Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Net-Charge Fluctuations in Finite Volume PNJL Model: A Probe for the QCD Critical Point

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Small fireballs should flash critical-point signals in net-charge moments

desk verdict A legitimate finite-volume PNJL extension for net-charge cumulants, but the uncontrolled momentum-cutoff prescription and missing chemical-potential definitions leave the critical-point interpretation unestablished. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21744 v1 pith:TF4A7DCK submitted 2025-07-29 hep-ph nucl-th

Amal Sarkar , Paramita Deb , Bidhan Mandal , Raghava Varma This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 12.38.Aw12.38.Mh12.39.-x
keywords QCDcriticalpointnet-chargefluctuationsfinitevolumePNJLmodelhigher-ordercumulantsskewnesskurtosisRHICBeamEnergyScanfreeze-outparameters
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 claims that the finite-volume three-flavor PNJL model produces non-monotonic, volume-independent moment products of net-charge as a function of collision energy, and that this behavior is a signature of the QCD critical point. The authors compute cumulants C1 through C4 and the products M/σ2, Sσ, and κσ2 for systems of radius 2 fm and 4 fm across RHIC BES energies from 7.7 to 200 GeV, plus 2.4 and 3 GeV, and compare with STAR net-charge data, HRG, UrQMD, HIJING, and lattice QCD. They find that the 2 fm system shows pronounced non-monotonic fluctuations and better agreement with STAR at lower energies, suggesting that smaller fireballs are more sensitive to critical fluctuations near the critical end point (CEP).

What carries the argument

The central object is the finite-volume Polyakov loop extended Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (PNJL) model with six-quark interactions, where finite volume is implemented by imposing a lower momentum cutoff λ = π/R on both vacuum and medium integrals. The cumulants C1–C4 of net-charge are computed from the thermodynamic potential, and the volume-independent ratios M/σ2 = C1/C2, Sσ = C3/C2, and κσ2 = C4/C2 are built to cancel volume dependence. The non-monotonic energy dependence of these ratios is the signal claimed to be connected to the critical point, via the relation of cumulants to susceptibilities and powers of the correlation length.

What would settle it

A direct test is to compute the same net-charge cumulants in the finite-volume PNJL model with the full discrete momentum sum (periodic/antiperiodic boundary conditions) instead of the lower-cutoff continuum approximation; if the discrete-sum results do not reproduce the non-monotonic 2 fm behavior in Sσ and κσ2, the claimed critical-point signal is an artifact of the cutoff approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the finite-volume PNJL model, the moment products of net-charge—especially Sσ and κσ2—develop non-monotonic, volume-independent structures as a function of beam energy, and that the 2 fm system exhibits larger fluctuations and better qualitative agreement with STAR net-charge data at lower energies than the 4 fm system. The authors interpret this as evidence that smaller systems are more sensitive to critical fluctuations near the QCD critical point, and that comparing these moment products with STAR results can serve as a tool for extracting freeze-out parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that replacing the true finite-volume momentum spectrum with a continuous integral cut off at λ = π/R captures the physics of a 2 fm or 4 fm fireball, while surface and curvature effects are negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 2 fm non-monotonic moment products are correct, smaller fireballs from lower-energy heavy-ion collisions should carry enhanced critical-fluctuation signals detectable in STAR-like net-charge measurements.
  • Comparing PNJL moment products with measured STAR values can provide a parameter-free route to extract freeze-out temperature and baryon chemical potential at each beam energy.
  • The volume independence of the moment products means the same computed ratios can be compared across different centralities and system sizes, removing the main ambiguity of unknown interaction volume.
  • The shift of the CEP toward higher µB and lower T in smaller volumes, implied by the finite-volume model, predicts where in the T-µB plane to scan for non-monotonic signals.
  • The discrepancy between 2 fm and 4 fm results at low energies indicates that system-size dependence itself is a diagnostic: matching experimental data may require modeling the actual fireball size rather than assuming a single large volume.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to compute the same moment products for net-baryon and net-strangeness with the identical finite-volume cutoff; if the 2 fm non-monotonicity appears in all three conserved charges at the same energy, the critical-point interpretation is strengthened, whereas charge-only signals would suggest a different mechanism.
  • The claim implies that existing STAR low-energy data already contain the signature, meaning a re-analysis of net-charge moments with explicit centrality-dependent fireball radii—rather than a single 2 fm or 4 fm value—should reproduce the non-monotonic dip-and-rise structure if the model is right.
  • A stronger test would be to compute the same observables at 3D Ising universality-class critical exponents within the PNJL model; the current non-monotonicity is qualitative, and matching the predicted power-law growth of Sσ and κσ2 near the CEP would distinguish genuine critical behavior from model artifacts.
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. The paper computes the first four cumulants C1-C4 of net-charge fluctuations and the volume-independent moment products M/sigma^2, S*sigma, and kappa*sigma^2 in a three-flavor PNJL model with finite volume implemented through a lower momentum cutoff lambda = pi/R. Results are presented for R = 2 fm and R = 4 fm as functions of sqrt(s_NN) from 2.4 to 200 GeV and are compared with STAR net-charge data, lattice QCD, HRG, UrQMD, and HIJING. The central claim is that the 2 fm system shows pronounced non-monotonic behavior and better agreement with STAR at lower energies, which the authors interpret as sensitivity to critical fluctuations in smaller systems.

Significance. If established, the claim would provide a finite-volume, model-based probe of the QCD critical point and a possible tool for extracting freeze-out parameters from net-charge moments. The paper is not circular: the PNJL couplings and Polyakov potential are taken from earlier fits to vacuum meson properties and to lattice QCD thermodynamics, and the freeze-out parametrization in Eq. (19) is fitted to chemical freeze-out data, so the comparison with STAR net-charge moments is not contaminated by using those data as input. However, the significance is currently limited by the ad hoc finite-volume prescription, the absence of an explicit chemical-potential mapping, and the lack of a transparent derivation of C1-C4 from the thermodynamic potential. These omissions make the central non-monotonic signal difficult to reproduce or to distinguish from a cutoff artifact.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (18)] The finite-volume prescription is uncontrolled and is load-bearing for the main claim. Replacing the discrete momentum sum over finite-volume modes by a continuum integral with lower cutoff lambda = pi/R disregards surface and curvature effects and the difference between periodic and antiperiodic boundary conditions. For R = 2 fm, lambda is about 98 MeV, which is comparable to the dynamically generated quark masses and not negligible relative to the three-momentum cutoff Lambda = 631 MeV. The authors explicitly state that surface and curvature effects are disregarded, but they do not provide any validation that this cutoff prescription reproduces the true finite-volume mode density. The 2 fm non-monotonic signal in Figures 2 and 3 could therefore be an artifact of the cutoff rather than a finite-size critical effect. The authors should compare the cutoff-integral results with a discrete momentum sum over the appropriate boundary conditions, or at least demonstrate that the non-monotonic features persist under variations of the cutoff prescription.
  2. [Sec. III] The quark chemical potential used for net-charge is never specified. The text states that results are obtained at a fixed quark chemical potential, but no relation mu_Q(sqrt(s_NN)) or values of mu_u, mu_d, mu_s are given. The freeze-out parametrization in Eq. (19) fixes T(mu_B) and mu_B(sqrt(s_NN)), but it does not determine the individual quark chemical potentials or the net-charge chemical potential. Without this mapping, the energy dependence of C1-C4 in Figures 1-3 is not reproducible, and the comparison with STAR data cannot be interpreted. This is a central omission because the entire observable depends on the chemical-potential assignment.
  3. [Secs. II and III] There is no explicit expression for C1-C4 in terms of derivatives of the thermodynamic potential Omega' in Eq. (18). Equations (2)-(7) define cumulants and their relation to susceptibilities, but the manuscript does not state how the net-charge susceptibilities chi_Q^(n) are obtained from Omega'—for example, as derivatives with respect to mu_Q at fixed T and mu_B. Without these expressions, the central results in Figures 1-3 cannot be checked or reproduced. The authors should provide the explicit derivative relations and, if possible, the numerical procedure used to evaluate them.
  4. [Secs. III and IV] The comparison statements are internally inconsistent and affect the central interpretation. After Figure 2, the text says that at lower energies 'the 2 fm data fails to capture the experimental and theoretical behavior observed in STAR and model studies.' Later in Section III, for Figure 3, it says the 2 fm results show 'reasonable agreement with both the experimental and lattice QCD data in the energy range of 7-20 GeV.' Section IV then concludes that the 2 fm system shows 'better agreement with STAR data at lower energies.' These statements cannot all be true as written, and the paper should state clearly whether the 2 fm model agrees or disagrees with STAR at low energies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption describes 'infinite volume systems with lateral size R = 2fm and R = 4fm,' which contradicts the finite-volume implementation described in Sec. II and Eq. (18). This appears to be a typo, but it should be corrected because the distinction between finite and infinite volume is central to the paper.
  2. [Introduction] The cross-reference structure is broken: the text refers to 'Section II summarizes the mathematical definitions,' 'Section III briefly outlines the formalism,' and 'the conclusion is given in the Section ??,' but the actual sections are organized differently. The section numbering and cross-references should be corrected.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors that should be fixed, including 'handron' for 'hadron' in the Introduction, 'anamoly' for 'anomaly' in Sec. II, and inconsistent notation such as 'rce' for the trace in the definition of the Polyakov loop. A careful proofread is needed.
  4. [Sec. IV] The conclusion states that 'both system size and interaction strength play crucial roles,' but the paper does not present eight-quark interaction results, and the interaction strength is not varied in the figures. The conclusion should be limited to what is actually shown.
  5. [Eq. (18)] The logarithmic terms in Eq. (18) have unbalanced parentheses, which makes the expression difficult to parse. The authors should rewrite the equation with unambiguous bracket structure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PNJL calculation is benchmarked against external meson, lattice, and freeze-out inputs; the STAR net-charge comparison is a forward prediction, not a fit.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: finite-volume PNJL thermodynamic potential (Eq. 18), susceptibilities (Eq. 5), cumulants and moment products (Eqs. 6-7), beam-energy dependence through the external freeze-out parameterization (Eq. 19), and final comparison with STAR net-charge data. The model parameters are taken from prior fits to vacuum meson properties and to pure-gauge lattice QCD thermodynamics, as stated in Section II: 'The corresponding parameters were fitted with the help of some physical quantities as a function of temperature from the Lattice QCD calculations of pure gauge theory [50].' The freeze-out T and mu_B versus sqrt(s_NN) relation is the external Cleymans et al. parameterization (Ref. 13), not a fit to STAR net-charge moments. No STAR moment is read back into the model. The finite-volume prescription is an explicit modeling choice, not a hidden input: 'A non-zero low momentum cut off pmin=pi/R=lambda has been chosen for implementation of the PNJL model in the finite volume' and 'the surface and curvature effects have been disregarded.' This approximation is uncontrolled and may affect the 2 fm signal, but it is not circular because it is not derived from, or fitted to, the target observables. The self-citations (Refs. 32, 52-55) supply standard PNJL formalism and are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as proof of the non-monotonic behavior. The internal inconsistency between Section III ('the 2 fm data fails to capture the experimental and theoretical behavior') and Section IV ('better agreement with STAR data at lower energies') is a correctness and reproducibility issue, as is the unstated quark chemical potential, but neither reduces the derivation to its own inputs. Therefore the paper shows no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on a standard PNJL model with parameters fitted to vacuum and lattice-QCD inputs, plus a hand-chosen lower momentum cutoff lambda = pi / R to simulate finite volume and a freeze-out parameterization fitted to statistical hadronization data. The main ad hoc element is the finite-volume treatment, which the paper acknowledges replaces a discrete momentum sum with a continuous integral and discards surface and curvature terms. The quark chemical potentials used for net-charge are not specified, leaving an important input to the cumulant calculation unaccounted.

free parameters (8)
  • p_min = pi / R (lower momentum cutoff) = pi/2 fm^-1 approx 314 MeV (R=2 fm); pi/4 fm^-1 approx 157 MeV (R=4 fm)
    Chosen by hand to mimic finite volume; replaces the discrete momentum sum with a continuous integral with lower cutoff. This is the main finite-size effect and is not derived from boundary conditions; surface and curvature terms are dropped.
  • Freeze-out parameters a,b,c,d,e = a=0.166 GeV, b=0.139 GeV^-1, c=0.053 GeV^-3, d=1.308 GeV, e=0.273 GeV^-1
    Taken from Ref [13], fitted to chemical freeze-out data from statistical hadronization; maps sqrt(sNN) to T and mu_B. The paper does not supply the corresponding mu_Q or mu_S values.
  • g_s Lambda^2 = 3.67
    Four-quark coupling fitted to vacuum meson masses and decay constants in Refs [40,54].
  • g_D Lambda^5 = 9.33
    Six-quark coupling fitted to vacuum properties in the 3-flavor NJL model; set via Ref [40].
  • Lambda (three-momentum cutoff) = 631 MeV
    NJL regularization cutoff fitted to vacuum observables; used as upper limit in the vacuum integral.
  • m_u, m_s (current quark masses) = 5.5 MeV, 134.76 MeV
    From the standard NJL parameter set [40,54]; the paper says m_f = diag(m_u, m_d, m_s) but does not quote m_d, presumably m_d = m_u.
  • T0 (Polyakov potential scale) = 175 MeV
    Deconfinement transition temperature scale taken from pure-gauge lattice QCD fits in Ref [50].
  • Polyakov potential coefficients a0,a1,a2,b3,b4,kappa = a0=6.75, a1=-9.0, a2=0.25, b3=0.805, b4=7.555, kappa=0.1
    Fitted to pure-gauge lattice QCD thermodynamics in Ref [50] and used in Ref [40].
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Cumulants of net-charge are related to thermodynamic susceptibilities by C_n = V T^3 chi_Q^(n), and moment products equal ratios of susceptibilities (Eqs. 5-6).
    Standard grand-canonical statistical mechanics; the paper relies on it without proof.
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation (MFA) for the PNJL thermodynamic potential is reliable for computing fourth-order cumulants.
    The paper uses MFA throughout and does not assess its accuracy for non-Gaussian fluctuations.
  • domain assumption The chemical freeze-out curve T(mu_B) and mu_B(sqrt(sNN)) from Ref [13] describe the freeze-out conditions at RHIC BES energies.
    Borrowed from statistical hadronization fits; no error propagation or test within this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite volume can be represented by replacing the discrete momentum sum with a continuum integral with lower cutoff lambda = pi / R, neglecting surface and curvature effects.
    The paper explicitly adopts this simplification in Section II; it is the main modeling assumption and is not derived from the box boundary conditions.
  • domain assumption The PNJL parameters fitted at T=0, mu=0, infinite volume remain valid at finite T, mu_B, and finite volume.
    The paper states this philosophy: 'clutch the known physics at zero temperature, zero chemical potential and infinite volume fixed'; it is an assumption, not a proven property.
  • domain assumption Non-monotonic energy dependence of moment products is a signature of proximity to the QCD critical point.
    Standard critical-phenomena lore invoked by the paper (e.g., sigma^2 ~ xi^2, S ~ xi^4.5, kappa ~ xi^7 in Ref [19]); it is not derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Net-Charge Fluctuations in Finite Volume PNJL Model: A Probe for the QCD Critical Point." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TF4A7DCK

@misc{pith2026250721744,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Net-Charge Fluctuations in Finite Volume PNJL Model: A Probe for the QCD Critical Point},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TF4A7DCK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21744}
}
abstract

The QCD Critical Point is a pivotal feature of the phase diagram of strongly interacting matter. Signatures of the critical point are expected to manifest through the non-monotonic behavior of higher-order moments of conserved quantities, such as net-baryon ($\Delta B$), net-charge ($\Delta Q$), and net-strangeness ($\Delta S$), as a function of collision energy. These moments are connected to the thermodynamic susceptibilities, as well as to the correlation length developed in the system, which diverges at the critical point. The non-monotonic behavior of higher-order moments and their volume-independent products near the critical region supports the presence of a critical point in a finite system existing for a finite time, due to their sensitivity to critical fluctuations. These fluctuations are believed to provide key evidence in the search for the QCD Critical Point. We present the higher order moments, such as mean (M), variance $(\sigma^2)$, skewness (S), and kurtosis $(\kappa)$ and their volume-independent moment products $(M/\sigma^{2}, s\sigma, \kappa\sigma^{2})$ of net-charge multiplicity distributions in the three-flavor finite volume, finite density Polyakov loop enhanced Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (PNJL) model. The work has been performed at energies similar to RHIC BES energies from 7.7 GeV to 200 GeV, including 2.4 and 3 GeV in the present model. Our findings are compared with the STAR net-charge data at various collision energies to explore signals of the QCD critical point. Additionally, we contrast our results with predictions from the Ultra-relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics (UrQMD) model, the Hadron Resonance Gas (HRG) model, and available lattice QCD data. The present results offer a useful tool for extracting the freeze-out parameters in the heavy-ion collision by comparing them with the STAR net-charge result and other net-charge theoretical models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21744 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (color online) (a) First-order cumulant ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (color online) Beam-energy dependence of moment product (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (color online) Beam-energy dependence of moment product [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Fourier analysis approach to disprove the weak Shanks conjecture

    math.CV 2025-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The abstract promises new Fourier coefficient formulas and counterexamples to the weak Shanks conjecture, but the submitted body is a different paper (a heavy-ion experiment report), so the result is not actually pres...

  2. Dynamical quark mass and finite volume effects in the Dyson-Schwinger Equations

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a Dyson-Schwinger model with spherical finite-volume corrections and magnetic-field-dependent coupling, constituent quark masses fall by about 30-40% as the fireball radius shrinks from infinity to 2 fm.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Adamas et al

    J. Adamas et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A757, 102 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    M. M. Aggarwal et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C82, 024905 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Aoki et al., Nature 443, 675 (2006)

    Y. Aoki et al., Nature 443, 675 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    E. S. Bowman, and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. C79, 015202 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    R. V. Gavai, and S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D78, 114503 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Cheng et al., Phys

    M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D77, 014511 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Ejiri, Phys

    S. Ejiri, Phys. Rev. D78, 074507 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Herold, M

    C. Herold, M. Nahrgang, I. Mitshustin, and M. Bleicher, Nucl. Phys. A925, 14 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Adronic et al., Nucl. Phys. A772, 167 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett109, 192302 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett81, 4816 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. D60, 114028 (1999)

    1999

  5. [13]

    Cleymans, H

    J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, and S. Wheaton, Phys. Rev. C73, 034905 (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    M. A. Stephanov, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl153, 139 (2004); Int. J. Mod. Phys. A20, 4387 (2005)

    2004

  7. [15]

    M. M. Aggarwal et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett105, 022302 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Braun-Munzinger, B

    P. Braun-Munzinger, B. Friman, F. Karsch, K. Redlich, and V. Skokov, Nucl. Phys. A880, 48 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Asakawa, S

    M. Asakawa, S. Ejiri, and M. Kitazawa Phys. Rev. Lett103, 262301 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Bzdak, and V

    A. Bzdak, and V. Koch, Phys. Rev. C86, 044904 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett102, 032301 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Berdnikov, and K

    B. Berdnikov, and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. D61, 105017 (2000)

    2000

  13. [21]

    Athanasiou, K

    C. Athanasiou, K. Rajagopal, and M. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D82, 074008 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Adamova et al., Phys

    D. Adamova et al., Phys. Rev. Lett90, 022301 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    H. T. Elze, and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B179, 385 (1986)

    1986

  16. [24]

    Gasser, and H

    J. Gasser, and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B188, 477 (1987)

    1987

  17. [25]

    Braun, B

    J. Braun, B. Klein, and P. Piasecki, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1576 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Braun, B

    J. Braun, B. Kelin, and B.-J. Schefer, Phys. Lett. B713, 216 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Nambu, and G

    Y. Nambu, and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev 122, 345 (1961); Phys. Rev 124, 246 (1961)

    1961

  20. [28]

    G. Shao, L. Chang, Y. Liu, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D73, 076003 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Kiriyama, and A

    O. Kiriyama, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D67, 085010 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Gopie, and M

    A. Gopie, and M. C. Ogilvie, Phys. Rev. D59, 034009 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    Bazavov, and B

    A. Bazavov, and B. A. Berg, Phys. Rev. D76, 014502 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Bhattacharyya, P

    A. Bhattacharyya, P. Deb, S. K. Ghosh, R. Ray, and S. Sur, Phys. Rev. D87, 054009 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Chakraborty, M

    P. Chakraborty, M. G. Mustafa, and M. H. Thoma, Eur. Phys. J. C23, 591 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    Bhattacharyya, S

    A. Bhattacharyya, S. K. Ghosh, R. Ray, K. Saha, and S. Upadhaya, Eur. Phys. Lett.116, 5 52001 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Bhattacharyya, R

    A. Bhattacharyya, R. Ray, and S. Sur, Phys. Rev. D91, 051501 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    B. J. Schaefer, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D75, 085015 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    Roessner, C

    S. Roessner, C. Ratti, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D75, 034007 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Sasaki, B

    C. Sasaki, B. Friman, and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. D75, 074013 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    Cheng et al., Phys

    M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D79, 074505 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Bhattacharyya, S

    A. Bhattacharyya, S. K. Ghosh, S. Maity, S. Raha, R. Ray, K. saha, and S. Upadhaya, Phys. Rev. D95 5, 054005 (2017). 11

    2017

  33. [41]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D85, 054503 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

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

    2014

  35. [43]

    Borsanyi et al., Phys

    S. Borsanyi et al., Phys. Lett. B730, 99 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Borsanyi et al., Phys

    S. Borsanyi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 052001 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 092301 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Dipak. K. Mishra (PHENIX Collaboration), Pos ICP AQGP2015, 031 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Garg (PHENIX Collaboration) arXiv: 1305.7327v1, (2013)

    P. Garg (PHENIX Collaboration) arXiv: 1305.7327v1, (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ji Xu, Shili Yu, Feng Liu, and Xiaofeng Luo, arXiv: 1606.03900v1, (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 032301 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Ratti, M

    C. Ratti, M. A. Thaler, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D73, 014019 (2006)

    2006

  43. [51]

    S. K. Ghosh, T. K. Mukherjee, M. G. Mustafa, and R. Ray, Phys. Rev. D 73, 114007 (2006); Phys. Rev. D 77, 094024 (2008)

    2006

  44. [52]

    P. Deb, A. Bhattacharyya, S. Datta, and S. K. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. C79, 055208 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Bhattacharyya, P

    A. Bhattacharyya, P. Deb, A. Lahari, and R. Ray, Phys. Rev. D82, 114028 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Bhattacharyya, P

    A. Bhattacharyya, P. Deb, S. K. Ghosh, and R. Ray, Phys. Rev. D82, 014021 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    Bhattacharyya, P

    A. Bhattacharyya, P. Deb, A. Lahiri, and R. Ray, Phys. Rev. D83, 014011 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    N. R. Sahoo, Ph.D. thesis Homi Bhabha National Institute, (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 192302 (2012). S. Borsanyi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 062005 (2013)

    2012

Pith tools

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