pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28086 · v1 · pith:BQGNBGSKnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · ✦ hep-lat · hep-ph· hep-th· nucl-th

The QCD phase diagram for three-flavor M\"obius domain-wall fermions

Yu Zhang , Yasumichi Aoki , Jishnu Goswami , Shoji Hashimoto , Issaku Kanamori , Takashi Kaneko , Yoshifumi Nakamura This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 01:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-lat hep-phhep-thnucl-th
keywords QCD phase diagramthree flavor QCDdomain-wall fermionsphase transitioncrossoverfinite size scalinglattice QCDchiral condensate
0
0 comments X

The pith

Lattice QCD simulations with Möbius domain-wall fermions indicate a continuous crossover for the three-flavor phase transition at the examined quark masses.

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

The paper examines the nature of the QCD phase transition with three degenerate quark flavors at zero chemical potential using lattice simulations. Möbius domain-wall fermions are employed to maintain good chiral symmetry properties while varying quark masses and lattice volumes at fixed spacing. Analysis of plaquette and chiral susceptibilities, along with the Binder cumulant, shows negligible volume dependence at higher temperatures and scaling inconsistent with first- or second-order transitions at lower temperatures. This leads to the conclusion that the transition is a smooth crossover rather than a sharp phase change at the studied points. Such findings help clarify the structure of the QCD phase diagram relevant to heavy ion collisions and cosmology.

Core claim

At fixed lattice spacing a ≈ 0.136 fm, corresponding to temperatures 242, 181 and 121 MeV for Nt = 6, 8 and 12, the pseudocritical quark masses are determined to be 184(10) MeV, 36-39 MeV and 3.5-3.7 MeV in the MSbar scheme. The volume dependence of key observables remains weak, and finite-size scaling at Nt=12 shows growth much slower than expected for a true phase transition, establishing that the transition is a continuous crossover at these mass values.

What carries the argument

Finite-size scaling analysis of the Binder cumulant and chiral susceptibilities on volumes with aspect ratios Ns/Nt = 2 to 4.

If this is right

  • The transition is a crossover at quark masses as low as a few MeV.
  • Residual chiral symmetry breaking effects from finite Ls do not change the crossover nature.
  • The pseudocritical masses decrease rapidly with decreasing temperature.
  • No first-order transition is observed in the simulated regime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar behavior may hold for physical non-degenerate quark masses.
  • These results constrain the location of any critical endpoint at finite density.
  • Simulations at still larger volumes would further test the scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The spatial volumes used are sufficient to reveal the expected scaling signatures of a first- or second-order transition if one were present.

What would settle it

If the Binder cumulant or susceptibilities at Nt=12 exhibited the volume scaling characteristic of a second-order transition when larger volumes are simulated, that would contradict the crossover interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28086 by Issaku Kanamori, Jishnu Goswami, Shoji Hashimoto, Takashi Kaneko, Yasumichi Aoki, Yoshifumi Nakamura, Yu Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The residual mass as a function of the bare input quark mass for zero-temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The residual mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left: The multiplicatively renormalized chiral condensate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The pion mass squared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Left: The plaquette expectation value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Left: The multiplicatively renormalized chiral condensate on finite-temperature lattices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig. 7, but for finite-temperature ensembles with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The multiplicatively renormalized chiral condensate (left) and the additively and multi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The renormalized subtracted chiral condensate for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The renormalized disconnected chiral susceptibility (Left) and the multiplicatively renor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The renormalized disconnected chiral susceptibility (Left) and total susceptibility (Right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Left: logarithm of the peak height of the total chiral susceptibility as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Probability-density histograms of the chiral condensate, multiplicatively renormalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Binder cumulant of the chiral condensate as a function of the renormalized quark mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The Binder cumulant as a function of the renormalized quark mass for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Numerical verification of the integrated axial Ward–Takahashi identity as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. The reweighting factors for the rational function reweighting on the 36 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Comparison of the chiral condensate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Residual mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. The pion screening mass as a function of the renormalized quark mass for all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_22.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the phase transition of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) with three degenerate quark flavors at zero baryon chemical potential. Using M\"{o}bius domain-wall fermions as the lattice fermion formulation, we ensure excellent chiral symmetry preservation. Our simulations are performed at three different temporal lattice extents, $N_{t}=6, 8, 12$, with a fixed lattice spacing $a=0.1361(20)$ fm, corresponding to temperatures of 242(4), 181(3), and 121(2) MeV, respectively. We explore a range of quark masses and spatial volumes with aspect ratios $N_{s}/N_{t}$ spanning from 2 to 4. By analyzing the mass and volume dependencies of the plaquette, plaquette susceptibility, chiral condensate, chiral susceptibilities, and Binder cumulant, we identify the pseudocritical transition quark masses from our largest lattice volumes. For $N_t=6$, this is 184(10) MeV (determined from the plaquette susceptibility). For $N_t=8$ and 12, the transition points vary slightly depending on whether the total or disconnected chiral susceptibility is used, yielding ranges of 36(1)-39.1(9) MeV and 3.5(3)-3.7(2) MeV, respectively, in the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ scheme at a scale of $\mu=2$ GeV. The negligible volume dependence at $N_t=6$ and 8, combined with finite-size scaling analysis at $N_t=12$ revealing volume growth significantly weaker than expected for a first- or second-order phase transition, points to a continuous crossover at these specific quark mass points. Additionally, we study the effects of residual chiral symmetry breaking on the chiral condensate and chiral susceptibilities using two different values of $L_s$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper simulates three-flavor QCD with Möbius domain-wall fermions at fixed a=0.1361(20) fm for Nt=6,8,12 (T=242,181,121 MeV), using volumes with Ns/Nt=2–4. It extracts pseudocritical quark masses from plaquette and chiral susceptibilities (184(10) MeV at Nt=6; 36–39 MeV at Nt=8; 3.5–3.7 MeV at Nt=12 in MSbar at 2 GeV) and concludes the transition is a continuous crossover on the basis of negligible volume dependence at Nt=6,8 plus finite-size scaling at Nt=12 that shows volume growth weaker than expected for first- or second-order transitions. Residual chiral symmetry breaking is also examined via two values of Ls.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work supplies lattice evidence on the order of the three-flavor transition at these masses using a formulation with controlled chiral symmetry. Standard observables (plaquette susceptibility, disconnected/total chiral susceptibilities, Binder cumulant) are employed with reported error bars and finite-size scaling, which are positive features for a numerical study.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results paragraphs on volume dependence: the claim that finite-size scaling at Nt=12 reveals volume growth 'significantly weaker than expected for a first- or second-order phase transition' rests on Ns/Nt ratios of only 2–4 (largest L=48). No independent estimate of the correlation length ξ is provided, so it remains possible that ξ is already comparable to L near the quoted masses (3.5–3.7 MeV). In that regime both susceptibility peaks and Binder cumulants can appear crossover-like even for a weak first-order transition once finite-volume rounding is taken into account. An explicit consistency check against the first-order scaling limit (peak height ~V, Binder dip depth growing with V) after finite-volume corrections would be required to make the conclusion load-bearing.
  2. [Results paragraphs on volume dependence] Results paragraphs on volume dependence (Nt=6 and Nt=8): the statement of 'negligible volume dependence' is used to support the crossover interpretation, but the same limitation on aspect ratio (Ns/Nt≤4) applies; without an estimate of ξ/L the observed flatness cannot yet be taken as decisive evidence against a weak first-order scenario.
minor comments (2)
  1. The distinction between total and disconnected chiral susceptibilities is used to quote ranges of pseudocritical masses at Nt=8 and 12; the precise definitions and any fitting procedures (including autocorrelation handling) should be stated explicitly in the methods or results section for reproducibility.
  2. The study of residual chiral symmetry breaking via two Ls values is mentioned but its quantitative impact on the extracted susceptibilities and Binder cumulant is not shown in detail; a short table or figure comparing the two Ls would clarify whether this affects the crossover conclusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address the concerns regarding finite-size scaling and volume dependence below, providing clarifications based on our analysis while acknowledging limitations in the current data.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results paragraphs on volume dependence: the claim that finite-size scaling at Nt=12 reveals volume growth 'significantly weaker than expected for a first- or second-order phase transition' rests on Ns/Nt ratios of only 2–4 (largest L=48). No independent estimate of the correlation length ξ is provided, so it remains possible that ξ is already comparable to L near the quoted masses (3.5–3.7 MeV). In that regime both susceptibility peaks and Binder cumulants can appear crossover-like even for a weak first-order transition once finite-volume rounding is taken into account. An explicit consistency check against the first-order scaling limit (peak height ~V, Binder dip depth growing with V) after finite-volume corrections would be required to make the conclusion load-bearing.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out the constraints of our aspect ratios (Ns/Nt ≤ 4) and the absence of an independent ξ estimate. Our finite-size scaling at Nt=12 shows susceptibility peak heights increasing far more slowly than linearly with volume, and the Binder cumulant exhibits no volume-dependent deepening of a minimum, which would be required for even a weak first-order transition. These observations across plaquette and chiral observables are inconsistent with first-order scaling expectations even after accounting for possible finite-volume effects. While we agree an explicit ξ/L estimate would strengthen the argument, the multi-observable consistency at the largest volumes supports the crossover conclusion. We will add a dedicated paragraph in the revised manuscript discussing this limitation and why the observed scaling remains incompatible with first-order behavior. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results paragraphs on volume dependence] Results paragraphs on volume dependence (Nt=6 and Nt=8): the statement of 'negligible volume dependence' is used to support the crossover interpretation, but the same limitation on aspect ratio (Ns/Nt≤4) applies; without an estimate of ξ/L the observed flatness cannot yet be taken as decisive evidence against a weak first-order scenario.

    Authors: For Nt=6 and Nt=8 the observed volume independence of the susceptibility peaks and Binder cumulant holds across the full range of available aspect ratios. Although we concur that an ξ/L estimate would allow a more quantitative statement, the lack of any detectable volume growth—combined with the stronger finite-size scaling results at Nt=12—collectively indicates that the transition remains in the crossover regime at these quark masses. We will expand the discussion in the revised manuscript to explicitly note the aspect-ratio limitation and its implications for interpreting the volume independence at these coarser lattices. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely numerical lattice results

full rationale

The paper reports direct lattice QCD simulations with Möbius domain-wall fermions at fixed a=0.1361 fm and varying Nt=6,8,12. Conclusions on crossover vs. transition rest on measured volume dependence of plaquette susceptibility, chiral susceptibilities, and Binder cumulant (abstract and results sections). No equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation chains justify uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. Finite-size scaling is applied to the simulation data itself; the analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard lattice QCD regularization assumptions and the validity of finite-size scaling for distinguishing transition orders; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • pseudocritical quark mass
    Determined from peaks in plaquette and chiral susceptibilities; values are extracted from simulation data rather than predicted a priori.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Möbius domain-wall fermions provide sufficiently small residual chiral symmetry breaking for the observables studied
    Invoked when interpreting chiral condensate and susceptibilities; checked with two Ls values but not proven zero.
  • domain assumption Finite-size scaling of Binder cumulant and susceptibilities can reliably distinguish crossover from first- or second-order transitions on the volumes used
    Central to the crossover conclusion at Nt=12.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5915 in / 1595 out tokens · 53723 ms · 2026-06-29T01:51:06.776443+00:00 · methodology

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

95 extracted references · 43 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The residual mass To quantify the residual chiral symmetry breaking of M¨ obius domain-wall fermions with finiteL s, we measurem res using the ratioR(t) in Eq. (3). The correlation functions are computed using aZ 2 wall source. The ratioR(t) is shown in Fig. 1 for the zero-temperature 243 ×48×16 ensembles atβ= 4.0 with several different quark masses. In t...

  2. [2]

    Chiral condensate The left panel of Fig. 4 shows the chiral condensate⟨ ¯ψψ⟩, renormalized in the MS scheme atµ= 2 GeV, as a function of the renormalized quark mass mR ≡(m q +m res)MS(µ= 2 GeV) =Z MS m (µ= 2 GeV) (m q +m res) forβ= 4.0,4.1, and 4.17, with dashed lines showing quadratic fits. Even after multiplica- tive renormalization, the chiral condensa...

  3. [3]

    Plaquette and plaquette susceptibility We utilize the plaquette expectation value⟨P⟩and its susceptibilityχ P to determine the transition point. These quantities are defined as follows: ⟨P⟩= 1 6N 3 s Nt X ⃗ x,t X µ<ν 1− 1 3Re TrUµν(⃗ x, t) ,(29) χP =N 3 s Nt ⟨P 2⟩ − ⟨P⟩ 2 .(30) Figure 6 shows the plaquette and its susceptibility plotted as a function of t...

  4. [4]

    7 depicts the multiplicatively renormalized chiral condensate ⟨ ¯ψψ⟩MS(µ= 2 GeV), without subtracting the additive divergence, as a function of the renormalized quark mass

    Chiral condensate The left panel of Fig. 7 depicts the multiplicatively renormalized chiral condensate ⟨ ¯ψψ⟩MS(µ= 2 GeV), without subtracting the additive divergence, as a function of the renormalized quark mass. The data are obtained on zero-temperature lattices and finite- temperature lattices withN t = 8, both atβ= 4.0, where the finite-temperature la...

  5. [5]

    This allows us to estimate the fluctuations of the chiral condensate—in other words, the disconnected chiral susceptibility—in an unbiased way

    Chiral susceptibility On our finite-temperature lattices, we calculate the chiral condensate using 10 stochastic noise vectors for each gauge configuration. This allows us to estimate the fluctuations of the chiral condensate—in other words, the disconnected chiral susceptibility—in an unbiased way. The left and right panels of Fig. 12 show the renormaliz...

  6. [6]

    Due to limited computational resources, we simulated only two mass points for 48 3 ×12×16 lattices, positioned near the transition region

    Quark mass reweighting Generating gauge configurations with M¨ obius domain-wall fermions is computationally expensive for large volumes and light quark masses. Due to limited computational resources, we simulated only two mass points for 48 3 ×12×16 lattices, positioned near the transition region. To precisely locate the transition point, additional mass...

  7. [7]

    Strong-interaction matter under extreme conditions

    Binder cumulant Examining the distribution of the chiral condensate provides additional evidence for the nature of the phase transition. For example, if the transition were first-order, one would expect the histogram of the chiral condensate to develop a double-peak structure at the transition point. In Fig. 15, we show normalized histograms of the chiral...

    2063

  8. [8]

    Rational approximation For simplicity, we illustrate the reweighting of the rational functions for the case of a single flavor of domain-wall fermions. The pseudofermion action for one flavor, approximated by a rational function, reads Spf =ϕ †D(1)1/4D(mq)−1/2D(1)1/4ϕ(C1) ≈ϕ † a0 + X i ai D(1) +b i ! ˜a0 + X i ˜ai D(mq) + ˜bi ! a0 + X i ai D(1) +b i ! ϕ ,...

  9. [9]

    Reweighting to correct the rational function For 363 ×12×16 runs, it turned out that the number of terms for the rational function is not large enough. The following numbers come from a run for 36 3 ×12×16 configurations with 12 poles for the rational functions: •the errors are 1.387188049647018×10 −6 (x1/2 andx −1/2), and 9.662807343093718× 10−7 (x1/4 an...

  10. [10]

    19 shows the reweighting factors for configurations generated with the earlier version of Grid

    Results Fig. 19 shows the reweighting factors for configurations generated with the earlier version of Grid. Their stability throughout the Monte Carlo history indicates that the reweighting can be safely applied. We can also estimate the magnitude of the reweighting factors. By 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 reweight factor 363 × 12 ×...

    2000

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, Nature443, 675 (2006)

    2006

  13. [13]

    Bazavov, T

    A. Bazavov, T. Bhattacharya, M. Cheng, C. DeTar, H. Ding,et al., Phys.Rev.D85, 054503 (2012), arXiv:1111.1710 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Bhattacharyaet al., Phys

    T. Bhattacharyaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 082001 (2014), arXiv:1402.5175 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Phys

    A. Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Phys. Lett. B795, 15 (2019), arXiv:1812.08235 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, R. Kara, S. D. Katz, P. Parotto, A. Pasztor, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 052001 (2020), arXiv:2002.02821 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

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

    1984

  18. [18]

    Butti, A

    A. Butti, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, JHEP08, 029 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0307036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  19. [19]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Phys. Rev. D88, 105018 (2013), arXiv:1309.5446 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [20]

    Grahl, Phys

    M. Grahl, Phys. Rev.D90, 117904 (2014), arXiv:1410.0985 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    H. Ohno, U. Heller, F. Karsch, and S. Mukherjee, PoSLA TTICE2012, 095 (2012), arXiv:1211.2591 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Phys

    A. Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D86, 094503 (2012), arXiv:1205.3535 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  23. [23]

    Cossu, S

    G. Cossu, S. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko,et al., Phys.Rev.D87, 114514 (2013), arXiv:1304.6145 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    Chiu, W.-P

    T.-W. Chiu, W.-P. Chen, Y.-C. Chen, H.-Y. Chou, and T.-H. Hsieh (TWQCD), PoSLA T- TICE2013, 165 (2014), arXiv:1311.6220 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    V. Dick, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, S. Mukherjee, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev.D91, 094504 (2015), arXiv:1502.06190 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Tomiya, G

    A. Tomiya, G. Cossu, S. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, and J. Noaki, Phys. Rev. D96, 034509 (2017), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 079902 (2017)], arXiv:1612.01908 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    B. B. Brandt, A. Francis, H. B. Meyer, O. Philipsen, D. Robaina, and H. Wittig, JHEP12, 158 (2016), arXiv:1608.06882 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    H.-T. Ding, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, S.-T. Li, S. Mukherjee, A. Tomiya, and Y. Zhang, PoSLA TTICE2019, 251 (2020), arXiv:2001.05217 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    S. Aoki, Y. Aoki, G. Cossu, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, C. Rohrhofer, and K. Suzuki 49 (JLQCD), Phys. Rev. D103, 074506 (2021), arXiv:2011.01499 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Suzuki, S

    K. Suzuki, S. Aoki, Y. Aoki, G. Cossu, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, and C. Rohrhofer (JLQCD), in37th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2019) Wuhan, Hubei, China, June 16-22, 2019(2020) arXiv:2001.07962 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    S. Aoki, Y. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, C. Rohrhofer, and K. Suzuki (JLQCD), PTEP 2022, 023B05 (2022), arXiv:2103.05954 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Kaczmarek, L

    O. Kaczmarek, L. Mazur, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D104, 094518 (2021), arXiv:2102.06136 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    H. T. Dinget al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 062002 (2019), arXiv:1903.04801 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    A. Y. Kotov, M. P. Lombardo, and A. Trunin, Phys. Lett. B823, 136749 (2021), arXiv:2105.09842 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    H. T. Ding, S. T. Li, S. Mukherjee, A. Tomiya, X. D. Wang, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 082001 (2021), arXiv:2010.14836 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Kaczmarek, R

    O. Kaczmarek, R. Shanker, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D108, 094501 (2023), arXiv:2301.11610 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    S. Aoki, Y. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, I. Kanamori, T. Kaneko, Y. Nakamura, C. Rohrhofer, K. Suzuki, and D. Ward (JLQCD), PoSLA TTICE2023, 185 (2024), arXiv:2401.14022 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Fodor and S

    Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz, JHEP03, 014 (2002), arXiv:hep-lat/0106002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  39. [39]

    Fodor and S

    Z. Fodor and S. Katz, JHEP0404, 050 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0402006 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  40. [40]

    de Forcrand and O

    P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, JHEP01, 077 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0607017 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  41. [41]

    Datta, R

    S. Datta, R. V. Gavai, and S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D95, 054512 (2017), arXiv:1612.06673 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Bazavovet al., Phys

    A. Bazavovet al., Phys. Rev. D95, 054504 (2017), arXiv:1701.04325 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Phys

    A. Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D96, 074510 (2017), arXiv:1708.04897 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Phys

    M. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 202301 (2023), arXiv:2209.08058 [nucl- ex]

    arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Resch, F

    S. Resch, F. Rennecke, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D99, 076005 (2019), arXiv:1712.07961 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Fejos, Phys

    G. Fejos, Phys. Rev. D105, L071506 (2022), arXiv:2201.07909 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Fejos and T

    G. Fejos and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. D110, 016021 (2024), arXiv:2404.00554 [hep-ph]. 50

    arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    S. R. Kousvos and A. Stergiou, SciPost Phys.15, 075 (2023), arXiv:2209.02837 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    R. D. Pisarski and F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 251903 (2024), arXiv:2401.06130 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Giacosa, G

    F. Giacosa, G. Kov´ acs, P. Kov´ acs, R. D. Pisarski, and F. Rennecke, Phys. Rev. D111, 016014 (2025), arXiv:2410.08185 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Bernhardt and C

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

    arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Aokiet al.(JLQCD), Nucl

    S. Aokiet al.(JLQCD), Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.73, 459 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9809102

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  53. [53]

    Liao,Lattice field theory

    X. Liao,Lattice field theory. Proceedings, 19th International Symposium, Lattice 2001, Berlin, Germany, August 19-24, 2001, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.106, 426 (2002), arXiv:hep- lat/0111013 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2001

  54. [54]

    Karsch, E

    F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and C. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B520, 41 (2001), arXiv:hep- lat/0107020

    arXiv 2001

  55. [55]

    de Forcrand and O

    P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B673, 170 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0307020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  56. [56]

    Iwasaki, K

    Y. Iwasaki, K. Kanaya, S. Sakai, and T. Yoshie, Z. Phys.C71, 337 (1996), arXiv:hep- lat/9504019 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 1996

  57. [57]

    X.-Y. Jin, Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, S. Takeda, and A. Ukawa, Phys. Rev. D91, 014508 (2015), arXiv:1411.7461 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  58. [58]

    Karsch, C

    F. Karsch, C. Allton, S. Ejiri, S. Hands, O. Kaczmarek,et al., Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl.129, 614 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0309116 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  59. [59]

    de Forcrand, S

    P. de Forcrand, S. Kim, and O. Philipsen, PoSLA TTICE2007, 178 (2007), arXiv:0711.0262 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  60. [60]

    Endrodi, Z

    G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, PoSLA TTICE2007, 182 (2007), arXiv:0710.0998 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  61. [61]

    H.-T. Ding, A. Bazavov, P. Hegde, F. Karsch, S. Mukherjee,et al., PoSLA TTICE2011, 191 (2011), arXiv:1111.0185 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  62. [62]

    Varnhorst, PoSLA TTICE2014, 193 (2015)

    L. Varnhorst, PoSLA TTICE2014, 193 (2015)

    2015

  63. [63]

    Bazavov, H

    A. Bazavov, H. T. Ding, P. Hegde, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, and C. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D95, 074505 (2017), arXiv:1701.03548 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    X.-Y. Jin, Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, S. Takeda, and A. Ukawa, Phys. Rev. D96, 034523 (2017), arXiv:1706.01178 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [65]

    Kuramashi, Y

    Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, H. Ohno, and S. Takeda, Phys. Rev. D101, 054509 (2020), 51 arXiv:2001.04398 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    de Forcrand and M

    P. de Forcrand and M. D’Elia,Proceedings, 34th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2016): Southampton, UK, July 24-30, 2016, PoSLA TTICE2016, 081 (2017), arXiv:1702.00330 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    H. Ohno, Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, and S. Takeda, PoSLA TTICE2018, 174 (2018), arXiv:1812.01318 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2018

  68. [68]

    Cuteri, O

    F. Cuteri, O. Philipsen, and A. Sciarra, JHEP11, 141 (2021), arXiv:2107.12739 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    L. Dini, P. Hegde, F. Karsch, A. Lahiri, C. Schmidt, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D105, 034510 (2022), arXiv:2111.12599 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2022

  70. [70]

    R. C. Brower, H. Neff, and K. Orginos, Comput. Phys. Commun.220, 1 (2017), arXiv:1206.5214 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  71. [71]

    Nakamura, Y

    Y. Nakamura, Y. Aoki, S. Hashimoto, I. Kanamori, T. Kaneko, and Y. Zhang, PoSLA T- TICE2021, 080 (2022)

    2022

  72. [72]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Aoki, S. Hashimoto, I. Kanamori, T. Kaneko, and Y. Nakamura, PoSLA T- TICE2022, 197 (2023), arXiv:2212.10021 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Aoki, S. Hashimoto, I. Kanamori, T. Kaneko, and Y. Nakamura, PoSLA T- TICE2023, 203 (2024), arXiv:2401.05066 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Aoki, S. Hashimoto, I. Kanamori, T. Kaneko, and Y. Nakamura, in41st International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory(2025) arXiv:2501.15494 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    D. J. Antonioet al.(RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D75, 114501 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0612005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  76. [76]

    Alltonet al.(RBC, UKQCD), Phys

    C. Alltonet al.(RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D76, 014504 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0701013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  77. [77]

    S. R. Sharpe, inWorkshop on Domain Wall Fermions at Ten Years(2007) arXiv:0706.0218 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  78. [78]

    K. G. Chetyrkin and A. Retey, Nucl. Phys. B583, 3 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9910332

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  79. [79]

    Binder, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter43, 119 (1981)

    K. Binder, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter43, 119 (1981)

    1981

  80. [80]

    de Forcrand and B

    P. de Forcrand and B. Jager,Proceedings, 35th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2017): Granada, Spain, June 18-24, 2017, EPJ Web Conf.175, 14022 (2018), arXiv:1710.07305 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.