Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 25 references

A maximum entropy freeze-out framework can translate QCD critical-point physics into predictions for proton multiplicity fluctuations, giving an equilibrium baseline for heavy-ion data.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 17:43 UTC pith:LEDD4Y6N

load-bearing objection Competent, useful review of the maximum-entropy freeze-out pipeline—but the 'equilibrium baseline' claim in Sec. 3.4 overreaches because it omits global conservation, and the headline numbers come from work in progress. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01957 v1 pith:LEDD4Y6N submitted 2026-08-03 nucl-th hep-ph

Theoretical Review of Critical Point Predictions

Maneesha Sushama Pradeep This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-ph PACS 25.75.-q12.38.Mh
keywords QCD critical pointmaximum entropy freeze-outfactorial cumulantshydrodynamic fluctuationsequation of stateheavy-ion collisionscritical slowing downLee-Yang edge singularity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The review assembles the current theoretical pipeline connecting the QCD equation of state near a possible critical point to event-by-event multiplicity fluctuations measured in heavy-ion collisions. Its central claim is that the maximum entropy freeze-out framework provides a systematic, entropy-based generalization of the usual freeze-out prescription: it converts hydrodynamic fluctuations of conserved densities into hadronic multiplicity cumulants, and in the rapid-equilibration limit those cumulants are controlled directly by derivatives of the equation of state. The consequence is a set of concrete, parameter-dependent predictions for proton factorial cumulants across collision energies, including non-monotonic peaks whose locations and heights are shaped by non-universal mapping parameters. The paper argues that these equilibrium predictions already give a baseline for comparison with collider data, and that the next required step is a consistent treatment of out-of-equilibrium critical fluctuations.

Core claim

The central claim is that the maximum entropy freeze-out framework systematically connects hydrodynamic fluctuations to hadronic multiplicity cumulants. The framework maximizes the entropy of hadron resonance gas fluctuations at freeze-out while requiring that correlations of conserved densities in the gas match those of the hydrodynamic description. In the limit of rapid local equilibration, the hydrodynamic input cumulants are derivatives of the equation of state, so a critical equation of state, mapped onto QCD via the 3D Ising universality class (the same critical behavior as a magnet), translates directly into predicted normalized factorial cumulants of the proton multiplicity as functi

What carries the argument

The central object is the maximum entropy freeze-out relation bΔG = bΔH · P · ... · P, where bΔG are the irreducible relative cumulants (IRCs) of particle multiplicities, bΔH are the hydrodynamic-density cumulants at freeze-out, and P is a projection kernel fixed entirely by the uncorrelated hadron resonance gas. The IRCs quantify genuinely irreducible correlations that cannot be assembled from lower-order cumulants. Under rapid local equilibration, bΔH are determined by derivatives of the equation of state, so the non-universal mapping parameters of the critical EoS control the locations and heights of the predicted factorial-cumulant peaks.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical predictions assume rapid local equilibration of hydrodynamic fluctuations at freeze-out, so the cumulants are set by equilibrium derivatives of the equation of state; if critical slowing down is significant, those numbers would shift and the baseline would need to be a dynamical calculation.

What would settle it

Measure proton factorial cumulants across the collision-energy range where the Lee-Yang-constrained critical point crosses the freeze-out curve: if the predicted non-monotonic peak, especially in the third cumulant, is absent or appears at a different energy, the equilibrium maximum-entropy baseline is ruled out (though the framework itself could survive with dynamical corrections).

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the framework is right, proton factorial cumulants become calculable from the critical equation of state, freeze-out trajectory, and acceptance cuts, rather than being treated purely phenomenologically.
  • The peak position of each cumulant is controlled mainly by the combination ρbar, while the peak height scales with the scale parameter w as w^{-1-1/δ}, so measurements at multiple orders can constrain these parameters.
  • Lee-Yang edge-singularity constraints narrow the allowed mapping parameters to four topological scenarios with distinguishable third-cumulant signatures, including a scenario with a critical point below the freeze-out curve that had not been explored before.
  • Using a lattice QCD equation of state, the equilibrium predictions are of the same order as measured proton cumulants; remaining discrepancies point to neglected effects such as global charge conservation.
  • The next step, combining the critical EoS with out-of-equilibrium fluctuations, is needed for quantitative comparison; deterministic equations for non-Gaussian correlators and sampling-based stochastic hydrodynamics are identified as promising directions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A previously unstated consequence: if the equilibrium baseline is accepted, the difference between measured and predicted cumulants becomes a quantitative observable for critical slowing-down and charge conservation, turning apparent mismatches into physical signals.
  • The framework is not tied to protons; applying it to net-charge or strangeness factorial cumulants would give independent cross-checks of the same critical mapping parameters.
  • The strong dependence of peak locations and heights on the non-universal parameters suggests that simultaneous measurements of several cumulant orders could over-determine the parameter space and help locate the critical point from data alone.
  • Freeze-out trajectories are not fixed inputs; the framework could be inverted to infer freeze-out temperatures or acceptance corrections simultaneously with EoS parameters in a Bayesian fit to measured cumulants.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review-style summary of the theoretical pipeline connecting a possible QCD critical point to event-by-event fluctuation measurements at the Beam Energy Scan. The paper surveys lattice bounds and functional estimates for the critical-point location, the construction of a critical equation of state near the critical point, and the maximum-entropy freeze-out framework that maps hydrodynamic density correlations onto proton factorial cumulants. It also discusses sensitivity of the predicted cumulants to non-universal mapping parameters, Lee-Yang-constrained scenarios, a current HotQCD-based calculation compared with STAR data, and recent developments in the dynamical evolution of critical fluctuations. The central claim is that the maximum-entropy freeze-out framework provides a systematic, equilibrium baseline connecting the critical part of the QCD equation of state to measured hadronic multiplicity cumulants.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the framework would be a valuable link in the BES interpretation chain, turning equilibrium equation-of-state information into concrete, testable predictions for proton cumulants. The manuscript has several strengths: the summary of lattice bounds, the Lee-Yang constraint analysis, and the qualitative sensitivity studies are useful; the contact with existing literature is generally accurate; and the idea of a maximum-entropy freeze-out prescription is genuinely interesting. However, the central quantitative baseline in Fig. 4 rests on an unpublished 'work in progress' calculation, the key relation Eq. (4) is asserted without derivation, and the claim that deviations from the baseline must be out-of-equilibrium effects is undermined by the neglect of exact global-conservation corrections. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on these points being resolved.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (4)] The central relation \(\hat\Delta G = \hat\Delta H\cdot P\cdot\ldots P\) is stated without derivation or a precise statement of the theorem. The text only refers to Ref. [9]. Since the entire review's claim that the maximum-entropy freeze-out framework gives a 'systematic connection' between hydrodynamic fluctuations and multiplicity cumulants rests on this equation, the manuscript should either reproduce the derivation in an appendix or at least state explicitly the hypotheses under which the relation holds, including whether it is exact or approximate at each cumulant order. As written, the reader cannot assess the validity of the relation for the higher-order, non-Gaussian fluctuations that are the main observables of interest.
  2. [Sec. 3.4, global conservation] The text states that the Fig. 4 calculation provides an equilibrium baseline and that 'any deviations from this baseline must be understood in terms of out-of-equilibrium dynamical effects.' This is not supported: global baryon-number conservation is not an out-of-equilibrium dynamical effect but an exact constraint that modifies cumulants even in a fully thermalized hadron gas, through acceptance and volume corrections (see SAM 3.0, Ref. [20], and Vovchenko-Koch, Ref. [18]). No such corrections are reported for the Fig. 4 baseline. A STAR deviation from the plotted curve could therefore be an equilibrium/kinematic effect rather than a critical-dynamics signature. The baseline claim should be corrected by including finite-volume conservation corrections or by substantially qualifying the concluding sentence.
  3. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 4 and Ref. [13]] The numerical predictions shown in Fig. 4 are attributed to Ref. [13], which is listed as 'Work in progress' with no arXiv identifier, no detailed methodology, and no uncertainty quantification. The figure, which is the main quantitative comparison with STAR data, therefore cannot be independently checked. If the manuscript is to serve as a review, either the underlying calculation should be made publicly available with sufficient detail, or the presentation should clearly mark the figure as preliminary and not use it as evidence for the equilibrium-baseline claim.
  4. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 4] The manuscript repeatedly acknowledges that all numerical studies adopt the rapid-local-equilibration approximation and that the principal limitation is the neglect of critical slowing down. However, the review does not quantify when this approximation is valid or how close the freeze-out trajectory must be to the critical point for the equilibrium baseline to remain useful. Since Sec. 4 discusses memory effects that can produce deviations from equilibrium expectations, the paper should reconcile these two parts: if critical slowing down is significant in the BES energy range, then the equilibrium baseline itself may not be the appropriate reference for critical-point searches without a dynamical correction.
  5. [Secs. 3.2-3.3] The predicted peak positions, heights, and topological scenarios depend on several non-universal parameters: \(\rho, w, \alpha_1, \alpha_2\), the critical-point location \((T_c,\mu_c)\), and the freeze-out trajectory offset \(\Delta T_f\). The sensitivity study in Ref. [11] is a useful first step, and the Lee-Yang constraints reduce the allowed range of \(\bar\rho\), but the manuscript does not propagate uncertainties in all these parameters into the final curves. For a review claiming robust predictions, a band or a quantitative statement of the parameter coverage is needed. Otherwise the reader cannot distinguish robust predictions from tuning within the presently allowed parameter space.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (4)] The notation in Eq. (4), \(\hat\Delta H\cdot P\cdot\ldots P\), is opaque: the dots are not defined, the contraction over indices/phase-space variables is not specified, and the ellipsis is ambiguous. Please define the projection kernel and the product structure explicitly.
  2. [Fig. 4] The axis labels appear corrupted (e.g., '\(\Delta\text{}\omega_{2p}\)' and '\(\Delta\text{}\omega_{3p}\)'). These should be the normalized factorial cumulants \(\hat\Delta\omega_{2p}\) and \(\hat\Delta\omega_{3p}\) as defined in Sec. 3.1.
  3. [References] Ref. [13] is listed only as 'Work in progress' without an arXiv ID or authors beyond 'G. Basar, M. S. Pradeep, M. Stephanov.' Refs. [5] and [19] are given as 'this issue' without journal/proceedings details. These are not sufficient for a review paper whose central quantitative result depends on them.
  4. [Sec. 2.1] The sentence 'a conservative lattice upper bound of approximately \(T_{cp}\lesssim125\,\mathrm{MeV}\) for \(\mu_B/T\approx2\)' is ambiguous: the bound appears to be on the pseudo-critical temperature at that chemical potential, not on the critical point itself. Please rephrase to distinguish the crossover line constraint from a bound on the critical endpoint.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, such as 'V . V ovchenko' in Ref. [18], inconsistent spacing around temperatures ('T phys'), and the phrase 'critical point at large temperatures' in the Introduction, which should presumably read 'at finite baryon density.' A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Mostly independent review; minor definitional overreach in the 'equilibrium baseline' inference.

specific steps
  1. other [Sec. 3.4, Current developments]
    "These differences are likely attributable to dynamical effects neglected in the present framework, including global conservation of charges. Nevertheless, this calculation provides an equilibrium baseline for the factorial cumulants of proton multiplicities, and any deviations from this baseline must be understood in terms of out-of-equilibrium dynamical effects."

    The paper defines its calculation as the equilibrium baseline, so any mismatch is labelled out-of-equilibrium by definition. But the same sentence acknowledges that global conservation of charges—an exact equilibrium constraint, not a dynamical effect—is neglected. Thus a STAR deviation from Fig. 4 could reflect an equilibrium (e.g., acceptance or conservation-law) correction rather than out-of-equilibrium dynamics. The inference 'deviations must be dynamical' is therefore not forced by the calculation; it is a definitional move that overstates what the baseline establishes.

full rationale

The review itself derives no new result; it summarizes the maximum entropy freeze-out framework from a published PRL (Ref. [9]) and applies it to scenarios from the author's own papers. Self-citation is frequent but not load-bearing in a circular sense: Ref. [9] is an externally published, parameter-free formalism with stated assumptions, and the numerical scenarios in Refs. [7,11] use lattice QCD and Lee-Yang singularity constraints that are independent of the proton cumulant data being predicted. The comparison with STAR data (Refs. [17,18]) provides an external benchmark. The principal weakness, flagged by the skeptic, is the claim in Sec. 3.4 that the Fig. 4 calculation is an 'equilibrium baseline' such that 'any deviations' must be out-of-equilibrium effects. Because the paper itself admits global conservation of charges is neglected, the baseline omits an equilibrium correction, so deviations could be equilibrium in origin. This is an overreach, but it is an interpretive claim rather than a circular derivation; the underlying mapping from EoS derivatives to factorial cumulants is a legitimate (if model-dependent) construction. Hence a low score of 2 is appropriate, not a higher circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger captures the model-dependent inputs: the non-universal mapping parameters, the critical point location, the freeze-out trajectory, and the local-equilibrium hypothesis. The review's predictions inherit these from prior work rather than deriving them.

free parameters (3)
  • Non-universal mapping parameters rho and w (plus angles alpha1, alpha2) = constrained intervals, e.g. rho-bar 1-sigma from Lee-Yang (Ref [7])
    The position and amplitude of the predicted proton factorial cumulant peaks depend directly on these parameters (Secs. 3.2 and 3.3). They are not fixed by universality and must be constrained by fits.
  • Critical point location (T_c, mu_c) = e.g. (105-115, 600-650) MeV; (92, 696) MeV; (97, 579) MeV
    The critical EoS and the freeze-out trajectory depend on these values; different estimates are reviewed in Sec. 2.1 and used in the scenarios.
  • Freeze-out trajectory or temperature offset Delta T_f = varied, e.g. Delta T_f = 6 MeV (Fig. 2); T_f(mu_B) +/- 4 MeV (Fig. 4)
    The cumulant peak values and their scaling depend on the choice of freeze-out curve (Secs. 3.2 and 3.4).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The QCD critical point, if it exists, belongs to the 3D Ising universality class, so its singular EoS maps to the 3D Ising free energy via a linear mapping.
    Sec. 2.2 invokes this to construct critical EoS and to interpret Lee-Yang constraints; it is standard in the field but unproved for QCD.
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamic fluctuations are in rapid local equilibrium at freeze-out, so their cumulants are given by equation of state derivatives.
    Sec. 3.1 states that all numerical studies adopt this approximation; the paper identifies neglect of critical slowing down as the principal limitation. If false, the predicted cumulants change.
  • domain assumption The maximum entropy principle with constraints on conserved-density correlations correctly describes the freeze-out distribution.
    Sec. 3.1 presents Eq. (4) as following from this principle; the derivation is cited to Ref. [9] and not included here.
  • domain assumption Constant-entropy extrapolation from imaginary to real chemical potential, combined with the multivalued-entropy assumption, can exclude a critical endpoint for mu_B below 450 MeV.
    Sec. 2.1 relies on this lattice-based argument; the assumption that a first-order transition is accompanied by multivalued entropy density is explicit.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 6373 in / 14763 out tokens · 138788 ms · 2026-08-04T17:43:39.115647+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theoretical Review of Critical Point Predictions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LEDD4Y6N

@misc{pith2026260801957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theoretical Review of Critical Point Predictions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LEDD4Y6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01957}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

This review summarizes recent theoretical progress on the QCD equation of state near the critical point and developments in the maximum entropy freeze-out framework, which provides a systematic connection between hydrodynamic fluctuations and hadronic multiplicity cumulants. We also discuss recent applications of this framework, together with advances in the dynamical evolution of critical fluctuations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01957 by Maneesha Sushama Pradeep.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representation of theoretical pipeline connecting the EoS to experimental observables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Contours of the baryon chemical potential at which the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Estimated widths of confinement and chiral transitions from the lattice [12]. The two estimates based on Pade resummation for the critical point are shown in red and blue. The black dots mark two representative critical-point locations, referred to as the cool and hot critical points, for which the freeze-out temperature at the critical chemical potential is above and below the critical temperature, … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Equilibrium predictions [13] for the normalized second factorial cumulants of proton (left) and antiproton (middle) multiplicities, and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 18 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    H. T. Ding, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, P. Petreczky, M. Sarkar, C. Schmidt, S. Sharma, Curvature of the chiral phase transition line from the magnetic equation of state of (2+1)-flavor QCD, Phys. Rev. D 109 (11) (2024) 114516. arXiv:2403.09390, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.114516

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, P. Parotto, A. Pasztor, C. Ratti, V . V ovchenko, C. H. Wong, Lattice QCD constraints on the critical point from an improved precision equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 112 (11) (2025) L111505. arXiv:2502.10267, doi:10.1103/rj6r-dmg9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    C. S. Fischer, J. M. Pawlowski, Phase structure and observables at high densities from first principles QCD (3 2026). arXiv:2603.11135

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Abuali, S

    A. Abuali, S. Borsányi, Z. Fodor, J. Jahan, M. Kahangirwe, P. Parotto, A. Pásztor, C. Ratti, H. Shah, S. A. Trabulsi, New 4D lattice QCD equation of state: Extended density coverage from a generalized T’ expansion, Phys. Rev. D 112 (5) (2025) 054502. arXiv:2504.01881, doi:10.1103/2dmh-26yh

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    J. e. a. Jahan, A 4d t’-expanded lattice qcd equation of state with a multi-dimensional critical contribution, this issue

  6. [6]

    Basar, QCD critical point, Lee-Yang edge singularities, and Padé resummations, Phys

    G. Basar, QCD critical point, Lee-Yang edge singularities, and Padé resummations, Phys. Rev. C 110 (1) (2024) 015203. arXiv:2312.06952, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.015203

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Basar, M

    G. Basar, M. Pradeep, M. Stephanov, Equation of state and cumulants of proton multiplicity in equilibrium near critical point from Pade estimates (3 2026). arXiv:2603.23635

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    M. A. Stephanov, Non-Gaussian fluctuations near the QCD critical point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 032301. arXiv:0809.3450, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.032301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    M. S. Pradeep, M. Stephanov, Maximum Entropy Freeze-Out of Hydrodynamic Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (16) (2023) 162301. arXiv:2211.09142, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.162301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Stephanov, Y

    M. Stephanov, Y . Yin, Hydrodynamics with parametric slowing down and fluctuations near the critical point, Phys. Rev. D 98 (3) (2018) 036006. arXiv:1712.10305, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.036006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    J. M. Karthein, K. Rajagopal, M. S. Pradeep, M. Stephanov, Y . Yin, Quantifying fluctuation signatures of the QCD critical point using maximum entropy freeze-out, Phys. Rev. D 113 (7) (2026) 074010. arXiv:2508.19237, doi:10.1103/9sdb-m9xy

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, P. Parotto, A. Pasztor, L. Pirelli, K. K. Szabo, C. H. Wong, Qcd decon- finement transition line up toµ b =400 mev from finite volume lattice simulations (2024). arXiv:2410.06216. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06216

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Basar, M

    G. Basar, M. S. Pradeep, M. Stephanov, Work in progress

  14. [14]

    M. S. Pradeep, N. Thahir, Work in progress

  15. [15]

    Bollweg, J

    D. Bollweg, J. Goswami, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, C. Schmidt, P. Scior, Taylor expansions and Padé approximants for cumulants of conserved charge fluctuations at nonvanishing chemical potentials, Phys. Rev. D 105 (7) (2022) 074511. arXiv:2202.09184, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.074511. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, J. Stachel, Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy, Nature 561 (7723) (2018) 321–330. arXiv:1710.09425, doi:10.1038/s41586-018- 0491-6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    B. E. Aboona, et al., Precision Measurement of Net-Proton-Number Fluctuations in Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (14) (2025) 142301. arXiv:2504.00817, doi:10.1103/9l69-2d7p

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    V ovchenko, V

    V . V ovchenko, V . Koch, Proton cumulants from hydrodynamics in light of new STAR data, J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol. 3 (2025) 100053. arXiv:2504.01368, doi:10.1016/j.jspc.2025.100053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    G. e. a. Pihan, Contributions of critical fluctuations and baryon annihilation to proton number cumulants at gev from hydrodynamics, this issue

  20. [20]

    Poberezhniuk, V

    R. Poberezhniuk, V . A. Kuznietsov, G. Pihan, V . V ovchenko, Subensemble Acceptance Method 3.0: General Corrections to Cumulants from Exact Conservation Constraints (7 2026). arXiv:2607.01783

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    M. S. Pradeep, N. Sogabe, M. Stephanov, H.-U. Yee, Nonmonotonic specific entropy on the tran- sition line near the QCD critical point, Phys. Rev. C 109 (6) (2024) 064905. arXiv:2402.09519, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.064905

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Pradeep, K

    M. Pradeep, K. Rajagopal, M. Stephanov, Y . Yin, Freezing out fluctuations in Hydro+near the QCD critical point, Phys. Rev. D 106 (3) (2022) 036017. arXiv:2204.00639, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.036017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    X. An, G. Basar, M. Stephanov, Non-Gaussian fluctuations in relativistic hydrodynamics: Confluent equations for three-point correlations (4 2026). arXiv:2604.14110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Bhambure, R

    J. Bhambure, R. Singh, D. Teaney, Stochastic relativistic viscous hydrodynamics from the Metropolis algorithm, Phys. Rev. C 111 (6) (2025) 064909. arXiv:2412.10306, doi:10.1103/15y6-6gmz

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Basar, Recent developments in relativistic hydrodynamic fluctuations, Prog

    G. Basar, Recent developments in relativistic hydrodynamic fluctuations, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 143 (2025) 104175. arXiv:2410.02866, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2025.104175. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025