Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Real rotation strengthens the chromomagnetic flux tubes of gluonic matter and raises its deconfinement temperature; near the transition the melting flux tubes can produce a negative total moment of inertia, an anomalous window that closes a

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 03:18 UTC pith:W4T65GHR

load-bearing objection A transparent holographic model with a concrete falsifiable prediction (Tc rise, inertia inversion window) whose main weakness is that its imaginary-rotation 'confirmation' is calibration, not validation — still worth refereeing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23199 v1 pith:W4T65GHR submitted 2026-07-25 hep-ph hep-th

A Chromomagnetic Mechanism for the Rotational Phase Transition of Gluonic Matter

Zhibin Li , Yidian Chen , Mei Huang This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords rotation-magnetic correspondenceholographic QCDdeconfinement transitionchromomagnetic string tensionnegative moment of inertiaBarnett effectanalytic continuationpure gluonic matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to resolve a long-standing contradiction: effective models say rotation lowers the deconfinement temperature of pure gluonic matter, while lattice QCD's analytic continuation says rotation raises it. The authors propose that the missing ingredient is the chromomagnetic sector—the nonperturbative flux tubes that carry chromomagnetic field. Using a holographic model with a rotation–magnetic dictionary calibrated on imaginary-rotation lattice data, they find that real rotation strengthens the chromomagnetic string tension and raises Tc, and that near the transition the temperature-dependent melting of flux tubes can make the total moment of inertia negative, producing a negative Barnett effect. They call this the chromomagnetic-induced inertia inversion (CII) mechanism. If correct, the conflict is resolved and rotating gluonic matter has a narrow anomalous-inertia window that closes at v²≈0.1.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the rotational response of pure gluonic matter is governed by its chromomagnetic sector, and that this resolves the conflict between effective models and lattice QCD. Using the rotation–magnetic correspondence, the authors map rotation about the z-axis to a homogeneous bulk magnetic field B=2m(T)Ω with m(T)=λT, fixing λ=11.8 by matching lattice data at imaginary angular velocity. In the resulting holographic Einstein–dilaton–Maxwell geometry, real rotation raises the deconfinement temperature—Tc(v²)/Tc(0)≈1+0.38v² at small v² and ≈1+0.4v²−0.7v⁴+0.7v⁶ over the computed range—and increases the chromomagnetic string tension extracted from a spatial Wilson loop.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the rotation–magnetic dictionary: a finite-radius system rotating at angular velocity Ω is treated as seeing B=2m(T)Ω, with the effective mass scale m(T)=λT and λ fixed by imaginary-rotation lattice data. This enters a five-dimensional Einstein–dilaton–Maxwell action with an anisotropic metric; the resulting pressure anisotropy P∥−P⊥=ΩJ_total is split into orbital and spin contributions, with I_orbital fixed by the magnetic source and I_spin fixed by the normalizable metric coefficient g_v, which encodes the vacuum response rather than the external source. The chromomagnetic string tension, computed from the spatial Wilson loop, is the observable that tracks the

Load-bearing premise

The prediction hinges on the rotation–magnetic dictionary B=2m(T)Ω with the linear ansatz m(T)=λT and λ fixed from imaginary-rotation lattice data; if that mapping is not quantitatively reliable for real rotation, the Tc enhancement, negative Barnett effect, and CII mechanism all collapse.

What would settle it

Measure Tc of SU(3) gluodynamics under real rotation using a sign-problem-free lattice method at boundary velocity v around 0.05–0.2: if Tc(v²)/Tc(0) does not rise, or if the total moment of inertia just above Tc stays positive, the central claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • The longstanding contradiction resolves in favor of lattice QCD's analytic-continuation extrapolation: real rotation raises Tc, while imaginary rotation lowers it.
  • A uniformly rotating gluonic medium just above Tc should exhibit a negative total moment of inertia at weak rotation, so its angular-momentum response opposes the rotation axis.
  • The anomalous window is bounded: it exists between Tc and Ts≈1.16Tc at small v² and vanishes for v²≳0.1, so fast rotation restores conventional Barnett behavior.
  • Since real rotation strengthens the chromomagnetic string tension, the deconfinement shift and the inertial anomaly share one microscopic cause, rather than two separate mechanisms.
  • The low-velocity coefficient 0.38 in Tc(v²)/Tc(0) is a concrete number that future real-rotation lattice simulations can check.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct measurement of a negative total moment of inertia would imply that rigid rotation of gluonic matter in that window is mechanically unstable: the spin response opposes the rotation axis, so a real vortex would tend to relax or split.
  • The same formal identity P∥−P⊥=ΩJ_total and the same flux-tube logic apply to magnetized QCD; the CII mechanism suggests an analogous sign reversal of magnetization may occur near Tc in strong magnetic fields.
  • If the mapping is quantitatively right, the predicted monotonic growth of the spatial string tension with v² is a clean signature; a real-rotation lattice computation of the spatial Wilson loop would discriminate this mechanism from alternatives that keep the vacuum sector static.
  • Extending to quark matter near the QCD crossover is the natural next step—the authors mention it—and it implies that vortical observables such as spin alignment or vortex rings could exhibit the same inertia inversion in heavy-ion collisions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a bottom-up holographic Einstein-dilaton-Maxwell model for pure gluonic matter under rotation, based on a rotation–magnetic correspondence that maps rotation to a homogeneous bulk magnetic field B = 2m(T)Ω with m(T) = λT. The parameter λ = 11.8 is calibrated to the low-velocity imaginary-rotation lattice data for the deconfinement temperature. The model then reproduces the lattice result that imaginary rotation lowers Tc, and analytically continues to real rotation, predicting that Tc is enhanced (Tc(v²)/Tc(0) ≃ 1 + 0.38v² at small v²), that a negative Barnett effect appears at low temperature, and that the total moment of inertia is negative in a window Tc < T < Ts, which closes at v_c² ≃ 0.1. The authors attribute these effects to the melting and restoration of chromomagnetic flux tubes, which they call the chromomagnetic-induced inertia inversion (CII) mechanism. The paper includes a supplemental derivation of the holographic renormalization and thermodynamic observables.

Significance. If the real-rotation predictions were established, the paper would resolve a long-standing conflict between effective models (which predict Tc suppression) and lattice QCD analytic continuation (which predicts Tc enhancement), and it would provide a concrete microscopic mechanism—CII—for anomalous rotational response near the deconfinement transition. The framework is sign-problem-free and yields falsifiable predictions (the 0.38v² slope, Ts ≈ 1.16Tc, and the closing velocity v_c² ≈ 0.1) that future lattice simulations or improved analytic-continuation studies could test. The paper also ships a detailed holographic renormalization procedure in the supplement, which is a strength. However, the central predictions are obtained from a phenomenological dictionary whose quantitative reliability is not yet established; the calibration step is partly circular, and no sensitivity analysis is provided. These issues substantially limit the current significance of the claimed quantitative results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Rotational deconfinement and analytic continuation, Fig. 2] The parameter λ = 11.8 is fixed by fitting the low-velocity imaginary-rotation dependence of Tc from the same lattice data [14] that the paper then claims to confirm. The statement 'Through this calibration, we confirm the lattice results regarding the suppression of Tc under imaginary rotation' is therefore circular: the agreement is enforced by the fit, not evidence for the model. This matters because the real-rotation enhancement (Tc(v²)/Tc(0) ≈ 1 + 0.38v²) is the analytic continuation of that same one-parameter calibration. Please either reserve independent lattice points for validation or explicitly label the imaginary-rotation agreement as a fit, and state that the real-rotation prediction is untested.
  2. [Holographic setup and rotational dictionary, Eq. (1)] The entire real-rotation phenomenology follows from the phenomenological dictionary B = 2m(T)Ω with m(T) = λT. The paper acknowledges that 'agreement with data not used in fixing λ, and sensitivity to R and to the magnetic coupling Z(ϕ)' are the appropriate tests, but it does not perform any. The quantitative predictions—the 0.38v² slope, Ts ≈ 1.16Tc, and v_c² ≈ 0.1—may depend strongly on the linear ansatz, the chosen R = 1 fm, and the form of Z(ϕ). Please add a sensitivity analysis varying λ (within the lattice uncertainty), R in a physically plausible range (e.g., 1–5 fm), and the functional form of Z(ϕ), and show how Tc(v²), Ts(v²), and the I_total sign window change.
  3. [Anomalous rotational response near deconfinement, Fig. 3] The claim that 'our analytic continuation from the near-zero rotation limit confirms that this temperature-dependent anomalous inertia persists for physical real rotation' overstates the evidence. The negative-I_total window is a prediction of the same model with no independent cross-check. Since lattice QCD cannot access real rotation directly, the model's real-rotation results should be framed as predictions to be tested, not confirmations. If possible, compare the predicted negative-I_total window with the lattice results at imaginary rotation [17,18] after analytic continuation, as an internal consistency check.
  4. [Chromomagnetic string tension and microscopic origin, Fig. 4] The sentence 'This tight coevolution verifies that the CII mechanism governs the anomalous rotational response' is a causal claim based on a correlation between two quantities computed in the same model. The model does not independently demonstrate that flux-tube melting causes the negative inertia; it shows that both respond to the same background. Please soften 'verifies' to 'is consistent with' and discuss whether alternative interpretations (e.g., direct magnetic-field effects) are excluded by the calculation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1)] Using the same symbol R for the Ricci scalar and for the system radius (the latter in the sentence before the equation) will confuse readers; suggest \mathcal{R} for the scalar.
  2. [Fig. 2] The green curve is described as Ts, but the axis label uses T/Tc(0); specify what the green curve represents in the caption and add a label for v_c².
  3. [Supplemental Eq. (S4)] The role of the counterterm coefficient b is not explained in the main text; state how b is fixed (e.g., by zero-temperature normalization) when the energy density is quoted.
  4. [Abstract/Introduction] The abbreviation 'CII' is introduced in the abstract but not defined until the introduction; consider spelling it out at first use in the abstract or define it in the introduction.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The imaginary-rotation 'confirmation' is the same data used to fit λ; real-rotation predictions are analytic continuations of that one-parameter fit, so the validation claim is circular while the CII mechanism remains a model extrapolation.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Rotational deconfinement and analytic continuation' (paragraph after Eq. (3), before Fig. 2)]
    "Adopting the finite-system convention R= 1 fm, we set λ= 11.8 by fitting the low-velocity rotational dependence of T c. Through this calibration, we confirm the lattice results regarding the suppression of T c under imaginary rotation (Fig. 2), validating our framework for analytic continuation to real angular velocity."

    λ is the only rotation-dependent parameter in B=2m(T)Ω with m(T)=λT. It is fixed by fitting the low-velocity imaginary-rotation T_c data, and the paper immediately claims that this calibration 'confirms' the lattice suppression of T_c under imaginary rotation. The agreement is therefore guaranteed by the fit, not independently verified. The analogous real-rotation result T_c(v²)/T_c(0)≃1+0.38v² is the analytic continuation of the same fitted coefficient, so the central real-rotation enhancement is an extrapolation of the fitted input rather than a prediction confronting data not used in the fit. The manuscript itself identifies the required independent tests ('Agreement with data not used in fixing λ, and sensitivity to R and to the magnetic coupling Z(ϕ)') but does not perform them.

full rationale

Most of the paper is a self-contained holographic calculation: given the EMD action and the rotation–magnetic dictionary B=2m(T)Ω, the deconfinement temperature, pressure anisotropy, moment of inertia, and chromomagnetic string tension are obtained by solving the bulk equations. These outputs—negative Barnett effect, T_s, v_c²≈0.1, and string-tension coevolution—are not directly fitted to those observables, so the CII mechanism has independent model content. The circularity is confined to the validation sentence: λ=11.8 is fixed by fitting the low-velocity imaginary-rotation T_c data, and the paper then 'confirms' the lattice suppression of T_c under imaginary rotation using that same calibration. That is fitted input presented as confirmation. The real-rotation enhancement and the 1+0.38v² slope are analytic continuations of the same one-parameter fit; they are legitimate model predictions but not independent checks. The paper itself notes that agreement with data not used in fixing λ and sensitivity to R and Z(ϕ) are the appropriate tests, but does not supply them. This is a partial, not wholesale, circularity: the central CII mechanism does not reduce to a fit, but the claimed validation against imaginary-rotation lattice data does. The other cited ingredients—model parameters from [47], the rotation–magnetic correspondence from [41–46]—are not load-bearing circular steps; the correspondence is explicitly a phenomenological ansatz, and the model parameters are fixed by nonrotating physics. External-validity concerns about the dictionary for real rotation are correctness risks, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central result rests on a fitted rotation-magnetic coupling λ, a postulated dictionary B = 2λTΩ with linear m(T) = λT, and the prior EDM model parameters (γ, κ²₅, ζ). All real-rotation claims are consequences of this mapping plus the holographic identification of g_v as a spin contribution.

free parameters (7)
  • λ = 11.8
    Rotation–magnetic coupling factor in B = 2λTΩ; fitted to the low-velocity imaginary-rotation T_c dependence from lattice QCD. Everything rotational in the paper depends on it.
  • γ = 0.735
    Dilaton potential parameter V(ϕ) = −12 cosh(γϕ) + (6γ² − 3/2)ϕ²; taken from prior EMD model [47], controls pure-glue thermodynamics and the phase transition.
  • κ²₅ = 9.76π
    Five-dimensional gravitational constant; fixed by matching pure-glue thermodynamics in [47]. Sets the overall scale of pressures, entropy, and moment of inertia.
  • ζ = 0.1275
    Magnetic coupling parameter in Z(ϕ) = sech(ζϕ³); from prior EDM model [47]. Controls the strength and temperature dependence of the magnetic-field/rotation effects.
  • g_p = not explicitly quoted
    Normalization of the chromomagnetic string tension, fixed by matching the nonrotating spatial string tension to pure-gauge lattice data [55].
  • R = 1 fm
    System radius entering v = RΩ; chosen finite-system convention. The low-velocity regime and the mapping depend on this scale.
  • b = not stated
    Counterterm integration constant in the holographic renormalization action (S4), fixing the zero-temperature free-energy scheme; carried over from the EMD framework.
axioms (7)
  • ad hoc to paper Rotation–magnetic correspondence: a rotating system of radius R is mapped to a homogeneous bulk magnetic field B = 2m(T)Ω.
    Introduced as a phenomenological bridge, not derived from QCD or gravity. All rotation effects enter through this dictionary (Section 'Holographic setup and rotational dictionary').
  • ad hoc to paper Linear scaling m(T) = λT with λ = 11.8.
    Motivated by Debye/magnetic mass linear-T scaling, but the coefficient is fitted to lattice imaginary-rotation data. It controls the magnitude of every rotational prediction.
  • domain assumption Gauge–gravity duality provides the nonperturbative dictionary for pure-gluonic thermodynamics, pressure anisotropy, and Wilson loops.
    The entire computation assumes holographic duality is quantitatively valid for pure SU(3) gluodynamics in the temperature range studied.
  • domain assumption Analytic continuation from imaginary to real v² is valid and unique within the model branch.
    Real-rotation predictions are obtained by continuing polynomial fits (e.g., Tc(v²)/Tc(0) = 1 + 0.4v² − 0.7v⁴ + 0.7v⁶) from the imaginary side; no real-rotation lattice data exist to validate this continuation.
  • ad hoc to paper Holographic mode decomposition: the logarithmic term in g(r) fixes the orbital response, while the normalizable coefficient g_v encodes the spin/flux-tube response.
    This identification is the basis for I_orbital = m²Z(0)/(2κ²₅) and I_spin = 4g_v/(g₀Ω²)/(2κ²₅). If wrong, the negative-inertia and CII conclusions do not follow.
  • standard math The thermodynamic relation P_∥ − P_⊥ = ΩJ_total holds for the rotating system.
    Used to extract angular momentum density from the anisotropic pressures; a standard identity in rotating/magnetized medium thermodynamics, though here the rotation is mapped to a magnetic field.
  • domain assumption Chromomagnetic string tension from a spatial Wilson loop, normalized by g_p to lattice at Ω = 0.
    Used to connect I_spin to flux-tube melting and restoration; assumes the holographic Wilson-loop prescription applies in the rotating-magnetic background.
invented entities (1)
  • Spin contribution I_spin from chromomagnetic flux-tube polarization no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the microscopic source for the negative Barnett effect and negative total moment of inertia near T_c; identified with the holographic normalizable mode g_v.
    No direct measurement isolates this spin contribution. Lattice observations of the negative Barnett effect support the phenomenon but not uniquely this flux-tube mechanism; the entity is an interpretation of g_v inside the model.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12554 in / 14973 out tokens · 135785 ms · 2026-08-01T03:18:17.671746+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Rotation serves as a pivotal control parameter for QCD matter, yet effective models and lattice QCD yield conflicting predictions regarding its effect on the deconfinement transition. Using a rotation-magnetic correspondence within a holographic framework, we investigate the rotational response of pure gluonic matter. Calibrated against lattice QCD data at imaginary angular velocity, we find real rotation enhances chromomagnetic string tension and raises deconfinement temperature, consistent with lattice QCD analytic-continuation predictions. The temperature dependence of chromomagnetic string tension dominates the system's Barnett response: weak low-temperature tension induces the negative Barnett effect, and slightly above the transition, spin contributions prevail to generate an anomalous negative total moment of inertia. Since growing angular velocity further strengthens chromomagnetic string tension and suppresses spin-dominated inversion, this anomalous regime only survives at weak real rotation and vanishes at large angular velocity. At high temperature, fully restored strong string tension stabilizes conventional Barnett behavior. Stemming from the melting and thermal restoration of nonperturbative chromomagnetic flux tubes, our results establish the chromomagnetic-induced inertia inversion (CII) mechanism as the microscopic origin of this anomalous rotational response.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23199 by Mei Huang, Yidian Chen, Zhibin Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the chromomagnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Deconfinement temperature as a function of squared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Longitudinal chromomagnetic string tension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Temperature dependence of the longitudinal pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Temperature dependence of thermodynamic quantities for pure gluonic matter at various angular velocities. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 53 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    andf ′(rh) is its derivative with respect tor. The deconfinement temperatureT c is obtained from the first- order transition between competing black-hole branches, equivalently from the discontinuity in entropy and the pressure crossing. The boundary stress tensor yields the energy den- sity and anisotropic pressures. Under the rotation– magnetic correspo...

  2. [2]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 012301 (2020), arXiv:1910.14408 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Nature614, 244 (2023), arXiv:2204.02302 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Jiang, Z.-W

    Y. Jiang, Z.-W. Lin, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. C94, 044910 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 049904 (2017)], arXiv:1602.06580 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. Voloshin, and G. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.88, 1 (2016), arXiv:1511.04050 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    X. Wang, M. Wei, Z. Li, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 99, 016018 (2019), arXiv:1808.01931 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, and Y. Hidaka, Phys. Lett. B816, 136184 (2021), arXiv:2101.09173 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    X. Chen, L. Zhang, D. Li, D. Hou, and M. Huang, JHEP 07, 132, arXiv:2010.14478 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    M. N. Chernodub, Phys. Rev. D103, 054027 (2021), arXiv:2012.04924 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Jiang, Phys

    Y. Jiang, Phys. Lett. B853, 138655 (2024), arXiv:2312.06166 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Jiang, Phys

    Y. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D110, 054047 (2024), arXiv:2406.03311 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    V. V. Braguta, A. Y. Kotov, D. D. Kuznedelev, and A. A. Roenko, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.112, 9 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    V. V. Braguta, A. Y. Kotov, D. D. Kuznedelev, and A. A. Roenko, Phys. Rev. D103, 094515 (2021), arXiv:2102.05084 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    V. V. Braguta, A. Kotov, A. Roenko, and D. Sychev, PoS LA TTICE2022, 190 (2023), arXiv:2212.03224 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Yang and X.-G

    J.-C. Yang and X.-G. Huang, (2023), arXiv:2307.05755 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    V. V. Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, A. A. Roenko, and D. A. Sychev, Phys. Lett. B852, 138604 (2024), arXiv:2303.03147 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    V. V. Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, I. E. Kudrov, A. A. Roenko, and D. A. Sychev, Phys. Rev. D110, 014511 (2024), arXiv:2310.16036 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Wang, J.-X

    S. Wang, J.-X. Chen, D. Hou, and H.-C. Ren, (2025), arXiv:2505.15487 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Fukushima and Y

    K. Fukushima and Y. Shimada, Phys. Lett. B868, 139716 (2025), arXiv:2506.03560 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    S. Chen, K. Fukushima, and Y. Shimada, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 242002 (2022), arXiv:2207.12665 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Y. Chen, D. Li, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D106, 106002 (2022), arXiv:2208.05668 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    F. Sun, J. Shao, R. Wen, K. Xu, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D109, 116017 (2024), arXiv:2402.16595 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Y. Chen, X. Chen, D. Li, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 111, 046006 (2025), arXiv:2405.06386 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Chen and X.-G

    H.-L. Chen and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D114, 014005 (2026), arXiv:2602.05561 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Zhang, K

    L. Zhang, K. Xu, and M. Huang, (2026), arXiv:2602.05543 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Yamamoto and Y

    A. Yamamoto and Y. Hirono, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 081601 (2013), arXiv:1303.6292 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    V. V. Braguta, I. E. Kudrov, A. A. Roenko, D. A. Sychev, and M. N. Chernodub, JETP Lett.117, 639 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    V. V. Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, I. E. Kudrov, A. A. Roenko, and D. A. Sychev, PoSLA TTICE2023, 181 (2024), arXiv:2311.03947 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    V. V. Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, and A. A. Roenko, Phys. Lett. B855, 138783 (2024), arXiv:2312.13994 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    V. V. Braguta, M. N. Chernodub, Y. A. Gershtein, and A. A. Roenko, JHEP09, 079, arXiv:2411.15085 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    S. S. Gubser and A. Nellore, Phys. Rev. D78, 086007 6 (2008), arXiv:0804.0434 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  34. [34]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  35. [35]

    Gursoy and E

    U. Gursoy and E. Kiritsis, JHEP02, 032, arXiv:0707.1324 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Gursoy, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  37. [37]

    S. I. Finazzo, R. Critelli, R. Rougemont, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D94, 054020 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 019903 (2017)], arXiv:1605.06061 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    Critelli, J

    R. Critelli, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.832, 012047 (2017), arXiv:1610.08751 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    Dudal and S

    D. Dudal and S. Mahapatra, JHEP07, 120, arXiv:1805.02938 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    T. Alho, M. J¨ arvinen, K. Kajantie, E. Kiritsis, C. Rosen, and K. Tuominen, JHEP04, 124, [Erratum: JHEP 02, 033 (2015)], arXiv:1312.5199 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Rougemont, J

    R. Rougemont, J. Grefa, M. Hippert, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, I. Portillo, and C. Ratti, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.135, 104093 (2024), arXiv:2307.03885 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Domenech, M

    O. Domenech, M. Montull, A. Pomarol, A. Salvio, and P. J. Silva, JHEP08, 033, arXiv:1005.1776 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Keranen, E

    V. Keranen, E. Keski-Vakkuri, S. Nowling, and K. P. Yogendran, Phys. Rev. D81, 126011 (2010), arXiv:0911.1866 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    Keranen, E

    V. Keranen, E. Keski-Vakkuri, S. Nowling, and K. P. Yogendran, Phys. Rev. D81, 126012 (2010), arXiv:0912.4280 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  45. [45]

    ´O. J. C. Dias, G. T. Horowitz, N. Iqbal, and J. E. Santos, JHEP04, 096, arXiv:1311.3673 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    Xia, H.-B

    C.-Y. Xia, H.-B. Zeng, H.-Q. Zhang, Z.-Y. Nie, Y. Tian, and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D100, 061901 (2019), arXiv:1904.10925 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    X. Li, Y. Tian, and H. Zhang, JHEP02, 104, arXiv:1904.05497 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  48. [48]

    S. He, L. Li, Z. Li, and S.-J. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 240411 (2024), arXiv:2210.14094 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    P. B. Arnold and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. D52, 7208 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9508280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  50. [50]

    Xu and C

    Z. Xu and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C79, 014904 (2009), arXiv:0811.2940 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  51. [51]

    P. J. Silva, O. Oliveira, P. Bicudo, and N. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D89, 074503 (2014), arXiv:1310.5629 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  52. [52]

    D’Hoker and P

    E. D’Hoker and P. Kraus, JHEP10, 088, arXiv:0908.3875 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endr¨ odi, S. D. Katz, and A. Sch¨ afer, JHEP08, 177, arXiv:1406.0269 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Karmakar, R

    B. Karmakar, R. Ghosh, A. Bandyopadhyay, N. Haque, and M. G. Mustafa, Phys. Rev. D99, 094002 (2019), arXiv:1902.02607 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Chaudhuri, S

    N. Chaudhuri, S. Ghosh, P. Roy, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D106, 056020 (2022), arXiv:2209.02248 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Karsch, E

    F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and M. L¨ utgemeier, Phys. Lett. B346, 94 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9411020 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  57. [57]

    G. Boyd, J. Engels, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, C. Lege- land, M. Lutgemeier, and B. Petersson, Nucl. Phys. B 469, 419 (1996), arXiv:hep-lat/9602007. 7 Supplemental Material Holographic renormalization and thermodynamic dictionary— To implement the rotation-magnetic correspondence in the holographic framework, we introduce an effective bulk magnetic field int...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996