Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Supercritical-subcritical correspondence, asymmetric effects and antisymmetric corrections near a critical point

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Asymmetric fluids bend the supercritical density mean into a singular scaling law, not a straight line.

desk verdict A genuinely new supercritical analog of the singular coexistence-curve diameter, with a coherent complete-scaling derivation but a load-bearing symmetry assumption that is asserted rather than proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.08553 v2 pith:LSSEMO7L submitted 2025-12-09 cond-mat.stat-mech

Xinyang Li , Yuliang Jin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords supercritical-subcriticalcorrespondenceL±linesrectilineardiameterlawasymmetricscalingcorrectionscompletelineartheorycriticalpointuniversalityhigher-ordercumulants
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 argues that the singular corrections long studied for the coexistence-curve diameter below a critical point also appear above it. The authors define a supercritical diameter as the mean density of the two supercritical boundary lines L+ and L−, which they propose as the supercritical mirror of the subcritical coexistence curve. Using a linear scaling theory with complete three-field mixing, they derive that this mean deviates from the rectilinear law and scales as ρ_c + d_ρ |ΔT|^{2β} + e_ρ |ΔT|^{1−α}, because certain correction amplitudes are equal rather than opposite on the two branches, so they survive when the branches are averaged. They verify the predicted ratios against NIST liquid-gas data for six fluids and a two-state model of a liquid-liquid transition, and show the same asymmetric scaling appears on the κ3=0 'symmetry line' of the order-parameter distribution. If correct, asymmetric effects are not confined to the subcritical coexistence region and should be easier to observe above Tc.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the linear scaling (parametric) representation of the critical equation of state, in which the ordering and thermal fields are written as h1 = a r^{β+γ} θ(1−θ²) and h2 = r(1−b²θ²), with θ a polar angle and r a distance from the critical point. The L± lines are located by ∂κ_T/∂θ = 0 along paths parallel to the critical isochore, and to leading order their position corresponds to a constant value of θ. Complete scaling is then imposed: the physical fields Δμ, ΔT, ΔP are linear mixtures of h1, h2, h3 with coefficients a3, b2, and tanφ. Expanding the compressibility and density to subleading order in r produces the amplitude-ratio pattern of Eq. (7). The load-bearing identity i

What would settle it

A direct check is to compute the susceptibility-maximum angles θ± from the full ∂κ_T/∂θ = 0 condition including all mixing terms, without assuming θ+ = −θ−. If θ+ + θ− ≠ 0 at finite ΔT, the ratio pattern in Eq. (7) fails and the supercritical diameter would acquire additional terms with different exponents. Experimentally, a falsifying observation would be a supercritical fluid whose measured ρ_d^> − ρ_c is dominated by an exponent clearly different from both 2β and 1−α, or whose ΔT−/ΔT+ − 1 versus |δP| curve is not described by Eq. (9) with 3D Ising exponents.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a supercritical-subcritical correspondence: the supercritical L± lines—defined as the loci of compressibility maxima along paths parallel to the critical isochore—act as the supercritical counterpart of the subcritical coexistence curve, and their mean density obeys the same singular scaling law as the subcritical diameter. Concretely, when the physical fields Δμ, ΔT, ΔP are linearly mixed into the scaling fields h1, h2, h3, the amplitudes of the leading Wegner correction terms on the two branches satisfy the ratio pattern of Eq. (7): leading amplitudes are opposite in sign, while certain correction amplitudes are equal (ratio +1) across the two branches. Because equal c

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the two L± branches sit at exactly opposite parametric angles, θ+ = −θ−, stated in the supplementary material as 'based on the symmetric consideration'; if field-mixing terms shift the susceptibility-maximum angles asymmetrically, the coefficient ratios in Eq. (7) change and the specific exponents in Eq. (8) would mix with other correction terms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The violation of the rectilinear diameter law is not subcritical-only: the mean density of the L± lines carries the same |ΔT|^{2β} and |ΔT|^{1−α} singular corrections, so asymmetric effects can be probed without crossing the coexistence curve.
  • Because the supercritical scaling regime appears larger than the subcritical one, high-quality equation-of-state data can be used to test complete-scaling coefficients; the paper demonstrates this on NIST data for O2, N2, SF6, C2H6, Ar, and CO2.
  • The fitted coefficients k_P, k_ρ, and m_ρ in Eq. (9) are found to be nearly universal across those six fluids, suggesting that the asymmetry parameters a3, b2, and tanφ follow a common pattern in the supercritical regime.
  • The same framework predicts that the κ3=0 'symmetry line' is not actually symmetric: it scales as P − P_c ∼ |ΔT|^{2Δ−1} and ρ − ρ_c ∼ |ΔT|^{1−α}, a result directly relevant to interpreting higher-order cumulant measurements near a conjectured critical point.
  • In the two-field-mixing limit only one antisymmetric correction survives, so the observed exponents can be used to diagnose which physical fields are actually mixed in a given system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the coefficient-ratio pattern holds generally, the supercritical diameter could serve as a practical assay for complete-scaling amplitudes in fluids where the subcritical coexistence-curve diameter is too narrow to measure; the paper notes this advantage but does not develop it into a standardized protocol.
  • A testable extension is to compute or measure the individual asymmetry parameters a3, b2, and tanφ for each fluid and check whether their combinations reproduce the fitted k_P, k_ρ, and m_ρ; if the apparent collapse among the six fluids is not reflected in those parameters, the universality may instead reflect a broader corresponding-states relationship.
  • Simulations of asymmetric lattice gases or simple asymmetric potentials, where the mixing coefficients are known exactly, could decouple the validity of the θ+ = −θ− assumption from the fitting of real-fluid data; the paper does not perform such a check.
  • The κ3=0 result implies that experimental searches for a 'symmetry line' in supercritical matter—such as heavy-ion collision cumulant measurements—should expect the line to bend with asymmetric scaling exponents rather than with the symmetric Ising prediction.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a supercritical-subcritical correspondence in which the supercritical L± boundary lines are the mirror image of the subcritical coexistence curve. Using linear scaling theory together with complete (linear field-mixing) scaling, the authors derive scaling corrections to the L± loci and predict that the supercritical diameter ρ_d^> = (ρ+ + ρ−)/2 violates the rectilinear law and follows Eq. (8), with terms ∼ |ΔT|^{2β} and ∼ |ΔT|^{1−α}; a corresponding pressure diameter is also predicted. They test the resulting ratio relations, Eq. (9), against NIST fluid data for six fluids and against a two-state mean-field model for a liquid-liquid transition, and they extend the same framework to lines defined by higher-order cumulants of the particle-number distribution. The paper is clearly written and the overall structure—derivation, empirical test, model test, extension—is appropriate for the journal.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper extends the known singular-diameter physics from the subcritical coexistence curve to the supercritical region, where the scaling regime appears to be wider and thus more easily testable. This would be a valuable contribution to the long-standing discussion of asymmetry in fluid criticality. The derivation is based on established linear-scaling and complete-scaling ideas rather than on a purely empirical collapse, and the paper includes falsifiable predictions in Eq. (9) and auxiliary checks from a two-state model and cumulant lines. The main risk is the unproved relation θ+ = −θ− at the extremal points that define L±; the empirical support, while suggestive, is fit-based and excludes hydrogen, which visibly deviates. With a proper derivation of the extremal-angle relation and a more quantitative data analysis, the paper could be a solid contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [SM S1C and main-text Eq. (7)] The coefficient-ratio pattern in Eq. (7), which is the load-bearing input for Eq. (8), rests on the statement in SM S1C: "Based on the symmetric consideration, we should have θ+ = −θ−". This is asserted, not derived. The angles θ± are defined by the susceptibility-maximum condition ∂κ_T/∂θ = 0 along constant-h1 paths (SM Eqs. S23–S24). Once field-mixing corrections are included, the expansion in Eq. (S23) contains terms of different parity in θ (for example the C-term is odd in θ), so the two extrema need not be exactly opposite at the order of the retained corrections. The authors must solve the extremum condition to the required order, or explicitly state the approximation to which θ+ = −θ− holds. If the relation fails at order Δ^{β} or Δ^{1−α}, the specific terms in Eq. (8) will mix with other corrections and the central prediction is not established.
  2. [Main text after Eq. (9), Fig. 3, Appendix B] The quantitative validation is not yet convincing. The quoted values kP = 0.27, kρ = 0.191, mρ = 0.07 are single fitted amplitudes with no uncertainties, no goodness-of-fit measure, and no treatment of the strong correlations between adjacent NIST data points. The data collapse in Fig. 3 is visually good, but the exponents are fixed to 3D-Ising values, so the fits only test the amplitudes; the paper should show that the data actually discriminate the predicted exponent combinations (e.g., 1−1/Δ versus plausible alternatives). In addition, hydrogen (Appendix B) deviates from the collapsed behavior without explanation. Since the paper claims universality of the coefficients for the six fluids, the exclusion of H2 and its failure need to be addressed quantitatively, not just deferred.
  3. [Main text "universal coefficients" vs SM Eqs. (S32)–(S33)] The paper states in the text after Eq. (9) that all coefficients in Eqs. (8) and (9) are universal for the six fluids, in contrast to the system-dependent subcritical coefficients. However, the explicit SM expressions for kP, kρ and mρ depend on the linear-scaling amplitudes a, k and on the field-mixing coefficients a3, b2, tanφ. No argument is provided for why these system-dependent parameters should combine into universal values. If the intended claim is only empirical, it should be stated as such; if the theory predicts universality, the derivation must show that the dependence cancels after imposing the extremum condition. As written, the theoretical basis for the fitted universal amplitudes is missing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [SM S1B] The sentence "Next, we show that θ is a constant along the L± lines" is followed only by a statement that, to lowest order, the solution is independent of h1. The derivation of the extremum itself is not shown even at leading order; this is closely related to major comment 1 and should be made explicit.
  2. [Fig. 3] The figure caption does not indicate which symbol corresponds to which fluid; a legend or a list in the caption would improve reproducibility. Also, the solid black lines are described as fitting curves, but no fit range or number of data points is given.
  3. [Appendix D] The two-state model is tested only at mean-field level, where β/Δ = 1−1/Δ = 1/3, so the two correction terms in the density ratio have the same exponent. This is a consistency check for the leading correction but does not test the nontrivial antisymmetric pattern of Eq. (7) beyond the mean-field approximation.
  4. [SM S2] The higher-order-cumulant analysis uses EOSs generated from the same linear scaling theory with arbitrarily chosen parameters (a = k = 0.1, φ = 30° or 82°). It is a useful consistency demonstration, but it is not an independent experimental validation; the text should make this clear.
  5. [General] The term "antisymmetric" is used for coefficients whose +/− ratio is +1 (i.e., terms that do not cancel in the diameter). This is nonstandard and may confuse readers; a brief definition at first use would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The antisymmetric coefficient pattern in Eq. (7), which drives the derived supercritical diameter Eq. (8), reduces by construction to the unproved assertion θ+ = -θ− in SM S1C.

  1. self definitional [Supplementary Material S1C (Eq. S36); main text Eqs. (7)-(8)]
    "Based on the symmetric consideration, we should have θ+ = -θ−. This gives, (i) asymmetric systems: A0,+P/A0,-P = -1, A1,+P/A1,-P = 1, A2,+P/A2,-P = -1, A0,+ρ/A0,-ρ = -1, A1,+ρ/A1,-ρ = 1, A2,+ρ/A2,-ρ = 1, ... where we have used the properties that p(θ) and s(θ) are even functions [36]."

    The coefficient ratios in Eq. (7) are direct algebraic consequences of θ+ = -θ− through the explicit formulas (S29)-(S30): A1,P^± ∝ θ±^2, A1,ρ^± ∝ θ±^2, A2,ρ^± ∝ s(θ±), with p(θ), s(θ) even. The paper does not derive θ+ = -θ− from the extremum condition ∂κT/∂θ = 0 (Eq. S23); it only states that θ is 'found to be independent of h1' when higher-order terms are neglected. Thus the prediction that the supercritical diameter contains antisymmetric correction terms (Eq. 8) is not independent of the input: it is the input θ+ = -θ− restated as coefficient ratios. The scaling exponents and empirical checks are independent, but the distinctive antisymmetric-content prediction is assumed, not derived.

full rationale

The paper's derivation of Eq. (8) is a genuine scaling calculation from complete scaling field mixing plus the parametric scaling form, and the exponents 2β, 1−α, 2Δ−1 follow from scaling dimensions. The NIST data collapse and two-state-model comparison are meaningful empirical checks, and the self-citations to the L± definition are not load-bearing. However, the central 'antisymmetric' coefficient pattern in Eq. (7), which is what makes the supercritical diameter non-rectilinear, is not obtained from the susceptibility-maximum condition. It is inserted by the sentence 'Based on the symmetric consideration, we should have θ+ = -θ−' in SM S1C, and the explicit formulas then mechanically produce the ratios A1,P^+/A1,P^- = 1, A1,ρ^+/A1,ρ^- = 1, A2,ρ^+/A2,ρ^- = 1. In other words, the paper's headline prediction of antisymmetric corrections reduces by construction to the assumed symmetry of the parametric angles. This is a partial circularity: the rest of the scaling framework has independent content, but this load-bearing step is an assertion that already contains the result it is used to explain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central derivation is mounted on standard scaling/complete-scaling assumptions, leaving the mixing amplitudes (a3,b2,tanφ,a,k) free; the quantitative confirmation of Eq. (8) then requires fitting kP, kρ, mρ to NIST data. No fundamentally new entities are needed, but the θ+=-θ− assumption and the NIST data accuracy are undeclared loads.

free parameters (7)
  • k_P = 0.27
    Fitted to NIST data in Fig. 3A for Eq. (9); not derived from the mixing parameters.
  • k_ρ = 0.191
    Fitted to NIST data in Fig. 3B for the first density correction term.
  • m_ρ = 0.07
    Fitted to NIST data in Fig. 3B for the second density correction term.
  • linear scaling amplitudes a and k = a=k=0.1 in cumulant calculations; absorbed in data fits
    System-dependent parameters of the Schofield linear scaling theory (SM S1A, Eqs. S1/S5); chosen by hand in the numerical demonstrations.
  • field-mixing coefficients a_3, b_2, tan φ = not independently measured; absorbed into k_P, k_ρ, m_ρ, d_P, d_ρ, e_ρ
    Complete-scaling parameters in Eq. (4); never directly fitted or measured. The analytic result that asymmetry vanishes when they are zero is clean, but their magnitudes are unconstrained.
  • two-state model parameters λ, α1, α2, ω0, c_mn, T_c, P_c = T_c=227.42 K, P_c=13.45 MPa from Ref. [37]; remaining parameters in [37]
    Parameters fitted to supercooled water in prior works [36,37]; adopted here for the liquid-liquid verification.
  • polar angle φ in Fig. S1 = 30°–82°
    Chosen values in the numerical linear-scaling model used to demonstrate data collapse.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Scaling hypothesis for the singular part of the thermodynamic potential: h3 ≃ |h2|^{2−α} f(h1/|h2|^{β+γ}) (Eq. 3)
    Foundation of the linear scaling theory; standard but assumed.
  • domain assumption Schofield parametric representation with h1=ar^{β+γ}θ(1−θ²), h2=r(1−b²θ²), and ϕ1=kr^β θ (SM S1A, Eqs. S1/S5)
    Underlies all derived expressions; includes the extra assumption m(θ)=kθ.
  • domain assumption Complete scaling: physical fields are linear mixtures of h1,h2,h3 with coefficients normalized by a1=b1=c1=1 (Eq. 4/S15)
    Source of all asymmetric corrections.
  • ad hoc to paper θ+ = -θ− for the two L± susceptibility maxima (SM S1C)
    Load-bearing for the coefficient ratio pattern in Eq. (7); not proven for asymmetric field mixing.
  • domain assumption L± lines are loci of κT maxima on paths parallel to the critical isochore, with θ constant to leading order (Appendix A/SM S1B)
    Definition borrowed from Ref. [19].
  • standard math Fluctuation solution theory expressions for κ3 and κ4 (SM S2, Eq. S43)
    Used to translate EOS derivatives into particle-number cumulants.
  • domain assumption Two-state mean-field model with parameters fitted to supercooled water in Refs. [36,37] (Appendix D)
    Used as liquid-liquid verification; parameters are not independently re-derived here.
  • domain assumption NIST equation-of-state tables provide accurate equilibrium P-ρ-T data for the six fluids (and H2)
    All empirical claims depend on database accuracy; no uncertainty analysis is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supercritical-subcritical correspondence, asymmetric effects and antisymmetric corrections near a critical point." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSSEMO7L

@misc{pith2026251208553,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supercritical-subcritical correspondence, asymmetric effects and antisymmetric corrections near a critical point},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSSEMO7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.08553}
}
abstract

The second-order phase transitions in the Ising model and liquid-gas systems share a universality class and critical exponents, despite the absence of $Z_2$ symmetry in the liquid-gas Hamiltonian. This discrepancy highlights a central puzzle in critical phenomena: what is the influence of asymmetry on scaling laws? For over a century, this question has been explored through examining violations of the empirical ``rectilinear diameter law'' for the subcritical coexistence curve, where asymmetry could generate singular corrections. Here, we extend this investigation to the supercritical regime. We propose a supercritical-subcritical correspondence, drawing a formal analogy between the subcritical coexistence curve and recently defined supercritical boundary lines ($L^\pm$ lines). Our theory predicts that the linear mixing of physical fields - a hallmark of asymmetric systems - produces universal scaling corrections, with antisymmetric coefficients, in these supercritical loci. We verify these predictions using liquid-gas data from the NIST database and a model liquid-liquid transition. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the same asymmetric scaling framework governs the behavior of higher-order cumulants in the order parameter distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08553 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M. E. Fisher, Scaling, universality and renormalization group theory, inCritical Phenomena, edited by F. J. W. Hahne (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,

  2. [2]

    Lee and C.-N

    T.-D. Lee and C.-N. Yang, Statistical theory of equations of state and phase transitions. ii. lattice gas and ising model, Physical Review87, 410 (1952)

    1952

  3. [3]

    Mermin, Lattice gas with short-range pair interactions and a singular coexistence-curve diameter, Physical Re- view Letters26, 957 (1971)

    N. Mermin, Lattice gas with short-range pair interactions and a singular coexistence-curve diameter, Physical Re- view Letters26, 957 (1971)

    1971

  4. [4]

    Cailletet and E

    L. Cailletet and E. Mathias, Recherches sur les densités des gaz liquéfiés et de leurs vapeurs saturées, J. Phys. Theor. Appl.5, 549 (1886)

  5. [5]

    Reif-Acherman, The history of the rectilinear diameter law, Quimica nova33, 2003 (2010)

    S. Reif-Acherman, The history of the rectilinear diameter law, Quimica nova33, 2003 (2010)

    2003

  6. [6]

    Rehr and N

    J. Rehr and N. Mermin, Revised scaling equation of state at the liquid-vapor critical point, Physical Review A8, 472 (1973)

    1973

  7. [7]

    Wilding and A

    N. Wilding and A. Bruce, Density fluctuations and field mixing in the critical fluid, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter4, 3087 (1992)

    1992

  8. [8]

    Mermin and J

    N. Mermin and J. Rehr, Generality of the singular diame- teroftheliquid-vaporcoexistencecurve,PhysicalReview Letters26, 1155 (1971)

    1971

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Widom and J

    B. Widom and J. S. Rowlinson, New model for the study of liquid–vapor phase transitions, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics52, 1670 (1970)

    1970

  2. [10]

    Hemmer and G

    P. Hemmer and G. Stell, Fluids with several phase tran- sitions, Physical Review Letters24, 1284 (1970)

    1970

  3. [11]

    Ley-Koo and M

    M. Ley-Koo and M. S. Green, Revised and extended scal- ing for coexisting densities of s f 6, Physical Review A16, 2483 (1977)

    1977

  4. [12]

    Nicoll, Critical phenomena of fluids: asymmetric landau-ginzburg-wilson model, Physical Review A24, 2203 (1981)

    J. Nicoll, Critical phenomena of fluids: asymmetric landau-ginzburg-wilson model, Physical Review A24, 2203 (1981)

    1981

  5. [13]

    M. A. Anisimov and J. Wang, Nature of asymmetry in fluidcriticality,Physicalreviewletters97,025703(2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    Pestak, R

    M. Pestak, R. E. Goldstein, M. Chan, J. R. de Bruyn, D. Balzarini, and N. Ashcroft, Three-body interactions, scaling variables, and singular diameters in the coexis- tence curves of fluids, Physical Review B36, 599 (1987)

    1987

  7. [15]

    I. Hahn, M. Weilert, F. Zhong, and M. Barmatz, High- resolution measurements of the coexistence curve very near the 3 he liquid–gas critical point, Journal of low temperature physics137, 579 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    R. R. Singh and K. S. Pitzer, Rectilinear diameters and extended corresponding states theory, The Journal of chemical physics92, 3096 (1990)

    1990

  9. [17]

    Huang, G

    Y. Huang, G. Chen, X. Li, and V. Arp, Density equation for saturated 3he, International journal of thermophysics 26, 729 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Nowak, R

    P. Nowak, R. Kleinrahm, and W. Wagner, Measurement and correlation of the (p,ρ, t) relation of nitrogen. ii. saturated-liquid and saturated-vapour densities and vapour pressures along the entire coexistence curve, The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics29, 1157 (1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    Li and Y

    X. Li and Y. Jin, Thermodynamic crossovers in supercritical fluids, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2400313121 (2024), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2400313121

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    E. Lv, N. Xi, Y. Jin, and W. Li, Quantum supercriti- cal regime with universal magnetocaloric scaling in ising magnets, Nature Communications16, 10.1038/s41467- 025-65651-w (2025)

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    J. Wang, E. Lv, X. Li, Y. Jin, and W. Li, Quantum supercritical crossover with dynamical singularity, Phys. Rev. B112, 195120 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    S. Wang, X. Li, Y. Jin, and L. Li, Analogous supercrit- ical crossovers in black holes and water, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10808 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cui and Z.-Y

    H.-M. Cui and Z.-Y. Fan, Emergent ising symmetry and supercritical fluids, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17038 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    S. Jin, X. Li, X. Fan, M. Baggioli, and Y. Jin, Super- critical fluids as a distinct state of matter character- ized by sub-short-range structural order, arXiv preprint 6 arXiv:2508.07385 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Nist chemistry webbook,http://webbook.nist.gov/ chemistry/

  18. [26]

    Widom, The critical point and scaling theory, Physica 73, 107 (1974)

    B. Widom, The critical point and scaling theory, Physica 73, 107 (1974)

    1974

  19. [27]

    Schofield, Parametric representation of the equation of state near a critical point, Physical Review Letters22, 606 (1969)

    P. Schofield, Parametric representation of the equation of state near a critical point, Physical Review Letters22, 606 (1969)

    1969

  20. [28]

    Schofield, J

    P. Schofield, J. Litster, and J. T. Ho, Correlation between critical coefficients and critical exponents, Physical Re- view Letters23, 1098 (1969)

    1969

  21. [29]

    M. E. Fisher and G. Orkoulas, The yang-yang anomaly in fluid criticality: experiment and scaling theory, Physical review letters85, 696 (2000)

    2000

  22. [30]

    Y. C. Kim, M. E. Fisher, and G. Orkoulas, Asymmetric fluid criticality. i. scaling with pressure mixing, Physical Review E67, 061506 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    Anisimov, V

    M. Anisimov, V. Agayan, and P. J. Collings, Nature of the blue-phase-iii–isotropic critical point: an analogy with the liquid-gas transition, Physical Review E57, 582 (1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    F. J. Wegner, The critical state, general aspects, Phase transitions and critical phenomena6, 7 (1976)

    1976

  25. [33]

    Campostrini, A

    M. Campostrini, A. Pelissetto, P. Rossi, and E. Vicari, 25th-order high-temperature expansion results for three- dimensionalising-likesystemsonthesimple-cubiclattice, Phys. Rev. E65, 066127 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    Guida and J

    R. Guida and J. Zinn-Justin, Critical exponents of the n-vector model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General31, 8103 (1998)

    1998

  27. [35]

    J. Luo, L. Xu, E. Lascaris, H. E. Stanley, and S. V. Buldyrev, Behavior of the widom line in critical phenom- ena, Physical Review Letters112, 135701 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Bertrand and M

    C. Bertrand and M. Anisimov, Peculiar thermodynamics of the second critical point in supercooled water, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B115, 14099 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Holten and M

    V. Holten and M. A. Anisimov, Entropy-driven liquid- liquid separation in supercooled water, Scientific Reports 2, 713 (2012), arXiv:1207.2101 [physics.chem-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Sordi and A.-M

    G. Sordi and A.-M. Tremblay, Introducing the concept of the widom line in the qcd phase diagram, Physical Review D109, 114020 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Shahkarami and F

    L. Shahkarami and F. Charmchi, Schwinger effect in dynamical holographic qcd with a supercritical region, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20151 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Hanada and H

    M. Hanada and H. Watanabe, Partial deconfinement: a brief overview, The European Physical Journal Special Topics232, 333 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    L. Y. Glozman, O. Philipsen, and R. D. Pisarski, Chiral spin symmetry and the qcd phase diagram, The Euro- pean Physical Journal A58, 247 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, Y. Hidaka, and L. McLer- ran, A new state of matter between the hadronic phase and the quark-gluon plasma?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00237 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    M.Stephanov,Signofkurtosisneartheqcdcriticalpoint, Physical Review Letters107, 052301 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Aggarwal, Z

    M. Aggarwal, Z. Ahammed, A. Alakhverdyants, I. Alek- seev, J. Alford, B. Anderson, D. Arkhipkin, G. Averichev, J. Balewski, L. Barnby, et al., Higher moments of net proton multiplicity distributions at rhic, Physical review letters105, 022302 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    X. Luo, Q. Wang, N. Xu, and P. Zhuang, Properties of QCD matter at high baryon density, Vol. 10 (Springer, 2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    E. A. Ploetz, G. N. Pallewela, and P. E. Smith, Fluc- tuation solution theory of pure fluids, The Journal of Chemical Physics146(2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    E. A. Ploetz and P. E. Smith, Gas or liquid? the super- critical behavior of pure fluids, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B123, 6554 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Banuti, Crossing the widom-line–supercritical pseudo- boiling,TheJournalofSupercriticalFluids98,12(2015)

    D. Banuti, Crossing the widom-line–supercritical pseudo- boiling,TheJournalofSupercriticalFluids98,12(2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    X. He, J. Xu, X. Yu, and J. Xie, Distinguishing evaporation-like and boiling-like modes of pseudo-boiling in supercritical pressures, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer214, 124417 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Q. Wang, X. Ma, J. Xu, M. Li, and Y. Wang, The three- regime-model for pseudo-boiling in supercritical pressure, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer181, 121875 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Li, X.-R

    Z.-Y. Li, X.-R. Chen, B. Wu, and Z.-M. Xu, Thermo- dynamic supercriticality and complex phase diagram for charged gauss-bonnet ads black holes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.10357 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    R. Li, K. Zhang, J. Yang, R. B. Mann, and J. Wang, Critical slowing down of black hole phase transition and kinetic crossover in supercritical regime, Physical Review D112, 064004 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    J. L. Jiménez, S. Crone, E. Fogh, M. E. Zayed, R. Lortz, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, A. M. Läuchli, L. Weber, S. Wessel, et al., A quantum magnetic analogue to the critical point of water, Nature592, 370 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    J. Wang, H. Li, N. Xi, Y. Gao, Q.-B. Yan, W. Li, and G. Su, Plaquette singlet transition, magnetic barocaloric effect, and spin supersolidity in the shastry-sutherland model, Physical Review Letters131, 116702 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Wang and M

    J. Wang and M. A. Anisimov, Nature of vapor-liquid asymmetry in fluid criticality, Phys. Rev. E75, 051107 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    δ” (e.g.,δP=P(ρ, T)−P(ρ c, T)) to denote the dis- tance to the critical isochore, and those with “∆

    M. A. Anisimov and J. Wang, Nature of asymmetry in fluid criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 025703 (2006). 7 End Matter Appendix A: the definition ofL ± lines.The L± lines are determined according to the following procedure [19]: (i) define a reference line in the field- tempera...

    2006

  49. [57]

    ρ ∂ρ ∂P 2 +ρ 2 ∂2ρ ∂P 2 # , κ4 = 1 β3

    (S39) This implies that the coupling between the two ordering fields introduces an asymmetric correction with a critical exponent of2βsinceϕ 1 ∼r β. On the other hand, if we simply assume thata1 = 0 andb 2 = 0, the forms of these two expressions reduce to: h1 =a 3 tanφ∆ ˆT+a 3...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.