Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Hyperbolic nonlocal form factors catalyze dynamical fermion mass generation; oscillatory ones suppress it.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 16:00 UTC pith:WQUYGPD4

load-bearing objection Clean matrix-valued gap kernels for two entire Dirac form factors; the opposite G_c shifts are real inside the paper’s stated Λ_UV∼Λ window, but that window is load-bearing and untested. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28160 v1 pith:WQUYGPD4 submitted 2026-07-30 hep-th

Nonlocal four-fermion theory

F. M. Belchior , J. R. Nascimento , A. Yu. Petrov , P. J. Porfirio This is my paper
classification hep-th PACS 11.10.Lm11.30.Qc12.39.Fe11.10.Wx
keywords nonlocal quantum field theoryfour-fermion modeldynamical mass generationgap equationNambu-Jona-LasinioGross-Neveuentire form factorMatsubara formalism
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 builds a four-fermion model in which the usual Dirac kinetic term is replaced by an entire nonlocal form factor of the Dirac operator, then studies dynamical mass generation in the large-N mean-field approximation. Treating the form factor as a matrix-valued function rather than a scalar is essential: only after the inverse propagator is inverted inside the closed algebra of the identity and slash-p does one obtain the correct scalar gap kernel. For the hyperbolic choice exp(−∂̸/Λ) the gap integral is enhanced and the critical coupling drops well below the local NJL value; for the oscillatory choice exp(−i ∂̸/Λ) the integral is suppressed and the critical coupling rises sharply. Both kernels recover the ordinary local gap equation when the nonlocality scale is sent to infinity. The same matrix kernels are carried into the finite-temperature, finite-density setting via Matsubara sums, so the model can address how nonlocality shifts thermal restoration of the condensate.

Core claim

In a nonlocal NJL/Gross-Neveu theory whose Dirac operator is deformed by an entire form factor, the hyperbolic kernel f_I = exp(−∂̸/Λ) enhances the gap integral and lowers the critical coupling (G_I^c Λ² ≃ 17.58 versus local ≃ 39.48 at Λ_UV = Λ), while the oscillatory kernel f_II = exp(−i ∂̸/Λ) suppresses the integral and raises the critical coupling (G_II^c Λ² ≃ 196.19); both limits recover the local theory as Λ → ∞.

What carries the argument

The matrix-valued gap kernel K_f obtained by decomposing f²(∕p) = a1 1 + a2 ∕p, inverting the resulting A1 + B∕p denominator inside the Clifford algebra, and tracing only the identity piece; IR/UV matching at an intermediate scale Ω then yields analytic expressions for the critical couplings.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis is trusted only inside the window where the dynamical mass is much smaller than the nonlocality scale and the ultraviolet cutoff sits near that scale, so that extra poles of the nonlocal denominators can be ignored.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the critical coupling (or the M(G) curve) for a concrete hyperbolic or oscillatory nonlocal kinetic operator at fixed cutoff equal to the nonlocality scale; a value inconsistent with the reported G_c Λ² ≃ 17.58 or 196.19 would falsify the central claim.

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

If this is right

  • Hyperbolic nonlocality can catalyze chiral condensation at weaker four-fermion couplings than the local NJL model.
  • Oscillatory nonlocality can stabilize the symmetric phase up to much stronger couplings.
  • Thermal and density-driven restoration temperatures inherit the same form-factor dependence through the Matsubara kernels.
  • The local Coleman-Weinberg potential and thermal gap equation are recovered smoothly as Λ → ∞, fixing the consistency check for any numerical extension.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Different entire functions of the Dirac operator can be used as a design dial to move the chiral critical surface without changing the local interaction strength.
  • A full spectral analysis outside the conservative window would be needed before claiming unitarity or causality for either kernel at high density.
  • Extending the same matrix inversion to vector or diquark channels would test whether nonlocality preferentially enhances or suppresses color superconductivity.

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 constructs a four-dimensional nonlocal NJL/GN-type model in which the Dirac kinetic operator is deformed by an entire matrix-valued form factor f(∂̸) while the four-fermion interaction remains local. After a Hubbard–Stratonovich transformation, the authors derive the large-N mean-field effective potential and gap equation, carefully inverting the nonlocal propagator in the algebra generated by 1 and p̸ before taking the Dirac trace. Explicit gap kernels are obtained for f_I = exp(−∂̸/Λ) and f_II = exp(−i ∂̸/Λ). Using an IR/UV split at an intermediate scale Ω, they show that the hyperbolic kernel enhances the gap integral and lowers the critical coupling relative to the local theory, while the oscillatory kernel suppresses it and raises G_c; both reduce to the standard NJL result as Λ → ∞. A finite-T/μ extension via Matsubara sums and a contour representation is set up, recovering the local thermal gap equation in the same limit.

Significance. If the technical treatment holds, the work supplies a concrete, controllable laboratory for how entire Dirac-like form factors reshape dynamical mass generation without enlarging the free spectrum by construction. The matrix-valued inversion (rather than a scalar replacement) is a genuine technical contribution relative to naive nonlocal deformations, and the opposite signs of the hyperbolic versus oscillatory corrections give a falsifiable, form-factor-dependent prediction for G_c and for the shape of V_eff. The finite-T/μ framework, though not yet numerically exploited, is the natural platform for later phase-diagram studies. The paper is incremental relative to the authors’ prior nonlocal spinor work [1], but the four-fermion gap structure and the explicit G_c shifts are new and of interest to the nonlocal-QFT and effective-chiral-model communities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (98)–(100), Fig. 3] Section IV, Eqs. (98)–(100) and the accompanying discussion of Λ_UV ∼ Λ: the headline values G_I^c Λ² ≃ 17.58 and G_II^c Λ² ≃ 196.19 are obtained only after fixing s = Λ_UV/Λ = 1. The text itself warns that for Λ_UV ≫ Λ the hyperbolic kernel grows rapidly and requires extra counterterms, while the oscillatory denominator can approach trigonometric zeros. Figure 3 shows the s-dependence of G_c but does not quantify how the qualitative “enhancement vs suppression” conclusion or the ordering G_I^c < G_loc^c < G_II^c survives under moderate variations of s, under a smooth UV regulator, or under a hard cutoff replaced by the form factor itself. Because the abstract’s central claim is precisely this opposite shift of the critical coupling, a short robustness subsection (or an expanded Fig. 3 with error bands from the Ω truncation) is needed before the numbers can be treated as more than illust
  2. [Section V, Eqs. (115)–(116)] Section V, Eqs. (115)–(116): the pole equations for D_I(q) and D_II(q) are written and the conservative window M ≪ Λ, p ≲ Λ_UV ∼ Λ is imposed so that extra real/complex zeros can be ignored. No explicit check is given that, inside the parameter region used for Figs. 1–4 and for the quoted G_c, no additional on-shell poles enter the physical sheet. A brief numerical or analytic argument that the only zero continuously connected to q = M remains simple and that residues stay positive in that window would make the “unchanged spectrum” claim load-bearing rather than an assumption.
  3. [Section V] Section V formulates the Matsubara gap equation and contour representation but contains no explicit thermal or finite-density solution (no T_c, no M(T) curve, no comparison of restoration temperatures between f_I and f_II). The abstract and introduction present the finite-T/μ extension as part of the work’s contribution. Either a minimal numerical illustration (e.g., M(T) at μ = 0 for the two kernels at one benchmark g) should be added, or the claims should be rephrased to make clear that only the formal setup is provided.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Notation for the Dirac slash is inconsistent across the text ( /∂, /p, ∂̸, p̸). A single convention should be fixed in Sec. II and used thereafter.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (30)] Equation (30) and the factor [A² − B² p²]² for the Dirac determinant should be cross-checked against the standard det(α1 + β p̸) = (α² − β² p²)² in four dimensions; a one-line derivation or reference would help the reader.
  3. [Figures 1–4] Figures 1–4 are useful but axis labels such as “2 (p)” and “g = G 2” appear truncated or missing Λ factors; restoring full labels (Λ² K(p), G Λ², etc.) would improve readability.
  4. [Section III] The terminology “NJL/Gross-Neveu” is explained in Sec. III; it would help to state once, early, that all explicit integrals are four-dimensional so that comparison is primarily with NJL.
  5. [Section IV] Ref. [1] is cited as the source of the IR/UV method; a sentence clarifying which formulae are taken over unchanged and which are recomputed for the four-fermion kernels would sharpen the novelty statement.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor self-citation of form factors and IR/UV method from authors' Ref. [1]; gap kernels and G_c are recomputed, not forced by construction.

specific steps
  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [§III Eqs. (12)–(13); Abstract; §IV after Eq. (83)]
    "Two suitable choices for f can be (cf. [1]) f_I(/∂)=e^{-/∂/Λ} and f_II(/∂)=e^{-i/∂/Λ}. ... Following the IR/UV matching method used in the recent Dirac-like nonlocal spinor theory [1], the momentum integral is split at an intermediate scale M≪Ω≪Λ"

    The representative entire form factors and the IR/UV split are taken from the authors’ own prior work [1] rather than derived here. This is a mild ansatz/method import via overlapping-author citation. It is not load-bearing for the central G_c claim: once f_I, f_II are chosen, K_I, K_II and J_f(0) are recomputed for the four-fermion determinant; the opposite shifts of G_c are not algebraic copies of results in [1].

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained for the four-fermion model. After the Hubbard–Stratonovich rewrite, the mean-field potential and gap equation follow from the fermionic determinant with a matrix-valued form factor; the kernels K_I and K_II (Eqs. 80, 83) and the critical couplings G_c (Eqs. 96–100) are obtained by evaluating those kernels at M→0 under the stated cutoff choice Λ_UV=Λ. No parameter is fitted to data and then relabeled a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to forbid alternatives. The only self-referential element is adoption of the two entire form factors and the IR/UV split technique from the authors’ prior Dirac-like nonlocal spinor paper [1]. That is normal methodological reuse: the four-fermion gap integrals and the opposite shifts of G_c are new computations, not algebraic restatements of [1]. Prescription-dependence of Λ_UV∼Λ (flagged by the paper itself) is a robustness/correctness issue, not circularity. Score 2 for one non-load-bearing self-citation; central claims do not reduce to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard large-N NJL technology plus the authors’ choice of entire matrix-valued Dirac form factors and a cutoff prescription Λ_UV ∼ Λ. No experimental fits enter G_c; the numbers are pure integrals of the derived kernels. Invented content is the model definition itself, not a new particle species.

free parameters (3)
  • Λ_UV / Λ ratio s = s=1 (Λ_UV=Λ) for quoted G_c
    Critical couplings (98)–(99) and Fig. 3 depend on the hand choice of UV cutoff relative to the nonlocality scale; the headline numbers use s=1.
  • IR/UV matching scale Ω
    Intermediate split M ≪ Ω ≪ Λ is chosen by hand; residual Ω dependence is the truncation error of the analytic approximation.
  • Form-factor class {f_I, f_II} = f_I=e^{-∂̸/Λ}, f_II=e^{-i∂̸/Λ}
    Results on enhancement vs suppression are specific to the two entire functions selected from Ref. [1], not derived from a uniqueness principle.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Large-N saddle / mean-field truncation: σ fluctuations are suppressed and the gap equation is stationarity of V_eff (or Ω) at homogeneous M.
    Invoked from §III–IV onward; standard NJL/GN but uncontrolled at finite N.
  • domain assumption f is entire and introduces no new zeros on the physical sheet beyond the standard mass shell in the working regime.
    Stated as a consistency requirement in §III and again in the pole analysis §V; needed so the spectrum is not enlarged.
  • ad hoc to paper Real mean-field potential is defined from the paired determinant (1/2) ln det(D_+ D_-) rather than the unsymmetrized complex det.
    Euclidean prescription imported from the nonlocal Dirac-like theory (§IV, Eq. 27); fixes the phase but is a choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Four-fermion interaction remains strictly local while only the kinetic Dirac operator is nonlocal.
    Model-building choice in §III, Eq. (17); bilocal interactions are mentioned then set aside.
  • standard math Standard Matsubara sum and contour residue formula with Fermi function n_F for finite T, μ.
    §V; local benchmark (111)–(112) used to fix the residue sign.
invented entities (1)
  • Nonlocal NJL/GN model with Dirac-like entire form factor f(∂̸) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the deformed fermion determinant that drives the modified gap equation and critical couplings.
    Defined in §III as the object of study; not independently measured outside this construction.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 24111 in / 3571 out tokens · 96369 ms · 2026-07-31T16:00:07.676566+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we formulate and analyze a nonlocal four-fermion theory in which the usual Dirac operator is deformed by an entire nonlocal form factor. After introducing an auxiliary scalar field, we derive the mean-field effective action and the corresponding gap equation for the dynamical mass. A central technical point of the analysis is that the nonlocal form factor is a matrix function of the Dirac operator, so the inverse propagator must be treated as an element of the closed algebra generated by the identity and $\not{\!p}$ operators, rather than as a purely scalar quantity. We obtain explicit expressions for the gap kernel for two representative choices of a form factor, $f_{I}(\not{\!\partial})=e^{-\not{\partial}/\Lambda}$ and $f_{II}(\not{\!\partial})=e^{-i\not{\partial}/\Lambda}$. Following the IR/UV matching method used in the recent Dirac-like nonlocal spinor theory [1], the momentum integral is split at an intermediate scale $M\ll \Omega\ll \Lambda$, expanded analytically in the infrared and ultraviolet regions, and compared with the usual local NJL/Gross-Neveu result. We show that the hyperbolic form factor enhances the gap integral and lowers the critical coupling, whereas the oscillatory form factor suppresses it and raises the critical coupling. The finite-temperature and finite-density extension is formulated through Matsubara sums and a corrected contour representation, with the local thermal gap equation recovered in the limit $\Lambda\to\infty$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28160 by A. Yu. Petrov, F. M. Belchior, J. R. Nascimento, P. J. Porfirio.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Dimensionless kernels Λ2K(p) for M/Λ = 0.2. The hyperbolic form factor enhances the kernel at moderate and large momenta, while the oscillatory form factor suppresses it relative to the local case. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Dynamical mass in the chiral limit as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Analytic estimation of the critical coupling as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ratio between the exact cutoff gap integrals and the local integral for Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.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

47 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. R. Nascimento, G. J. Olmo, A. Y. Petrov, P. J. Porf ´ ırio and R. N. da Silva, Phys. Rev. D 113, no.4, 045015 (2026) [arXiv: 2505.07483 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Classical and Quantum Nonlocal Gravity,

    A. Bas Beneito, i, G. Calcagni and L. Rachwa l, “Classical and Quantum Nonlocal Gravity,” in: Bambi, C., Modesto, L., Shapiro, I. (eds) Handbook of Quantum Gravity. Springer, Singapore, p. 1-60 [arXiv:2211.05606 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Yukawa, Phys

    H. Yukawa, Phys. Rev.77, 219–226 (1950)

    1950

  4. [4]

    Efimov, Commun

    G.V. Efimov, Commun. Math. Phys.5, 42–56 (1967)

    1967

  5. [5]

    Brekke, P.G.O

    L. Brekke, P.G.O. Freund, M. Olson and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B302, 365–402 (1988)

    1988

  6. [6]

    Frampton and Y

    P.H. Frampton and Y. Okada, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 484 (1988)

    1988

  7. [7]

    Eliezer and R.P

    D.A. Eliezer and R.P. Woodard, Nucl. Phys. B325, 389–469 (1989)

    1989

  8. [8]

    Evens, J

    D. Evens, J. W. Moffat, G. Kleppe and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D43, 499–519 (1991)

    1991

  9. [9]

    Superrenormalizable gauge and gravitational theories,

    E.T. Tomboulis, “Superrenormalizable gauge and gravitational theories,” [arXiv:hep- th/9702146 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  10. [10]

    Ghoshal and A

    D. Ghoshal and A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B584, 300–312 (2000) [arXiv: hep-th/0003278]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  11. [11]

    Barnaby, T

    N. Barnaby, T. Biswas and J. M. Cline, JHEP04(2007) 056 [arXiv: hep-th/0612230]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  12. [12]

    Calcagni, G

    G. Calcagni, G. Nardelli and M. Montobbio, Phys. Lett. B662(2008) 285–289 [arXiv: 0712.2237 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  13. [13]

    Barnaby and N

    N. Barnaby and N. Kamran, JHEP02(2008) 008 [arXiv: 0709.3968 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  14. [14]

    Biswas, E

    T. Biswas, E. Gerwick, T. Koivisto and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 031101 [arXiv: 1110.5249 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    Modesto, Phys

    L. Modesto, Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 044005 [arXiv: 1107.2403 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    Tomboulis, Phys

    E.T. Tomboulis, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 125037 [arXiv: 1507.00981 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Buoninfante, G

    L. Buoninfante, G. Lambiase and A. Mazumdar, Nucl. Phys. B944(2019) 114646 [arXiv: 1805.03559 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Deser and R

    S. Deser and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 111301 (2007) [arXiv: 0706.2151 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [19]

    Koivisto, Phys

    T. Koivisto, Phys. Rev. D77, 123513 (2008) [arXiv: 0803.3399 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  20. [20]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B659, 821 (2008) [arXiv: 0708.0924 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    Capozziello, E

    S. Capozziello, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B671, 193 (2009) [arXiv: 29 0809.1535 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  22. [22]

    Maggiore and M

    M. Maggiore and M. Mancarella, Phys. Rev. D90, no.2, 023005 (2014) [arXiv: 1402.0448 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Belgacem, Y

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa and M. Maggiore, JCAP03, 002 (2018) [arXiv: 1712.07066 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov and P. J. Porf ´ ırio, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.9, 815 (2021) [arXiv: 2102.01600 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Modesto and G

    L. Modesto and G. Calcagni, JHEP10, 169 (2021) [arXiv: 2107.04558 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Andrade, R

    I. Andrade, R. Menezes, A. Y. Petrov and P. J. Porf ´ ırio, Annals Phys.478, 170028 (2025) [arXiv: 2407.21711 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    S. M. Kuzenko and Z. V. Yarevskaya, Phys. Atom. Nucl.56(1993), 396

    1993

  28. [28]

    Quantum Superfield Supersymmetry,

    A. Petrov, “Quantum Superfield Supersymmetry,” Fundam. Theor. Phys.202(2021), Springer, 2021, ISBN 978-3-030-68135-7, 978-3-030-68136-4 [arXiv:hep-th/0106094 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    I. L. Buchbinder, R. M. Iakhibbaev, D. I. Kazakov, A. I. Mukhaeva and D. M. Tolkachev, JHEP12, 110 (2025) [arXiv:2508.14002 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    C. A. S. Almeida, W. T. Cruz, R. V. Maluf, A. Y. Petrov and P. J. Porfirio, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 715 (2022) [arXiv:2202.01154 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    S. Iso, H. Kawai and Y. Kitazawa, Nucl. Phys. B576, 375 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0001027 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  32. [32]

    M. R. Douglas and N. A. Nekrasov, Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 977 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0106048 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  33. [33]

    S. R. Coleman, “1/N,” SLAC-PUB-2484

  34. [34]

    Moshe and J

    M. Moshe and J. Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rept.385, 69 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0306133 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  35. [35]

    V. G. Koures and K. T. Mahanthappa, Phys. Rev. D45, 580 (1992)

    1992

  36. [36]

    H. O. Girotti, M. Gomes, A. Y. Petrov, V. O. Rivelles and A. J. da Silva, Phys. Lett. B521, 119 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0109222 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  37. [37]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.122, 345 (1961)

    1961

  38. [38]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.124, 246 (1961)

    1961

  39. [39]

    D. J. Gross and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D10, 3235 (1974)

    1974

  40. [40]

    S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys.64, 649 (1992)

    1992

  41. [41]

    Hatsuda and T

    T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept.247(1994), 221-367 [arXiv:hep-ph/9401310 [hep- 30 ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  42. [42]

    Buballa, Phys

    M. Buballa, Phys. Rept.407, 205 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0402234 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  43. [43]

    Kleinert, Electron

    H. Kleinert, Electron. J. Theor. Phys.8, 57-64 (2011) [arXiv:1104.5161 [cond-mat.quant-gas]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  44. [44]

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal and T. Sch¨ afer, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1455-1515 (2008) [arXiv:0709.4635 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  45. [45]

    Matsubara, Prog

    T. Matsubara, Prog. Theor. Phys.14, 351-378 (1955)

    1955

  46. [46]

    Dolan and R

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9, 3320-3341 (1974)

    1974

  47. [47]

    Finite-temperature field theory: Principles and applications,

    J. I. Kapusta and C. Gale, “Finite-temperature field theory: Principles and applications,” Cambridge University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0-521-17322-3, 978-0-521-82082-0, 978-0-511- 22280-1. 31

    2011