Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 157 references

Consistently renormalized quark vacuum loops produce large, smooth, roughly symmetric critical regions around the quark-meson model's critical end point, unlike the pinched contours from curvature-mass parameter fixing.

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

2026-08-03 16:25 UTC pith:6LC7IU4J

load-bearing objection New susceptibility-contour maps for on-shell RQM/RPQM are worth a referee's time, but the central contrast with curvature-mass models rests on one renormalization-scheme choice that gets no sensitivity test. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2512.13398 v2 pith:6LC7IU4J submitted 2025-12-15 hep-ph

Comparative analysis of critical regions: The renormalized quark-meson model under Polyakov loop, quark back-reaction, and vector interaction effects

Akanksha Tripathi , Suraj Kumar Rai , Vivek Kumar Tiwari This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords quark-meson modelPolyakov loopcritical end pointtricritical pointquark number susceptibilityon-shell renormalizationchiral phase transitionquark back reaction
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 tries to establish that the size and shape of the critical region around the QCD critical end point (CEP) depend heavily on how quark vacuum fluctuations are renormalized. Using an on-shell renormalization scheme, where meson masses are matched to their physical pole masses, the authors find that the CEP acquires a large, smooth, roughly symmetrical critical region—measured by contours of the normalized quark number susceptibility—instead of the narrow, pinched contours obtained when parameters are fixed by curvature masses. They also argue that at a scalar-meson mass of 500 MeV, the tricritical point lies inside the Rq=2 critical contour, so tricritical physics can influence the critical fluctuations seen around the CEP. The upshot: model predictions for where CEP signals should appear in heavy-ion experiments are sensitive to the vacuum-fluctuation treatment.

Core claim

Consistent on-shell renormalization of the 2+1-flavor quark-meson model—counterterms matched to pole masses, scale Λ0 fixed by Eq. (13)—strengthens the 't Hooft coupling, weakens chiral symmetry breaking, and shifts the critical end point to larger μ, lower T than curvature-mass parametrizations. Contours of normalized quark number susceptibility Rq=χq/χq^{free} then envelop the CEP in large, smooth, roughly symmetric regions (Rq=2 spans 50.2 MeV in T, 58.3 MeV in μ for mσ=500 MeV), versus the narrow, pinched contours of QMVT/PQMVT models. For mσ=500 MeV the tricritical point sits inside the Rq=2 contour, so it can influence CEP fluctuations; for mσ=400 MeV it lies outside. Quark back-reacti

What carries the argument

The central object is the on-shell renormalized vacuum effective potential, built by matching MS-scheme counterterms to on-shell pole masses of π, K, η, η′, and σ, with the renormalization scale Λ0 fixed so the vacuum minimum does not shift from the unrenormalized model. The diagnostic is the ratio Rq = χq/χq^{free} of the quark number susceptibility to the free-quark-gas value, drawn as contours (Rq=2, 3, 5) in the μ-T plane. This ratio converts the CEP's divergent susceptibility into a finite-size, experimentally relevant 'critical region' whose shape and extent are compared across model settings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the on-shell renormalization condition—fixing the scale Λ0 by Eq. (13) and matching counterterms to pole masses—is the correct and unique way to treat quark vacuum fluctuations; a different scheme would change the size and position of the predicted critical regions.

What would settle it

Calculate the same susceptibility contours with a different, equally plausible renormalization condition (e.g., a different Λ0-fixing condition or matching at a different scale) and check whether the Rq=2 spreads change by more than ~10 MeV; if they do, the claimed 'large, smooth critical region' is an artifact of the scheme. Alternatively, a direct lattice QCD determination of the CEP's location and the phase-boundary curvature at finite density could falsify the RQM/RPQM predictions, which place the CEP near (265,39) MeV for mσ=500 or (243,37) MeV for mσ=400 in the physical-point parametriza

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

If this is right

  • If the on-shell treatment is correct, heavy-ion beam-energy-scan searches should expect a broad, rounded critical region extending tens of MeV in both temperature and chemical potential around the CEP, rather than a thin sliver.
  • For mσ=500 MeV, the tricritical point's location inside the Rq=2 contour means the CEP's critical fluctuations inherit tricritical influence, altering the expected scaling of higher-order cumulants.
  • The quark back-reaction in the PolyLog-glue Polyakov potential changes the shape of the critical region (rounder, broader in T), so modeling of the deconfinement transition matters for CEP phenomenology.
  • The RPQM model's CEP, placed at μ_B≈690–760 MeV and T≈71–95 MeV, lies closer to recent lattice and functional-renormalization-group estimates than the curvature-mass PQMVT model, suggesting the on-shell scheme is the more reliable effective-model benchmark.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial note: the abstract announces a vector-interaction analysis in which the CEP and first-order line survive up to g_ω=2.79, but the body text as provided contains no such section; that claim would need its own derivation before being used for compact-star phenomenology.
  • The paper itself cautions that two-decimal CEP coordinates reflect numerical binning, not physical precision—a useful reminder that the critical-region extent, not the nominal point, is the robust object.
  • A natural test: compute the same Rq contours in a functional renormalization group treatment of the same model to see whether the on-shell scheme's broad regions survive beyond mean-field.
  • If the TCP influence is real for mσ=500 MeV, the beam-energy-scan's net-proton cumulant ratios could show non-monotonicity from the combined O(4)-to-Z(2) crossover—an effect the paper maps but does not compute in detail.

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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes phase diagrams and quark-number-susceptibility contours (Rq = 2, 3, 5) around the critical end point in a 2+1 flavor quark-meson model with on-shell renormalized quark vacuum fluctuations (RQM), with and without Polyakov loop enhancement (RPQM), for mσ = 400 and 500 MeV. It reports that the consistently on-shell renormalized treatment yields larger, smoother, and more symmetric critical regions than the curvature-mass QMVT/PQMVT scheme of Ref. [118], and that for mσ = 500 MeV the tricritical point lies inside or on the Rq = 2 contour, implying TCP influence on critical fluctuations around the CEP. Light chiral limit phase diagrams are constructed using large-Nc ChPT inputs, and vector-interaction extensions are briefly discussed. The abstract explicitly cautions that the two-decimal CEP coordinates reflect numerical binning, not physical precision.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would establish that the choice of meson-mass renormalization scheme is not a minor technical detail: it qualitatively changes the size and shape of the critical region around the CEP in a widely used effective model. The systematic comparison across QM/RQM/Log-RPQM/PolyLog-glue-RPQM and against Ref. [118] is useful, as is the light-chiral-limit TCP analysis. The paper is unusually candid in the abstract about binning artifacts in reported coordinates. However, no code or data archive is provided, and the central numerical results are imported from the authors' prior on-shell renormalization papers [141,142], so independent verification is currently not possible from the manuscript alone.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. II C and Table III] The light chiral limit results use ChPT inputs from Refs. [61–63] and the parameters are then used to locate the TCP. The paper reports that the TCP lies on/inside the Rq = 2 contour for mσ = 500 MeV but outside for mσ = 400 MeV. This proximity claim is potentially interesting, but it depends on both the on-shell scheme and the ChPT-determined fπ, fK, mη, mη′ in the chiral limit. Given the scheme sensitivity flagged above, the TCP-insertion conclusion should be revisited in the same sensitivity study.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV] Typo: 'Rq = 2, 35, are drawn' should read 'Rq = 2, 3, 5'. Similar numerical typos appear in other places (e.g., 'mπ = 0, 35' and '(µCEP,T CEP)=(243.12.37.03)').
  2. [Fig. 4] The axis labels are labeled 'Tr (MeV)' and 'µr (MeV)', but Tr and µr are dimensionless ratios. Please correct the units.
  3. [Sec. III B] The term 'under no sea mean field approximation' should be 'standard mean field approximation (s-MFA)'. Also, the notation Rq is used for the ratio of susceptibilities, but the text sometimes writes 'Rq = 2, 3 5' with missing comma.
  4. [Eqs. (41)-(43)] The definition of χq_free as the massless free quark gas value is clear, but the contours of Rq = 2, 3, 5 are not derived from any universality or scaling argument. It would be helpful to state explicitly that these are heuristic measures of critical-region extent, not model-independent quantities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: CEP/TCP and Rq contours are computed outputs, not fitted inputs; the on-shell scheme is a stated modeling assumption rather than a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's parameter fixing is standard and external: at the physical point, m_pi, m_K, M_eta, m_sigma, f_pi, f_K and the Yukawa coupling g determine the QM/RQM couplings (Table II), while the light-chiral-limit inputs follow from large-Nc ChPT with L8, v31 and v02 fixed to reproduce the physical M_eta [63]. The CEP, TCP and Rq=2/3/5 contours are then obtained by minimizing the grand potential and differentiating with respect to mu; none of these outputs is fed back into the parameter determination. Equation (13), which fixes Lambda_0 by requiring that the RQM vacuum minimum does not shift from the QM minimum, is an explicit renormalization-scheme condition imported from the authors' prior papers [141,142]; this is a model assumption whose sensitivity is not tested, but it is not a hidden fit and does not make the critical-region claim equivalent to its inputs. The statement that on-shell pole masses m_eta and m_eta' are reproduced after self-energy corrections is a self-consistency check of the chosen OS scheme, not a prediction derived from the scheme. The heavy reliance on Refs. [63,141,142] is cumulative use of prior peer-reviewed derivations; no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives, and no ansatz is passed off as externally established. Hence no step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own input; the scheme-dependence concern belongs to robustness/sensitivity rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on the on-shell renormalized effective potential from the authors' previous works, on the Polyakov-loop potential parametrizations from the literature, and on the chosen sigma mass and T0 values. No new particle, force, or conserved quantity is introduced. The mean-field and ChPT extrapolation assumptions are standard for this class of model, but the on-shell scheme is specific to this research line.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma meson mass m_sigma = 400 and 500 MeV
    Chosen by hand as model inputs; controls the curvature of the effective potential and hence the CEP/TCP positions and contour shapes. The paper does not fit these values.
  • Yukawa coupling g = not stated in visible text
    The quark-meson coupling g enters all quark masses (m_u = g x/2, m_s = g y/sqrt(2)) and is required to fix the constituent quark mass scale. Its value is not listed in Table II, so the calculation depends on an implicit parameter from earlier works.
  • Polyakov scale T0 (and T_glue^c) = 187 MeV for 2+1 flavors; 270 MeV for pure gauge
    Input from lattice/FRG analyses (Refs. [41,46]); the paper sets T0 = T_glue^c = 187 MeV for the 2+1-flavor Polyakov-loop potentials. The comparison with Ref. [118] uses T0=270 MeV. The main conclusions depend on these choices.
  • PolyLog-glue temperature mapping coefficient = 0.57
    Taken from Ref. [46] to map the pure-gauge temperature to the unquenched glue temperature (Eq. 31). This coefficient controls how strongly quark back-reaction modifies the Polyakov-loop potential.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field treatment of meson fields: only quark/antiquark thermal and vacuum fluctuations are included; meson fields are treated classically.
    Invoked throughout Section II; the grand potential in Eqs. (6), (15), (35) contains no meson fluctuation contribution beyond the tree-level potential.
  • ad hoc to paper On-shell renormalization scheme: pole masses of mesons are the physical masses, and counterterms are matched between MS and on-shell schemes as developed in Refs. [141,142].
    The renormalized effective potential Eq. (14) and the finite corrections m2_FIN, hxFIN, etc. are taken as given from the authors' previous works. The entire comparison between RQM and older QMVT results rests on this scheme.
  • domain assumption Large-N_c U(3) chiral perturbation theory inputs are used to extrapolate f_pi, f_K, m_eta, m_eta' to the light chiral limit (m_pi=0, m_K=496 MeV), with L8, v31, v02 fixed to reproduce M_eta at the physical point.
    Section II C, Eqs. (38)-(40). The TCP locations and the m_pi=0 phase diagrams depend on this ChPT extrapolation.
  • domain assumption The logarithmic and PolyLog-glue forms of the Polyakov-loop potential, with the T0(T_glue^c)=187 MeV mapping, faithfully capture confinement-deconfinement and quark back-reaction effects.
    Section II A: the Log potential (22) and PolyLog-glue potential (25)-(31) are imported from Refs. [40,46,47]. The paper's central back-reaction comparison assumes this mapping is valid.
  • standard math The quark number susceptibility ratio R_q = chi_q / chi_q^free identifies the critical region, with R_q=2,3,5 contours representing enhanced critical fluctuations.
    Section III, Eqs. (41)-(43). This is a standard diagnostic in the QCD model literature and is not an invented quantity.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 36987 in / 10418 out tokens · 97900 ms · 2026-08-03T16:25:43.340497+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The critical regions enveloping the critical end point (CEP) in the $\mu$-$T$ plane are mapped by computing the contours of normalized quark number susceptibility within the on shell renormalized 2+1 flavor quark-meson (RQM) and Polyakov loop enhanced renormalized Polyakov quark meson (RPQM) models for $m_\sigma = 400$ and 500 MeV.The apparent precision for the results of CEP coordinates merely reflects numerical binning of two decimal places rather than the effect of including full thermal and vacuum quantum fluctuations. The renormalized 't Hooft coupling c becomes substantially stronger in the RQM model when the meson self energies due to quark loops are computed using the pole masses of mesons and parameters are fixed on shell in Ref [143] after a consistent treatment of quark one loop vacuum fluctuations while the light and strange chiral symmetry breaking strengths also become weaker. We evaluate the impact of these novel features on critical fluctuations. Furthermore, the improved PolyLog glue form of the Polyakov loop potential from Ref [46] is employed to isolate the effects of the quark back reaction on critical fluctuations, and the results are contrasted against back reaction free outcomes obtained using the logarithmic potential. Utilizing inputs from large $N_c$ standard chiral perturbation theory, phase diagrams are also computed in the light chiral limit ($m_\pi = 0$), quantifying the proximity of the tricritical point (TCP) to the CEP. The critical regions from the RQM/RPQM models are compared with those reported in Ref [120], where curvature masses are used for parameter fixing. Phase diagrams incorporating vector interactions in the RQM/RPQM model reveal that the CEP and first-order transition survive up to a robust coupling of $g_\omega = 2.79$, rendering them highly relevant for compact star equations of state and astrophysical phenomenology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.13398 by Akanksha Tripathi, Suraj Kumar Rai, Vivek Kumar Tiwari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Temperature variations of the non-strange condensa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The RQM model phase diagrams for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (b). The Polyakov loop potential with no quark back reaction in the Log RPQM model, generates compression in the temperature direction of the critical region which gets large elongation in the chemical poten￾tial direction, therefore the Rq = 2 susceptibility contour looks pinched near the CEP in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The phase diagrams for the physical point and light ch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) is 19.4 MeV in the temperature direction (12.9 MeV above and 6.5 MeV below the TCEP on the T axis) and 51.3 MeV in the chemical potential direction (35.9 MeV lower and 15.4 MeV higher than the µCEP on the µ axis). For the Rq = 3 contour of the QM model, the size is very small as its T axis spread is only 6.3 MeV (2.8 MeV above and 3.5 MeV below the TCEP) whereas the µ axis spread is only 15 MeV (6.6 Me… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) for the mσ = 400 MeV, are smaller than the corresponding contour sizes for the mσ = 500 MeV in the sequential order of (10.1,9.1 and 6.3) MeV on the T axis and (18.2,16.2 and 10.6) MeV on the µ axis. The chemical potential direction stretching of the Log RPQM model Rq = 2, 3 and 5 contours for the mσ = 500(400) MeV, are noticeably larger than their respective exten￾sion in the temperature direction res… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The RPQM-I and RPQM-II model phase diagrams for the li [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. With the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_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

157 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cabibbo and G

    N. Cabibbo and G. Parisi, Phys.Lett.B 59 ,67-69(1975)

    1975

  2. [2]

    PQMVT model CEP is placed at significantly higher TCEP = 90 MeV whereas the CEP in both the QMVT and PQMVT models gets located at larger chemical po- tentials around 280–285 MeV [ 118]. The PQMVT model contour of a successively decreasing width below its TCEP, has a larger neck like narrow structure because the curvature of the first order transition line b...

  3. [3]

    Muller, Rep

    B. Muller, Rep. Prog. Phys. 58, 611 (1995)

    1995

  4. [4]

    The curvatures of the crossover and first order transition lines in the Fig

    Divid- ing the temperature T by the highest temperature T χ c of the chiral crossover transition on the temperature axis at µ = 0, one gets the Tr = T T χ c and when the chemical po- tentialµ is divided by the highest chemical potential µ0 at which first order phase transition on the µ axis occurs at T = 0, one gets the µr = µ µ0 . The curvatures of the cr...

  5. [5]

    D. H. Rischke, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 52, 197 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    A.Ali Khan et al. Phys. Rev. D 64 , 074510 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    Digal, E

    S. Digal, E. Laermann and H. Satz, Eur. Phys. J. C 18 , 583 (2001) . [8]

    2001

  8. [8]

    to the thermal contributions of quarks-antiquarks in the presence of the Polyakov loop potential as the fol- lowing. ΩP QM(T,µ ;x,y, Φ, ¯Φ) = U (x,y ) + Ωq ¯q(T,µ ;x,y, Φ, ¯Φ) (36) The temperature T and chemical potential µ depen- dence of the non-strange condensate x, strange conden- sate y, Φ and ¯Φ are obtained in the RPQM and PQM model by optimizing t...

  9. [9]

    C. R. Allton, M. Doring, S. Ejiri, S. J. Hands, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E Laermann and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. D 71 , 054508 (2005)

    2005

  10. [10]

    in the quark-antiquark contribution to the total effective potential, gets modified by the Polyakov loop potential. ΩT,µ q ¯q (x,y, Φ, ¯Φ) = −2Nc ∑ q ∫ d3p (2π)3T [ lng+ f + lng− f ] .(32) The Ω T,µ q ¯q (x,y, Φ, ¯Φ) = Ω q ¯q(T,µ ;x,y, Φ, ¯Φ) and new g± f being different from their earlier values in the Eq. ( 10), are the following : g+ f = [ 1 + 3Φe−E+ q /T...

  11. [11]

    L. D. McLerran and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D 24, 450 (1981) ; B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rep. 132, 1 (1986)

    1981

  12. [12]

    Meyer-Ortmanns, Rev

    H. Meyer-Ortmanns, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 473 (1996)

    1996

  13. [13]

    Cheng et al., Phys

    M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D 77 , 014511 (2008)

    2008

  14. [14]

    is added to the thermal contributions of quarks-antiquarks in the presence of the Polyakov loop potential. ΩRP QM (T,µ ;x,y, Φ, ¯Φ) = Ω RQM vac (x,y ) + Ωq ¯q(T,µ ;x,y, Φ, ¯Φ) (35) When quark one-loop vacuum contribution is dropped in the s-MF A,one gets the PQM model grand thermody- namic potential after adding the meson contribution in Eq. (

  15. [15]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 014504 (2009)

    2009

  16. [16]

    Fodor, S

    Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B 568 , 73 (2003)

    2003

  17. [17]

    Karsch, Lect

    F. Karsch, Lect. Notes Phys. 583, 209 (2002)

    2002

  18. [18]

    Karsch, J

    F. Karsch, J. Phys. G 31 , S633 (2005)

    2005

  19. [19]

    Y. Aoki, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B 643 , 46 (2006)

    2006

  20. [20]

    Cheng et al., Phys

    M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D 74 , 054507 (2006)

    2006

  21. [21]

    Fejos, A

    G. Fejos, A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D 94, 036005 (2016)

    2016

  22. [22]

    Langelage, S

    J. Langelage, S. Lottini, and O. Philipsen, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2011) 057

    2011

  23. [23]

    Fejos, A

    G. Fejos, A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D 98, 036009 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    Ejiri et al., Phys

    S. Ejiri et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 094505 (2009)

    2009

  25. [25]

    (27) The summary of the parameters is given in the Table I

    are defined as : ai(T ) = a(i) 0 +a(i) 1 ( T0 T ) +a(i) 2 ( T0 T ) 2 1 +a(i) 3 ( T0 T ) +a(i) 4 ( T0 T ) 2 (26) b(T ) = b0 ( T0 T ) b1[ 1 −eb2( T0 T ) b3 ] . (27) The summary of the parameters is given in the Table I. TABLE I. Parameters of the PolyLog Polyakov-loop potential have been taken from the Ref. [ 47]. PolyLog a(2) 0 a(2) 1 a(2) 2 a(2) 3 a(2) 4 2...

  26. [26]

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt and K .Rajagopal, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1455 (2008)

    2008

  27. [27]

    Fukushima, and T

    K. Fukushima, and T. Hatsuda, Rep. Prog. Phys. 74, 014001 (2011)

    2011

  28. [28]

    Fejos, Phys

    G. Fejos, Phys. Rev. D 92, 036011 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    J. T. Lenaghan, Phys. Rev. D 63 , 037901 (2001)

    2001

  30. [30]

    D 96, 016009 (2017)

    Fabian Rennecke, Bernd-Jochen Schaefer, Phys, Rev. D 96, 016009 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    Pedro Costa, M. C. Ruivo, C. A. de Sousa and Yu. L. Kalinovsky, Phys. Rev. D 71 , 116002 (2005)

    2005

  32. [32]

    Fejos, A

    G. Fejos, A. Patkos, Phys. Rev. D 105, 096007 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 8 (1976)

    1976

  34. [34]

    B. J. Schaefer and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 79 , 014018 (2009)

    2009

  35. [35]

    and Eq. ( 36) . ∂ΩRP QM/P QM ∂x = ∂ΩRP QM/P QM ∂y = ∂ΩRP QM/P QM ∂Φ = ∂ΩRP QM/P QM ∂ ¯Φ = 0 (37) The 2+1 flavor RPQM and PQM model phase diagram with Log form and PolyLog-glue form of the Polyakov loop potential, different thermodynamic quantities and critical end point have been calculated and presented in the ref.[ 142]. We will be using the above describ...

  36. [36]

    Meyer-Ortmanns and B

    H. Meyer-Ortmanns and B. J. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D 53 , 6586 (1996)

    1996

  37. [37]

    J. T. Lenaghan, D. H. Rischke and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev D 62 , 085008 (2000) . J. T. Lenaghan, D. H. Rischke, J. Phys. G 26 , 431 (2000)

    2000

  38. [38]

    Pedro Costa, M. C. Ruivo, C. A. de Sousa and Yu. L. Kalinovsky, AIP Conf. Proc. 775, 173–181 (2005) . 21

    2005

  39. [39]

    Ratti, M

    C. Ratti, M. A. Thaler, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D 73, 014019 (2006)

    2006

  40. [40]

    Fukushima, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev. D 77 , 114028 (2008); 78, 039902(E) (2008)

    2008

  41. [41]

    A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 72 , 477 (1978)

    1978

  42. [42]

    Svetitsky and L

    B. Svetitsky and L. G. Yaffe, Nucl. Phys. B 210, 423 (1982)

    1982

  43. [43]

    Banks and A

    T. Banks and A. Ukawa, Nucl. Phys. B 225, 145 (1983)

    1983

  44. [44]

    R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D 62 , 111501(R) (2000)

    2000

  45. [45]

    Fukushima, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B 591, 277 (2004)

    2004

  46. [46]

    Layek, A

    B. Layek, A. P. Mishra, A. M. Srivastava and V. K. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D 73 , 103514 (2006)

    2006

  47. [47]

    P. M. Lo, B. Friman, O. Kaczmarek, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 88 , 074502 (2013)

    2013

  48. [48]

    Roessner, C

    S. Roessner, C. Ratti and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D 75, 034007 (2007)

    2007

  49. [49]

    B. J. Schaefer, J. M. Pawlowski, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D 76 , 074023 (2007)

    2007

  50. [50]

    B. J. Schaefer, M. Wagner, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D 81 , 074013 (2010)

    2010

  51. [51]

    B. J. Schaefer, M. Wagner and J. Wambach, CPOD(2009)017, arXiv:0909.0289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [52]

    H. Mao, J. Jin, and M. Huang, J. Phys. G 37 , 035001

  53. [53]

    U. S. Gupta and V. K. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D 81 , 054019 (2010)

    2010

  54. [54]

    L. M. Haas, R. Stiele, J. Braun, J. M. Pawlowski and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 87 , 076004 (2013)

    2013

  55. [55]

    Asakawa and K

    M. Asakawa and K. Yazaki, Nucl. Phys. A 504 , 668, (1989)

    1989

  56. [56]

    Stiele and J

    R. Stiele and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 93 , 094014 (2016)

    2016

  57. [57]

    T. K. Herbst, J. M. Pawlowski, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phys. Lett. B 696, 58 (2011)

    2011

  58. [58]

    T. K. Herbst, J. M. Pawlowski, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D 88, 014007 (2013)

    2013

  59. [59]

    Bors´ anyi, Z

    S. Bors´ anyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szab´ o, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2010) 73

    2010

  60. [60]

    Borsanyi, G

    S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 11, (2010) 077 . ; S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg and K. K. Sz- abo, Phys. Lett. B 730 (2014) 99-104

    2010

  61. [61]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D 85 , 054503 (2012) ; Phys. Rev. D 90, 094503 (2014)

    2012

  62. [62]

    R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 29, 338 (1984)

    1984

  63. [63]

    V. K. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D 111, 114014 (2025)

    2025

  64. [64]

    Barducci, R

    A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, R. Gatto, and G. Pettini, Phys. Lett. B 231 , 463 (1989) ; Phys. Rev. D 41 , 1610 (1990)

    1989

  65. [65]

    Berges and K

    J. Berges and K. Rajagopal, Nucl. Phys. B 538 , 215 (1999)

    1999

  66. [66]

    Hatta and T

    Y. Hatta and T. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. D 67 , 014028 (2003)

    2003

  67. [67]

    Fujii, Phys

    H. Fujii, Phys. Rev. D 67 , 094018 (2003)

    2003

  68. [68]

    8 838-844, (2011)

    Fukushima, Kenji Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters. 8 838-844, (2011)

    2011

  69. [69]

    Herrera-Sikl´ ody, J

    P. Herrera-Sikl´ ody, J. I. Latorre, P. pascual and J. Taron, Phys. Lett. B 419, 326 (1998)

    1998

  70. [70]

    Escribano, F

    R. Escribano, F. S. Ling, M. H. G. Tytgat, Phys. Rev. D 62, 056004 (2000)

    2000

  71. [71]

    G.Odyniec; RHIC Beam Energy Scan Program: Phase I and II, PoS CPOD 2013, 043(2013) and PoS CORFU2018 151 (2019)

    2013

  72. [72]

    V. K. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D 112, 054046 (2025)

    2025

  73. [73]

    D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D 70 , 056001 (2004) ; Y. Aoki, G. Androdi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, Nature (London) 443, 675 (2006) ; S. Gupta,X. Luo, B. Mohanty, H. G. Ritter, and N. Xu, Science 332,1525 (2011)

    2004

  74. [74]

    M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V. Shuryak, Phys.Rev. D 60, 114028 (1999) ; Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4816 (1998)

    1999

  75. [75]

    Berdnikov and K

    B. Berdnikov and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. D 61 , 105017 (2000)

    2000

  76. [76]

    Jeon and V

    S. Jeon and V. Koch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2076 (2000)

    2076

  77. [77]

    Ejiri, F

    S. Ejiri, F. Karsch, and K. Redlich, Phys. Lett. B 633 , 275 (2006)

    2006

  78. [78]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005) ; M. Ag- garwal et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 022302 (2010)

    2005

  79. [79]

    Mohanty, Nucl

    B. Mohanty, Nucl. Phys. A 830, 899c (2009) .; X. Luo, B. Mohanty, H. G. Ritter, and N. Xu, Phys. At. Nucl. 75, 676 (2012)

    2009

  80. [80]

    Liu et al

    C. Liu et al. 13th Int. Particle Acc. Conf. WEPOPT032

Showing first 80 references.