Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Melting of heavy quarkonia in QGP using deep neural networks

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep neural networks trained on lattice QCD data yield a Debye mass and strong coupling that, inside a screened Cornell potential, reproduce the quarkonium melting hierarchy and sequential suppression seen in heavy-ion collisions.

desk verdict A plausible and useful application of DLQPM to quarkonium melting, but missing potential parameters and unresolved grid drift make the numbers unreproducible as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.14970 v2 pith:FAWYH2YK submitted 2025-09-18 hep-ph nucl-th

Mohammad Yousuf Jamal , Fu-Peng Li , Long-Gang Pang , Guang-You Qin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords machinelearningdeepneuralnetworkquark-gluonplasmaheavyquarkoniaDebyescreeningmassstrongcouplingdissociationtemperaturelatticeQCD
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 paper tries to establish that machine-learned quasi-parton masses, extracted from lattice QCD equation-of-state data by a deep residual network, can supply the two temperature-dependent inputs — Debye screening mass m_D(T) and strong coupling alpha_s(T) — needed for a complex screened Cornell potential. From that potential, the radial Schrödinger equation is solved for J/psi, psi(2S), Upsilon(1S), and Upsilon(2S), giving binding energies and thermal widths. Dissociation temperatures are read off with two criteria, a width condition (Gamma = 2E_B) and a thermal-energy condition (E_B = 3T). The resulting windows — Upsilon(1S) at 1.38-1.99 T_c, J/psi at 1.13-1.30 T_c, Upsilon(2S) at 1.10-1.29 T_c, psi(2S) at or below T_c — reproduce the sequential suppression hierarchy observed in heavy-ion collision experiments. If the claim is right, ML-augmented potentials become a reliable bridge from lattice QCD to quarkonium phenomenology.

What carries the argument

The paper's central object is the Deep-Learning Quasi-Parton gas Model (DLQPM), an eight-layer residual neural network with 32 neurons per layer that maps temperature to quasi-parton masses for gluons, light quarks, and strange quarks. The network is trained by minimizing the mean-squared error of the entropy density and trace anomaly against lattice QCD data over T/T_c in [1,3], with an additional high-temperature constraint nudging the gluon/light-quark mass ratio toward the hard-thermal-loop value. The learned masses are then inserted into Eq. (10) to define alpha_s(T) and Eq. (11) to define the Debye mass m_D(T). These two quantities set the real and imaginary parts of the complex Cornel

What would settle it

Measure the Debye screening mass on the lattice, e.g., from the static quark-antiquark free energy, and compare with the DNN-extracted m_D(T) in Fig. 2 over the same T/T_c range; disagreement would falsify the HTL conversion that links quarkonium predictions to the lattice input. A second check is to repeat the calculation with the vacuum Cornell parameters alpha and sigma fixed to published values and see whether the reported T_d windows survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a data-driven replacement for perturbative medium parameters: a deep residual network is trained to match lattice QCD entropy density and trace anomaly, and the learned quasi-parton masses are converted by leading-order hard-thermal-loop relations into m_D(T) and alpha_s(T). These enter a complex Cornell potential (real part screens, imaginary part encodes Landau damping). Solving the Schrödinger equation yields, per state, the temperature where thermal width equals twice the binding energy and where binding energy equals 3T. The reported T_d values for J/psi, psi(2S), Upsilon(1S), Upsilon(2S) form a dissociation window that the paper interprets as agreeing with lattice

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that quasi-parton masses fit only to the equation of state can be converted, via leading-order hard-thermal-loop formulas, into the exact Debye mass and running coupling that control a complex Cornell potential — with the vacuum Cornell parameters alpha and sigma not specified in the paper; if that conversion is not valid, the dissociation temperatures do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Upsilon(1S) would survive to at least 1.38 T_c and possibly up to 1.99 T_c, supporting its use as a probe of the hottest deconfined phase.
  • J/psi melting in the 1.13-1.30 T_c window leaves room for both a surviving primordial component and late-stage recombination, matching the measured incomplete suppression.
  • psi(2S) melting at or below T_c explains why the excited charmonium state is dramatically more suppressed than the ground state.
  • The dual-criterion brackets mean that comparisons with lattice spectral functions should be made against a temperature band rather than a single number.
  • The lattice-anchored m_D(T) and alpha_s(T) reduce the reliance of quarkonium calculations on purely perturbative inputs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same learned quasi-parton masses could supply m_D(T) and alpha_s(T) to other medium-sensitive calculations — parton energy loss, thermal photon or dilepton production, transport coefficients — giving one lattice-anchored set of inputs across QGP phenomenology.
  • A sharper test of the method would train the network directly on lattice data for the heavy-quark potential (from Wilson loops or spectral functions), letting the DNN learn the full complex potential and bypass the analytic Cornell-plus-dielectric form.
  • The width and binding criteria bracket T_d, but a direct extraction of the spectral function peak at each temperature from lattice QCD could pin the melting temperature to a single value and adjudicate between the two brackets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid machine-learning/potential-model calculation of heavy-quarkonium dissociation temperatures in the QGP. A deep neural network (DLQPM) is trained on the HotQCD equation of state to extract quasi-parton masses; Eqs. (9)-(11) convert these masses into a running coupling α_s(T) and Debye screening mass m_D(T). These quantities enter a dielectric-screened Cornell potential (Eq. 4), whose real part is solved in the Schrödinger equation (Eq. 12) to obtain binding energies E_B(T), while the imaginary part yields the thermal width Γ(T) via Eq. (13). Dissociation temperatures are estimated with two criteria, Γ=2E_B and E_B=3T. Table I reports T_d ranges: Υ(1S) in [1.38,1.99] T_c, J/ψ in [1.13,1.30] T_c, Υ(2S) in [1.10,1.29] T_c, and ψ(2S) near or below T_c. The authors claim excellent agreement with lattice QCD results and interpret the hierarchy as consistent with sequential suppression observed in heavy-ion collisions.

Significance. The idea of using a lattice-constrained, ML-based quasi-particle description to feed a complex in-medium potential is a potentially useful bridge between equation-of-state data and quarkonium phenomenology. The paper is commendably explicit about the hybrid, perturbative-inspired character of the m_D and α_s extraction, and it includes numerical benchmarks and a grid-convergence appendix. However, the central quantitative results are currently not reproducible because the vacuum Cornell parameters and heavy-quark masses are never specified, and the mapping from DLQPM masses to m_D and α_s is not validated against independent determinations. If these issues are addressed, the framework could be a useful addition to the potential-model literature; in its present form the significance is conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II.A, Eq. (1), Eq. (4), Eq. (12), Table I] The central numbers in Table I depend directly on the vacuum Cornell parameters α and σ, which enter Eqs. (1) and (4), and on the heavy-quark masses m_c and m_b, which enter Eq. (12) through the reduced mass. None of these values is stated in the paper. The claim that the ML-enhanced potential 'tightens theoretical uncertainties' cannot be audited without knowing these inputs. The authors should state all parameter values, and ideally show how T_d varies under reasonable variations of α, σ, and m_Q. Without this, the agreement with lattice QCD and the sequential-suppression interpretation in Section III are under-determined.
  2. [§II.B, Eqs. (9)-(11), Fig. 2] The mapping from DLQPM quasi-parton masses to α_s(T) and m_D(T) is not an independent measurement. The quasi-parton masses are trained to reproduce the HotQCD equation of state, not screening lengths, and Eqs. (9)-(11) are leading-order HTL-inspired relations. Calling the resulting m_D and α_s 'non-perturbative, data-driven' overstates their status. The paper provides no comparison of the resulting m_D(T) with lattice determinations of the Debye mass, so the reader cannot assess whether this mapping is quantitatively reliable. The authors should benchmark m_D(T) against available lattice/effective-field-theory determinations and discuss the domain of validity of Eqs. (9)-(11).
  3. [Appendix A.5, Table IV] Table IV shows that the dissociation temperatures continue to decrease monotonically as the grid is refined from N=4000 to N=6000 for every state and criterion (e.g., Υ(1S) with 2E_B=Γ goes from 1.992 to 1.956 T_c, and with E_B=3T from 1.375 to 1.349 T_c). The statement that the difference 'stabilizes for N≳3000' is not supported by the table; no N>6000 results or Richardson extrapolation are shown. Since Table I quotes the N=4000 values, the numerical convergence uncertainty should be quantified and propagated into the reported T_d ranges.
  4. [§II.C and Appendix A.1/A.4] There is an internal inconsistency in the numerical setup: §II.C states that the finite-difference solver uses Neumann boundary conditions, while Appendix A.1 and A.4 state that Dirichlet boundary conditions are imposed. This should be reconciled, and the effect of the boundary choice on weakly bound states near the dissociation point should be commented on.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Headings and notation] Typographical slips: 'F uture Prospects' in Section IV.A and 'T raining set' in Section II.B should be corrected. Also, the notation for the number of flavors is inconsistent (n_f in Eq. (9), N_f in Eqs. (7) and (11)); the value of N_f (presumably 3) and N_c=3 should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Uncertainties] The authors state that they retrained the model ten times for uncertainty analysis, but no error bars are shown in Figs. 2-8 and Table I. The propagation of DLQPM uncertainties into m_D, α_s, E_B, Γ, and T_d should be quantified.
  3. [Code/data availability] The Data Availability section says code and data are available 'upon reasonable request.' For a paper whose main selling point is a data-driven ML framework, a public repository with the trained networks and the potential-model solver would greatly improve reproducibility.
  4. [Comparison with lattice QCD] The Abstract and Section III claim 'excellent agreement with lattice QCD results,' but Table I compares mostly with other potential-model calculations and reviews. The authors should clarify which entries are direct lattice determinations and distinguish lattice QCD results from model-dependent extractions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: final quarkonia dissociation temperatures are compared with lattice QCD and experimental results not used in the ML training, so the central claim retains independent content.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense defined by the requested patterns. The DNN (DLQPM) is trained on HotQCD lattice equation-of-state data, and the quasi-parton masses obtained from that fit are then converted into α_s(T) and m_D(T) using the leading-order HTL-inspired formulas of Eqs. (9)-(11). These quantities are therefore model-derived outputs of an EoS fit rather than independent lattice measurements, so calling them "predictions" may overstate their epistemic status; however, this is not a circularity because the training data (entropy density and trace anomaly) are not the same as the predicted quantities (m_D, α_s, and ultimately T_d). The central quantitative claim—the dissociation temperatures in Table I—is obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation with a complex Cornell potential and comparing the results to independent external benchmarks (lattice QCD potential-model estimates, CMS/ALICE suppression data) that were not part of the training set. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction: m_D(T) is not defined in terms of T_d, α_s(T) is not fitted to quarkonia data, and the dissociation criteria 2E_B = Γ and E_B = 3T are physical definitions rather than disguised restatements of the outputs. The self-citations to the authors' DLQPM prior work [35,36] are used to justify the quasi-parton mass model, but the training procedure is described in the paper and anchored to external HotQCD lattice data, so the argument does not reduce to an unverified self-citation chain. The omission of the vacuum Cornell parameters α and σ is a reproducibility and under-determination concern, not a circularity; it means the quantitative agreement cannot be audited, but it does not make the derivation self-referential. Overall, the central claim has independent grounding against external benchmarks, and no load-bearing step is forced by the paper's own definitions or by self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of modeling assumptions: the quasi-particle description, the HTL-inspired mapping from fitted masses to m_D and alpha_s, the specific complex potential, and the phenomenological dissociation criteria. The vacuum potential parameters and quark masses are not specified, which is a major reproducibility gap.

free parameters (5)
  • DLQPM neural network weights (m_g, m_u/d, m_s) = not disclosed
    Three 8-layer ResNets trained on 50 HotQCD EoS points; 50,000 epochs, final training loss ~1e-5. These weights determine alpha_s and m_D via Eqs. (9)-(11).
  • Vacuum Cornell coupling alpha
    Used in the vacuum potential (Eq. 1) and the real part of the in-medium potential (Eq. 4). Value not stated in the paper.
  • String tension sigma
    Used in the same potentials. Value not stated.
  • Charm quark mass m_c
    Enters the reduced mass mu_Q = m_Q/2 in the Schrodinger equation (Eq. 12). Value not stated.
  • Bottom quark mass m_b
    Same as above.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Leading-order HTL Debye mass formula m_D^2 = 4 pi alpha_s T^2 (Nc/3 + Nf/6)
    Assumed to hold for the ML-derived coupling; not validated against lattice m_D.
  • domain assumption Complex dielectric permittivity model for the in-medium potential (Eqs. 2-6)
    The real and imaginary parts of the potential are taken from a specific HTL-based dielectric model from Ref. [33].
  • domain assumption Quasi-particle description of the QGP equation of state
    DLQPM assumes the lattice EoS can be reproduced by non-interacting quasi-particles with temperature-dependent masses.
  • domain assumption First-order perturbation theory for thermal width (Eq. 13)
    The width is computed as the expectation value of Im[V] over the real-potential wavefunction.
  • domain assumption Dissociation criteria 2E_B = Gamma and E_B = 3T
    Phenomenological conditions identifying when a state melts; the 3T factor is a thermal-energy estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Melting of heavy quarkonia in QGP using deep neural networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FAWYH2YK

@misc{pith2026250914970,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Melting of heavy quarkonia in QGP using deep neural networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FAWYH2YK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.14970}
}
abstract

Machine learning techniques have emerged as powerful tools for tackling non-perturbative challenges in quantum chromodynamics. In this study, we introduce a data-driven framework employing deep neural networks to systematically predict the temperature-dependent behavior of the screening mass $m_D(T)$ and the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s(T)$ within a quark-gluon plasma medium. These medium-sensitive quantities are subsequently employed to compute the thermal widths $\Gamma_{\text{n}}(T)$ and binding energies $E_B(T)$ of heavy quarkonia states, specifically charmonia and bottomonia, by numerically solving the Schr\"odinger equation with medium-modified heavy quark potentials. To estimate the dissociation temperatures $T_d$ of various quarkonia states, we employ two complementary dissociation criteria: the conventional one, where $2E_B(T_d) = \Gamma_{\text{n}}(T_d)$, and an additional lower bound criterion defined by $E_B(T_d) = 3T_d$. This dual-criterion approach provides a more constrained and physically motivated estimate of the temperature range over which quarkonia states dissolve in the QGP environment. Our machine learning-enhanced predictions show excellent agreement with available lattice QCD results, especially for the ground states $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $J/\psi$, and offer new perspectives on the sequential suppression pattern detected in relativistic heavy-ion collision experiments. Overall, this work advances the quantitative description of quarkonium suppression and demonstrates the prospect of modern machine learning methods to bridge theoretical predictions and experimental observations, thereby contributing significantly to QGP tomography.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.14970 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Sketch of DNN extracting masses of quasi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The screening mass as a function of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Left: Real part of the heavy quark potential as a function of inter-quark separation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Temperature dependence of the heavy quark potential at a fixed inter-quark distance. Left: Real part showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Binding energy for Charmonium 1S-states ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Binding energy and thermal width for Bottomonium states as a function of temperature. The dissociation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Binding energy for Bottomonium states as a function of temperature. The dissociation temperature is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Grid-refinement residuals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Comparison of dissociation temperatures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 27 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The radial coordi- nate is discretized betweenr min andr max withNpoints, and the second derivative is approximated by a centered finite-difference scheme

    Numerical method (we apply) We solve thes-wave radial Schr¨ odinger equation on a uniform grid in coordinate space. The radial coordi- nate is discretized betweenr min andr max withNpoints, and the second derivative is approximated by a centered finite-difference scheme. This leads to a real, symmet- ric, tridiagonal Hamiltonian matrix, subject to Dirichl...

  2. [2]

    To validate the solver and its units, we first consider simple potentials with known spectra

    Benchmarks with other potentials having analytical spectra. To validate the solver and its units, we first consider simple potentials with known spectra. The harmonic os- cillator (HO) and Coulomb problems serve as analytic benchmarks, while a Woods–Saxon (WS) well provides a more realistic test case without closed-form solutions. The corresponding potent...

  3. [3]

    We next assess numerical convergence by refining the uniform grid in a fixed spatial domain

    Convergence with grid sizeN. We next assess numerical convergence by refining the uniform grid in a fixed spatial domain. As expected for a second-order stencil, the errors decrease quadratically with 1/N. Table III summarizes the ground-state en- ergies at successive refinements, while Fig. 9 shows the log–log behavior of residuals. The observed slopes c...

  4. [4]

    For realistic in-medium heavy-quark potentials, no analytic reference exists

    Reporting practice for in-medium potentials. For realistic in-medium heavy-quark potentials, no analytic reference exists. In these cases, we accom- pany quoted binding energies with systematic conver- gence checks: (i) refinement in the number of grid points to confirm the expectedN −2 scaling, and (ii) variation of the spatial cutoffr max to control fin...

    2000

  5. [5]

    The objective of the analysis is to examine how the dissociation temperatures of selected quarkonia states vary with the numerical grid size used in the compu- tation

    Convergence check with grid sizeNof current numerical analysis. The objective of the analysis is to examine how the dissociation temperatures of selected quarkonia states vary with the numerical grid size used in the compu- tation. The states of interest includeJ/ψ(charmo- nium ground state), Υ(1S) (bottomonium ground state), and Υ(2S) (bottomonium first ...

    2000

  6. [6]

    U. W. Heinz (2004), hep-ph/0407360

    arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Matsui and H

    T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B178, 416 (1986)

    1986

  8. [8]

    McLerran, Rev

    L. McLerran, Rev. Mod. Phys.58, 1021 (1986)

    1986

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Collaboration, Nucl

    P. Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A757, 184 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Nilima, M

    I. Nilima, M. Hasan, B. K. Singh, and M. Y. Jamal, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 160 (2024), 2402.07848

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. C. Chu and T. Matsui, Phys. Rev. D39, 1892 (1989)

    1989

  4. [12]

    Koike, AIP Conf

    Y. Koike, AIP Conf. Proc.243, 916 (1992)

    1992

  5. [13]

    Burnier, M

    Y. Burnier, M. Laine, and M. Vepsalainen, Phys. Lett. B 678, 86 (2009), 0903.3467

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Y. G. A. Dumitru and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D79, 114003 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Pooja, M. Y. Jamal, P. P. Bhaduri, M. Ruggieri, and S. K. Das, Phys. Rev. D110, 094018 (2024), 2404.05315

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M. B. Voloshin, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.61, 455 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    N. B. et al., Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1534 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    T. K. P. C. Patrignani and J. L. Rosner, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63, 21 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    T. U. A. D. Frawley and R. Vogt, Phys. Rept.462, 125 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    E. M. G. J. F. Amundson, O. J. P. Eboli and F. Halzen, Phys. Lett. B390, 323 (1997)

    1997

  13. [21]

    E. L. Berger and D. L. Jones, Phys. Rev. D23, 1521 (1981)

    1981

  14. [22]

    L. A. et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B722, 55 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    Silvestre (PHENIX), J

    C. Silvestre (PHENIX), J. Phys. G35, 104136 (2008), 0806.0475

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    C. R. Singh, M. Y. Jamal, and R. Sahoo, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 891 (2024), 2310.18909

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Mocsy and P

    A. Mocsy and P. Petreczky, Euro. Phys. J. C43, 77 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    B. K. P. V. Agotiya, Vinod Chandra, Phys. Rev. C80, 025210 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Sebastian, M

    J. Sebastian, M. Y. Jamal, and N. Haque, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054040 (2023), 2207.08510

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D17, 3090 (1978)

    1978

  21. [29]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D21, 203 (1980)

    1980

  22. [30]

    H. S. Chung, J. Lee, and D. Kang, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 52, 1151 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Nilima, B

    I. Nilima, B. K. Singh, and M. Y. Jamal, Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, 1126 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Laine, O

    M. Laine, O. Philipsen, P. Romatschke, and M. Tassler, JHEP03, 054 (2007), hep-ph/0611300

    2007 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Strickland and D

    M. Strickland and D. Bazow, Nucl. Phys. A879, 25 (2012), 1112.2761. 13

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Margotta, K

    M. Margotta, K. McCarty, C. McGahan, M. Strickland, and D. Yager-Elorriaga, Phys. Rev. D83, 105019 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 84, 069902 (2011)], 1101.4651

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Thakur, U

    L. Thakur, U. Kakade, and B. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D 89, 094020 (2014), 1401.0172

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Mocsy and P

    A. Mocsy and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 211602 (2007), 0706.2183

    2007 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Digal, P

    S. Digal, P. Petreczky, and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B514, 57 (2001), hep-ph/0105234

    2001 arXiv

  30. [38]

    M. Y. Jamal, I. Nilima, V. Chandra, and V. K. Agotiya, Phys. Rev. D97, 094033 (2018), 1805.04763

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Levai and U

    P. Levai and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C57, 1879 (1998), hep-ph/9710463

    1998 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Li, H.-L

    F.-P. Li, H.-L. L¨ u, L.-G. Pang, and G.-Y. Qin, Phys. Lett. B844, 138088 (2023), 2211.07994

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Li, L.-G

    F.-P. Li, L.-G. Pang, and G.-Y. Qin, Phys. Lett. B868, 139692 (2025), 2501.10012

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D90, 094503 (2014), 1407.6387

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Plumari, W

    S. Plumari, W. M. Alberico, V. Greco, and C. Ratti, Phys. Rev. D84, 094004 (2011), 1103.5611

    2011 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Brambilla, J

    N. Brambilla, J. Ghiglieri, A. Vairo, and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. D78, 014017 (2008), 0804.0993

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Wong, Phys

    C.-Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. C72, 034906 (2005), hep- ph/0408020

    2005

  38. [46]

    Digal, P

    S. Digal, P. Petreczky, and H. Satz, Phys. Rev. D64, 094015 (2001)

    2001

  39. [47]

    H. Satz, J. Phys. G32, R25 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Blaschke, O

    D. Blaschke, O. Kaczmarek, E. Laermann, and V. Yu- dichev, Eur. Phys. J. C43, 81 (2005)

    2005

  41. [49]

    K. T. Rethika, C. D. Ravikumar, and V. M. Bannur, Few Body Syst.62, 10 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Q. Meng, Q. Wu, P. Cheng, J. Ping, and H. Zong, Chin. Phys. C42, 083103 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    V. K. Agotiya, V. Chandra, M. Y. Jamal, and I. Nilima, Phys. Rev. D94, 094006 (2016), 1610.03170

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1945 (2012), 1202.2554

    1945 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B790, 270 (2019), 1805.09215

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B766, 212 (2017), 1606.08197

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C77, 252 (2017), 1610.00613

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 162301 (2017), 1611.01438

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Brambilla, M

    N. Brambilla, M. A. Escobedo, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D97, 074009 (2018), 1711.04515

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), 3rd ed., ISBN 9780521880688

    2007

  51. [59]

    J. M. Thijssen, Computational Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), 2nd ed., ISBN 9780521833462

    2007

  52. [60]

    R. J. LeVeque, Finite Difference Methods for Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations: Steady-State and Time-Dependent Problems (SIAM, Philadelphia, 2007), ISBN 9780898716290

    2007

  53. [61]

    U. M. Ascher, R. M. M. Mattheij, and R. D. Russell, Numerical Solution of Boundary Value Problems for Ordinary Differential Equations (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1995), ISBN 9780898713541

    1995

  54. [62]

    R. B. Lehoucq, D. C. Sorensen, and C. Yang, ARPACK Users’ Guide: Solution of Large-Scale Eigenvalue Problems with Implicitly Restarted Arnoldi Methods (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1998), ISBN 9780898714074

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.