 504 (2011)

2011
[103]

U. S. Gupta, V. K. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D85, 014010 (2012)

2012
[104]

Chatterjee and K

S. Chatterjee and K. A. Mohan, Phys. Rev. D85, 074018 (2012)

2012
[105]

V. K. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D86, 094032 (2012)

2012
[106]

J. O. Andersen and A. Tranberg, J. High Energy Phys. 08(2012) 002

2012
[107]

Chatterjee and K

S. Chatterjee and K. A. Mohan, Phys. Rev. D86, 114021 (2012)

2012
[108]

V. K. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D88, 074017 (2013)

2013
[109]

M. Drew, W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C91, 035802 (2015)

2015
[110]

Weyrich, N

J. Weyrich, N. Strodthoff, and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rev. C92, 015214 (2015)

2015
[111]

Kov´ acs, Zs Sz´ ep, Gy Wolf,Phys

P. Kov´ acs, Zs Sz´ ep, Gy Wolf,Phys. Rev. D93, 114014 (2016)

2016
[112]

M. Drew, W. Weise,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.93, 69 (2017)

2017
[113]

Andreas Zacchi and J¨ urgen Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D97, 074011 (2018)

2018
[114]

Andreas Zacchi and J¨ urgen Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D100, 0123024 (2019)

2019
[115]

S. K. Rai and V. K. Tiwari, Eur. Phys. J. Plus135:844, (2020)

2020
[116]

Brandes, N

L. Brandes, N. Kaiser, W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A 57:243, (2021)

2021
[117]

Gy˝ oz˝ o Kov´ acs, P´ eter Kov´ acs, Pok Man Lo, Krzysztof Redlich and Gy¨ orgy, Wolf Phys. Rev. D108, 076010 (2023)

2023
[118]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250, 465 (1985)

1985
[119]

Borasoy and S

B. Borasoy and S. Wetzel, Phys. Rev. D63, 074019 (2001)

2001
[120]

Beisert and B

N. Beisert and B. Borasoy, Eur. Phys. J. A11, 329 (2001)

2001
[121]

Beisert and B

N. Beisert and B. Borasoy, Nucl. Phys. A705, 433 (2002)

2002
[122]

Becher and H

T. Becher and H. Leutwyler, Eur. Phys. J. C9, 643 (1999)

1999
[123]

Kajantie, M

K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov Nucl. Phys. B458, 90 (1996)

1996
[124]

Adhikari, J

P. Adhikari, J. O. Andersen and P. Kneschke, Phys. Rev. D95, 036017 (2017)

2017
[125]

Adhikari, J

P. Adhikari, J. O. Andersen and P. Kneschke, Phys.Rev.D96, 016013 (2017)

2017
[126]

Adhikari, J

P. Adhikari, J. O. Andersen and P. Kneschke, Phys.Rev.D98, 074016 (2018)

2018
[127]

A.Folkestad, J. O. Andersen, Phys.Rev.D99, 054006 (2019)

2019
[128]

S. K. Rai and V. K. Tiwari, Phys.Rev.D105, 094010 (2022)

2022
[129]

S. K. Rai and V. K. Tiwari, Phys.Rev.D108, 074014 (2023)

2023
[130]

V. K. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D108, 074002 (2023)

2023
[131]

S. K. Rai and V. K. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D109, 034025 (2024)

2024
[132]

Andersen, Mathias P

Jens O. Andersen, Mathias P. Nødtvedt, arXiv:2506.02941[hep-ph], 2025

2025 arXiv
[133]

Hosein Gholami, Kurth Lennart, Ugo Mire, Michael Buballa and Bernd-Jochen Schaefer, arXiv:2505.22542[hep-ph], 2025

2025 arXiv
[134]

V. K. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D111, 114014 (2025)

2025
[135]

Leutwyler, Phys

H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B374, 163 (1996)

1996
[136]

Kiaser and H

R. Kiaser and H. Leutwyler, Eur. Phys. J. C17, 623 (2000)

2000
[137]

Herrera-Sikl´ ody, J

P. Herrera-Sikl´ ody, J. I. Latorre, P. Pascual and J. Taron, Nucl. Phys. B497, 345 (1997)

1997
[138]

Herrera-Sikl´ ody, J

P. Herrera-Sikl´ ody, J. I. Latorre, P. Pascual and J. Taron, Phys. Lett. B419, 326 (1998)

1998
[139]

Escribano, F

R. Escribano, F. S. Ling, M. H. G. Tytgat, Phys. Rev. D62, 056004 (2000)

2000
[140]

Kobes, G

R. Kobes, G. Kunstatter, and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 2992 (1990); Nucl. Phys. B355, 1 (1991)

1990
[141]

A. K. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D48, R3967 (1993)

1993
[142]

Carignano, M

S. Carignano, M. Buballa and B-J Schaefer Phys. Rev. D90, 014033 (2014)

2014
[143]

Carignano, M

S. Carignano, M. Buballa, and W. Elkamhawy, Phys. Rev. D94, 034023 (2016)

2016
[144]

Eidelman et

S. Eidelman et. al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B592, 1 (2004)

2004
[145]

de Forcrand, and O

P. de Forcrand, and O. Philipsen, Wittig, J. High En- ergy Phys.01(2007), 077

2007
[146]

J. M. Pawlowski and F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev. D90, 076002 (2014)

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The changes in pion, kaon decay constantsf π andf K are calcu- lated by putting the values of the reduced pion, kaon massesm ∗ π andm ∗ K respectively into the Eq

for the chiral limit study, are calculated by using the infrared regularized U(3) ChPT described in the section II C. The changes in pion, kaon decay constantsf π andf K are calcu- lated by putting the values of the reduced pion, kaon massesm ∗ π andm ∗ K respectively into the Eq. (31) and Eq. (32) while M η is calculated using the Eq.(36). The ratio m∗ π...

[2] [2]

R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D29, 338 (1984)

1984

[3] [3]

’t Hooft, Phys

G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 8 (1976)

1976

[4] [4]

Fromm, J

M. Fromm, J. Langelage, S. Lottini, and O. Philipsen, JHEP01, 042 (2012)

2012

[5] [5]

F. R. Brown, F. P. Butler, H. Chen, N. H. Christ, Z.-h. Dong, W. Schaffer, L. I. Unger and A. Vaccarino, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 2491 (1990)

1990

[6] [6]

Reinosa, J

U. Reinosa, J. Serreau, and M. Tissier, Phys. Rev. D 92, 025021 (2015)

2015

[7] [7]

Saito, S

H. Saito, S. Ejiri, S. Aoki, K. Kanaya, Y. Nakagawa, H. Ohno, K. Okuno, and T. Umeda, Phys. Rev. D89, 034507 (2014)

2014

[8] [8]

Maelger, U

J. Maelger, U. Reinosa, and J. Serreau, Phys. Rev. D 98, 094020 (2018)

2018