Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

This paper claims that an external magnetic field shifts the gravitational-wave peak of a first-order QCD phase transition to lower frequencies, and that the signal could be detected by pulsar timing arrays.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 17:39 UTC pith:DMFRGLJH

load-bearing objection A clean but incremental re-packaging: known magnetized holographic QCD thermodynamics fed through standard GW templates; the peak-shift result is credible, but robustness checks and treatment of direct B effects need work. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.21960 v2 pith:DMFRGLJH submitted 2026-03-23 hep-ph

Gravitational waves from holographic first-order QCD phase transition with magnetic field

Man-Man Sun , Man-Li Tian , Zhou-Run Zhu This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 04.30.-w12.38.Mh11.25.Tq98.80.-k
keywords gravitational wavesQCD phase transitionholographic QCDmagnetic fieldstochastic gravitational wave backgroundfirst-order phase transitionpulsar timing arraysAdS/CFT correspondence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper sets out to show that a first-order QCD confinement–deconfinement transition in a magnetized early universe produces a stochastic gravitational-wave background whose spectral peak moves to lower frequencies as the magnetic field strength increases. The authors compute the transition temperature and latent heat from holographic hard-wall and soft-wall models with a magnetic field, then insert those quantities into the standard templates for gravitational waves from bubble collisions, sound waves, and MHD turbulence. They find the peak shift in all four model/scenario combinations they consider, and they find the predicted signal is within reach of current and upcoming pulsar timing arrays. They also report a consistent decomposition: sound waves dominate around the peak, bubble collisions dominate the spectral tails, and MHD turbulence matters only for non-runaway bubbles at high frequencies. If the claim holds, the magnetized QCD transition becomes a plausible source for the observed nanohertz background, and future timing-array data could constrain primordial magnetic fields.

Core claim

The central claim is that the magnetic field changes the thermodynamics of the QCD transition—lowering the transition temperature and altering the released latent heat—in a way that shifts the peak of the gravitational-wave spectrum to lower frequencies while keeping the signal detectable. The paper shows this for hard-wall and soft-wall holographic models, each with Jouguet detonations and non-runaway bubbles, and the direction of the shift is the same in all cases. It also decomposes the total spectrum and finds a consistent pattern: sound waves produce the peak, bubble collisions dominate the lowest and highest frequencies, and MHD turbulence contributes significantly only for non-runaway

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetized holographic QCD model based on the Einstein–Maxwell action, whose confined and deconfined phases are described by magnetized thermal AdS and a magnetized AdS black hole. The Hawking–Page transition between these phases fixes the transition temperature T*, and the free-energy difference gives the latent heat α that enters the standard gravitational-wave templates. Those templates combine three production channels—bubble collisions, sound waves, and MHD turbulence—with spectral shapes and peak frequencies set by T* and α; the magnetic field enters the analysis only through these thermodynamic inputs.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the magnetic field affects gravitational-wave production only through the transition temperature and latent heat, leaving the plasma's sound speed, bubble-wall efficiency, and turbulence untouched.

What would settle it

Compute the gravitational-wave spectrum with the magnetic field also entering the sound speed, bubble-wall efficiency, or MHD turbulence; if the peak then moves to higher frequencies instead of lower, the central claim fails. Alternatively, a pulsar-timing detection of a QCD-scale background whose peak frequency is independent of the inferred primordial magnetic field would also settle the claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, a magnetized QCD transition is a viable source of the stochastic gravitational-wave background targeted by pulsar timing arrays.
  • Because the peak shifts monotonically with field strength, a measured peak frequency could be read as a probe of the primordial magnetic field, once other transition parameters are pinned down.
  • Sound waves, not bubble collisions, set the peak amplitude in most cases, so the detectability estimate depends on the sound-wave template being accurate.
  • MHD turbulence is a minor part of the signal except for non-runaway bubbles at high frequencies, which changes where in the spectrum the turbulence contribution should be searched for.
  • Detectability varies by scenario: the hard-wall and soft-wall models put the signal within reach of current and next-generation timing arrays, with some cases also visible to space-based detectors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper feeds the magnetic field into the spectrum only through T* and α; if the field also changes the plasma's sound speed, the bubble-wall efficiency, or the turbulence spectrum, the size and possibly the direction of the peak shift could change, making these numbers a first estimate rather than a final prediction.
  • The monotonic B-dependence suggests a way to invert the calculation: a future PTA detection of a QCD-scale background could be used to infer the primordial field strength, though the inference would be degenerate with the transition strength and wall velocity.
  • The same holographic setup could be extended to finite quark chemical potential or larger fields to test whether the downward peak shift persists; that would separate a robust feature of the transition from a quirk of the hard/soft-wall models.
  • A direct first-principles computation of the transition temperature as a function of magnetic field at these field strengths would test the holographic input independently of the gravitational-wave templates.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies gravitational-wave (GW) production from a first-order QCD confinement-deconfinement phase transition in the presence of an external magnetic field, using bottom-up holographic hard-wall and soft-wall AdS/QCD models. The authors take the magnetized black-hole/thermal-AdS actions from Refs. [40,41], obtain the critical temperature as a function of B, compute the latent heat and the strength parameter α, and feed these into the standard GW spectral templates for bubble collisions, sound waves, and MHD turbulence (Eqs. (13)-(17)). They consider both Jouguet detonations and non-runaway bubbles. The central claims are that increasing the magnetic field shifts the GW spectral peak to lower frequencies and that the predicted signals are potentially detectable by IPTA, SKA, BBO, and NANOGrav. The paper also decomposes the spectra into the three GW production channels.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would establish magnetized QCD phase transitions as viable sources of observable stochastic GW backgrounds and would suggest a way to constrain primordial magnetic fields with future PTA observations. The work builds on an existing holographic calculation of the magnetized QCD transition, so the input thermodynamics are not new, but the application to GW spectra and the B-dependence of the peak frequency is the paper's original contribution. The presentation is transparent about using standard GW templates and covers four model/scenario combinations, which gives the conclusion some breadth. However, the paper does not provide machine-checked code or a fully reproducible parameter table, and the central assumption that B enters the GW spectrum only through T_* and α is not justified or stress-tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (13)-(17)] The central claim that increasing B shifts the spectral peak to lower frequencies rests on the assumption that B affects the GW spectrum only through T_* and α. In the GW production model, B appears nowhere: the efficiency factors κ1, κ2, κ3, the bubble velocities v_b, and the spectral shapes are functions of α and v_b only, with the Jouguet v_b formula fixing c_s²=1/3 and the non-runaway case setting v_b=0.95. The Introduction (Sec. I) states that the magnetic field modifies 'transition dynamics, and plasma properties', channels that are not modeled. If c_s(B), κ(B), or v_b(B) vary appreciably over the B=0.1–0.7 scan, Eq. (17) would acquire additional B dependence and the predicted peak shift and detectability could change. Because the abstract's qualitative conclusion is derived primarily from the decreasing T_c(B) relation through Eq. (17), this omission is load-bearing and needs eith
  2. [Sec. III, after Eq. (17)] The inverse transition duration is fixed to τ/H_* = 10 with no robustness check, and g_* ≈ 10 is assumed. The peak frequencies in Eq. (17) scale linearly with τ/H_*, and the amplitudes in Eq. (14) scale as (τ/H_*)² and (τ/H_*). At the QCD scale, τ/H_* is not known to better than an order of magnitude; a change by a factor of 3 alone would shift the peak by a factor of 3 and the amplitudes by an order of magnitude, potentially altering the detectability conclusions for IPTA/SKA/BBO/NANOGrav. Similarly, g_* ≈ 10 is an assumption that affects both the amplitude ((10/g_*)^{1/3}) and the peak frequency ((g_*/10)^{1/6}). The authors should provide a sensitivity scan over τ/H_* and g_*, or at least a discussion of the range of these parameters and how the conclusions change.
  3. [Sec. II and Sec. III, B units and input values] The units of the magnetic field B are never specified. Equations (2)-(12) use B in the action with L=1, but the scan values B=0.1, 0.4, 0.7 appear in Sec. III without stating whether these are in GeV², in units of L, or a dimensionless ratio. Consequently, the physical field strength (e.g., in Gauss) corresponding to the claimed peak shifts and detectability is unknown, and the final claim that future PTA observations could 'constrain primordial magnetic fields' cannot be evaluated. In addition, the paper does not report the resulting input values T_c(B), α(B), or the peak frequencies for the four cases shown in Figs. 1-8. A table with these numbers would make the central result checkable and would greatly improve reproducibility.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and title] The abstract contains a typo: 'gravitation al waves'. The title also uses unicode 'fi' ligatures; please use standard LaTeX.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (18)] The latent heat is defined by Eq. (18) but no explicit expression for ΔF(T) is provided, and it is not shown how ΔS from Eqs. (8) and (11) is converted into ΔF(T) and its derivative. Please include the explicit formula or a clear reference to where this is derived.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. captions] The figure captions (Figs. 1-8) should state the units of B explicitly and list the corresponding values of T_* and α used for each curve. Currently only 'B=0.1, 0.4, 0.7' is given.
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (15)] The turbulence spectral shape S_turb(f) should be checked against the original references; the form as written may be missing a normalization factor or a different exponent for the low-frequency regime. Please verify.
  5. [Sec. III, T_* ≃ T_c] The assumption T_* ≃ T_c is stated without quantification. Since supercooling can affect α and the GW amplitude, a short discussion of this approximation and its uncertainty would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the B-dependent peak shift and detectability are derived consequences of external holographic thermodynamics fed into standard GW templates; model inheritance is not circular reasoning.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. Section II imports the magnetized hard-wall and soft-wall thermodynamics (free energies, ΔS, Hawking temperature) from Refs. [40,41,62], and Section III feeds T*≈Tc and α into the standard envelope, sound-wave, and turbulence templates from Refs. [8,19,63–66]. No parameter in the gravitational-wave calculation is fitted to PTA or any GW data; r0, c, and ℓc are fixed by QCD spectroscopy in external work, τ/H*=10 and g*≈10 are literature choices, and the detectability statements are comparisons to published sensitivity curves. The claimed 'peak shifts to lower frequencies with B' follows from the template peak frequencies f ∝ T* and the model's T_c(B), so it is a derived model inheritance rather than an equivalent restatement of the input. The skeptic's concern that B enters only through T* and α while direct plasma effects (c_s, κ, v_b) are not modeled is a limitation/completeness issue, not circularity. Self-citations [58,59] appear only as background and are not load-bearing. No step reduces to its own input by construction, so the score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The free parameters are either model calibrations from prior literature (r0, c, ℓc) or hand-chosen assumptions (τ/H*=10, g*=10, B scan values). The axioms are the holographic modeling assumptions plus the neglect of direct B effects on the GW production templates.

free parameters (6)
  • hard-wall IR cutoff r0 = 3.096 GeV^-1
    Matched to the lowest ρ meson mass (Ref. [62]); controls the confinement scale, phase transition temperature, and free energy in the hard-wall model.
  • soft-wall dilaton parameter c = 0.151 GeV^2
    Linked to the QCD spectrum (Ref. [62]); sets the confinement scale in the soft-wall model and enters the action difference and latent heat.
  • inverse transition duration τ/H* = 10
    Chosen following Ref. [47]; appears linearly/quadratically in the GW amplitude formulae (Eq. 14) and is not varied or justified independently.
  • effective degrees of freedom g* = 10
    Assumed at the phase transition temperature following Refs. [47,50]; sets the normalization of all spectral amplitudes and peak frequencies.
  • magnetic field B scan values = 0.1, 0.4, 0.7 (units not stated)
    Hand-picked scan values. The central trend claim depends on these values, but the paper never states the units/dimension of B or connects them to lattice/astrophysical field strengths.
  • soft-wall regularization scale ℓc = 1.03 GeV^-1
    Taken from Ref. [40] and appears in the soft-wall action difference (Eq. 11); affects the latent heat. The companion constant ℓd is used but never defined.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT duality and bottom-up holography describe QCD confinement-deconfinement
    The entire free-energy calculation rests on the claim that the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton action (Eq. 2) and its boundary terms represent QCD thermodynamics. This is a modeling assumption, not derived from QCD.
  • domain assumption The transition is a first-order Hawking-Page transition between magnetized thermal AdS and black hole phases
    Eqs. (6)-(11) compare the on-shell actions of these two phases; if the transition were a crossover, the bubble/GW machinery would not apply.
  • domain assumption The dilaton does not backreact on the metric in the soft-wall model
    Sec. II explicitly states this assumption ('requires the assumption that the dilaton field φ=cr^2 does not strongly backreact'); if it fails, the soft-wall T_c(B) and latent heat change.
  • ad hoc to paper Standard GW spectral templates apply to a magnetized QCD-scale transition, with B entering only through T* and α
    Eqs. (14)-(17) are B-independent; the magnetic field is assumed to affect the gravitational-wave sources only via the thermodynamic inputs. Direct magnetic effects on sound speed, turbulence, and wall dynamics are not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper T* ≈ Tc (nucleation temperature equals critical temperature)
    Stated in Sec. III as following Refs. [47,50]; supercooling is neglected, which can change both amplitude and peak frequency.
  • ad hoc to paper g* ≈ 10 at the phase transition
    Assumed following Refs. [47,50]; sets the overall normalization and peak frequency of all spectra.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11715 in / 17214 out tokens · 143123 ms · 2026-08-02T17:39:30.777432+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we investigate the generation of gravitational waves (GWs) from a first-order QCD confinement-deconfinement phase transition under external magnetic field from holography. We analyze the GWs spectra across both hard wall and soft wall models for Jouguet detonations and non-runaway scenarios. Our results indicate that increasing the magnetic field shifts the spectral peak to lower frequencies. The predicted GWs signals are potentially detectable by observatories such as IPTA, SKA, BBO and NANOGrav. Decomposing the spectra reveals that sound waves typically dominate the signal around the peak frequency, bubble collisions prevail at spectral extremities, and the contribution from MHD turbulence is significant only for non-runaway bubble scenarios at high frequencies. This work suggests that magnetized QCD phase transitions are viable cosmological sources for observable GW backgrounds, offering a potential pathway to constrain primordial magnetic fields through future PTA observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.21960 by Man-Li Tian, Man-Man Sun, Zhou-Run Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The GWs spectrum produced from the first order QCD phas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The total GWs frequency spectrum produced from the fir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The GWs spectrum produced from the first order QCD phas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The total GWs frequency spectrum produced from the fir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The GWs spectrum produced from the first order QCD phas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The total GWs frequency spectrum produced from the fir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The GWs spectrum produced from the first order QCD phas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The total GWs frequency spectrum produced from the fir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.6, 061102 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 [arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Arzoumanian et al

    Z. Arzoumanian et al. [NANOGrav], Astrophys. J. Lett. 905, no.2, L34 (2020) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd401 [arXiv:2009.04496 [astro -ph.HE]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. [NANOGrav], Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, no.1, L8 (2023) doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/acdac6 [arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. [NANOGrav], Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, no.1, L9 (2023) doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/acda9a [arXiv:2306.16217 [astro-ph.HE]]. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    C. J. Moore, R. H. Cole and C. P. L. Berry, Class. Quant. Gra v. 32, no.1, 015014 (2015) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/1/015014 [arXiv:1408.0740 [g r-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    W. H. Ruan, Z. K. Guo, R. G. Cai and Y. Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. P hys. A 35, no.17, 2050075 (2020) doi:10.1142/S0217751X2050075X [arXiv:1807.0949 5 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    R. G. Cai, Z. Cao, Z. K. Guo, S. J. Wang and T. Yang, Natl. Sci . Rev. 4, no.5, 687-706 (2017) doi:10.1093/nsr/nwx029 [arXiv:1703.00187 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Caprini, M

    C. Caprini, M. Hindmarsh, S. Huber, T. Konstandin, J. Koz aczuk, G. Nardini, J. M. No, A. Petiteau, P. Schwaller and G. Servant, et al. JCAP 04, 001 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2016/04/001 [arXiv:1512.06239 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir, P hys. Rev. Lett. 112, 041301 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.041301 [arXiv:1304 .2433 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.041301 2014

  10. [10]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki and J. M. No, JCAP 04, 003 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/04/003 [arXiv:1809.08242 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Schwaller, Phys

    P. Schwaller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no.18, 181101 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.1811 01 [arXiv:1504.07263 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. E. Shaposhn ikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2887-2890 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.2887 [arXi v:hep-ph/9605288 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  13. [13]

    M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4472-4475 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.4472 [arXiv:hep-lat/9604003 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  14. [14]

    Fodor and S

    Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz, JHEP 04, 050 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/04/050 [arXiv:hep-lat/0402006 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  15. [15]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner and R. Watkins, Phys. Rev. D 45, 4514-4535 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.4514

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.45.4514 1992

  16. [16]

    Kosowsky and M

    A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 47, 4372-4391 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.4372 [arXiv:astro-ph/9211004 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  17. [17]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev . D 49, 2837-2851 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2837 [arXiv:astro-ph/9310044 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  18. [18]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. D 77, 124015 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.124015 [arXiv:0711.2593 [astr o-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.12, 123009 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123009 [arXiv:1504.032 91 [astro-ph.CO]]. 14

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.123009 2015

  20. [20]

    J. T. Giblin and J. B. Mertens, Phys. Rev. D 90, no.2, 023532 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.023532 [arXiv:1405.4005 [astr o-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer and G. Servant, JCAP 12, 024 (2009) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2009/12/024 [arXiv:0909.0622 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  22. [22]

    Kahniashvili, A

    T. Kahniashvili, A. Kosowsky, G. Gogoberidze and Y. Mar avin, Phys. Rev. D 78, 043003 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.043003 [arXiv:0806.029 3 [astro-ph]]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.043003 2008

  23. [23]

    Kisslinger and T

    L. Kisslinger and T. Kahniashvili, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.4, 043006 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.043006 [arXiv:1505.03680 [ast ro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer and X. Siemens, Phys. Rev. D 82, 063511 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.063511 [arXiv:1007.1218 [astr o-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    Anand, U

    S. Anand, U. K. Dey and S. Mohanty, JCAP 03, 018 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2017/03/018 [arXiv:1701.02300 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Z. C. Chen, C. Yuan and Q. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, no.25, 25 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251101 [arXiv:1910.12239 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Grasso and H

    D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, Phys. Rept. 348, 163-266 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370- 1573(00)00110-1 [arXiv:astro-ph/0009061 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  28. [28]

    Subramanian, Rept

    K. Subramanian, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, no.7, 076901 (2016) doi:10.1088/0034- 4885/79/7/076901 [arXiv:1504.02311 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Skokov, A

    V. Skokov, A. Y. Illarionov and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Ph ys. A 24, 5925-5932 (2009) doi:10.1142/S0217751X09047570 [arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl- th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [30]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz , S. Krieg, A. Schafer and K. K. Sz- abo, JHEP 02, 044 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2012)044 [arXiv:1111.49 56 [hep-lat]]

    doi:10.1007/jhep02(2012)044 2012

  31. [31]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz and A. Schafer, Phys. Rev. D 86, 071502 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.071502 [arXiv:1 206.4205 [hep-lat]]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.071502 2012

  32. [32]

    E. M. Ilgenfritz, M. Muller-Preussker, B. Petersson an d A. Schreiber, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.5, 054512 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.054512 [arXiv:13 10.7876 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.054512 2014

  33. [33]

    V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Re v. Lett. 73, 3499-3502 (1994) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1005 (1996)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.3499 [arXiv:h ep- ph/9405262 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1994

  34. [34]

    V. A. Miransky and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rev. D 66, 045006 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.045006 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205348 [hep-ph]]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  35. [35]

    Gatto and M

    R. Gatto and M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D 83, 034016 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.034016 [arXiv:1012.1291 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [36]

    Preis, A

    F. Preis, A. Rebhan and A. Schmitt, JHEP 03, 033 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2011)033 [arXiv:1012.4785 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  37. [37]

    D’Elia and F

    M. D’Elia and F. Negro, Phys. Rev. D 83, 114028 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.114028 [arXiv:1103.2080 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    Fukushima and J

    K. Fukushima and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D 86, 076013 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.076013 [arXiv:1203.4330 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  39. [39]

    R. L. S. Farias, K. P. Gomes, G. I. Krein and M. B. Pinto, Ph ys. Rev. C 90, no.2, 025203 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.025203 [arXiv:1404.393 1 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.90.025203 2014

  40. [40]

    Dudal, D

    D. Dudal, D. R. Granado and T. G. Mertens, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.12, 125004 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.125004 [arXiv:1511.04042 [hep -th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    K. A. Mamo, JHEP 05, 121 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2015)121 [arXiv:1501.03 262 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2015)121 2015

  42. [42]

    A. J. Mizher, M. N. Chernodub and E. S. Fraga, Phys. Rev. D 82, 105016 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.105016 [arXiv:1004.2712 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  43. [43]

    K. C. Han, R. J. Fries and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 93, no.4, 045207 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.93.045207 [arXiv:1601.00708 [nuc l-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231-252 (1998) doi:10.1023/A:1026654312961 [arXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  45. [45]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253-291 (1998) doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a2 [arXiv:hep-th/9802150 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  46. [46]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Let t. B 428, 105-114 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00377-3 [arXiv:hep-th/9802 109 [hep-th]]

    doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00377-3 1998

  47. [47]

    Ahmadvand and K

    M. Ahmadvand and K. Bitaghsir Fadafan, Phys. Lett. B 772, 747-751 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.07.039 [arXiv:1703.02801 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    S. L. Li, L. Shao, P. Wu and H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.4, 043510 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.043510 [arXiv:2101.08012 [as tro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Z. C. Chen, S. L. Li, P. Wu and H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.4, 4 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043022 [arXiv:2312.01824 [as tro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Ahmadvand and K

    M. Ahmadvand and K. Bitaghsir Fadafan, Phys. Lett. B 779, 1-8 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.066 [arXiv:1707.05068 [hep-th]]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Rezapour, K

    S. Rezapour, K. Bitaghsir Fadafan and M. Ahmadvand, Ann als Phys. 437, 168731 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2021.168731 [arXiv:2006.04265 [hep- th]]

    arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Rezapour, K

    S. Rezapour, K. Bitaghsir Fadafan and M. Ahmadvand, Phy s. Scripta 97, no.3, 035301 (2022) doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ac4f03

    work page doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ac4f03 2022

  53. [53]

    Y. Chen, M. Huang and Q. S. Yan, JHEP 05, 178 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)178 [arXiv:1712.03470 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    F. R. Ares, M. Hindmarsh, C. Hoyos and N. Jokela, JHEP 21, 100 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2021)100 [arXiv:2011.12878 [hep-th ]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    R. G. Cai, S. He, L. Li and Y. X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.12, L121902 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L121902 [arXiv:2201.02004 [h ep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    S. He, L. Li, Z. Li and S. J. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. As tron. 67, no.4, 240411 (2024) doi:10.1007/s11433-023-2293-2 [arXiv:2210.14094 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Y. Chen, D. Li and M. Huang, JHEP 07, 225 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)225 [arXiv:2212.06591 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Z. R. Zhu, J. Chen and D. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, no.6, 104 (2022) doi:10.1140/epja/s10050- 022-00754-2 [arXiv:2109.09933 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Z. Zhu, M. Sun, R. Zhou, J. Han and D. Hou, Universe 10, no.5, 224 (2024) doi:10.3390/universe10050224

    work page doi:10.3390/universe10050224 2024

  60. [60]

    D’Hoker and P

    E. D’Hoker and P. Kraus, JHEP 10, 088 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/10/088 [arXiv:0908.3875 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  61. [61]

    D’Hoker and P

    E. D’Hoker and P. Kraus, JHEP 03, 095 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2010)095 [arXiv:0911.4518 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  62. [62]

    C. P. Herzog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 091601 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.091601 [arXiv:hep-th/0608151 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  63. [63]

    S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin, JCAP 09, 022 (2008) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/09/022 [arXiv:0806.1828 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  64. [64]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.2, 024009 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024009 [arXiv:1605.01403 [ast ro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [65]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.10, 103520 (2017) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 101, no.8, 089902 (2020)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103520 [arXiv:1704.05871 [astro-ph.CO]]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    Binetruy, A

    P. Binetruy, A. Bohe, C. Caprini and J. F. Dufaux, JCAP 06, 027 (2012) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2012/06/027 [arXiv:1201.0983 [gr-qc]]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012