Assessing the Reconstruction of the Critical Line in the QCD Phase Diagram from Imaginary to Real Chemical Potential

Fabrizio Murgana; Marco Ruggieri

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Assessing the Reconstruction of the Critical Line in the QCD Phase Diagram from Imaginary to Real Chemical Potential

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Continuing the QCD phase boundary from imaginary chemical potential works only up to about 146 MeV and misses the critical endpoint by roughly 150 percent.

desk verdict A clean model calculation whose headline numbers are built on imaginary-μ data in a region that lattice QCD cannot access, so the quantitative benchmark is not faithful to the lattice technique. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04569 v1 pith:JG2E5FJG submitted 2025-05-07 hep-ph hep-lathep-th

Fabrizio Murgana , Marco Ruggieri This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-lathep-th PACS 12.38.Aw

keywords QCDphasediagramcriticalendpointimaginarychemicalpotentialanalyticcontinuationQuark-MesonmodelFunctionalRenormalizationGroupchiraltransitionconvergenceradius

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

This paper tests a technique used in lattice QCD to reconstruct the chiral phase boundary at real chemical potential by analytic continuation from imaginary chemical potential—a trick that avoids the sign problem. The authors run the Quark-Meson model, a low-energy effective model of chiral symmetry breaking, in both mean-field and functional renormalization group treatments, so they can compute the true phase boundary at real chemical potential and compare it directly with the extrapolated one. They find the reconstruction is reliable only up to an effective convergence radius $\mu_{\rm conv} \approx 146$ MeV; beyond that the extrapolated line diverges from the true line, and near the model's critical endpoint the discrepancy reaches about 150%. The conclusion is that critical-endpoint locations obtained from imaginary-$\mu$ continuation should be regarded with caution, even though the technique works well for moderate chemical potentials.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the reconstruction ansatz for the pseudocritical temperature, $$T_c(\mu)/T_c = 1 - \kappa_2(\mu/T_c)^2 - \kappa_4(\mu/T_c)^4,$$ whose coefficients are fitted to the model's imaginary-$\mu$ data and then continued to real $\mu$. The comparison metric is the relative error $\varepsilon_{\rm rel}=|T_c-T_c^{\rm(fit)}|/T_c$, and the paper defines the effective convergence radius $\mu_{\rm conv}$ as the point where $\varepsilon_{\rm rel}$ crosses a 10% threshold. On the model side, the Quark-Meson Lagrangian supplies the chiral phase boundary both at real and imaginary $\mu$, in mean-field and in FRG with the local-potential approximation.

What would settle it

Run the same reconstruction comparison in a second low-energy effective model whose phase boundary includes deconfinement effects, or replace the polynomial fit with a ratio-of-polynomials resummation: if the effective convergence radius moves far from 146 MeV or the near-endpoint discrepancy moves far from 150%, the numbers are model- or ansatz-dependent; if they persist, the cautionary conclusion is generic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the standard reconstruction of the chiral phase boundary by continuation from imaginary chemical potential has a finite radius of validity inside the Quark-Meson model: $\mu_{\rm conv}\approx 146$ MeV, essentially the same in the mean-field and FRG-LPA computations. The model's actual critical endpoint lies at more than twice that chemical potential, and at that point the reconstructed boundary disagrees with the true one by a relative error $\varepsilon_{\rm rel}\approx 1.5$, about 150%. The authors conclude that, while the reconstruction is dependable at small and moderate chemical potential, the location of the critical endpoint obtained by this continuation should be treated with caution.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results transfer to real QCD only if the Quark-Meson model reproduces how QCD's phase boundary actually behaves as chemical potential grows, especially the distance from zero chemical potential to the critical endpoint.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Up to $\mu \simeq 146$ MeV, the reconstructed crossover line agrees with the true line within 10% relative error in $T_c$; the reconstruction is therefore a useful tool in the moderate-density regime.
Beyond that radius the extrapolated boundary deviates from the actual one, and the deviation grows to about 150% near the critical endpoint.
Because the same failure appears in both mean-field and FRG-LPA calculations, it is not an artifact of the specific truncation studied.
The coefficients $\kappa_2,\kappa_4$ from imaginary-$\mu$ fits cannot encode the non-analyticity of the critical region; hence any critical-endpoint location extracted from them should be treated as indicative only.
The technique remains a valid benchmark for the crossover region, but improved or hybrid methods are needed for critical-point searches.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the authors leave implicit: because the same 146 MeV radius appears in both mean-field and FRG-LPA, the breakdown is likely set by the polynomial ansatz rather than by the inclusion of fluctuations; a ratio-of-polynomials or resummed fit should move the radius, making that interpretation testable.
If the pattern is generic, then critical-endpoint coordinates quoted from imaginary-$\mu$ continuation are biased toward small $\mu$; the size of that bias in any given model could be estimated from the ratio $\mu_{\rm conv}/\mu_{\rm CEP}$.
A cleaner test would compare reconstruction and direct computation in a regime without the FRG backbending that blurs the endpoint determination, for example with a higher-order derivative expansion; the present paper leaves that as open work.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this is an honest, internally consistent model benchmark: in the QM model, both mean-field and FRG-LPA, they compare the real-μ phase boundary with the one reconstructed from a standard κ2,κ4 fit to imaginary-μ data. They find a 10% relative-error radius μ_conv ≈ 146 MeV and a relative error of ~150% near the model's CEP. The FRG implementation is nontrivial, and the comparison is set up without circularity. Second, the quantitative benchmark is compromised by the model's analytic structure in imaginary μ. The quark term in Eq. (13) is 2πT periodic in μ, whereas QCD has period 2πT/3 with an RW endpoint at μ_I/T = π/3. The fit in Fig. 3 uses data to μ² = -0.1 GeV², which at Tc ≈ 0.18 GeV is μ_I/T ≈ 1.8—far past the physical RW limit. A lattice continuation would stop at μ_I/T ≈ 1.05. So the quoted μ_conv and 150% discrepancy are properties of the QM model's own imaginary axis, not a faithful benchmark for the lattice procedure.

On the credit side, the authors are open about the two main soft spots: they fix the 10% threshold by hand and acknowledge in the Conclusions that a Polyakov-loop version is needed for a proper treatment of the RW transition. They also flag the FRG backbending that prevents a precise CEP location in that scheme. The qualitative conclusion—analytic continuation from imaginary μ becomes unreliable as the CEP is approached—is almost certainly correct and is consistent with the DSE work [28]; it is not new, but this paper gives a different model-based illustration. The citation pattern looks fine.

The soft spots beyond the RW issue are the arbitrary threshold defining μ_conv (no sensitivity to it), the absence of code or data to check the FRG numerics, and a likely typo in Table I for the FRG κ4 value. None of these by themselves sink the paper. The RW/periodicity issue is the one that needs to be fixed or at least carefully caveated before the numbers can be used as a lattice benchmark.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review but with the expectation that the authors either restrict the imaginary-μ fit to the physical RW domain or switch to a Polyakov-loop extended model, and that they report how μ_conv moves with the threshold. For a reader, treat the qualitative warning as solid and the quantitative figures as model-dependent.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript tests the imaginary-μ analytic continuation technique used in lattice QCD by applying it inside the two-flavor Quark-Meson model, computed both in the mean-field approximation and in the FRG-LPA. The authors fit the pseudocritical line with Tc(μ)/Tc = 1 − κ2(μ/Tc)^2 − κ4(μ/Tc)^4 using model data at imaginary μ, continue the fit to real μ, and compare it with the model's direct real-μ pseudocritical line. They define a relative error ε_rel, choose a 10% threshold, and obtain an effective convergence radius μ_conv ≈ 146 MeV in both approximations; near the critical endpoint the discrepancy reaches about 150%. They conclude that the reconstruction works at moderate μ but that CEP locations obtained by continuation from imaginary μ should be regarded with caution.

Significance. The paper provides an internally consistent, non-circular test: the real-μ target line is not used to fit κ2 and κ4, so the comparison measures the quality of the continuation procedure itself. The qualitative conclusion that continuation degrades near the CEP is plausible and well illustrated in both approximations. Its main strength is the direct side-by-side comparison made possible by working in a model where both real and imaginary μ are computable. The quantitative values, however, are not directly transferable to QCD: the model's imaginary-μ analytic structure differs from QCD's (no Roberge-Weiss transition at μ_I/T = π/3), and the extracted μ_conv depends on an arbitrary error threshold. With these caveats addressed, the work would be a useful cautionary benchmark.

major comments (3)

[Section IV, Fig. 3 and Eq. (13)] The imaginary-μ data used in the fit extend to μ² = −0.1 GeV², i.e. μ_I/T ≈ 1.7–1.8 at the pseudocritical temperatures, well beyond the physical Roberge-Weiss endpoint μ_I/T = π/3. In QCD, analytic continuation from imaginary μ is reliable only below that endpoint; the QM model without a Polyakov loop is 2πT-periodic in μ (see the fermionic source term in Eq. (13)) and therefore has no RW non-analyticity at π/3. Fitting Eq. (24) through this region can bias κ2 and κ4 in Table I and hence μ_conv in Eqs. (26)–(27). Please restrict the fit to the QCD-compatible imaginary-μ range or extend the model with a Polyakov loop, and quantify the resulting change in μ_conv.
[Section IV, Eqs. (25)–(27)] μ_conv is defined by an arbitrarily chosen ε_rel threshold of 0.10, and no uncertainty or sensitivity to that choice is reported. The values in Eqs. (26) and (27) are quoted to four significant digits without error bars even though the fit parameters in Table I have uncertainties. Please propagate the parameter uncertainties and show how μ_conv varies when the threshold is changed (for example 0.05 and 0.15).
[Section IV, CEP discussion] The statement that the relative error is 'of order ε_rel ≈ 1.5 in the proximity of the CEP' is not fully supported in the FRG case, where the CEP is only bracketed because of backbending. Please explain how ε_rel near the CEP is computed in the FRG case and how it varies over the bracketed CEP region.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] Fix the typos 'pbtained', 'extrapolatin', and 'then' (which should be 'than').
[Table I] The FRG κ4 entry appears as '0255 ± 0.0005' without a leading decimal; clarify whether the intended value is 0.0255 or 0.255.
[After Eq. (22)] The sentence says 'the presence of the factor of 3 in Eq. (5)', but the factor of 3 appears in the flow equation Eq. (13); the cross-reference should be corrected.
[Fig. 3] The dashed 'RW limit' line is not defined in the text; specify whether it is placed at μ_I/T = π/3 (the QCD value) or at the 2πT-periodicity endpoint of the model, and explain its relevance for a model without a Roberge-Weiss transition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reconstruction is fitted to imaginary-μ data and compared against independently computed real-μ model results, so the test is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is not circular. The reconstruction line is obtained by fitting Tc(mu)/Tc = 1 - kappa2 (mu/Tc)^2 - kappa4 (mu/Tc)^4, Eq. (24), to the model's pseudocritical temperatures computed at imaginary chemical potential, with the coefficients then 'continued to real mu.' The benchmark quantity is the model's actual pseudocritical boundary at real mu, obtained independently from the peak of chi_sigma, Eq. (23). The target quantity, the real-mu phase boundary, is not used in the fit, so the comparison in Eqs. (25)-(27) is a genuine out-of-sample test of the continuation technique within the model. The effective convergence radius mu_conv is defined by a chosen relative-error threshold, which is a definition, not a disguised input. The main limitations—model dependence and the absence of the Polyakov loop and Roberge-Weiss structure, noted in the Conclusions—concern the faithfulness of the model benchmark to lattice QCD, not circularity. Self-citations to the hydrodynamic FRG formalism (Refs. [5,31]) are methodological references to a standard framework (Wetterich equation, Litim regulator) and are not used to justify the paper's quantitative conclusion by fiat. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison depends on model parameters and a standard FRG truncation; no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The quantitative convergence radius depends on the hand-chosen error threshold and the two fit coefficients.

free parameters (3)

kappa_2 (reconstruction curvature) = MF: 0.0311 +/- 0.0001; FRG: 0.0255 +/- 0.0005
Coefficient in Eq. (24) fitted to model results at imaginary mu; used to reconstruct the real-mu critical line.
kappa_4 (reconstruction kurtosis) = MF: 0.0021 +/- 0.0001; FRG: 0.0255 +/- 0.0005 (as printed in Table I)
Second coefficient in Eq. (24), fitted to imaginary-mu data; sets the onset of deviation in the reconstructed line.
relative-error threshold epsilon_rel_thr = 0.10
Hand-chosen cutoff in Fig. 4 used to define mu_conv; the central quantitative result depends on this arbitrary choice.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Quark-Meson model parameters (f_pi equals 0.093 GeV, Yukawa coupling h, explicit breaking coefficient c, and the initial UV potential for the FRG) are taken from prior literature and are assumed to provide a realistic chiral effective description.
The entire test is performed inside this model; transfer of mu_conv and the 150 percent discrepancy to QCD assumes the model's analytic structure near the CEP matches QCD.
domain assumption The pseudo-critical temperature is defined by the peak of chi_sigma equals negative derivative of sigma with respect to T.
Used for both real and imaginary mu (Eq. (23), Section IV); an alternative pseudo-critical definition could shift the boundary and the reconstructed line.
ad hoc to paper The polynomial form Eq. (24), truncated at fourth order in mu/Tc, is sufficient to fit the imaginary-mu data and to continue to real mu.
The fit is the reconstruction under test; no check of kappa_6 or other non-analytic terms is reported, and the truncation directly affects mu_conv.
standard math The FRG LPA truncation with the Litim regulator and the hydrodynamic formulation conserves the relevant physics; the mean-field limit is recovered as Nc tends to infinity.
Standard FRG framework cited from [36-39,43,55,56]; used to compute the effective potential and its sigma derivative.
domain assumption The backbending region in FRG prevents a precise CEP location; the CEP is only bracketed between crossover and first-order regimes.
The comparison near the CEP in FRG uses a bracketed region rather than an exact endpoint, so the claimed roughly 150 percent discrepancy is approximate.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing the Reconstruction of the Critical Line in the QCD Phase Diagram from Imaginary to Real Chemical Potential." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JG2E5FJG

@misc{pith2026250504569,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing the Reconstruction of the Critical Line in the QCD Phase Diagram from Imaginary to Real Chemical Potential},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JG2E5FJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04569}
}

abstract

We test a technique adopted in the lattice simulations framework, to reconstruct the chiral-phase boundary at real chemical potential, $\mu$, via extrapolation from imaginary $\mu$. We use a low-energy effective model, the Quark-Meson model, both in the mean-field approximation and within the Functional Renormalization Group, the latter in the Local Potential Approximation. The model provides results both for real and imaginary values of $\mu$, thus a direct comparison can be performed between the prediction of the model for real values of $\mu$ and the ones obtained via extrapolation from the results at imaginary $\mu$. We compute an effective convergence radius for the reconstruction technique, $\mu_\mathrm{conv}$, and find $\mu_\mathrm{conv}\approx146$ MeV. This value sustains the validity of the reconstruction technique also for finite and moderate values of the chemical potential. On the other hand, within our model, $\mu_\mathrm{conv}$ is quite smaller then the value of $\mu$ where we find the actual critical endpoint. Near this point of the phase diagram, we find a discrepancy between the actual phase boundary and the one pbtained via extrapolatin of $\approx150\%$. Therefore, our results show that the location of the critical endpoint obtained via reconstruction from imaginary $\mu$ should be considered with due caution

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04569 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Relative error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Phase boundary of the QM model in the mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[28]

Bernhardt and C

J. Bernhardt and C. S. Fischer, From imaginary to real chemical potential QCD with functional methods, Eur. 9 Phys. J. A 59, 181 (2023), arXiv:2305.01434 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2023
[1]

Fukushima and T

K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, The phase diagram of dense qcd, Reports on Progress in Physics 74, 014001 (2010)

work page 2010
[2]

Barducci, R

A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, R. Gatto, and G. Pettini, Chiral Symmetry Breaking in QCD at Finite Temperature and Density, Phys. Lett. B231, 463 (1989)

work page 1989
[3]

Meyer-Ortmanns, Phase transitions in quantum chro- modynamics, Rev

H. Meyer-Ortmanns, Phase transitions in quantum chro- modynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 473 (1996)

work page 1996
[4]

T. K. Herbst, J. M. Pawlowski, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phase structure and thermodynamics of QCD, Phys. Rev. D88, 014007 (2013), arXiv:1302.1426 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2013
[5]

Functional Renormalization Group Study of Thermodynamic Geometry Around the Phase Transition of Quantum Chromodynamic

F. Murgana, V. Greco, M. Ruggieri, and D. Zappal` a, Functional renormalization group study of thermody- namic geometry around the phase transition of quan- tum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 109, 096017 (2024), arXiv:2312.00665 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[6]

M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V. Shuryak, Sig- natures of the tricritical point in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4816 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806219

arXiv 1998
[7]

Wilczek, Application of the renormalization group to a second order QCD phase transition, Int

F. Wilczek, Application of the renormalization group to a second order QCD phase transition, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 7, 3911 (1992), [Erratum: Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 7, 6951 (1992)]

work page 1992

Show all 67 references

[8]

G. V. Ruggieri Marco, Tachibana Motoi, Renormalized vs. nonrenormalized chiral transition in a magnetic back- ground, Journal of High Energy Physics 2013 (2013)

2013
[9]

ZHANG, D

Y. ZHANG, D. ZHANG, and X. LUO, Experimental study of the qcd phase diagram in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, NUCLEAR TECHNIQUES 46, 040001 (2023)

2023
[10]

Roland, K

G. Roland, K. Safarik, and P. Steinberg, Heavy-ion colli- sions at the LHC, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 77, 70 (2014)

2014
[11]

Armesto, N

N. Armesto, N. Borghini, S. Jeon, and U. A. Wiedemann, eds., Proceedings, Workshop on Heavy Ion Collisions at the LHC: Last Call for Predictions: Geneva, Switzerland, May 14 - June 8, 2007 , Vol. 35 (2008) arXiv:0711.0974 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[12]

Xu (STAR), An Overview of STAR Experimental Re- sults, Nucl

N. Xu (STAR), An Overview of STAR Experimental Re- sults, Nucl. Phys. A931, 1 (2014), arXiv:1408.3555 [nucl- ex]

2014 arXiv
[13]

Bazavov, T

A. Bazavov, T. Bhattacharya, M. Cheng, C. DeTar, H.-T. Ding, S. Gottlieb, R. Gupta, P. Hegde, U. M. Heller, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, L. Levkova, S. Mukher- jee, P. Petreczky, C. Schmidt, R. A. Soltz, W. Soeld- ner, R. Sugar, D. Toussaint, W. Unger, and P. Vranas (HotQCD Collabo...

2012
[14]

Ratti and W

C. Ratti and W. Weise, Thermodynamics of two-colour qcd and the nambu jona-lasinio model, Phys. Rev. D 70, 054013 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0406159 [hep-ph]

2004 arXiv
[15]

Ratti, M

C. Ratti, M. A. Thaler, and W. Weise, Phases of qcd: Lattice thermodynamics and a field theoretical model, Phys. Rev. D 73, 014019 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506234 [hep-ph]

2006 arXiv
[16]

Pan and Z

G. Pan and Z. Y. Meng, The sign problem in quan- tum monte carlo simulations, in Encyclopedia of Con- densed Matter Physics (Second Edition) , edited by T. Chakraborty (Academic Press, Oxford, 2024) second edition ed., pp. 879–893

2024
[17]

R. V. Gavai and S. Gupta, Pressure and nonlinear sus- ceptibilities in QCD at finite chemical potentials, Phys. Rev. D 68, 034506 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0303013

2003 arXiv
[18]

Bazavov et al., The QCD Equation of State toO(µ6 B) from Lattice QCD, Phys

A. Bazavov et al., The QCD Equation of State toO(µ6 B) from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 95, 054504 (2017), arXiv:1701.04325 [hep-lat]

2017 arXiv
[19]

M. G. Alford, A. Kapustin, and F. Wilczek, Imagi- nary chemical potential and finite fermion density on the lattice, Phys. Rev. D 59, 054502 (1999), arXiv:hep- lat/9807039

1999
[20]

Bellwied, S

R. Bellwied, S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. G¨ unther, S. D. Katz, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, The QCD phase dia- gram from analytic continuation, Phys. Lett. B 751, 559 (2015), arXiv:1507.07510 [hep-lat]

2015 arXiv
[21]

Parisi, ON COMPLEX PROBABILITIES, Phys

G. Parisi, ON COMPLEX PROBABILITIES, Phys. Lett. B 131, 393 (1983)

1983
[22]

Attanasio, B

F. Attanasio, B. J¨ ager, and F. P. G. Ziegler, Com- plex Langevin simulations and the QCD phase diagram: Recent developments, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 251 (2020), arXiv:2006.00476 [hep-lat]

2020 arXiv
[23]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Dynamical model of el- ementary particles based on an analogy with supercon- ductivity. 1., Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961)

1961
[24]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Dynamical model of el- ementary particles based on an analogy with supercon- ductivity. ii., Phys. Rev. 124, 246 (1961)

1961
[25]

Koch, Aspects of chiral symmetry, Int

V. Koch, Aspects of chiral symmetry, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 6, 203 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9706075

1997 arXiv
[26]

Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , Vol

S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , Vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

1996
[27]

Fukushima and V

K. Fukushima and V. Skokov, Polyakov loop modeling for hot QCD, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 96, 154 (2017), arXiv:1705.00718 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[29]

M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (Westview Press, 1995) reading, USA: Addison-Wesley (1995) 842 p

1995
[30]

Gell-Mann and M

M. Gell-Mann and M. Levy, The axial vector current in beta decay, Nuovo Cim. 16, 705 (1960)

1960
[31]

Murgana, A

F. Murgana, A. Koenigstein, and D. H. Rischke, Re- analysis of critical exponents for the O(N) model via a hydrodynamic approach to the functional renor- malization group, Phys. Rev. D 108, 116016 (2023), arXiv:2303.16838 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[32]

K. S. Jeong, F. Murgana, A. Dash, and D. H. Rischke, Functional Renormalization Group analysis of the quark- condensation pattern on the Fermi surface: A sim- ple effective-model approach, (2024), arXiv:2407.13589 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[34]

Braun, M

J. Braun, M. Leonhardt, and J. M. Pawlowski, Renormal- ization group consistency and low-energy effective theo- ries, SciPost Phys. 6, 56 (2019)

2019
[35]

Stoll, N

J. Stoll, N. Zorbach, A. Koenigstein, M. J. Steil, and S. Rechenberger, Bosonic fluctuations in the (1 + 1)- dimensional Gross-Neveu(-Yukawa) model at varying µ and T and finite N (2021), arXiv:2108.10616 [hep-ph], arXiv:2108.10616 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[36]

Ellwanger, FLow equations for N point functions and bound states, Z

U. Ellwanger, FLow equations for N point functions and bound states, Z. Phys. C 62, 503 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9308260

1994
[37]

Wetterich, Exact evolution equation for the effective potential, Phys

C. Wetterich, Exact evolution equation for the effective potential, Phys. Lett. B301, 90 (1993), arXiv:1710.05815 [hep-th]

1993 arXiv
[38]

T. R. Morris, On truncations of the exact renormaliza- tion group, Phys. Lett. B 334, 355 (1994), arXiv:hep- th/9405190

1994
[39]

Reuter and C

M. Reuter and C. Wetterich, Effective average action for gauge theories and exact evolution equations, Nucl. Phys. B 417, 181 (1994)

1994
[40]

J. M. Pawlowski, Aspects of the functional renormalisa- tion group, Annals Phys. 322, 2831 (2007), arXiv:hep- th/0512261

2007
[41]

Kopietz, L

P. Kopietz, L. Bartosch, and F. Sch¨ utz, Introduction to the functional renormalization group , Vol. 798 (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010)

2010
[42]

Dupuis, L

N. Dupuis, L. Canet, A. Eichhorn, W. Metzner, J. M. Pawlowski, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, The nonper- turbative functional renormalization group and its ap- plications, Phys. Rept. 910, 1 (2021), arXiv:2006.04853 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2021 arXiv
[43]

Berges, N

J. Berges, N. Tetradis, and C. Wetterich, Nonperturba- tive renormalization flow in quantum field theory and sta- tistical physics, Phys. Rept. 363, 223 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0005122

2002
[44]

Wetterich, Average action and the renormalization group equations, Nuclear Physics B 352, 529 (1991)

C. Wetterich, Average action and the renormalization group equations, Nuclear Physics B 352, 529 (1991)

1991
[45]

J. M. Pawlowski, Aspects of the functional renormalisa- tion group, Annals of Physics 322, 2831 (2007)

2007
[46]

D. F. Litim, Critical exponents from optimized renor- malization group flows, Nucl. Phys. B 631, 128 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0203006

2002 arXiv
[47]

D. F. Litim, Optimized renormalization group flows, Phys. Rev. D 64, 105007 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0103195

2001 arXiv
[48]

Canet, B

L. Canet, B. Delamotte, D. Mouhanna, and J. Vidal, Op- timization of the derivative expansion in the nonpertur- bative renormalization group, Phys. Rev. D 67, 065004 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0211055

2003 arXiv
[49]

T. R. Morris, The Exact renormalization group and ap- proximate solutions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9, 2411 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9308265

1994 arXiv
[50]

Bergerhoff and C

B. Bergerhoff and C. Wetterich, Effective quark inter- actions and QCD propagators, Phys. Rev. D 57, 1591 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9708425

1998 arXiv
[51]

J. A. Adams, J. Berges, S. Bornholdt, F. Freire, N. Tetradis, and C. Wetterich, Solving nonperturbative flow equations, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 10, 2367 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9507093

1995 arXiv
[52]

Grossi and N

E. Grossi and N. Wink, Resolving phase transitions with discontinuous galerkin methods (2019), arXiv:1903.09503 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[53]

Grossi, F

E. Grossi, F. J. Ihssen, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Wink, Shocks and quark-meson scatterings at large density, Phys. Rev. D 104, 016028 (2021), arXiv:2102.01602 [hep- ph]

2021 arXiv
[54]

Delamotte, An Introduction to the nonperturbative renormalization group, Lect

B. Delamotte, An Introduction to the nonperturbative renormalization group, Lect. Notes Phys. 852, 49 (2012), arXiv:cond-mat/0702365

2012 arXiv
[55]

D. F. Litim, Optimized renormalization group flows, Phys. Rev. D 64, 105007 (2001)

2001
[56]

D. F. Litim, Critical exponents from optimised renormal- isation group flows, Nuclear Physics B 631, 128 (2002)

2002
[57]

Zorbach, A

N. Zorbach, A. Koenigstein, and J. Braun, Functional Renormalization Group meets Computational Fluid Dy- namics: RG flows in a multi-dimensional field space (2024), arXiv:2412.16053 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2024 arXiv
[58]

Koenigstein, L

A. Koenigstein, L. Pannullo, S. Rechenberger, M. J. Steil, and M. Winstel, Detecting inhomogeneous chiral conden- sation from the bosonic two-point function in the (1 + 1)- dimensional gross–neveu model in the mean-field approx- imation, J. Phys. A 55, 375402 (2022), arXiv:211...

2022 arXiv
[59]

Kurganov and E

A. Kurganov and E. Tadmor, New high-resolution cen- tral schemes for nonlinear conservation laws and con- vection–diffusion equations, Journal of Computational Physics 160, 241 (2000)

2000
[60]

J. W. Thomas, Numerical partial differential equations: conservation laws and elliptic equations (Springer, New York, 1999)

1999
[61]

Blad´ e, M

E. Blad´ e, M. G´ omez-Valent´ ın, J. Dolz, J. Arag´ on- Hern´ andez, G. Corestein, and M. S´ anchez-Juny, Integra- tion of 1d and 2d finite volume schemes for computations of water flow in natural channels, Advances in Water Re- sources 42, 17 (2012)

2012
[62]

Jiang and E

G.-S. Jiang and E. Tadmor, Nonoscillatory central schemes for multidimensional hyperbolic conservation laws, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 19, 1892 (1998), https://doi.org/10.1137/S106482759631041X

1998 doi
[63]

Koenigstein, M

A. Koenigstein, M. J. Steil, N. Wink, E. Grossi, J. Braun, M. Buballa, and D. H. Rischke, Numerical fluid dynamics for FRG flow equations: Zero-dimensional QFTs as nu- merical test cases. I. The O(N) model, Phys. Rev. D 106, 065012 (2022), arXiv:2108.02504 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2022 arXiv
[64]

Koenigstein, M

A. Koenigstein, M. J. Steil, N. Wink, E. Grossi, and J. Braun, Numerical fluid dynamics for FRG flow equa- tions: Zero-dimensional QFTs as numerical test cases. II. 10 Entropy production and irreversibility of RG flows, Phys. Rev. D 106, 065013 (2022), arXiv:2108.10085 [cond- ...

2022 arXiv
[65]

Ihssen, F

F. Ihssen, F. R. Sattler, and N. Wink, Numerical RG- time integration of the effective potential: Analysis and Benchmark (2023), arXiv:2302.04736 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[66]

Morita, V

K. Morita, V. Skokov, B. Friman, and K. Redlich, Role of mesonic fluctuations in the Polyakov loop extended quark-meson model at imaginary chemical potential, Phys. Rev. D 84, 074020 (2011), arXiv:1108.0735 [hep- ph]

2011 arXiv
[67]

Borsanyi, Z

S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, R. Kara, S. D. Katz, P. Parotto, A. Pasztor, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, QCD Crossover at Finite Chemical Potential from Lat- tice Simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 052001 (2020), arXiv:2002.02821 [hep-lat]

2020 arXiv
[68]

Tripolt, J

R.-A. Tripolt, J. Weyrich, L. von Smekal, and J. Wambach, Fermionic spectral functions with the func- tional renormalization group, Phys. Rev. D 98, 094002 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [28]

Bernhardt and C

J. Bernhardt and C. S. Fischer, From imaginary to real chemical potential QCD with functional methods, Eur. 9 Phys. J. A 59, 181 (2023), arXiv:2305.01434 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2023

[2] [1]

Fukushima and T

K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, The phase diagram of dense qcd, Reports on Progress in Physics 74, 014001 (2010)

work page 2010

[3] [2]

Barducci, R

A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, R. Gatto, and G. Pettini, Chiral Symmetry Breaking in QCD at Finite Temperature and Density, Phys. Lett. B231, 463 (1989)

work page 1989

[4] [3]

Meyer-Ortmanns, Phase transitions in quantum chro- modynamics, Rev

H. Meyer-Ortmanns, Phase transitions in quantum chro- modynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 473 (1996)

work page 1996

[5] [4]

T. K. Herbst, J. M. Pawlowski, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phase structure and thermodynamics of QCD, Phys. Rev. D88, 014007 (2013), arXiv:1302.1426 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2013

[6] [5]

Functional Renormalization Group Study of Thermodynamic Geometry Around the Phase Transition of Quantum Chromodynamic

F. Murgana, V. Greco, M. Ruggieri, and D. Zappal` a, Functional renormalization group study of thermody- namic geometry around the phase transition of quan- tum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 109, 096017 (2024), arXiv:2312.00665 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[7] [6]

M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V. Shuryak, Sig- natures of the tricritical point in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4816 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806219

arXiv 1998

[8] [7]

Wilczek, Application of the renormalization group to a second order QCD phase transition, Int

F. Wilczek, Application of the renormalization group to a second order QCD phase transition, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 7, 3911 (1992), [Erratum: Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 7, 6951 (1992)]

work page 1992