Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Temperature fluctuations in a realistic Polyakov-loop extended Nambu--Jona-Lasinio Model along the freeze-out line

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the second-order temperature cumulant C2 in a realistic PNJL model develops a dip near the QCD critical endpoint, and along the freeze-out line this dip sits at about 7.7 GeV, matching STAR's observed non-monotonic CpT

desk verdict A transparent PNJL calculation of temperature cumulants along the freeze-out line; the 7.7 GeV dip is suggestive but the CpT≈√C2 bridge is assumed, not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19275 v1 pith:EMSAFPBJ submitted 2026-07-21 nucl-th nucl-ex

He Liu , Peng Wu , Hong-Ming Liu , Peng-Cheng Chu This is my paper
classification nucl-thnucl-ex PACS 21.65.-f21.30.Fe51.20.+d
keywords PNJLmodeltemperaturefluctuationscriticalendpointfreeze-outlinetransversemomentumcorrelationsBES-IIcumulantratioschiralphasetransition
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 authors reparameterize a 2+1-flavor Polyakov-loop extended Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (PNJL) model to reproduce lattice QCD thermodynamics at zero density and to place the critical endpoint (CEP) inside the RHIC Beam Energy Scan II collision-energy range. Applying a recently derived formalism for temperature fluctuations, they compute the second-order cumulant C2 (the inverse dimensionless heat capacity) throughout the phase diagram and along the experimentally extracted chemical freeze-out lines. The central result is that C2 develops a dip in the chiral transition region, deepest near the CEP and first-order boundary, and along the freeze-out lines this dip reaches a minimum around √sNN = 7.7 GeV, with a trend matching the non-monotonic two-particle transverse-momentum correlation reported by STAR. The authors interpret this as evidence that the observed pT dip is associated with the QCD critical endpoint, and they further predict that dimensionless cumulant ratios such as C3/C2^2 and C4/C2^3 show strong non-monotonic peaks near the same energy, which would be less contaminated by initial volume fluctuations.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the thermodynamic temperature-fluctuation formalism of Ref. [10], which defines dimensionless cumulants Cn from derivatives of pressure with respect to temperature, scaled by a fixed volume T^{-3}. For n=2 this reduces to C2 = T^2(∂s/∂T)^{-1}, the inverse of the dimensionless heat capacity. This cumulant is evaluated in a realistic 3-flavor PNJL model whose Lagrangian adds two eight-quark interactions (matching lattice QCD at µB=0) and a scalar-vector coupling (which moves the CEP toward higher T and lower µB, positioning it near the BES-II window). The same machinery produces higher-order cumulants C3–C6 and their ratios Rn2 = Cn/C2^{n-1}, which the paper propo

What would settle it

Measure the fourth-order mean-transverse-momentum cumulant ratio C4/C2^3 in central Au+Au collisions near 7.7 GeV. The model predicts a strong non-monotonic peak (or dip) at that energy, with the peak magnitude growing as the freeze-out line approaches the CEP. If the measured ratio shows no such structure or appears at a different energy, the paper's claim that the CpT dip is associated with the critical endpoint is falsified. Alternatively, a full hydro/transport simulation that includes both critical fluctuations and realistic volume fluctuations could determine whether the modelled C2 dip

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the equilibrium second-order temperature cumulant C2, defined as T^2(∂s/∂T)^{-1} and hence the inverse of the dimensionless heat capacity, is non-monotonic as a function of collision energy along the chemical freeze-out line. A sharp dip appears when the freeze-out curve crosses the chiral phase transition region, and the dip minimum occurs near √sNN ≈ 7.7 GeV. In the model the dip deepens as the freeze-out line approaches the CEP, and the authors show that all three choices of the scalar-vector coupling GSV yield a dip at the same energy, following the trend of the STAR CpT measurement. Thus the paper concludes that the experimentally observed non-monotonic

Load-bearing premise

The entire connection to experiment rests on the assumption that the measured two-particle transverse-momentum correlation CpT is essentially the square root of the second-order temperature cumulant C2, meaning event-by-event mean-pT fluctuations are dominated by equilibrium thermal temperature fluctuations while volume is fixed at T^{-3}; in reality, volume fluctuations and non-thermal contributions (e.g., resonance decays, meson–baryon mixing) are non-negligible, especially

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, the STAR CpT dip at 7.7 GeV is a thermodynamic, equilibrium signature of the QCD critical region rather than a hadronic-mixing effect.
  • The depth of the C2 dip tracks the distance between the freeze-out line and the CEP; a dip at a different energy would indicate a shifted CEP position.
  • Higher-order cumulant ratios C3/C2^2 and C4/C2^3 are predicted to show pronounced non-monotonic peaks near the same energy, offering a testable, volume-fluctuation-insensitive observable for BES-II.
  • The first-order phase boundary also produces a dip in C2, so a freeze-out line crossing that boundary would yield a similar signature, not uniquely tied to the CEP.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A sharper test of the CEP interpretation would be to compute C2 with explicit event-by-event volume fluctuations from a realistic multiplicity distribution; if the dip survives, the interpretation is robust, and if it is smeared out, the STAR dip could be largely kinematic.
  • The same formalism could be extended to other freeze-out parameterizations; different fits (e.g., older BES-I based lines) predict the dip at a different energy, so pinning the freeze-out line shape is as important as the CEP location.
  • Because the model treats quarks with a symmetric chemical potential, predictions for higher-order ⟨pT⟩ cumulants could be checked against the momentum-space correlations of identified particles, where meson–baryon mixing effects can be separated.
  • If C4/C2^3 is measured at 7.7 GeV and shows the predicted peak, this would disfavour non-critical explanations; conversely, a null result would challenge the CEP association even though CpT itself shows a dip.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends a 3-flavor Polyakov-loop extended Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (PNJL) model by including two eight-quark interactions and a scalar-vector interaction. The scalar-vector coupling G_SV is tuned to place the QCD critical endpoint (CEP) in the baryon-chemical-potential range probed by the BES-II program. Using this 'realistic' PNJL setup, the authors compute the second-order temperature cumulant C2 along two recently proposed freeze-out parameterizations. They find that C2 develops a dip when the freeze-out line passes near the chiral transition boundary, with the minimum near sqrt(s_NN)=7.7 GeV for G_SV=-300 Lambda^-8. They identify this dip with the STAR CpT non-monotonicity and further predict strong non-monotonicities in higher-order cumulants C3-C6 and in the ratios R32=C3/C2^2, R42=C4/C2^3.

Significance. If the identification C2 ~ CpT^2 were established, the paper would provide a concrete equilibrium mean-field explanation of the STAR low-energy CpT dip and would yield testable predictions for higher-order event-by-event mean-pT cumulants. The thermodynamic computation is transparent: the model parameters are tabulated, the freeze-out parameterization is explicit, and the relation of C2 to the inverse heat capacity is clearly stated. However, the central experimental comparison rests on an asserted identification between a thermodynamic temperature cumulant and a measured two-particle transverse-momentum correlation, and the model parameter controlling the CEP location is chosen specifically to bring the CEP into the BES-II window. These two issues mean that the agreement near 7.7 GeV is not presently a parameter-free prediction. The qualitative predictions for R32/R42 are interesting and could be valuable if the observable link is made quantitative.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 'Fluctuations of temperature along the freeze-out lines', Eq. (8)] The sentence 'The two-particle transverse momentum correlation CpT measured in STAR experiments can be simply taken as sqrt(C2)' is the load-bearing bridge between the model and the STAR measurement, but it is asserted without derivation or quantitative validation. STAR measures a correlation of per-event transverse momentum fluctuations, while C2 is an equilibrium second-order temperature cumulant computed at fixed volume V=T^-3. The mapping assumes that event-by-event <pT> fluctuations are dominated by thermal temperature fluctuations through a linear T-<pT> relation and that volume fluctuations are negligible. The manuscript itself admits that volume fluctuations are significant at low energies and are not included in Eq. (8). Given that Ref. [12] attributes the same STAR non-monotonicity to meson-baryon mixing without critical physics, the modeled dip near 7.7 GeV need not correspond
  2. [Section 'Theoretical model', Eq. (6) and Fig. 1] G_SV is chosen freely: the text states 'we take only G_SV as a free parameter ... to adjust the CEP position' so that the CEP lies in the BES-II range. Figure 2 then shows that the C2 dip appears when the freeze-out line passes close to the CEP, and the dip deepens as the freeze-out line approaches the CEP. For G_SV=-300 Lambda^-8 the CEP is placed at (mu_B,T)=(447.5,133) MeV, which is precisely the region traversed by the adopted freeze-out line at sqrt(s_NN)~7.7 GeV. Thus the location of the C2 dip is largely a consequence of the chosen G_SV, not an independent prediction of the model. The statement in the Abstract/Conclusions that the results 'suggest that the observed dip in CpT could be associated with the CEP' should be reframed as a conditional statement: if the CEP is located where the tuning places it, then a C2 dip appears near the corresponding energy. A model comparison that
  3. [Fig. 2(b) and Table III] The claimed agreement with STAR is only qualitative. Figure 2(b) does not show the STAR CpT data points, does not define the normalization of CpT relative to sqrt(C2), and does not quantify the depth or width of the dip. The minimum position also appears to depend on whether the upper or lower freeze-out line is used and on G_SV, but no sensitivity analysis is given. Given the substantial model uncertainties (equilibrium mean-field, neglect of volume fluctuations, choice among freeze-out parameterizations), a quantitative estimate of the uncertainty in the dip position is needed before claiming that the model 'follows the trend observed by the STAR experiment.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] References [39] and [43] are the same paper (Andronic et al., Nature 561, 321 (2018)); this duplication should be removed.
  2. [General notation] There are several typographical issues: 'temperature-dependent coeffient' near Eq. (3), 'Eq. 8' should be 'Eq. (8)', and the notation sqrt(s_NN) is typeset inconsistently in the text and figures.
  3. [Introduction, Ref. [12]] The competing explanation of Ref. [12] is cited in the Introduction and mentioned in the Conclusions, but it is not explicitly confronted in the interpretation of Fig. 2. Since that paper directly challenges the critical interpretation of the STAR dip, the authors should explain why the present equilibrium C2 calculation can distinguish their scenario from meson-baryon mixing.
  4. [Fig. 2(b)] For clarity and reproducibility, the STAR CpT data (or a suitable normalized proxy) should be overlaid on the model curves, with the chosen normalization described in the text or caption.
  5. [Section 'Fluctuations of temperature along the freeze-out lines'] The phrase 'the volume is taken as T^-3' is not physically motivated in this context; the authors should at least justify this choice or discuss its impact on the cumulant magnitudes and on the comparison with experiment.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 7.7-GeV dip is partially constructed: GSV is tuned to place the CEP inside the BES-II energy range, and the C2 dip is deepest where that tuned CEP lies near the chosen freeze-out line.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Theoretical model (paragraph after Eq. (6)); Results (Fig. 2(b)); Conclusions]
    "Accordingly, we take only GSV as a free parameter in this work ... varying GSV enables the chiral phase transition region to overlap with the domain probed in heavy-ion collisions. ... a negative GSV enhances the CEP temperature, moving the freeze-out line closer to the CEP and deepening the dip minimum. ... In our realistic PNJL model, the dip occurs around 7.7 GeV and follows the trend observed by STAR experiment. Therefore, our results suggest that the observed dip in CpT could be associated with the CEP."

    The CEP location is an input, not an output: GSV is the only free parameter and is chosen specifically to place the CEP in the BES-II range. The paper states that C2 has a pronounced dip near the CEP and that bringing the freeze-out line closer to the CEP deepens the dip. Hence the reported minimum near 7.7 GeV is the point where the adopted freeze-out line passes near a CEP that was deliberately tuned into that same energy window. The match to STAR's 7.7-GeV dip is therefore partly forced by construction, even though the C2 curve itself is not fitted to STAR data.

full rationale

The paper is not wholly circular: C2 is computed from the PNJL thermodynamics (C2 = T^2 (∂s/∂T)^-1), the model is anchored to lattice QCD at μB=0 (Tc=156.6 MeV), and the freeze-out line is an external fit to STAR particle yields. The dip location along the freeze-out line is controlled by where the model's chiral transition region crosses the empirical freeze-out line, which is not directly fitted to STAR's CpT data. However, the central interpretive claim is weakened by construction: the abstract and model section state that the CEP is positioned within the BES-II energy range by varying GSV, and the paper explicitly says a freeze-out line nearer the CEP yields a stronger/dipper C2 minimum. Thus the agreement at ~7.7 GeV is partly an echo of the chosen CEP location rather than an independent prediction. The paper itself lists the key caveats: the model is equilibrium mean-field, volume fluctuations are significant at low energies and are not in Eq. (8), and Ref. [12] offers a non-critical meson-baryon-mixing explanation of the STAR dip. The additional bridge 'CpT ... can be simply taken as √C2' is assumed, not derived. These caveats make the conclusion suggestive rather than demonstrated. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; the framework of Ref. [10] is external, and self-citations for the LSV effect are corroborated by external Refs. [32,36]. Overall, one central 'prediction' is partially constructed, warranting a 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation is a reparameterized mean-field model. Most inputs are fitted in prior work (Ref. [29]) or fitted to lattice data; the only parameter varied here is G_SV, used to place the CEP in the BES-II range. The 'prediction' of a dip at ~7.7 GeV therefore depends on fitted inputs and an external freeze-out parameterization, and is not a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (4)
  • G_SV (scalar-vector coupling) = -100, -200, -300 Λ^-8
    Only parameter varied in this work; chosen by hand to shift the CEP into the BES-II energy range (text after Eq. 6). Since the CEP position controls where the freeze-out line crosses the phase boundary, it largely sets the location of the C2 dip.
  • Polyakov-loop potential parameters (T0, a0, a1, a2, b3, b4, κ) = 175 MeV, 6.75, -8.1, 0.26, 0.805, 7.555, 0.02
    Fixed from previous fits to lattice QCD crossover temperature and pressure at μB=0 (Table I; Ref. [29]); inherited as inputs.
  • Quark-sector parameters (m_u,d, m_s, Λ, G_S, K, G_1, G_2) = 5.5, 183.468 MeV, 637.720 MeV, G_S Λ^2=2.914, KΛ^5=9.496, G1=2.193e-21 MeV^-8, G2=-5.890e-22 MeV^-8
    Taken from Ref. [29]'s reparameterized PNJL model (Table II); fitted to vacuum and lattice data, not derived here.
  • Freeze-out parameterization upper/lower (a, b, T0, κf2, κf4) = upper: 1027.0 MeV, 0.2143 GeV^-1, 157 MeV, 0.0153, 0.73e-3; lower: 913.9 MeV, 0.1977 GeV^-1, 157 MeV, 0.0153, 1.47e-3
    External fits to STAR freeze-out data from Ref. [40] (Table III); the entire energy dependence of C2 along freeze-out uses this mapping.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Thermodynamic identity Θ = Ω + TS with dΘ = T dS − p dV − N_B dμ_B and C_n = T^{3n−4} ∂^n θ/∂s^n (Eqs. 7–8).
    Adopted from Ref. [10]; provides the definition of temperature cumulants but is not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The PNJL Lagrangian Eq. (1), including eight-quark and scalar-vector terms, is an adequate effective model for QCD thermodynamics.
    The paper uses this model rather than first-principles QCD; all results inherit its model dependence.
  • domain assumption Mean-field and Polyakov-loop background approximations; quantum fluctuations are ignored.
    Stated in the Conclusions; affects all quantitative fluctuation results.
  • domain assumption Symmetric chemical potentials μ_u = μ_d = μ_s = μ_B/3.
    Adopted in the calculations; affects the phase diagram and freeze-out mapping.
  • domain assumption The freeze-out line from Lu et al. (Ref. [40]) correctly describes chemical freeze-out conditions across BES-II.
    Used for Fig. 2(b); if this line is wrong, the dip location changes.
  • domain assumption Measured two-particle transverse momentum correlation CpT corresponds to √C2 under a linear relation between ⟨pT⟩ and effective temperature.
    Stated as 'can be simply taken as √C2'; this is the key bridge between the equilibrium model and experiment.
  • domain assumption Volume is fixed as T^{-3} and initial volume fluctuations are neglected in C_n.
    Equation (8); the authors admit this fails at low energies/low multiplicity.
  • domain assumption CEP position is determined as the intersection of the chiral crossover with the spinodal instability in the T–n_B plane.
    Definition used to locate the CEP in Fig. 1; no independent experimental anchor except the intended BES-II coverage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Temperature fluctuations in a realistic Polyakov-loop extended Nambu--Jona-Lasinio Model along the freeze-out line." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EMSAFPBJ

@misc{pith2026260719275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Temperature fluctuations in a realistic Polyakov-loop extended Nambu--Jona-Lasinio Model along the freeze-out line},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EMSAFPBJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19275}
}
abstract

We extend and reparameterize the Polyakov--Nambu--Jona-Lasinio (PNJL) model to reproduce lattice simulation data at zero baryon chemical potential and to position its critical endpoint (CEP) within the BES-II experimental energy range. Using this realistic PNJL model, we investigate the behavior of the second-order temperature cumulant $C_2$ along the freeze-out line, aiming to understand the non-monotonic energy dependence of the two-particle transverse momentum correlation $C_{p_T}$ observed by the STAR Collaboration. Our results show a distinct dip structure in $C_2$ near the CEP and the first-order phase boundary on the phase diagram. Along the experimentally extracted freeze-out line, the dip minimum occurs around 7.7 GeV, and its trend is consistent with that observed by STAR, suggesting that the non-monotonic dependence of $C_{p_T}$ may be related to the CEP. Our results also indicate that cumulant ratios such as $C_3/C_2^2$ or $C_4/C_2^3$ eliminate the influence of initial volume fluctuations and may better reveal the underlying critical fluctuations. Further verification could be pursued through hydrodynamic or transport simulations that incorporate critical dynamics. These results and predictions might provide an a priori theoretical basis for future experimental measurements of higher-order event-mean transverse momentum fluctuations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19275 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [12]

    Reichert, J

    T. Reichert, J. Steinheimer, and M. Bleicher, Non- monotonicity of pT correlations from meson-baryon mix- ing, arXiv:2606.03294 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  2. [1]

    Bzdak, S

    A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V. Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, and N. Xu, Mapping the phases of quantum chromodynamics with beam energy scan, Phys. Rep. 853, 1 (2020)

    2020

  3. [2]

    J. H. Chen et al. , Properties of the QCD matter: review of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion collider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 214 (2024)

    2024

  4. [3]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. , ￿STAR Collaboration￿Flow and interferometry results from Au+Au collisions at √sN N = 4.5 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 103, 034908 (2021)

    2021

  5. [4]

    B. E. Aboona et al., ￿STAR Collaboration￿Precision Mea- surement of Net-Proton-Number Fluctuations in Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 142301 (2025)

    2025

  6. [5]

    STAR Collaboration, Non-Monotonicity of Transverse Momentum Correlations in Au + Au Collisions at RHIC, arXiv:2604.06434 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  7. [6]

    F. G. Gardim, G. Giacalone, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Olli- trault, Thermodynamics of hot strong-interaction matter from ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions, Nat. Phys. 16, 615 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. , (The CMS Collaboration), Ex- tracting the speed of sound in quark–gluon plasma with ultrarelativistic lead–lead collisions at the LHC, Rep. Prog. Phys. 87, 077801 (2024)

    2024

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. , Imaging shapes of atomic nuclei in high-energy nuclear collisions, Nature 635, 67 (2024)

    2024

  2. [9]

    STAR Collaboration, Imaging nuclear shape through anisotropic and radial flow in high-energy heavy-ion col- lisions, Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 108601 (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    Chen, W.-J

    J. Chen, W.-J. Fu, S. Yin, and C. Zhang, High- order fluctuations of temperature in hot QCD matter, arXiv:2504.06886 (2025) . 7

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    H. Liu, P. Wu, H.-M. Liu, and P.-C. Chu, Fluctuations of Temperature in the Polyakov Loop-Extended Nambu– Jona-Lasinio Model, Universe 12, 37 (2026)

    2026

  5. [13]

    Y. Aoki, G. Endrődi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Sz- abó, The order of the quantum chromodynamics transi- tion predicted by the standard model of particle physics, Nature 443, 675 (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    Gupta, X

    S. Gupta, X. Luo, B. Mohanty, H. G. Ritter, and N. Xu, Scale for the Phase Diagram of Quantum Chromodynam- ics, Science 332, 1525 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. , Chiral and deconfinement aspects of the QCD transition, Phys. Rev. D 85, 054503 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Bazavov et al., Equation of state in (2+1)-flavor QCD, Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Equation of state in (2+1)-flavor QCD, Phys. Rev. D 90, 094503 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Borsányi, Z

    S. Borsányi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, and K. K. Szabó, Full result for the QCD equation of state with 2 + 1 flavors, Phys. Lett. B 730, 99 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Bellwied et al., The QCD phase diagram from analytic continuation, Phys

    R. Bellwied et al., The QCD phase diagram from analytic continuation, Phys. Lett. B 751, 559 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. , Chiral crossover in QCD at zero and non-zero chemical potentials, Phys. Lett. B 795, 15 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Ding et al

    H.-T. Ding et al. , Chiral Phase Transition Temperature in (2+1)-Flavor QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 062002 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Braun, L

    J. Braun, L. M. Haas, F. Marhauser, and J. M. Pawlowski, Phase Structure of Two-Flavor QCD at Fi- nite Chemical Potential, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 022002 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Gao and J

    F. Gao and J. M. Pawlowski, Chiral phase structure and critical end point in QCD, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136584 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    C. S. Fischer, QCD at finite temperature and chemical potential from Dyson–Schwinger equations, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 105, 1 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    W.-J. Fu, J. M. Pawlowski, and F. Rennecke, QCD phase structure at finite temperature and density, Phys. Rev. D 101, 054032 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Braun, W.-J

    J. Braun, W.-J. Fu, J. M. Pawlowski, F. Rennecke, D. Rosenblüh, and S. Yin, Chiral susceptibility in (2+1)- flavor QCD, Phys. Rev. D 102, 056010 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    T. M. Schwarz, S. P. Klevansky, and G. Papp, Phase diagram and bulk thermodynamical quantities in the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model at finite temperature and density, Phys. Rev. C 60, 055205 (1999)

    1999

  19. [27]

    Fukushima, Phase diagrams in the three-flavor Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model with the Polyakov loop, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phase diagrams in the three-flavor Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model with the Polyakov loop, Phys. Rev. D 77, 114028 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    H. Liu, J. Xu, L.-W. Chen, and K.-J. Sun, Isospin prop- erties of quark matter from a 3-flavor NJL model, Phys. Rev. D 94, 065032 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Bhattacharyya, S

    A. Bhattacharyya, S. K. Ghosh, S. Maity, S. Raha, R. Ray, K. Saha, and S. Upadhaya, Reparametrizing the Polyakov–Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model, Phys. Rev. D 95, 054005 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Bhattacharyya, P

    A. Bhattacharyya, P. Deb, S. K. Ghosh, S. Maity, S. Raha, R. Ray, K. Saha, and S. Upadhaya, Finite temper- ature properties of a modified Polyakov–Nambu–Jona- Lasinio model, Phys. Rev. D 102, 074006 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Z. Li, K. Xu, X. Wang, and M. Huang, The kurto- sis of net baryon number fluctuations from a realistic Polyakov–Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model along the experi- mental freeze-out line, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 245 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    K.-J. Sun, C. M. Ko, S. Cao, and F. Li, QCD critical point from the Nambu–Jona-Lasino model with a scalar- vector interaction, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014006 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Y.-H. Yang, H. Liu, and P.-C. Chu, Properties of the phase diagram from the Nambu-Jona-Lasino model with a scalar-vector interaction, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 166 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Liu, K.-J

    H. Liu, K.-J. Sun, and P.-C. Chu, Effects of a first- order QCD phase transition on light nucleus production, arXiv:2412.17621 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    ’t Hooft, Computation of the quantum effects due to a four-dimensional pseudoparticle, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Computation of the quantum effects due to a four-dimensional pseudoparticle, Phys. Rev. D 14, 3432 (1976)

    1976

  28. [36]

    Sun et al

    K.-J. Sun et al. , Spinodal Enhancement of Light Nu- clei Yield Ratio in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions, arXiv:2205.11010 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. , Bulk properties of the medium pro- duced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions from the beam energy scan program, Phys. Rev. C 96, 044904 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Alba et al

    P. Alba et al. , Freeze-out conditions from net-proton and net-charge fluctuations at RHIC, Phys. Lett. B 738, 305 (2014)

    2014

  31. [40]

    Y. Lu, C. S. Fischer, F. Gao, Y.-x. Liu, and J. M. Pawlowski, Extracting freeze-out conditions in beam en- ergy scan via functional QCD, arXiv:2603.09336 (2026)

    2026

  32. [41]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, and J. Stachel, The horn, the hadron mass spectrum and the QCD phase dia- gram – the statistical model of hadron production in cen- tral nucleus-nucleus collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 834, 237c (2010)

    2010

  33. [42]

    Liu, Y.-H

    H. Liu, Y.-H. Yang, C. Yuan, M. Ju, X.-H. Wu, and P.-C. Chu, Speed of sound and polytropic index in the Polyakov-loop Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074037 (2024)

    2024

  34. [43]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Decoding the phase structure of QCD via parti- cle production at high energy, Nature 561, 321 (2018)

    2018

  35. [44]

    Cleymans, H

    J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, and S. Wheaton, Comparison of chemical freeze-out criteria in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 73, 034905 (2006)

    2006

  36. [45]

    Gao (for the STAR Collaboration), Collision energy dependence of mean transverse momentum fluctuations in Au + Au collisions at STAR, presented at Quark Mat- ter 2025

    Y. Gao (for the STAR Collaboration), Collision energy dependence of mean transverse momentum fluctuations in Au + Au collisions at STAR, presented at Quark Mat- ter 2025

    2025

  37. [46]

    Du, Kinematic and dynamical origins of mean-p fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions, Phys

    L. Du, Kinematic and dynamical origins of mean-p fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B 874, 140225 (2026)

    2026

  38. [47]

    R.-X. Cao, S. Zhang, and Y.-G. Ma, Specific heat and its high-order moments in relativistic heavy-ion collisions from a multiphase transport model, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014910 (2022)

    2022

  39. [48]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Chen, and C. Zhang, Energy dependence of transverse momentum fluctuations in Au + Au collisions from a multiphase transport model, Phys. Rev. C 111, 024911 (2025)

    2025

  40. [49]

    W.-H. Zhou, H. Liu, F. Li, Y.-F. Sun, J. Xu, and C. M. Ko, Elliptic flow splittings in the Polyakov–Nambu– Jona-Lasinio transport model, Phys. Rev. C 104, 044901 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.