Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Scaling functions in the soft-wall AdS/QCD models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Soft-wall AdS/QCD models reproduce universal mean-field scaling laws for the chiral condensate, and a modified scalar potential brings pseudo-critical temperature scaling in line with Dyson-Schwinger estimates.

desk verdict A thorough mean-field consistency check for soft-wall AdS/QCD that adds useful new tools; the DSE comparison needs a scaling-window test and error bars before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22724 v1 pith:L55LERMD submitted 2025-07-30 hep-ph

Zhongzheng Zhang , Danning Li , Lang Yu , Zhibin Li , Xinyang Wang This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords soft-wallAdS/QCDchiralcondensatescalingfunctionspseudo-criticaltemperaturemean-fielduniversalitysusceptibilityquarkmassholographicQCD
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 soft-wall AdS/QCD descriptions of two-flavor chiral dynamics reproduce the universal scaling behavior expected near a mean-field critical point. By numerically extracting the scaling function of the chiral condensate in three different soft-wall models, the authors find that as the quark mass goes to zero the function collapses onto the same curve as the Landau mean-field result, independent of model construction. They derive a perturbative equation for the chiral susceptibility and verify the exact relation between the two scaling functions, confirming internal consistency. They then show that the pseudo-critical temperature follows $T_c = \alpha m_q^{2/3} + T_{c0}$, and that a modified scalar potential, called Model III, yields a slope comparable to Dyson-Schwinger and lattice estimates. The payoff is a practical constraint: realistic soft-wall model building should reproduce not only critical exponents but also the coefficient of the $T_c$ scaling law.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the scaling functions $f_G(z)$ and $f_\chi(z)$ of the chiral order parameter, defined near the two-flavor critical point of a five-dimensional soft-wall action with dilaton profile $\Phi = \mu_g^2 r^2$ and scalar potential $V(\chi)$. The chiral condensate $\sigma$ and quark mass $m_q$ enter through the UV boundary expansion $\chi \sim m_q \zeta r + \sigma/\zeta \, r^3$, and the scaling parameter is $z = t/h^{1/(\beta\delta)}$ with mean-field exponents $\beta = 1/2$, $\delta = 3$, $\Delta = 3/2$. The chiral susceptibility is computed by solving a linearized equation for $\delta\chi$ with the same shooting method, giving the exact link between $f_\chi$ and $f_G$. Three scalar potentials, Models I, II, and III, are used to test model independence, with Model III's softened potential making the crossover broader and the $T_c$ slope steeper.

What would settle it

Recompute $f_G(z)$ and $T_c(m_q)$ including the first subleading, Wegner-type correction: if $f_G$ at $m_q/m_{\mathrm{phy}} \approx 1$ deviates from the mean-field curve by more than the model's numerical precision, or if the fitted $\alpha$ fails to predict the directly computed $T_c$ at the physical point, then the claim that the scaling region extends below the physical quark mass is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Near the two-flavor chiral critical point, the chiral condensate $\sigma$ in the soft-wall AdS/QCD models obeys $\sigma = A m_q^{1/\delta}$ and $\sigma = B (T_{c0}-T)^{\beta}$ with mean-field exponents $\beta = 1/2$ and $\delta = 3$, and the full scaling function $f_G(z)$ defined by $\sigma = m_q^{1/\delta} f_G(z)$ with $z = t/h^{1/(\beta\delta)}$ matches the four-dimensional mean-field scaling function once $m_q$ is small enough. The paper derives the susceptibility scaling function $f_\chi$ from a perturbed equation of motion and confirms the universal identity $f_\chi(z) = \frac{1}{\delta} f_G(z) - \frac{z}{\beta\delta} f_G'(z)$, with $f_\chi(0)/f_G(0) = 1/3$. It further shows that the pseudo-critical temperature obeys $T_c - T_{c0} = \alpha m_q^{2/3}$, equivalently $T_c - T_{c0} \propto m_\pi^{4/3}$ through the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation, with $\alpha \approx 4.07$, $3.03$, and $11.7$ for Models I, II, and III. The larger Model III value, produced by a logarithmically softened, $r$-dependent scalar potential, brings the $T_c$ slope into line with Dyson-Schwinger results.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the leading scaling law $T_c = \alpha m_q^{2/3} + T_{c0}$ holds from the chiral limit all the way to the physical quark mass, so subleading corrections can be ignored across the entire fitted range; the paper does not quantify where the scaling window actually ends, and Model III itself shows a smaller scaling window than the other two models.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the chiral limit, all three soft-wall models give the same mean-field scaling function $f_G(z)$, so universal critical scaling is a property of the holographic construction itself rather than of any particular scalar potential.
  • The relation $f_\chi(z) = \frac{1}{\delta} f_G(z) - \frac{z}{\beta\delta} f_G'(z)$ holds in every model, so the soft-wall framework passes a nontrivial self-consistency test for chiral critical dynamics.
  • The pseudo-critical temperature rises as $m_q^{2/3}$, equivalently $m_\pi^{4/3}$, above $T_{c0}$; soft-wall models that aim to match QCD should reproduce this slope, not just the exponents.
  • Model III's slope $\alpha \approx 11.7$ is comparable with Dyson-Schwinger estimates, suggesting that softening the scalar potential is a viable route toward quantitative $T_c$ scaling in holographic QCD.
  • The temperature at which the chiral susceptibility reaches 79% of its maximum approaches $T_{c0}$ much faster than the susceptibility-peak temperature, offering a practical observable for chiral-limit extrapolation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the soft-wall models are locked to mean-field exponents, their $f_\chi$ cannot reproduce $O(4)$ lattice curves; the paper's comparability claim concerns the $T_c$ slope, not the universality class.
  • The paper fits the leading scaling law from $m_q = 0$ up to the physical quark mass, while Model III itself shows a smaller scaling window; a testable extension is to include subleading Wegner corrections and locate where the leading-power fit actually breaks.
  • The 79% ratio $R = f_\chi(0)/f_{\chi,\max}$ is a concrete mean-field prediction that could be checked against lattice and functional-method data for the susceptibility fraction at the chiral-limit temperature.
  • The same scaling-function machinery could be applied to $N_f = 2+1$ soft-wall models and to searches for the critical end point at finite baryon density, where mean-field exponents would again dictate the universality class.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the static scaling behavior of the chiral condensate in three soft-wall AdS/QCD models. The authors numerically extract the scaling functions f_G(z) and f_chi(z) from the temperature and quark-mass dependence of the chiral condensate, compare them with mean-field results, derive and verify the relation f_chi = (1/delta) f_G - (z/(beta delta)) f_G', compute the chiral susceptibility through a perturbative equation, and study the scaling of the pseudo-critical temperature Tc = alpha m_q^{1/Delta} + Tc0. A new model ('Model III') is introduced with a softened scalar potential, and its Tc scaling slope is claimed to be comparable to Dyson-Schwinger results.

Significance. The paper provides a detailed internal-consistency check of soft-wall AdS/QCD models: the linear scalings of sigma^2 with T and sigma^3 with m_q (Fig. 2), the collapse of f_G onto the mean-field curve in the chiral limit (Fig. 3), and the verification of Eq. (25) (Fig. 7) are clear numerical tests. The perturbative formalism for the chiral susceptibility (Eqs. 23-24) is a useful technical contribution, and the proposed 'percentage-temperature' observable for extracting Tc0 is interesting. However, the match with the mean-field scaling function is largely built into the quartic Landau-type potential, so the paper mainly demonstrates self-consistency rather than a new universality result. The central quantitative claim about DSE-level Tc scaling rests on a fit of Eq. (27) over a mass range that the paper's own results suggest is too broad, and the reported alpha values are inconsistent. With appropriate revisions to the scaling-window discussion and the quantitative claims, the paper could be a solid benchmark for holographic QCD model building.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (27), Fig. 11] The scaling law Tc = alpha m_q^{1/Delta} + Tc0 is an asymptotic critical scaling relation, but the fits in Fig. 11 are performed over the entire range m_q/m_phy in [0,1], including points far outside the model's scaling window. The paper's own Sec. III B states that 'the scaling window for Model III is smaller' than for Models I and II, and Fig. 3 shows that for Model III the scaling function f_G merges with the mean-field curve only for m_q of order 10^{-2} MeV, orders of magnitude below the physical quark mass. Fitting Eq. (27) up to the physical mass therefore mixes the critical region with the non-scaling crossover region; the extracted alpha is an effective, range-dependent slope rather than the universal coefficient needed for the DSE comparison in Fig. 12. In addition, the text quotes alpha=11.73 for Model III while the Fig. 11 caption gives alpha=12.3, and no goodness-of-fit or error bars are provided. Please restrict the fits to the actual scaling window, quantify the fit range and quality, and reconcile the two values of alpha.
  2. [Sec. III A-B, Figs. 3-7] The claimed 'precise match' between the holographic f_G(z) and the mean-field scaling function is to a large extent built into the model: the scalar potential (5) is a quartic Landau-type potential, and the mean-field exponents beta=1/2, delta=3 were already established for the same models in the self-cited Ref. [47]. The numerical extraction is therefore a self-consistency check rather than an independent test of universality. The abstract and conclusion should be rephrased to make this distinction explicit, and to state clearly that the scaling functions are a direct consequence of the mean-field nature of the soft-wall model. This does not invalidate the checks, but it changes the significance of the claim.
  3. [Sec. V, Conclusion] The statement 'the scaling region in these models can extend below the physical quark mass' is not quantified. Given that Fig. 3 shows Model III's f_G deviates from the mean-field curve for m_q above about 0.05 MeV, the conclusion appears to hold only for Models I and II, if at all, and no quantitative criterion is given for any model. Please define the scaling window operationally (e.g., by a tolerance on the deviation of f_G from the mean-field curve or on the residuals of Eq. (27)) and report, for each model, the maximal quark mass inside the window.
  4. [Sec. IV C, Fig. 14] The claim that the 79% percentage-temperature T_percent converges to Tc0 much faster than Tc is shown for Model III, with the statement 'we have checked that the relation holds in Models I and II as well' but without supporting figures or quantitative data. Since this is proposed as a practical observable for determining Tc0, please show the corresponding results for Models I and II or soften the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III A] The constants m_0 and sigma_0 in Eqs. (20a) and (20b) are used before being defined; please define them explicitly.
  2. [Sec. IV B] The text states 'As proved in [37], the GOR relation ... is satisfied in the soft-wall model,' but Ref. [37] is the original hard-wall model paper; please cite the reference where the GOR relation is proved for the soft-wall model or state explicitly that the proof carries over.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (24b)] The near-horizon expansion of delta chi in Eq. (24b) should be explained; in particular, please justify the coefficient 1/(4 r_h) of (r - r_h) and clarify why the O((r-r_h)^2) term is neglected.
  4. [Tables II and III] There are typographical and notation issues, including 'Mev' instead of 'MeV' in Table II and inconsistent spacing in quark-mass symbols (m q vs. m_q); please proofread for consistency.
  5. [Fig. 5] The comparison of Model III's f_G with lattice O(4) results uses different critical exponents in the definition of z, so the comparison is qualitative at best; please describe it as such and avoid implying a quantitative match.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The f_G(z→−∞) asymptotic in Fig. 4 is fixed by the normalization of m0 and σ0 via Eq. (20), so this confirmation is by construction; the intermediate-z mean-field match and the Tc/DSE comparison retain independent content.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III A, Eqs. (17) and (20); Sec. III B, Fig. 4]
    "fG(0) = 1, and fG(z) → z→−∞ (−z)β. ... By substituting the condition from Eq. 17 back into Eq. 20, we can solve for m0 and σ0, and then get the numerical results for fG(z). ... It is shown in Fig. 4 that when z decreases to −8, in the three models, fG(z) can be well described by (−z)^{1/2}."

    The constants m0 and σ0 are chosen by enforcing exactly the two conditions of Eq. (17), namely f_G(0)=1 and f_G(z)→(-z)^β as z→−∞. Because f_G=M/h^{1/δ} with h=m_q/m0 and M=σ/σ0, these conditions fix A m0^{1/δ}/σ0=1 and B Tc0^β/σ0=1. The data in Fig. 4 therefore must approach (-z)^{1/2} by definition once the fitted A and B of Table IV are used; it is not an independent confirmation of the asymptotic. The intermediate-z agreement with the mean-field curve is not enforced by this normalization and is a genuine output.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical work is a self-contained solution of the soft-wall EOM (Eq. 12) for σ(m_q,T), followed by extraction of f_G and f_χ. The f_χ-vs-f_G relation (Eq. 25), the susceptibility-peak Tc, Eq. (27) with Δ=3/2, and the 79% rule of Sec. IV C are checked by comparing independently defined quantities, so those parts are not circular. The main circular element is limited to the asymptotic part of f_G: the normalization constants m0 and σ0 are solved from the very conditions f_G(0)=1 and f_G→(-z)^β, so Fig. 4's asymptotic check is imposed rather than predicted. The mean-field character itself is expected because the model uses the quartic Landau-type potential of Eq. (5), with β=1/2, δ=3 imported from the authors' Ref. [47]; however, the paper also re-derives these exponents numerically in Fig. 2, and the shape of f_G in the intermediate z-range is an independent numerical result. The DSE/lattice comparison for Tc is a comparison of fitted scaling slopes; concerns about fitting Eq. (27) up to the physical quark mass despite Model III's smaller stated scaling window are correctness/scaling-window questions, not circularity. Overall partial circularity in one consistency check, with the central claims retaining independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model parameters in Tables I-III (16 numbers) are fitted inputs carried over from earlier papers by overlapping author groups, so the quantitative outputs (critical temperatures, amplitudes) inherit those fits. The amplitudes A, B, the slopes alpha, and the coefficients C are fitted in this paper to the model's own numerical output. The scaling analysis additionally assumes the standard holographic dictionary (Eq. 13a), the mean-field exponents from the authors' own Ref. [47], the scaling hypothesis (Eq. 15), and the GOR relation for converting m_q to m_pi. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced; Model III is a modification of the scalar potential, counted above through its seven fitted parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • Model I potential parameters (m_phy, mu_g, mu_c, lambda) = 3.22 MeV, 0.44 MeV, 1.45 GeV, 80
    Fitted in previous studies (Refs. [42,45], with overlapping authors) to reproduce meson spectra and the physical pion mass; enter the central calculation through the equation of motion, Eq. (12).
  • Model II potential parameters (m_phy, mu_g, gamma, lambda, kappa) = 3.90 MeV, 0.35 MeV, 6, 25, 0.85
    Fitted in Ref. [60] (with overlapping author D. Li); used in the same equation of motion.
  • Model III potential parameters (m_phy, mu_g, mu_c, b, a_0, a_1, a_2) = 3.10 MeV, 0.22 MeV, 1.15 GeV, 50, 20, 5, 0.20
    Ad hoc potential introduced in this paper (Eq. 8) to broaden the crossover and steepen the T_c slope; chosen to bring T_c(m_pi) closer to DSE results (Sec. IV B).
  • Critical amplitudes A and B = A = 0.0367/0.0545/0.00819 GeV^{8/3}; B = 0.0936/0.172/0.0121 GeV^{5/2} (Table IV)
    Slopes of the sigma^2-vs-T and sigma^3-vs-m_q linear fits (Fig. 2); they set the normalization constants m_0, sigma_0 of the scaling variable, so they control the absolute scale of f_G(z). Table IV's unit GeV^2 for B appears to be a typo.
  • T_c scaling slope alpha = 4.07 (Model I), 3.03 (Model II), 11.73 (Model III), in MeV with m_q/m_phy dimensionless
    Fitted to the pseudo-critical temperatures via Eq. (27) over m_q/m_phy in [0,1] (Fig. 11); this is the central quantity compared with DSE, FRG, and lattice in Fig. 12.
  • Susceptibility-scaling coefficient C = 0.016 (I), 0.023 (II), 0.0034 (III)
    Fitted to chi_sigma,max vs m_q via Eq. (28) over roughly m_q in [5x10^-5, 10^-3] GeV (Fig. 13).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT boundary dictionary: chi(r to 0) = m_q r zeta + r^3 sigma/zeta (Eq. 13a) identifies m_q and sigma as quark mass and chiral condensate.
    Invoked in Sec. II to define the order parameter and the source; underlies the whole computation. The subleading coefficient identification is standard in bottom-up holography but is an assumption about the dual field theory.
  • domain assumption Normalization zeta = sqrt(N_c)/(2 pi) for the scalar operator (from Ref. [61]).
    Used to convert boundary coefficients into physical units; imported from prior literature with no re-derivation.
  • domain assumption The two-flavor chiral transition in these models is continuous with mean-field exponents beta = 1/2, delta = 3 (proved in Ref. [47]).
    The scaling analysis in Sec. III presupposes these exponents; Ref. [47] shares an author with the present paper and established the result for the same model class.
  • standard math Scaling hypothesis: order parameter M = h^{1/delta} f_G(z) with z = t/h^{1/Delta} (Eq. 15), and a scaling window of finite width exists (Ref. [63]).
    Standard critical-phenomena formalism invoked in Sec. III A; the width of the window is model dependent and is one of the paper's fit parameters via the numerical ranges.
  • domain assumption GOR relation m_pi^2 f_pi^2 = 2 m_q sigma holds in the soft-wall model (Ref. [37]), so m_pi^2 is proportional to m_q.
    Used in Sec. IV B and the conclusion to convert the m_q^{1/beta delta} law into m_pi^{2/beta delta}; the conversion inherits the validity of GOR away from the chiral limit, which is only approximate for moderate quark masses.
  • domain assumption The pseudo-critical temperature from the susceptibility peak is the quantity to compare with DSE/FRG/lattice, and N_f=2+1 external data are acceptable benchmarks for an N_f=2 model.
    Adopted in Sec. IV B with the caveat about 'limited availability of N_f=2 data'; the subtraction of individual T_c0 values (Fig. 12) assumes the mass dependence is the physically comparable part.
  • domain assumption Universality: changing the scalar potential (Model III) preserves the mean-field critical exponents and scaling functions, so only the non-universal slope alpha is modified.
    This is the premise of Sec. IV B's model-building proposal: the authors assume the interesting freedom in the soft-wall construction is captured by the scaling coefficient alpha while the scaling function itself stays fixed. The cross-model comparison in Figs. 3-7 tests this only at a few parameter choices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling functions in the soft-wall AdS/QCD models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L55LERMD

@misc{pith2026250722724,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling functions in the soft-wall AdS/QCD models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L55LERMD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22724}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the static scaling behavior of the chiral condensate near the two-flavor critical point within the framework of the soft-wall AdS/QCD. The scaling functions are extracted from the chiral order parameters and are found to precisely match those obtained through mean-field calculations. Additionally, it is also checked that the scaling functions are independent of the specific construction of the holographic model. Furthermore, we develop the formalism for calculating the chiral susceptibility and demonstrate that the pseudo-critical temperatures obey the scaling law for moderate quark masses. It is shown that the temperature scaling could be comparable with those obtained from Dyson-Schwinger equations and lattice simulations. These findings could help improve the effectiveness of the soft-wall AdS/QCD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22724 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Chiral phase transitions and the crossover [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Critical scaling behavior near the critical point across different models. Red and black symbols are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The asymptotic fitting of the scaling function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison of the scaling function obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fig.6. From the figure, obvious deviations of the model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: , compared with the lattice simulation of Ref. [16]. From the figure, we obtain fχ ≃ 0.322. From Eq. 26, this value should be fχ(0) = 1 δ fG(0) = 1 3 . The deviation from this exact value is mainly from the numerical errors, due to the complexity of directly taking m =…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The dependence of the scaling function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The critical temperatures Tc from chiral susceptibility and chiral condensate, with mπ = 150 MeV and mπ = 20 MeV. The normalized value denotes each susceptibility scaled by the mean of all susceptibilities. mπ 50 MeV 60 MeV 70 MeV 80 MeV 90 MeV 100 MeV 110 MeV 120 MeV …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Chiral susceptibility for various pion masses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The pseudo-pion mass varies with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The dependence of the pseudo-critical temperature Tc on the scaled quark mass mq/mphy, with the physical quark mass mphy corresponding to mπ = 139.6 MeV. The red dashed curve represents the fit obtained using the data points. Besides the match of scaling exponent ∆ wi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The pseudo-critical temperature as a function of mπ. The lattice QCD results are taken from Ref. [16], the functional renormalization group (fRG) results are taken from Ref. [70], and the Dyson-Schwinger equations (DSE) approach results are taken from Ref. [9]. Furthe…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Dependence of the maximum chiral susceptibility χσ,max on the quark mass. that in the chiral limit more rapidly. As shown in lattice simulations [16], the ratio R = fχ(z = 0)/fχ,max coin￾cides with the ratio of the chiral susceptibility evaluated at the critical tempe…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The relation between the pion mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    H. A. Ahmed, M. Kawaguchi, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D110, 046002 (2024), arXiv:2401.04355 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Braun-Munzinger, K

    P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, , 491 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0304013

    arXiv 2003

  3. [2]

    Shuryak, Rev

    E. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035001 (2017), arXiv:1412.8393 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [3]

    It can also be seen that a peak with its center atz= 1.115, f max χ = 0.406ap- pears in the curve forfχ

    The deviation from this exact value is mainly from the numerical errors, due to the complexity of directly takingm= 0(instead, we take a tiny but finite value). It can also be seen that a peak with its center atz= 1.115, f max χ = 0.406ap- pears in the curve forfχ. The ratiof χ(z= 0)/f χ,max is approximately equal to79%. Later, we will see an inter- estin...

    work page arXiv

  5. [4]

    D. H. Rischke, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.52, 197 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0305030

    arXiv 2004

  6. [5]

    Huang and P

    M. Huang and P. Zhuang, Symmetry15, 541 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D29, 338 (1984)

    1984

  8. [7]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo (Wuppertal-Budapest), JHEP 09, 073 (2010), arXiv:1005.3508 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    Cheng et al., Phys

    M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D74, 054507 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0608013

    2006 arXiv

  2. [9]

    H.-T. Ding, F. Karsch, and S. Mukherjee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24, 1530007 (2015), arXiv:1504.05274 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Z. Bai, L. Chang, J. Chao, F. Gao, and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D104, 014005 (2021), arXiv:2007.10176 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    J. B. Kogut and D. K. Sinclair, Phys. Rev. D73, 074512 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0603021

    2006 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Ejiri, F

    S. Ejiri, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, C. Miao, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, C. Schmidt, W. Soeldner, and W. Unger, Phys. Rev. D80, 094505 (2009), arXiv:0909.5122 [hep- lat]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D85, 054503 (2012), arXiv:1111.1710 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Burger, E.-M

    F. Burger, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, M. Kirchner, M. P. Lom- bardo, M. Müller-Preussker, O. Philipsen, C. Urbach, and L. Zeidlewicz (tmfT), Phys. Rev. D87, 074508 (2013), arXiv:1102.4530 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [15]

    A. Y. Kotov, M. P. Lombardo, and A. Trunin, Phys. Lett. B823, 136749 (2021), arXiv:2105.09842 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    A. Y. Kotov, M. P. Lombardo, and A. Trunin, Symmetry 13, 1833 (2021), arXiv:2111.00569 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    H. T. Ding et al. (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 062002 (2019), arXiv:1903.04801 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Gao and J

    F. Gao and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D105, 094020 (2022), arXiv:2112.01395 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    J.BernhardtandC.S.Fischer,Phys.Rev.D108,114018 (2023), arXiv:2309.06737 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Braun, B

    J. Braun, B. Klein, and P. Piasecki, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1576 (2011), arXiv:1008.2155 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Braun et al., Phys

    J. Braun et al., Phys. Rev. D111, 094010 (2025), arXiv:2310.19853 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Fodor and S

    Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz, Phys. Lett. B534, 87 (2002), arXiv:hep-lat/0104001

    2002 arXiv

  16. [23]

    ’t Hooft, Conf

    G. ’t Hooft, Conf. Proc. C930308, 284 (1993), arXiv:gr- qc/9310026

    1993

  17. [24]

    Susskind, J

    L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys.36, 6377 (1995), arXiv:hep- th/9409089

    1995

  18. [25]

    J. M. Maldacena, AIP Conf. Proc.484, 51 (1999)

    1999

  19. [26]

    Policastro, D

    G. Policastro, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 081601 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0104066

    2001 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Buchel and J

    A. Buchel and J. T. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 090602 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0311175

    2004 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Kovtun, D

    P. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 111601 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0405231

    2005 arXiv

  22. [29]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de Téramond, H. G. Dosch, and J. Erlich, Physics Reports584, 1 (2015), light-front holo- graphic QCD and emerging confinement

    2015

  23. [30]

    Gursoy, M

    U. Gursoy, M. Jarvinen, and G. Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 242002 (2018), arXiv:1707.00872 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [31]

    S. S. Gubser, A. Nellore, S. S. Pufu, and F. D. Rocha, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 131601 (2008), arXiv:0804.1950 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Gursoy, E

    U. Gursoy, E. Kiritsis, L. Mazzanti, and F. Nitti, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 181601 (2008), arXiv:0804.0899 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  26. [33]

    D. Li, S. He, M. Huang, and Q.-S. Yan, JHEP09, 041 (2011), arXiv:1103.5389 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [34]

    S. I. Finazzo, R. Rougemont, H. Marrochio, and J. Noronha, JHEP02, 051 (2015), arXiv:1412.2968 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Zöllner and B

    R. Zöllner and B. Kämpfer, Eur. Phys. J. Plus135, 304 (2020), arXiv:1807.04260 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Y.-Q. Zhao, S. He, D. Hou, L. Li, and Z. Li, JHEP04, 115 (2023), arXiv:2212.14662 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Chen and M

    X. Chen and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D109, L051902 (2024), arXiv:2401.06417 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Erlich, E

    J. Erlich, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 261602 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0501128

    2005

  32. [39]

    Karch, E

    A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D74, 015005 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602229

    2006 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Gherghetta, J

    T. Gherghetta, J. I. Kapusta, and T. M. Kelley, Phys. Rev. D79, 076003 (2009), arXiv:0902.1998 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Li and M

    D. Li and M. Huang, JHEP11, 088 (2013), arXiv:1303.6929 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Chelabi, Z

    K. Chelabi, Z. Fang, M. Huang, D. Li, and Y.-L. Wu, JHEP04, 036 (2016), arXiv:1512.06493 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Chelabi, Z

    K. Chelabi, Z. Fang, M. Huang, D. Li, and Y.-L. Wu, Phys. Rev. D93, 101901 (2016), arXiv:1511.02721 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Li and M

    D. Li and M. Huang, JHEP02, 042 (2017), arXiv:1610.09814 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [45]

    S. P. Bartz and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. C97, 044908 (2018), arXiv:1801.00358 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Fang, Y.-L

    Z. Fang, Y.-L. Wu, and L. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B762, 86 (2016), arXiv:1604.02571 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. Chen, S. He, M. Huang, and D. Li, JHEP01, 165 (2019), arXiv:1810.07019 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    F. R. Brown, F. P. Butler, H. Chen, N. H. Christ, Z.-h. Dong, W. Schaffer, L. I. Unger, and A. Vaccarino, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 2491 (1990)

    1990

  42. [50]

    Y. Chen, M. Ding, D. Li, K. Bitaghsir Fadafan, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D111, 126010 (2025), arXiv:2408.17080 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. Lv, D. Li, and S. He, JHEP11, 026 (2019), arXiv:1811.03828 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Nishihara and M

    H. Nishihara and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. D89, 076001 (2014), arXiv:1401.2928 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    X. Chen, D. Li, D. Hou, and M. Huang, JHEP03, 073 (2020), arXiv:1908.02000 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    D. Li, M. Huang, Y. Yang, and P.-H. Yuan, JHEP02, 030 (2017), arXiv:1610.04618 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    D. M. Rodrigues, D. Li, E. Folco Capossoli, and H. Boschi-Filho, Phys. Rev. D98, 106007 (2018), arXiv:1807.11822 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Colangelo, J

    P. Colangelo, J. J. Sanz-Cillero, and F. Zuo, JHEP11, 012 (2012), arXiv:1207.5744 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [57]

    X. Cao, H. Liu, and D. Li, Phys. Rev. D102, 126014 14 (2020), arXiv:2009.00289 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    X. Cao, S. Qiu, H. Liu, and D. Li, JHEP08, 005 (2021), arXiv:2102.10946 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    X. Cao, M. Baggioli, H. Liu, and D. Li, JHEP12, 113 (2022), arXiv:2210.09088 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 202302 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0111100

    2002 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Liang, X

    W. Liang, X. Cao, H. Liu, and D. Li, Phys. Rev. D108, 096019 (2023), arXiv:2307.03708 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Cherman, T

    A. Cherman, T. D. Cohen, and E. S. Werbos, Phys. Rev. C79, 045203 (2009), arXiv:0804.1096 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J. P. Boyd, Chebyshev and Fourier spectral methods (Courier Corporation, 2001)

    2001

  56. [64]

    L. P. KADANOFF, W. GOTZE, D. HAMBLEN, R. HECHT, E. A. S. LEWIS, V. V. PALCIAUSKAS, M. RAYL, J. SWIFT, D. ASPNES, and J. KANE, Rev. Mod. Phys.39, 395 (1967)

    1967

  57. [65]

    Engels and F

    J. Engels and F. Karsch, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology85, 094506 (2012)

    2012

  58. [66]

    Grossi, A

    E. Grossi, A. Soloviev, D. Teaney, and F. Yan, Phys. Rev. D104, 034025 (2021), arXiv:2101.10847 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Engels and F

    J. Engels and F. Karsch, Phys. Rev. D85, 094506 (2012), arXiv:1105.0584 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Engels and F

    J. Engels and F. Karsch, Phys. Rev. D90, 014501 (2014), arXiv:1402.5302 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Gao and Y.-x

    F. Gao and Y.-x. Liu, Phys. Rev. D94, 076009 (2016), arXiv:1607.01675 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Aarts et al., Phys

    G. Aarts et al., Phys. Rev. D105, 034504 (2022), arXiv:2007.04188 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Braun, W.-j

    J. Braun, W.-j. Fu, J. M. Pawlowski, F. Rennecke, D. Rosenblüh, and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. D102, 056010 (2020), arXiv:2003.13112 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    A. Holl, P. Maris, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C59, 1751 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9808076

    1999 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.