Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 6 cited by

A New State of Matter between the Hadronic Phase and the Quark-Gluon Plasma?

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that quarks and gluons deconfine at different temperatures, so between the hadron gas and the quark–gluon plasma there is an intermediate “Spaghetti of Quarks with Glueballs” phase in which quarks are thermally free but…

desk verdict A serious, readable scenario for an intermediate SQGB phase whose central entropy comparison is degenerate—the authors' own confined Hagedorn gas fits the same lattice data—so it deserves peer review as a proposal, not acceptance as a result. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00237 v3 pith:UH6I2IMP submitted 2025-05-30 hep-ph hep-latnucl-th

Yuki Fujimoto , Kenji Fukushima , Yoshimasa Hidaka , Larry McLerran This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-latnucl-th
keywords QCDphasediagramquark-gluonplasmaHagedorntemperatureglueballslargeNclimitchiralsymmetryrestorationhadronresonancegasquarkyonicmatter
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

Lattice-QCD data and large-$N_c$ counting suggest that strongly interacting matter does not jump directly from a hadron gas to a quark–gluon plasma. The paper proposes an intermediate regime, named a Spaghetti of Quarks with Glueballs (SQGB), that runs from the chiral crossover at $T_c\simeq 160$ MeV up to the pure-gluon deconfinement temperature $T_d\simeq 285$ MeV. In this window quark degrees of freedom contribute to the entropy density as if they were free, while gluons remain confined in glueballs, and the measured lattice entropy density is bracketed by the model's three regimes. The argument uses a universal Hagedorn temperature near $T_d$ for both meson and glueball string spectra, together with the large-$N_c$ hierarchy of entropy ($N_c^0$, $N_c$, $N_c^2$). If correct, the QCD phase diagram has a distinct, chirally restored but color-confined region that is the finite-density analogue of Quarkyonic Matter.

What carries the argument

The Hagedorn spectrum is the density of states that grows exponentially with mass, $\rho(M)\sim M^{-a}e^{M/T_H}$, and the paper derives it from open strings for mesons ($a=3/2$) and closed strings for glueballs ($a=-1$), with a common Hagedorn temperature $T_H=\sqrt{3\sigma/(2\pi)}\simeq 285$ MeV tied to the string tension. The value of $a$ decides what happens at $T_H$: the open-string (meson) entropy diverges, while the closed-string (glueball) entropy stays finite, so glueballs survive until the pure-gluon deconfinement temperature $T_d$. The counting of colors then organizes the regimes: meson entropy is $O(N_c^0)$, quark entropy $O(N_c)$, and gluon entropy $O(N_c^2)$, which is what makes an intermediate $O(N_c)$ regime natural. These ingredients bracket the lattice entropy density and give the SQGB its name.

What would settle it

A lattice-QCD measurement in the 160–285 MeV window showing that the entropy density falls systematically outside the free-quark-plus-glueball band, or showing that the heavy-quark potential is already screened while the chiral condensate has not yet melted, would rule out the SQGB picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In QCD, color confinement and the liberation of thermal degrees of freedom need not happen at the same temperature. The paper's central claim is that there is a window $T_c\lesssim T\lesssim T_d$, from about 160 to 285 MeV, in which quark degrees of freedom contribute to the entropy as if they were free, while gluons remain confined inside glueballs; this is the Spaghetti of Quarks with Glueballs (SQGB). The evidence assembled is semi-quantitative: the lattice-QCD entropy density in that window is bracketed by an ideal gas of massive or massless quarks plus a closed-string glueball spectrum, while the baryon-number cumulant ratio approaches the free-quark value above roughly 220 MeV. Confinement in the SQGB is maintained because Debye screening comes only from quark loops, which is suppressed as $O(N_c^{-1})$ at large $N_c$, so the heavy-quark potential is still confining even though quarks are thermally active. Chiral symmetry is restored in this phase through a Hagedorn-resonance correction to the chiral condensate that is $O(N_c^0)$, unlike the naive $O(N_c^{-1})$ estimate from pions alone.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the Hagedorn temperature of the meson spectrum equals the pure-gluon deconfinement temperature, both around 285 MeV; if the true $T_H$ lies a few percent below $T_d$, the intermediate window would be occupied by different matter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The QCD phase diagram for $N_c=3$ gains a new region, the SQGB, bounded by smooth crossovers from about $T_c\simeq 160$ MeV to $T_d\simeq 285$ MeV at zero baryon density.
  • In the large-$N_c$ limit the SQGB window shrinks to zero width, leaving only confined hadronic matter, Quarkyonic Matter at high density, and the deconfined quark–gluon plasma, with a single transition temperature $T_H$.
  • Chiral symmetry can be restored in the SQGB phase even though color is still confined, because Hagedorn-resonance corrections to the chiral condensate are $O(N_c^0)$ rather than $O(N_c^{-1})$.
  • The entropy density in the intermediate window is dominated by a free-quark gas plus a closed-string glueball gas, and the closed-string contribution stays finite at $T_H$, so glueballs melt only at the pure-gluon deconfinement temperature.
  • The lattice-QCD entropy density between $T_c$ and $T_d$ is bracketed by the model's three regimes, with free-quark-like behavior setting in above roughly 220 MeV as supported by baryon-number cumulant ratios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The three-regime counting suggests that transport properties such as the shear viscosity to entropy density ratio may be non-monotonic between $T_c$ and $T_d$, because quarks are quasi-free while color flux tubes still confine; this is a testable consequence for hydrodynamic modeling of heavy-ion collisions.
  • If the SQGB window is confirmed, some non-perturbative features currently attributed to a strongly coupled quark–gluon plasma in heavy-ion phenomenology may in fact originate below the gluon-deconfinement temperature, shifting the interpretation of beam-energy scan results.
  • A dedicated lattice study of the adjoint Polyakov loop or vortex percolation across the 160–285 MeV window would directly test whether color remains confined while the chiral condensate has melted; the paper itself notes that no current lattice evidence for such an intermediate phase has been seen.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a new intermediate phase, the Spaghetti of Quarks with Glueballs (SQGB), in the temperature window Tc ~ 160 MeV to Td ~ 285 MeV between a confined hadron gas and a deconfined quark-gluon plasma. The authors use Hagedorn spectra from open and closed strings to model mesons and glueballs, compare the resulting entropy density with lattice QCD data in three temperature regimes, discuss the large-Nc phase diagram and the connection to Quarkyonic Matter, and analyze chiral symmetry restoration. The central claim is that the lattice entropy and chiral condensate are consistent with a phase in which quark degrees of freedom are thermally active while gluons remain confined in glueballs.

Significance. If established, the SQGB scenario would revise the conventional QCD phase diagram and strengthen the connection between finite-temperature QCD and Quarkyonic Matter, with potential consequences for heavy-ion phenomenology and large-Nc QCD. The paper contains explicit, self-contained derivations of the Hagedorn-spectrum entropy formulas and a transparent large-Nc counting argument, and it makes quantitative comparisons with lattice data that are useful as a semi-quantitative benchmark. The main obstacle is that the proposed phase is not uniquely identified by the presented observables: the entropy-density comparison is degenerate with a confined resonance gas, the key equality TH ~ Td is imposed, and the paper itself concedes that no lattice signal of the intermediate phase has been seen. The work is best viewed as a speculative scenario that needs a discriminating observable or a substantially more cautious framing before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V.B, Figs. 2 and 6] The entropy-density comparison is degenerate and cannot by itself establish quark deconfinement in the intermediate window. Figure 6 shows that the open-string Hagedorn gas (NG mesons plus open strings, with no free quarks) matches the same lattice s/T^3 data using the same TH ~ 285 MeV, and the text states that this match holds without any fine-tuning procedure. Since the intermediate-regime curve in Fig. 2 is a bracket over quark masses varied from bare to constituent values, and the closed-string/glueball contribution is ~10^-3 of the mesonic contribution (Fig. 1), the lattice entropy is equally consistent with a confined resonance gas approaching its Hagedorn endpoint. The claim in Section I that the lattice data imply the existence of three regimes therefore overstates what s/T^3 can show; a discriminating observable (for example, quark-number susceptibilities, the Polyakov loop, or screening masses) is required before the SQGB phase can be identified.
  2. [Section II.B, Eq. (2)] The equality TH ~ Td ~ 285 MeV is imposed rather than derived. The preceding estimates give TH ~ 300 MeV from the string tension and TH/Td ~ 1.024(3) from lattice data, so the equality carries at least the roughly 10% uncertainty acknowledged in the text. The existence and location of the proposed SQGB window (240-280 MeV, Fig. 7) depend on the Hagedorn singularity of the open-string sector occurring at or above Td. The paper should quantify how the window changes if TH/Td is varied within the quoted uncertainties; in particular, if TH were appreciably below Td, the mesonic Hagedorn divergence would saturate before the pure-glue deconfinement transition, and the intermediate window would be a confined resonance gas rather than the proposed quark-deconfined matter.
  3. [Sections I, II.C, and III] The defining property of the SQGB phase is stated inconsistently. The abstract and Section I say that in the SQGB thermal degrees of freedom of quarks are deconfined, while Section II.C concludes that in the intermediate phase quarks should still be confined because the Debye screening mass squared is suppressed as O(N_c^{-1}), and Section III repeats that quarks are still unscreened and thus confined. These statements describe different physics: one claims liberation of quark color charges, the other claims a confined but quasi-free quark matter of the Quarkyonic type. The paper should adopt one definition and adjust the abstract, the phase name, and the associated discussion accordingly, because the central claim is about what is deconfined in the new phase.
  4. [Section VI, Eq. (38) and Fig. 9, with Section VII] The chiral-restoration analysis is calibrated rather than predictive. The assumption sigma_M ~ n_l sigma_bar with sigma_bar ~ 30 MeV is introduced as inferred from the fit to the lattice-QCD data and then varied by a factor two, so the agreement in Fig. 9 is expected. Moreover, because the same open-string Hagedorn spectrum that fits the entropy in Fig. 6 also drives the chiral condensate in Fig. 9, chiral restoration does not discriminate between a confined resonance gas and the SQGB. The text should explicitly label this as a consistency check of the Hagedorn description. Relatedly, the concession in Section VII that no evidence for such an intermediate phase is seen in lattice computations should be reflected in the abstract, which currently claims that the lattice data are bracketed by three regimes.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section V.B, Fig. 6] The phrase without any fine-tuning procedure is stronger than warranted, since TH is fixed to 285 MeV and the lower cutoff M0 and the degeneracy factors in Eq. (29) are chosen to match the hadron spectrum.
  2. [Section VI, Eq. (39)] The values n_l = 2, 3/2, 4/3 are described as the number of light quarks, but the text immediately explains that these are average values over the mass bins; the notation should be defined consistently in Eq. (38) and Eq. (39) to avoid the impression that a given meson has a fractional number of light quarks.
  3. [Figure 6 caption] The caption labels the curve as HRG while the legend describes NG mesons plus open strings; the distinction between the standard PDG-based HRG and the Hagedorn-spectrum model should be clarified in the caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Chiral-restoration comparison is calibrated to the very lattice data it claims to explain; the central entropy-density scenario is degenerate but not tautological.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI, Eq. (38) and Fig. 9 caption]
    "For ¯σ, we use the value, ¯σ ≃ 30 MeV, that is inferred from the fit to the lattice-QCD data for simplicity. To incorporate the uncertainty, we vary ¯σ by a factor two, i.e., we vary it between ¯σ ≃ 15–60 MeV. ... The averaged sigma term per quark, ¯σ ≃ 30 MeV, is obtained from the best fit to the lattice-QCD data and it is varied within 15–60 MeV to account for uncertainty."

    The model's free parameter σ̄ is determined by fitting the Wuppertal-Budapest lattice chiral-condensate data, and the same data are then plotted alongside the model curve in Fig. 9 as evidence that the open-string spectrum explains chiral restoration. Because σ̄ is 'obtained from the best fit to the lattice-QCD data', the agreement of the orange curve with the data points is imposed by the fitting procedure, not produced independently by the model. The qualitative statement that heavy open-string states contribute remains, but the numerical match cannot serve as confirmation of the SQGB chiral picture.

full rationale

The paper's main three-regime calculation is a scenario built from explicit inputs rather than a hidden self-referential reduction: the Hagedorn spectra are derived from a common string tension, Td ≃ 285 MeV is adopted from independent pure-gauge lattice results, and Eq. (2) openly labels TH ≃ Td as an assumption with ~10% uncertainty. The entropy-density comparison is genuinely semi-quantitative, though weak: Fig. 6 shows that a confined open-string Hagedorn gas also matches the same lattice data, so s/T^3 does not uniquely imply quark deconfinement between Tc and Td. That is evidence degeneracy, not circularity, because the curves are not the same expression by construction. The paper also concedes in Sec. VII that no lattice signal of the intermediate phase has yet been seen; this is a limitation, not a circular step. The only step that reduces to its own input is the chiral-condensate analysis in Sec. VI: the parameter σ̄ is fit to the lattice condensate, and then the resulting curve is displayed against those same data. This is a supporting section rather than the paper's central focus, and no load-bearing self-citation chain was found, so the overall score is a moderate 5 rather than a 6-8.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of chosen scales and model assumptions: TH approximately equal to Td, mass cutoffs, degeneracy factors, constituent masses, and the fitted sigma term. These are not derived from first principles. The Hagedorn spectrum itself is standard string-theory mathematics, but its application to QCD thermodynamics is a domain assumption.

free parameters (8)
  • Hagedorn temperature TH = 285 MeV, set equal to Td
    Eq. (2) assumes TH approximately equal to Td approximately equal to 285 MeV throughout. The string estimate gives about 300 MeV and lattice fits give TH/Td about 1.024, so the value is imposed.
  • Open string lower mass cutoff M0 = 0.67 GeV
    Sec. VA sets M0 to the first non-NG meson mass and twice the constituent light quark mass, controlling the normalization of the open-string entropy.
  • Closed string lower mass cutoff M0 = 2 MGB = 3.3 GeV
    Sec. VA starts the closed-string spectrum at twice the lightest glueball mass, above the low-lying glueball states.
  • String degeneracy factors d_sigma = 16, 32, 36 in three mass ranges
    Eq. (29) assigns flavor and spin degeneracies to quarks at the string ends, based on constituent masses ml = 0.33 GeV and ms = 0.49 GeV.
  • Constituent quark masses ml, ms = 0.33 GeV, 0.49 GeV
    Used in degeneracy thresholds and in bracketing the free-quark entropy. These are spectroscopy inputs, not derived in this paper.
  • Thermal gluon mass = 0.8 GeV
    Sec. II B and V A use m_gluon = MGB/2 to model the entropy above Td. The authors note lattice data may favor a larger effective mass.
  • Per-quark sigma term sigma-bar = 30 MeV, varied 15 to 60 MeV
    Sec. VI explicitly states that sigma-bar is inferred from a fit to the lattice chiral condensate, making the chiral restoration comparison a fit.
  • Quark mass variation band = ml from 0 to 0.33 GeV; ms from 0.10 to 0.49 GeV
    The intermediate-regime bracket in Fig. 2 uses this wide band; a wider band makes agreement with lattice data easier to achieve.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The Hagedorn temperature is universal for open and closed strings, TH = sqrt(3 sigma / 2 pi), with a single string tension.
    Sec. IVA derives Hagedorn spectra assuming one string tension and applies it to both mesons and glueballs in QCD.
  • ad hoc to paper TH approximately equal to Td approximately equal to 285 MeV.
    Eq. (2) imposes this equality. The string estimate gives about 300 MeV and lattice gives TH/Td about 1.024, so the equality is not derived.
  • domain assumption The intermediate phase is a weakly interacting gas of free quarks and Hagedorn glueballs.
    Sec. V computes entropy as a sum of independent ideal gases; no interaction corrections are included.
  • domain assumption Large-Nc counting of entropy density as Nc^0, Nc, and Nc^2 determines the sequence of regimes.
    Sec. IIA uses this counting to motivate three regimes and assumes no first-order transition bypasses the intermediate region at finite Nc.
  • domain assumption Debye screening with gluon-loop contribution dropped when gluons are bound into glueballs determines the deconfinement boundary Td(mu_B).
    Eq. (4) and Sec. III use this screening picture to argue that confinement persists in the intermediate regime and to estimate Td(mu_B).
  • ad hoc to paper Resonance sigma terms satisfy sigma_M approximately equal to nl sigma-bar with a common per-quark sigma term.
    Eq. (38) introduces this assumption because generic sigma terms for resonances are not known; the fitted sigma-bar drives the chiral condensate result.
  • standard math Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation and NG-meson sigma terms from chiral perturbation theory.
    Eq. (36) uses GMOR to relate the pion sigma term to the condensate. This is standard background.
invented entities (1)
  • SQGB phase (Spaghetti of Quarks with Glueballs)
    purpose: To account for the temperature window Tc less than about T less than about Td where quarks contribute as thermal degrees of freedom but gluons remain confined in glueballs.
    The paper gives no direct observable unique to SQGB. The support is a bracket of lattice entropy data with model bands and a fitted chiral condensate. No dedicated heavy-ion or lattice signature is predicted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New State of Matter between the Hadronic Phase and the Quark-Gluon Plasma?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UH6I2IMP

@misc{pith2026250600237,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New State of Matter between the Hadronic Phase and the Quark-Gluon Plasma?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UH6I2IMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00237}
}
abstract

Lattice-QCD simulations and theoretical arguments hint at the existence of an intermediate phase of strongly interacting matter between a confined hadron gas and a deconfined Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP). We qualitatively and semi-quantitatively explore and differentiate the phase structures in the temperature window from the QCD pseudo-critical temperature $T_c\simeq 160\;\text{MeV}$ to the pure-gluonic deconfinement temperature $T_d\simeq 285\;\text{MeV}$. We propose a three-regime picture using a hadron resonance gas (HRG) description augmented with the glueball spectrum based on the analysis of a large number, $N_c$, of colors. We estimate the entropy density from our model to confirm that the lattice-QCD data are bracketed with three regimes, i.e., a hadron gas, a QGP, and a new phase for $T_c \lesssim T \lesssim T_d$. In this new phase that we name a Spaghetti of Quarks with Glueballs (SQGB), thermal degrees of freedom of quarks are deconfined, yet gluons remain confined in glueballs. Since the Hagedorn temperature, $T_H\sim 285\;\text{MeV}$, is universal in the meson and the glueball sectors, in the infinite $N_c$ limit, the phase diagram in the plane of the baryon chemical potential and the temperature is reduced to the one with the confined and deconfined phases and Quarkyonic Matter at high density. At large but finite $N_c$, an SQGB window may open between these phases. We point out that the SQGB has interesting similarities with Quarkyonic Matter and that this matter in the large $N_c$ limit is confined as measured by the interaction between heavy quarks, but behaves in other respects like a quasi-free gas of quarks. As a result of the extrapolation to $N_c=3$, we present a revised phase diagram with the SQGB phase bounded by thermal crossovers. Finally, we give a quantitative analysis of chiral symmetry restoration in the SQGB phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00237 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Comparison between the entropy densities from an open-string gas (drawn by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Lattice-QCD equation of state at high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Quarkyonic phase diagram in the strict large- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: New phase diagram with stretched Quarkyonic Matter toward the temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: New and realistic phase diagram for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison between the HRG model and the Hagedorn spectrum of the open [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Comparison of the entropy density between the lattice-QCD data and the gas of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison of the ratio of the fourth and second order cumulants of net-baryon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Ratio of the chiral condensate at finite temperature to that at zero temperature. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Dirac mode localization in QCD near the crossover temperature

    hep-lat 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Low-lying Dirac modes in QCD localize at Tloc ≈ 155–158 MeV, the same temperature range as the chiral crossover.

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

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Supercritical L± lines in asymmetric fluids obey the same singular diameter scaling as the subcritical coexistence curve, with antisymmetric correction terms.

  3. Speed of sound peak in two-color dense QCD: confronting effective models with lattice data

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A medium-separated NJL model reproduces the lattice-observed peak in the speed of sound for two-color dense QCD, where conventional cutoff regularization fails.

  4. New phases in QCD at finite temperature and chemical potential

    hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the Veneziano large-N_c limit, QCD at finite baryon chemical potential has two partially deconfined phases (PD-1, PD-2) and two confined phases (CC-1, CC-2), separated by a Gross-Witten-Wadia transition that can be...

  5. A large size of the pion-like excitations in the stringy fluid above $T_{ch}$ is model independent and required by current algebra

    hep-ph 2026-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The author claims that the large swelling of pion-like excitations above the chiral transition is model-independent and required by current algebra, but the proof rests on an unproven two-option dichotomy.

  6. Hadronic and partonic composition of QCD matter across the crossover

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A three-parameter hadron–quark crossover equation of state fitted to lattice QCD data yields a switching temperature T₀ ≃ 216 MeV, implying hadronic degrees of freedom persist well above the chiral pseudocritical temperature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Svetitsky, Phys

    B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rept.132, 1 (1986)

    1986

  2. [2]

    Confinement and symmetry from vacuum to QCD 36 phase diagram

    between the lattice-QCD data and the free quark gas value. the SQGB phase can be described aptly by chirally symmetric massless quarks and glueballs. As one increases the temperature, the interaction among quarks gets weaker, as is also implied from that the weak-coupling calculation in thermal QCD already works well around∼ 2Tc [68–73]. C. Validity range...

    2025

  3. [3]

    T. D. Cohen and L. Y. Glozman, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 171 (2024), arXiv:2311.07333 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    McLerran and R

    L. McLerran and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. A796, 83 (2007), arXiv:0706.2191 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Hadron Production in Ultra-relativistic Nuclear Collisions: Quarkyonic Matter and a Triple Point in the Phase Diagram of QCD

    A. Andronic et al., Nucl. Phys. A837, 65 (2010), arXiv:0911.4806 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    Fujimoto, T

    Y. Fujimoto, T. Kojo, and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 112701 (2024), arXiv:2306.04304 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Fukushima and C

    K. Fukushima and C. Sasaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.72, 99 (2013), arXiv:1301.6377 [hep-ph]. 37

    arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    C. E. Detar and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Lett. B119, 171 (1982)

    1982

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Meyer-Ortmanns, Nucl

    H. Meyer-Ortmanns, Nucl. Phys. B230, 31 (1984)

    1984

  2. [10]

    Weiss, Phys

    N. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D35, 2495 (1987)

    1987

  3. [11]

    Faber, O

    M. Faber, O. Borisenko, and G. Zinovev, Nucl. Phys. B444, 563 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9504264

    1995

  4. [12]

    Fukushima, Annals Phys.304, 72 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0204302

    K. Fukushima, Annals Phys.304, 72 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0204302

    2003 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ghanbarpour and L

    M. Ghanbarpour and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054513 (2022), arXiv:2206.11697 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Borsanyi, K

    S. Borsanyi, K. R., Z. Fodor, D. A. Godzieba, P. Parotto, and D. Sexty, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074513 (2022), arXiv:2202.05234 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Giusti, M

    L. Giusti, M. Hirasawa, M. Pepe, and L. Virzì, (2025), arXiv:2501.10284 [hep-lat]

    2025

  8. [16]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B730, 99 (2014), arXiv:1309.5258 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D90, 094503 (2014), arXiv:1407.6387 [hep- lat]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D74, 121703 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0608242

    2006 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Asakawa and T

    M. Asakawa and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 012001 (2004), arXiv:hep- lat/0308034

    2004

  12. [20]

    Burnier and A

    Y. Burnier and A. Rothkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 182003 (2013), arXiv:1307.6106 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Petreczky, S

    P. Petreczky, S. Sharma, and J. H. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054511 (2021), arXiv:2107.11368 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lowdon and O

    P. Lowdon and O. Philipsen, JHEP10, 161 (2022), arXiv:2207.14718 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    D. Bala, O. Kaczmarek, P. Lowdon, O. Philipsen, and T. Ueding, JHEP 05, 332 (2024), arXiv:2310.13476 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gross et al., Eur

    F. Gross et al., Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1125 (2023), arXiv:2212.11107 [hep-ph]. 38

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Liao and E

    J. Liao and E. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. C75, 054907 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611131

    2007 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Liao and E

    J. Liao and E. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 162302 (2008), arXiv:0804.0255 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Shuryak, Rev

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

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. C. Myers and M. C. Ogilvie, Phys. Rev. D77, 125030 (2008), arXiv:0707.1869 [hep-lat]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hanada, G

    M. Hanada, G. Ishiki, and H. Watanabe, JHEP03, 145 (2019), [Erratum: JHEP 10, 029 (2019)], arXiv:1812.05494 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hanada, H

    M. Hanada, H. Shimada, and N. Wintergerst, JHEP08, 039 (2021), arXiv:2001.10459 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hanada, H

    M. Hanada, H. Ohata, H. Shimada, and H. Watanabe, PTEP2024, 041B02 (2024), arXiv:2310.01940 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hanada and H

    M. Hanada and H. Watanabe, PTEP2024, 043B02 (2024), arXiv:2310.07533 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Vuorinen and L

    A. Vuorinen and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. D74, 025011 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604100

    2006 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hidaka and R

    Y. Hidaka and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D78, 071501 (2008), arXiv:0803.0453 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Hidaka and R

    Y. Hidaka and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D104, 074036 (2021), arXiv:2009.03903 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Rohrhofer, Y

    C. Rohrhofer, Y. Aoki, G. Cossu, H. Fukaya, C. Gattringer, L. Y. Glozman, S. Hashimoto, C. B. Lang, and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. D 100, 014502 (2019), arXiv:1902.03191 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Rohrhofer, Y

    C. Rohrhofer, Y. Aoki, L. Y. Glozman, and S. Hashimoto, Phys. Lett. B802, 135245 (2020), arXiv:1909.00927 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    L. Y. Glozman, Eur. Phys. J. A51, 27 (2015), arXiv:1407.2798 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    L. Y. Glozman and M. Pak, Phys. Rev. D92, 016001 (2015), arXiv:1504.02323 [hep- lat]. 39

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    L. Y. Glozman, O. Philipsen, and R. D. Pisarski, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 247 (2022), arXiv:2204.05083 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A. Hart, M. Laine, and O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B 586, 443 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0004060

    2000

  34. [42]

    Engelhardt and H

    M. Engelhardt and H. Reinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B 585, 591 (2000), arXiv:hep- lat/9912003

    2000

  35. [43]

    J. A. Mickley, C. Allton, R. Bignell, and D. B. Leinweber, Phys. Rev. D111, 034508 (2025), arXiv:2411.19446 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    H. B. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D80, 051502 (2009), arXiv:0905.4229 [hep-lat]

    2009 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Athenodorou and M

    A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, JHEP11, 172 (2020), arXiv:2007.06422 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Lucini, M

    B. Lucini, M. Teper, and U. Wenger, JHEP01, 061 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0307017

    2004 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Caselle, A

    M. Caselle, A. Nada, and M. Panero, JHEP07, 143 (2015), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 016 (2017)], arXiv:1505.01106 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Borsányi, S

    S. Borsányi, S. Dürr, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, T. Kurth, L. Lel- louch, T. Lippert, and C. McNeile (BMW), JHEP09, 010 (2012), arXiv:1203.4469 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. L. Bellac,Thermal Field Theory, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    Trotti, S

    E. Trotti, S. Jafarzade, and F. Giacosa, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 390 (2023), arXiv:2212.03272 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Levai and U

    P. Levai and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C57, 1879 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9710463

    1998 arXiv

  44. [52]

    D.Bala, O.Kaczmarek, R.Larsen, S.Mukherjee, G.Parkar, P.Petreczky, A.Rothkopf, and J. H. Weber (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D105, 054513 (2022), arXiv:2110.11659 [hep- lat]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    T. D. Cohen and L. Y. Glozman, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 170 (2024), arXiv:2401.04194 [hep-ph]. 40

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    T. Kojo, Y. Hidaka, L. McLerran, and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. A843, 37 (2010), arXiv:0912.3800 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, and M. Winn, Phys. Lett. B718, 80 (2012), arXiv:1201.0693 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Vovchenko, M

    V. Vovchenko, M. I. Gorenstein, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 182301 (2017), arXiv:1609.03975 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, Y. Hidaka, A. Hiraguchi, and K. Iida, Phys. Lett. B835, 137524 (2022), arXiv:2109.06799 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bluhm, Y

    M. Bluhm, Y. Fujimoto, L. McLerran, and M. Nahrgang, Phys. Rev. C111, 044914 (2025), arXiv:2409.12088 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    M.B.Green, J.H.Schwarz, andE.Witten, Superstring Theory: 25th Anniversary Edi- tion, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    Huang and S

    K. Huang and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 895 (1970)

    1970

  53. [61]

    Cabibbo and G

    N. Cabibbo and G. Parisi, Phys. Lett. B59, 67 (1975)

    1975

  54. [62]

    Stoecker et al., J

    H. Stoecker et al., J. Phys. G43, 015105 (2016), arXiv:1509.00160 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    P. M. Lo, M. Marczenko, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. C92, 055206 (2015), arXiv:1507.06398 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Selem and F

    A. Selem and F. Wilczek, in Ringberg Workshop on New Trends in HERA Physics 2005 (2006) pp. 337–356, arXiv:hep-ph/0602128

    2006 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Broniowski and W

    W. Broniowski and W. Florkowski, Phys. Lett. B 490, 223 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0004104

    2000

  59. [67]

    Broniowski, W

    W. Broniowski, W. Florkowski, and L. Y. Glozman, Phys. Rev. D70, 117503 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0407290

    2004 arXiv

  60. [68]

    T. D. Cohen, JHEP06, 098 (2010), arXiv:0901.0494 [hep-th]. 41

    2010 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Zhai and B

    C.-x. Zhai and B. M. Kastening, Phys. Rev. D52, 7232 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9507380

    1995 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. P. Blaizot, E. Iancu, and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D63, 065003 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0005003

    2001

  63. [71]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and Y. Schroder, Phys. Rev. D67, 105008 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0211321

    2003 arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. P. Blaizot, E. Iancu, and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D68, 025011 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0303045

    2003

  65. [73]

    Laine and Y

    M. Laine and Y. Schroder, Phys. Rev. D73, 085009 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603048

    2006 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Haque, A

    N. Haque, A. Bandyopadhyay, J. O. Andersen, M. G. Mustafa, M. Strickland, and N. Su, JHEP05, 027 (2014), arXiv:1402.6907 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D95, 054504 (2017), arXiv:1701.04325 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, S. K. Katz, K. K. Szabo, A. Pasztor, I. Portillo, and C. Ratti, JHEP10, 205 (2018), arXiv:1805.04445 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Biswas, P

    D. Biswas, P. Petreczky, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. C 106, 045203 (2022), arXiv:2206.04579 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Gell-Mann, R

    M. Gell-Mann, R. J. Oakes, and B. Renner, Phys. Rev.175, 2195 (1968)

    1968

  71. [79]

    Gasser and H

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

    1987

  72. [80]

    Gerber and H

    P. Gerber and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B321, 387 (1989)

    1989

  73. [81]

    P. M. Copeland, C.-R. Ji, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D107, 094041 (2023), arXiv:2112.03198 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo (Wuppertal-Budapest), JHEP09, 073 (2010), arXiv:1005.3508 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Casher, Phys

    A. Casher, Phys. Lett. B83, 395 (1979)

    1979

  76. [84]

    Banks and A

    T. Banks and A. Casher, Nucl. Phys. B169, 103 (1980)

    1980

  77. [85]

    Alexandru and I

    A. Alexandru and I. Horváth, Phys. Rev. D100, 094507 (2019), arXiv:1906.08047 [hep-lat]. 42

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    DeGrand, Phys

    T. DeGrand, Phys. Rev. D103, 094513 (2021), arXiv:2102.01150 [hep-lat]. 43

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.