Finite-size effects and scaling properties of chiral and baryon-number fluctuations

Chihiro Sasaki; Gy\H{o}z\H{o} Kov\'acs; Krzysztof Redlich; Pok Man Lo

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Finite-size effects and scaling properties of chiral and baryon-number fluctuations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that in an effective quark-meson model, keeping the integration over a single constant order-parameter mode rather than imposing momentum-space constraints carries the finite-size physics, rounding the transition…

desk verdict A useful qualitative caution about non-monotonic kurtosis and finite-size rounding, but the abstract overpromises and the quantitative thresholds rest on a single-mode truncation. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.24507 v2 pith:7KIAHBNY submitted 2025-10-28 hep-ph

Győző Kovács , Pok Man Lo , Krzysztof Redlich , Chihiro Sasaki This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords finite-sizeeffectschiralorderparametercriticalendpointnet-baryonnumberfluctuationsBindercumulantkurtosisratioQCDphasediagramquark-mesonmodel

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

The paper proposes that finite-size effects in effective models of the QCD phase diagram can be captured not by modifying the momentum spectrum but by keeping the functional integral over a single spacetime-independent order-parameter mode: $Z = \int d\varphi \, e^{-\beta V U_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi,T,\mu)}$. Because the factor $\beta V$ multiplies a size-independent effective potential, the integral acts as a statistical average over mean-field configurations, rounding the transition at finite volume and producing the correct finite-size scaling at the critical point. The authors apply this to a quark-meson-like model and show that at a first-order transition the coexistence of two minima makes susceptibilities grow as $L^d$, so the maximum of the susceptibility cannot locate the critical endpoint; the Binder cumulant remains size-independent and can. They then compute the net-baryon kurtosis ratio $R_{42} = \chi_4^B/\chi_2^B$ along the freeze-out line and find that for $L \lesssim 10$ fm the dip-peak structure shifts to lower collision energies, while for $L \gtrsim 40$ fm it is indistinguishable from the infinite-volume result. A sympathetic reader would care because heavy-ion fireballs are only a few to tens of fermis across, and this gives a qualitative, controlled way to estimate what those finite sizes do to fluctuation observables used in critical-endpoint searches.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the zero-mode, volume-weighted partition function $Z = \int d\varphi \, e^{-\beta V U_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi,T,\mu)}$, built from a size-independent effective potential for a quark-meson-like model, with all finite-size dependence entering only through the factor $\beta V = L^3/T$. The integral turns the mean-field free-energy landscape into a probability distribution over the constant field, so a double-well potential becomes a two-peaked probability density whose relative weights are controlled by $V$; this is what produces the melting of the transition at small $L$ and the coexistence-driven $L^d$ enhancement of susceptibilities at a first-order boundary. The double-Gaussian approximation for that density supplies the analytic $\chi(\eta)$ formula used to subtract the coexistence peak and verify the scaling. The Binder cumulant $\kappa_B = \chi_4/(\beta L^d \chi_2^2)$, being volume independent by construction, provides the size-independent diagnostic that locates the infinite-volume critical endpoint.

What would settle it

Recompute the central observables with the non-zero modes restored (finite-box fermion-mode sums or a low-momentum cutoff in the matter potential, plus the scalar gradient term) at $L \approx 10$ fm and $T$ near the would-be critical endpoint; the paper's own premise is that these are negligible, so if the chiral susceptibility or the $R_{42}$ dip-peak position shifts by more than the quoted few-percent level, the central claim fails. Alternatively, a lattice QCD calculation of the chiral susceptibility at finite volume near the critical point should show the predicted rounding with $\chi_2 \propto L^{3/2}$; a persistent divergence or a different exponent would falsify the framework.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the volume dependence of the grand-canonical partition function itself, rather than the discretization of momenta, is the essential finite-size effect in a mean-field chiral model. Keeping only the zero mode $\varphi$ of the scalar field, the authors write $Z = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\varphi \, e^{-\beta V U_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi,T,\mu)}$ with $U_{\mathrm{eff}}$ independent of $L$. In the infinite-volume limit the weight becomes a sum of Dirac deltas at the minima, recovering ordinary mean-field theory; at finite $L$ the peaks melt. This yields a rounded crossover instead of a sharp first-order transition, a decrease of the pseudocritical temperature at small $L$ (about 6.5 percent at $L = 3$ fm, in line with lattice extrapolations), and controlled scaling: near the critical point the singular parts collapse with an effective exponent $\tilde{\nu} = 2/3$, i.e. $\chi_2 \propto L^{3/2}$, while at the first-order transition the two-peaked probability distribution gives $\chi_k \propto L^{kd}$. Along the freeze-out line, $R_{42} = \chi_4^B/\chi_2^B$ is unchanged for $L \gtrsim 40$ fm and becomes only slightly smaller, but shifts to lower $\sqrt{s}$, for $L \approx 10$ fm. The paper concludes that the finite-volume dip-peak structure does not by itself indicate proximity of a critical endpoint; it can simply reflect the separation between the freeze-out line and the phase boundary.

Load-bearing premise

All finite-size effects are assumed to enter only through the factor $\beta V$ multiplying a size-independent potential: the non-zero Fourier modes of the field, the momentum discretization of the fermion fluctuations, the gradient term, and the fermionic vacuum contribution are all dropped, so the numbers below $L \sim 10$--$20$ fm are not under quantitative control.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At any finite $L$, the first-order transition is smoothed into a crossover; no true phase transition and no true divergence of $\chi_2$ occurs in a finite fireball.
Near the critical endpoint, singular quantities obey finite-size scaling with an effective exponent $\tilde{\nu} = 2/3$; for $L \gtrsim 20$ fm the data collapse onto universal curves, and for $L \lesssim 10$--$20$ fm genuine finite-size corrections take over.
Along a first-order transition, the two-peaked structure of the probability distribution makes susceptibilities scale as $\chi_k \propto L^{kd}$; hence the maximum of the chiral or baryon susceptibility cannot be used to locate the critical endpoint at finite volume.
The Binder cumulant $\kappa_B = \chi_4/(\beta L^d \chi_2^2)$ is volume independent at both second- and first-order transitions and crosses at the infinite-volume critical endpoint, providing a size-robust locator.
Along the freeze-out line, $R_{42} = \chi_4^B/\chi_2^B$ is unchanged for $L \gtrsim 40$ fm and only slightly reduced for $L \approx 10$ fm, but its dip-peak feature shifts to lower $\sqrt{s}$; because susceptibilities grow monotonically along the phase boundary, such a non-monotonic structure does not necessarily signal proximity to the critical endpoint.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the finite-size effect is purely through $\beta V$, the model implies a universality the paper does not state: any two systems with the same $L^3/T$ but different $L$ and $T$ would give identical $R_{42}$, which could be checked by comparing fluctuation data across collision systems of different sizes.
A direct extension would be to compute Lee-Yang zeros of the partition function in the complex temperature or chemical-potential plane; the zero-mode weight suggests they move with $L$ in a calculable way, so finite-size data could be extrapolated to locate the infinite-volume critical endpoint more sharply than by peak positions.
The coexistence argument implies that in a genuine first-order transition at finite volume, the measured baryon-number susceptibility should grow roughly as $L^3$ while the condensate stays flat; comparing peripheral and central collisions across a first-order boundary would distinguish coexistence broadening from critical rounding.
The Binder-cumulant crossing technique, if applied to net-baryon cumulants rather than chiral ones, would give a finite-size robust estimator of the critical-endpoint location in experiment; the paper only demonstrates it for the chiral susceptibility.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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—

The paper is worth reading for one idea: near a critical endpoint in a finite system, a non-monotonic kurtosis along the freeze-out line is not a clean CEP signature, and finite-size rounding sets in around L≈10–40 fm. The authors get there by promoting the usual mean-field minimization to an integral over one homogeneous mode, Z=∫dφ exp(−βV U_eff(φ)). That zero-mode trick is not new (they credit Ref. [43]), but applying it to a quark-meson-type model and mapping the Binder cumulant and R42 freeze-out behavior is a concrete, useful exercise.

What they do well: the finite-size scaling collapse for the chiral condensate and susceptibility is a genuine check, and the coexistence-driven L^d susceptibility at the first-order transition is derived analytically via a double-Gaussian approximation. They also state limitations honestly: the vacuum fluctuations are dropped, momentum constraints are omitted, and the model is called schematic. The Binder cumulant crossing recovers the infinite-volume CEP as a consistency check, not a fit.

The soft spot is real and has two parts. First, the abstract promises momentum-space discretization and gradient effects that never appear in the body; Section II A says the opposite—momentum constraints are 'completely omitted.' That mismatch should be fixed before publication. Second, because U_eff is size-independent, every finite-size effect in the paper, including the R42 dip-peak shift and the L≈10–40 fm thresholds, comes solely from the βV factor. If non-zero modes or gradient terms contribute at those sizes, the thresholds are not robust. The authors assert that adding momentum constraints does not change the scaling behavior, but they don't show the check, and it doesn't address the R42 shift. This is a limitation, not a fatal flaw: the paper is explicitly qualitative, and the zero-mode truncation is a legitimate way to regulate the critical divergence. But the quantitative thresholds should be advertised as model-dependent.

Verdict: the central caution—dip-peak structure does not imply CEP proximity—holds up as a qualitative statement. The Binder cumulant analysis is solid. The paper deserves a serious referee, with a request to align the abstract with the body and to state the zero-mode-only caveat in the conclusions. I'd bring it to a reading group but wouldn't cite the quantitative thresholds without qualification.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a finite-volume extension of a quark-meson-like effective model in which only the spacetime-independent zero mode of the scalar field is retained in the partition function, giving Z = ∫ dφ exp(−βV U_eff(φ)). Finite-size effects then enter through the βV prefactor multiplying a size-independent effective potential. The authors study the chiral condensate, chiral susceptibilities, Binder cumulant, and net-baryon number cumulant ratio R42 as functions of system size L. They report finite-size scaling collapse near the critical endpoint (using an effective exponent \tildeν = 2/3), an L^d scaling of the susceptibility at the first-order transition due to phase coexistence, a size-independent Binder cumulant crossing, and a finite-size shift of the R42 dip-peak along a parametrized freeze-out line. The phase boundary is also compared with lattice results obtained by extrapolation from imaginary chemical potentials.

Significance. If accepted as a qualitative finite-volume model, the construction is useful: it gives a transparent analytic mechanism for finite-size rounding, a double-Gaussian derivation of coexistence scaling, and an illustration of why susceptibility ratios such as R42 can be volume-dependent near a critical point. The paper honestly states that vacuum fluctuations and momentum-space constraints are neglected. Its main value is as a controlled toy model for interpreting finite-size effects in heavy-ion phenomenology. However, the quantitative thresholds (L ≈ 10–20 fm for the phase boundary, L ≈ 40 fm for R42) are properties of the zero-mode ansatz and are not secured against the omitted non-zero modes and gradient terms; the abstract, as supplied for review, overstates the scope.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II A, Eq. (4)] The abstract supplied for this manuscript promises momentum-space discretization and gradient effects via a prescribed finite-volume profile, but the body states the opposite: 'we will completely omit the momentum space constraints for simplicity, which eliminates the size dependence of Ueff.' Consequently every finite-size effect in the paper—the rounding of the transition, the L ≲ 10–20 fm phase-boundary shift in Fig. 7, and the R42 dip-peak shift in Fig. 12—comes solely from the multiplicative factor βV in Eq. (4) in front of a size-independent Ueff. The claim in Sec. III A that including momentum constraints 'does not modify the scaling behavior' is not supported by any displayed numerical check and does not address the sub-20 fm thresholds or the R42 shift. Please either implement and quantify the promised momentum/gradient treatment, or revise the abstract and present the quantitative thresholds as properties of the zero-mode model only.
[Sec. III A] The statement 'generally χ_k ∝ L^{kd}' is not correct for the susceptibility definitions in Eq. (A2). From χ_k = (βV)^{k−1} κ_k and the two-peaked coexistence distribution with κ_k = O(1), one obtains χ_k ∝ L^{d(k−1)}; for example, χ_2 ∝ L^d (as the same sentence states) and χ_4 ∝ L^{3d}. The later statement in Sec. IV that R42 scales as L^6 at the first-order transition is consistent with the corrected law, so the displayed power L^{kd} appears to be a factor-L^d typo, but it should be fixed because it is an explicit quantitative claim used in the discussion of the first-order peak.
[Sec. III C, Fig. 7] The text states that the finite-size phase boundaries 'match surprisingly well' with the lattice results of Refs. [19,20]. This is a quantitative-sounding claim made with a model that keeps only the zero mode, neglects vacuum fluctuations, and omits momentum-space constraints; the authors themselves note in Sec. III A that the direction and magnitude of the vacuum contribution depend on the type of constraint, boundary conditions, and treatment. Please either provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., a band of lattice results with a definition of agreement) or explicitly downgrade this statement to 'qualitative similarity' throughout the text and the conclusion.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. II A, Eq. (8)] Once the momentum-space constraints are omitted, U_eff no longer depends on L; the L argument in U_eff(φ,T,μ,L) is misleading and should be removed.
[Eq. (10)] The factor N_c is never defined in the text; please state that N_c = 3 is used.
[Eq. (25)] Please specify the units of α and β in the quartic freeze-out parametrization; from the subsequent text ('fixing β = 0.06') one infers they are dimensionful, but the dimensions should be stated explicitly.
[Sec. II B] The statement that \tildeν is introduced 'merely to shorten our notation' understates its role; \tildeν = (γ + 2β)/d is the effective finite-size exponent required when hyperscaling is violated in the mean-field approximation, and this should be said more precisely.
[Sec. III E, Fig. 9 inset] The crossing of the Binder cumulant curves 'recovers the L→∞ CEP' because τ is defined with respect to that same CEP; the sentence should be phrased as a consistency check rather than as an independent determination of the CEP.
[Title and typos] The title in the manuscript header differs from the title in the submission metadata; please ensure they match. There are also numerous typographical errors (e.g., 'resuts', 'comming', 'te minima', 'sligthly') and a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the finite-size scaling analysis is a consistency check against external FSS benchmarks; the Binder-cumulant crossing is an internal diagnostic, not a load-bearing prediction.

full rationale

The central construction, Eq. (4), is a deliberately simplified zero-mode partition function Z = ∫ dφ exp(−βV Ueff(φ)), and the paper explicitly states in Sec. II A that momentum-space constraints are omitted so that Ueff itself is size-independent. All volume dependence therefore enters through the factor βV; this is a stated modeling assumption rather than a hidden fit or a quantity defined in terms of the target result. The finite-size scaling exponents, including the effective exponent ν̃ = 2/3, are imported from the standard finite-size scaling literature (Refs. [7,9,44]) and are not adjusted to the numerical output; the collapse plots in Figs. 4 and 5 are consistency checks against that external benchmark. The L^d coexistence scaling of the susceptibility is derived from the double-Gaussian approximation and explicitly attributed to the known phenomenon reviewed in Ref. [8]. The Binder-cumulant crossing is admittedly an internal diagnostic because the reduced temperature τ is defined using the known infinite-volume CEP, and the paper only says that the method 'recovers the L→∞ CEP as expected' (Sec. III E); it is not used to support the central scaling claims. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation. The limitations noted in the text—the omission of non-zero modes, gradient terms, and momentum-space discretization—are validity and robustness caveats, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation is a 0-dimensional integral over a single scalar field mode with a size-independent effective potential; all non-zero mode, momentum-space, vacuum, and gradient effects are dropped by stated assumptions. The scaling exponents and ansatz are imported from the finite-size scaling literature, so the numerical collapse verifies an assumed scaling law rather than deriving one. The model and freeze-out parameters are hand-chosen, making the phenomenological statements illustrative rather than quantitative.

free parameters (7)

Quartic coupling λ = 29 for set C (sets A-D: 27, 28, 29, 32)
Hand-chosen to position the CEP at a realistic location; listed in Table I. Not fitted to external data.
Yukawa coupling g = 4.55 for set C (sets A-D: 4.60, 4.60, 4.55, 4.50)
Hand-chosen together with λ to keep Tpc near 158 MeV and shift the CEP; Table I.
Scalar mass parameter m^2 = -0.155 GeV^2
Fixed model input that sets the broken phase and crossover scale; Sec. II A.
Explicit symmetry-breaking field h = 0.0018 GeV^3
Fixed input that produces a crossover at µ=0 and enters the η mapping; Sec. II A.
Freeze-out parameter α in Eq. (25) = 0.110, 0.115, 0.120 GeV^2 (lines a, b, c)
Hand-chosen with β=0.06 to test the sensitivity of R42 to the freeze-out line; Sec. III F.
Freeze-out parameter β in Eq. (25) = 0.06 GeV^4
Fixed by hand as part of the freeze-out parametrization from Ref [54]; Sec. III F.
Double-Gaussian temperature T = ≈0.11 GeV
Obtained by fitting χDG to the calculated χcalc in Sec. III B; used only to reproduce the coexistence peak, not for the scaling exponents.

assumptions (8)

ad hoc to paper Only a single spacetime-independent (zero) mode of the scalar field is retained in the functional integral; all higher modes are neglected.
Sec. II, after Eq. (4): the partition function is reduced to a single integral over a spacetime-independent mode; this is the core approximation that makes the calculation tractable.
ad hoc to paper Fermionic vacuum fluctuations are neglected to avoid instability at large ϕ.
Sec. II A: 'for simplicity, here we simply neglect the vacuum fluctuations.' This removes the T=0 L-dependence and changes the potential.
ad hoc to paper Momentum-space constraints (discretization or cutoff) are completely omitted, so Ueff is size-independent.
Sec. II A: 'we will completely omit the momentum space constraints for simplicity, which eliminates the size dependence of Ueff.' Thus the only finite-size scale is βV in the zero-mode integral.
domain assumption The standard grand-canonical thermal field theory with one fermion flavor and µ=µ_B/3 applies.
Sec. II A and Appendix A; standard Matsubara resummation and grand-canonical thermodynamics.
standard math The singular part of the free energy obeys the finite-size scaling ansatz of Eq. (12) with mean-field exponents and effective exponent ν̃=(γ+2β)/d=2/3 despite broken hyperscaling.
Sec. II B, following Ref [44]; used to build all collapse variables, including the L^{9/4} temperature scaling.
ad hoc to paper The regular part of the free energy can be subtracted with a linear ansatz, i.e., a constant shift of ⟨ϕ⟩, while χ is dominated by the singular part.
Sec. III A, footnote 3: the regular free energy is approximated by a linear ansatz; higher-order terms are stated to be negligible or unreliable to fit.
ad hoc to paper The probability distribution near a first-order transition can be approximated by two Gaussians around the two minima.
Sec. III B, Eq. (16); used for the analytic understanding of the coexistence peak and χ∝L^d, with minima fixed by the potential.
domain assumption The freeze-out line follows the quartic parametrization of Eq. (25) with hand-chosen α and β.
Sec. III F, using the form from Ref [54]; not derived from the model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-size effects and scaling properties of chiral and baryon-number fluctuations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7KIAHBNY

@misc{pith2026251024507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-size effects and scaling properties of chiral and baryon-number fluctuations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7KIAHBNY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.24507}
}

read the original abstract

An effective chiral model is introduced to illustrate finite-size effects, incorporating the standard zero-mode treatment, momentum-space discretization, and gradient effects modeled via a prescribed finite-volume profile. The fluctuations of the chiral order parameter and the net-baryon number, as well as their scaling properties, are investigated near a critical point and a first-order transition in finite-size systems. The finite-volume effects on the Binder cumulant and the kurtosis are shown along the phase boundary and the approximate freeze-out line, respectively. Phenomenological implications on fluctuation observables are pointed out and explained.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.24507 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The P(ϕ) = e −SE(ϕ) /Z weights as a function of the field ϕ for different (rather small) system sizes close below the first-order phase boundary. The form in Eq. (4) can be seen as a zero-dimensional field theory, and the number of degrees of freedom is reduced from infinity to one. Keeping only a single mode of the field, corresponding to vanishing momentum, is not a completely new idea to describe a thermal transi… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The chiral condensate ⟨ϕ⟩ at µ = 0 for different system sizes and in the thermodynamic limit. A. Chiral condensate and susceptibility First, we discuss generally the effect of the finite size on the chiral condensate, which immediately highlights the limitations and the advantages of our approach. At nonvanishing temperatures, it is generally clear from our formalism that the weights in Eq. (A1) tend to become equal… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The chiral condensate ⟨ϕ⟩ at a first-order transition for different system sizes and in the thermodynamic limit. The dashed curve shows the L → ∞ meta- and unstable solutions. Functional methods with momentum space constraints also predict the decrease of the chiral condensate for very small sizes [32]. We emphasize that these effects in the crossover region are not due to the scaling, but really are finite-size eff… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The L = 30, 32, 34, . . . , 100 fm results collapsing to a single curve for the singular part of the chiral condensate (top) and the chiral susceptibility (bottom) as a function of the scaled subtracted temperature. proximate freg with a linear ansatz,3 which brings on…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The scaled chiral susceptibility as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The chiral susceptibility as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The chiral phase boundary obtained by the maxi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The pressure with the T = 0 contribution subtracted as a function of temperature and of the energy density (inset) for different system sizes. branches of the two stable mean-field solutions. However, this interpolation is always below the L → ∞ pressure, just as in th…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The phase boundaries with the L → ∞ CEP for the parameterizations in Tab. I and the three freeze-out line parametrization we use. 0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Freeze-out: solid: dashed: dotted: line a line b χ line c 4 B /χ 2 B √s [GeV] set A set B set C set D […

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The R42 baryon number cumulant ratio along the freeze out lines shown on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[43]

Laine and A

M. Laine and A. Vuorinen,Basics of Thermal Field The- ory, Vol. 925 (Springer, 2016) arXiv:1701.01554 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016
[1]

M. A. Stephanov, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.153, 139 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402115

arXiv 2004
[2]

Fukushima and C

K. Fukushima and C. Sasaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.72, 99 (2013), arXiv:1301.6377 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2013
[3]

Luo and N

X. Luo and N. Xu, Nucl. Sci. Tech.28, 112 (2017), arXiv:1701.02105 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2017
[4]

Bzdak, S

A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V. Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, and N. Xu, Phys. Rept.853, 1 (2020), arXiv:1906.00936 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2020
[5]

Binder, Z

K. Binder, Z. Phys. B43, 119 (1981)

1981
[6]

Binder and D

K. Binder and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B30, 1477 (1984)

1984
[7]

Binder, M

K. Binder, M. Nauenberg, V. Privman, and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B31, 1498 (1985)

work page 1985

Show all 60 references

[8]

Binder, Lect

K. Binder, Lect. Notes Phys.409, 59 (1992)

1992
[9]

Privman and M

V. Privman and M. Fisher, J Stat Phys33, 385– (1983)

1983
[10]

Zinn-Justin,Quantum field theory and critical phe- nomena, International Series of Monographs on Physics, Vol

J. Zinn-Justin,Quantum field theory and critical phe- nomena, International Series of Monographs on Physics, Vol. 77 (Oxford University Press, 2021)

2021
[11]

Langelage and O

J. Langelage and O. Philipsen, JHEP01, 089 (2010), arXiv:0911.2577 [hep-lat]

2010 arXiv
[12]

Vovchenko, J

V. Vovchenko, J. Steinheimer, O. Philipsen, A. Pasztor, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and H. Stoecker, Nucl. Phys. A 982, 859 (2019), arXiv:1807.06472 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[13]

Borsanyi, G

S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, JHEP07, 056 (2012), arXiv:1204.6184 [hep-lat]

2012 arXiv
[14]

Karsch and E

F. Karsch and E. Laermann, arXiv:hep-lat/0305025

arXiv
[15]

Bazavovet al., Phys

A. Bazavovet al., Phys. Rev. D100, 094510 (2019), arXiv:1908.09552 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[16]

de Forcrand, S

P. de Forcrand, S. Kim, and T. Takaishi, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.119, 541 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0209126

2003 arXiv
[17]

Parisi, Phys

G. Parisi, Phys. Lett. B131, 393 (1983). 13

1983
[18]

J. R. Klauder, J. Phys. A16, L317 (1983)

1983
[19]

R. Kara, S. Bors´ anyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, P. Parotto, A. P´ asztor, and C. H. Wong, EPJ Web Conf.296, 14004 (2024), arXiv:2401.01169 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[20]

Bors´ anyi, Z

S. Bors´ anyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, R. Kara, P. Parotto, A. P´ asztor, L. Pirelli, and C. H. Wong, Phys. Rev. D 111, 014506 (2025)

2025
[21]

Colangelo, S

G. Colangelo, S. Durr, and R. Sommer, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.119, 254 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0209110

2003 arXiv
[22]

Colangelo and S

G. Colangelo and S. Durr, Eur. Phys. J. C33, 543 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0311023

2004 arXiv
[23]

Colangelo, S

G. Colangelo, S. Durr, and C. Haefeli, Nucl. Phys. B 721, 136 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0503014

2005 arXiv
[24]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B184, 83 (1987)

1987
[25]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B188, 477 (1987)

1987
[26]

Bijnens and K

J. Bijnens and K. Ghorbani, Phys. Lett. B636, 51 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0602019

2006 arXiv
[27]

P. H. Damgaard and H. Fukaya, JHEP01, 052 (2009), arXiv:0812.2797 [hep-lat]

2009 arXiv
[28]

Adhikari and B

P. Adhikari and B. C. Tiburzi, Phys. Rev. D107, 094504 (2023), arXiv:2302.09179 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[29]

L. F. Palhares, E. S. Fraga, and T. Kodama, J. Phys. G 38, 085101 (2011), arXiv:0904.4830 [nucl-th]

2011 arXiv
[30]

L. M. Abreu, E. S. Nery, and A. P. C. Malbouisson, Phys. Rev. D91, 087701 (2015)

2015
[31]

L. M. Abreu and E. S. Nery, Phys. Rev. C96, 055204 (2017), arXiv:1711.07934 [nucl-th]

2017 arXiv
[32]

Luecker, C

J. Luecker, C. S. Fischer, and R. Williams, Phys. Rev. D81, 094005 (2010), arXiv:0912.3686 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[33]

Tripolt, J

R.-A. Tripolt, J. Braun, B. Klein, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D90, 054012 (2014), arXiv:1308.0164 [hep- ph]

2014 arXiv
[34]

Bernhardt, C

J. Bernhardt, C. S. Fischer, P. Isserstedt, and B.-J. Schae- fer, Phys. Rev. D104, 074035 (2021), arXiv:2107.05504 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[35]

Magdy, M

N. Magdy, M. Csan´ ad, and R. A. Lacey, J. Phys. G44, 025101 (2017), arXiv:1510.04380 [nucl-th]

2017 arXiv
[36]

Kov´ acs, P

G. Kov´ acs, P. Kov´ acs, P. M. Lo, K. Redlich, and G. Wolf, in7th FAIR next generation scientists workshop 2022 (2023) arXiv:2302.12925 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[37]

Kov´ acs, P

G. Kov´ acs, P. Kov´ acs, P. M. Lo, K. Redlich, and G. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D108, 076010 (2023), arXiv:2307.10301 [hep- ph]

2023 arXiv
[38]

Collaboration (STAR Collaboration), Phys

S. Collaboration (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 092301 (2021)

2021
[39]

Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys

M. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C107, 024908 (2023), arXiv:2209.11940 [nucl-ex]

2023
[40]

Adamczewski-Muschet al.(HADES), Phys

J. Adamczewski-Muschet al.(HADES), Phys. Rev. C 102, 024914 (2020), arXiv:2002.08701 [nucl-ex]

2020 arXiv
[41]

Kitazawa and M

M. Kitazawa and M. Asakawa, Phys. Rev. C86, 024904 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 86, 069902 (2012)], arXiv:1205.3292 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[42]

Sorensen and P

A. Sorensen and P. Sorensen, (2024), arXiv:2405.10278 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[44]

Binder, Z

K. Binder, Z. Phys. B61, 13 (1985)

1985
[45]

Parotto, M

P. Parotto, M. Bluhm, D. Mroczek, M. Nahrgang, J. Noronha-Hostler, K. Rajagopal, C. Ratti, T. Sch¨ afer, and M. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. C101, 034901 (2020), arXiv:1805.05249 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[46]

Kovacs and Z

P. Kovacs and Z. Szep, Phys. Rev. D75, 025015 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611208

2007 arXiv
[47]

Q. Wang, Y. Xiq, and H. Zong, Mod. Phys. Lett. A33, 1850232 (2018), arXiv:1806.05315 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[48]

X. An, F. Giglio, and G. Landolfi (2025) arXiv:2503.15719 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2025 arXiv
[49]

Almasi, R

G. Almasi, R. Pisarski, and V. Skokov, Phys. Rev. D95, 056015 (2017), arXiv:1612.04416 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[50]

Haensch, F

M. Haensch, F. Rennecke, and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rev. D110, 036018 (2024), arXiv:2308.16244 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[51]

Ashikawa, M

R. Ashikawa, M. Kitazawa, S. Ejiri, and K. Kanaya, Phys. Rev. D110, 074508 (2024), arXiv:2407.09156 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[52]

Bernhardt and C

J. Bernhardt and C. S. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D108, 114018 (2023), arXiv:2309.06737 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[53]

Andronic, P

A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Nature561, 321 (2018), arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[54]

Cleymans, H

J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, and S. Wheaton, J. Phys. G32, S165 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0607164

2006 arXiv
[55]

Kov´ acs, Z

P. Kov´ acs, Z. Sz´ ep, and G. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D93, 114014 (2016), arXiv:1601.05291 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[56]

T. Wada, M. Kitazawa, and K. Kanaya, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 162302 (2025), arXiv:2410.19345 [hep-lat]

2025 arXiv
[57]

A. Adam, S. Bors´ anyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, P. Ku- mar, P. Parotto, A. P´ asztor, and C. H. Wong, (2025), arXiv:2507.13254 [hep-lat]

2025 arXiv
[58]

Kiyohara, M

A. Kiyohara, M. Kitazawa, S. Ejiri, and K. Kanaya, Phys. Rev. D104, 114509 (2021), arXiv:2108.00118 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[59]

Hagedorn and K

R. Hagedorn and K. Redlich, Z. Phys. C27, 541 (1985)

1985
[60]

Cleymans, H

J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C 59, 1663 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9809027

1999 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [43]

Laine and A

M. Laine and A. Vuorinen,Basics of Thermal Field The- ory, Vol. 925 (Springer, 2016) arXiv:1701.01554 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016

[2] [1]

M. A. Stephanov, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.153, 139 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402115

arXiv 2004

[3] [2]

Fukushima and C

K. Fukushima and C. Sasaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.72, 99 (2013), arXiv:1301.6377 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2013

[4] [3]

Luo and N

X. Luo and N. Xu, Nucl. Sci. Tech.28, 112 (2017), arXiv:1701.02105 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2017

[5] [4]

Bzdak, S

A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V. Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, and N. Xu, Phys. Rept.853, 1 (2020), arXiv:1906.00936 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2020

[6] [5]

Binder, Z

K. Binder, Z. Phys. B43, 119 (1981)

1981

[7] [6]

Binder and D

K. Binder and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B30, 1477 (1984)

1984

[8] [7]

Binder, M

K. Binder, M. Nauenberg, V. Privman, and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B31, 1498 (1985)

work page 1985