Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 9 cited by

Meson Screening Masses in (2+1)-Flavor QCD

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In (2+1)-flavor QCD, light vector and axial-vector screening masses become degenerate at the chiral crossover temperature, while scalar and pseudoscalar screening masses become degenerate only at about 1.3 times that temperature.

desk verdict Solid new reference data for screening masses; chiral SU(2) restoration near Tpc is robust, but the UA(1) claim at 1.3 Tpc rests on a staggered scalar channel the paper itself flags as pathological, so treat that conclusion as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09552 v2 pith:XTTQRT45 submitted 2019-08-26 hep-lat hep-phnucl-th

Alexei Bazavov , Simon Dentinger , Heng-Tong Ding , Prasad Hegde , Olaf Kaczmarek , Frithjof Karsch , Edwin Laermann , Anirban Lahiri
show 8 more authors
Swagato Mukherjee Hiroshi Ohno Peter Petreczky Rishabh Thakkar Hauke Sandmeyer Christian Schmidt Sayantan Sharma Patrick Steinbrecher
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-phnucl-th PACS 11.30.Rd12.38.Gc12.38.Mh
keywords latticeQCDscreeningmasseschiralsymmetryrestorationaxialU(1)anomalyHISQactioncontinuumextrapolationquark-gluonplasma
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

Using (2+1)-flavor lattice QCD with physical strange and near-physical light quark masses, this paper computes meson screening masses from 140 MeV to 2.5 GeV and extracts continuum limits up to 1 GeV. The central result is a symmetry-restoration hierarchy in the light-light channel: vector and axial-vector screening masses become degenerate at or very close to the chiral crossover temperature $T_{pc} \simeq 156.5$ MeV, while scalar and pseudoscalar screening masses stay split until about $1.3\,T_{pc}$ ($T \sim 200$ MeV). The first degeneracy is the signal of effective $SU_L(2)\times SU_R(2)$ restoration; the second is the signal of effective $U_A(1)$ restoration. Because the two temperatures differ, the paper concludes that the anomalous axial symmetry is still broken at the chiral crossover and only effectively restored well above it. At high temperature, screening masses sit above the free-quark value $2\pi T$, with $J=0$ and $J=1$ channels remaining non-degenerate up to the highest temperature studied.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the screening correlator $G_\Gamma(z,T)$, whose exponential decay defines the screening mass $m_\Gamma(T)$. Degeneracies among these masses act as symmetry order parameters: vector and axial-vector degeneracy signals $SU_L(2)\times SU_R(2)$ restoration, and scalar and pseudoscalar degeneracy signals $U_A(1)$ restoration. Because the staggered scalar correlator contains an unphysical two-pion state at finite lattice spacing, the paper uses the continuum-extrapolated susceptibility difference $m_s^2(\chi_\pi-\chi_{a_0})$ as the quantitative $U_A(1)$ probe, together with a phase-space argument that the spurious decay channel closes near $T_{pc}$. Continuum limits are obtained from five lattice spacings ($N_\tau = 6,8,10,12,16$) through a combined spline interpolation in temperature and a linear extrapolation in $1/N_\tau^2$.

What would settle it

Compute the scalar and pseudoscalar screening masses at $T\simeq 200$ MeV with a fermion discretization that has no staggered two-pion artifact, such as chiral fermions, and check whether they are degenerate; a split there would push the effective $U_A(1)$ restoration temperature higher than $1.3\,T_{pc}$, while degeneracy already at $T_{pc}$ would disprove the paper's hierarchy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a temperature ordering of symmetry restoration read off from continuum-extrapolated screening masses. For the light-light ($\bar{u}d$) sector, the vector ($\rho$) and axial-vector ($a_1$) screening masses become degenerate right at the pseudo-critical temperature $T_{pc}$; this is the signature of effective $SU_L(2)\times SU_R(2)$ chiral restoration. The scalar and pseudoscalar channels ($a_0$ and $\pi$), which would be degenerate under the anomalous $U_A(1)$ symmetry, become degenerate only near $T\sim 200$ MeV $\simeq 1.3\,T_{pc}$, and the continuum-extrapolated susceptibility difference $m_s^2(\chi_\pi-\chi_{a_0})$ vanishes at about that temperature. The same degeneracy sequence appears in the $\bar{u}s$ and $\bar{s}s$ sectors at progressively higher temperatures. The paper also establishes that screening masses are larger than $2\pi T$ at high temperature and that different angular-momentum channels remain split up to 2.5 GeV, concluding that the free-quark degeneracy is only approached asymptotically.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the unphysical two-pion contribution in the staggered scalar correlator does not survive the continuum limit and is kinematically closed near $T_{pc}$, so that the observed scalar-pseudoscalar splitting and the vanishing of $m_s^2(\chi_\pi-\chi_{a_0})$ at $T\simeq 200$ MeV are genuine $U_A(1)$ effects rather than lattice artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Effective $SU_L(2)\times SU_R(2)$ restoration in the light-light sector is realized at $T_{pc}$, while effective $U_A(1)$ restoration is delayed to $T\simeq 1.3\,T_{pc}$.
  • The continuum-extrapolated, renormalized susceptibility difference $m_s^2(\chi_\pi-\chi_{a_0})$ is non-zero at the crossover and vanishes near $T\sim 200$ MeV, giving a quantitative signal for the $U_A(1)$ restoration temperature.
  • In the $\bar{u}s$ and $\bar{s}s$ sectors the same degeneracies occur at higher temperatures, so heavier quark masses postpone effective symmetry restoration.
  • At high temperature, screening masses overshoot $2\pi T$ and the $J=0$ and $J=1$ channels remain separated up to 2.5 GeV, so the free-theory limit is reached only asymptotically.
  • The leading-order EQCD calculation gives a spin-independent, positive correction that describes the vector and axial-vector overshoot qualitatively but lies above the scalar and pseudoscalar data, so higher-order spin-dependent corrections are needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests that the gauge-field fluctuations responsible for $U_A(1)$ breaking survive the chiral crossover and are suppressed only around $1.3\,T_{pc}$; measuring the topological susceptibility on the same ensembles across temperature would test this directly.
  • Because screening masses are extracted from spatial correlators, they reflect thermodynamics rather than pole masses; the same hierarchy in temporal correlators or spectral functions would be a stronger statement, and remains an open check.
  • The mass-ordering pattern suggests a systematic extension: screening masses for charm or bottom channels along the same line of constant physics should show degeneracy temperatures that continue to rise with valence quark mass, sharpening the empirical map of symmetry restoration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a lattice QCD determination of mesonic screening masses in the temperature range 140 MeV to 2.5 GeV using (2+1)-flavor HISQ fermions with physical strange quark mass and light quark masses corresponding to pion masses of 140 and 160 MeV. Screening masses are extracted from spatial correlation functions for scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, and axial-vector channels in the light-light, light-strange, and strange-strange sectors, using multi-state fits with AICc-based model selection, and continuum extrapolations are performed with five lattice spacings (Nτ = 6–16) for T ≲ 1 GeV. The main physical conclusions are: (i) the ud vector and axial-vector screening masses become degenerate at or very close to Tpc, indicating effective chiral SU(2) restoration; (ii) the ud scalar and pseudoscalar screening masses become degenerate only around T ≈ 200 MeV (about 1.3 Tpc), which is interpreted as evidence for effective UA(1) restoration; and (iii) at high temperatures the screening masses overshoot the free-field value 2πT and the deviations are compared qualitatively with EQCD predictions.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a valuable and fairly comprehensive lattice result. The chiral SU(2) part of the claim—vector/axial-vector degeneracy at Tpc—appears robust across lattice spacings and is supported by the continuum extrapolation; it also agrees with the broader literature. The high-temperature comparison with EQCD provides a useful benchmark, and the tabulated continuum-extrapolated screening masses in Appendix C are a useful resource for the community. The paper also contains a detailed description of a difficult multi-state fitting procedure with AICc selection, which is a strength in terms of methodological transparency. The main novelty is the UA(1) restoration temperature inferred from the scalar and pseudoscalar channels, but this is precisely the part of the analysis that is most sensitive to the known staggered-fermion artifact in the ud scalar channel. Because the paper's supporting arguments are qualitative rather than quantitative, the UA(1) conclusion must be viewed as tentative until the artifact question is resolved; the chiral SU(2) and high-temperature parts stand on their own.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV C (Fig. 7)] The central claim of effective UA(1) restoration at about 1.3 Tpc rests on the degeneracy of the light-light scalar and pseudoscalar screening masses, but the scalar channel is the one contaminated by the unphysical two-pion state arising from staggered taste mixing. As the paper itself states in Sec. IV C and in the caption of Fig. 3, at finite lattice spacing the local M1 operator gives a mass of 2mπ rather than the physical a0, and this artifact would cancel only if the continuum limit were taken before extracting the mass. In the present analysis the mass is extracted at finite lattice spacing and then extrapolated linearly in 1/Nτ^2, so the artifact does not cancel by construction. The argument that the unphysical decay channel is 'possibly closed' around Tpc due to lack of phase space is qualitative, and no quantitative estimate is provided for the overlap of the M1 operator with the two-pion state in the T ≈ 200 MeV window. The paper should either supply such an estimate (for example by comparing with a non-staggered calculation at one or two temperatures, or by studying the correlator with the continuum limit taken before the spectral extraction) or explicitly present the S-PS degeneracy as a suggestive, but not established, signal of UA(1) restoration.
  2. [§IV C, Eq. (5), Fig. 8] The susceptibility difference m_s^2 (χ_π − χ_a0) is introduced as a cleaner observable for UA(1) restoration, but the paper does not demonstrate that the integrated staggered scalar susceptibility χ_a0 is free of the same two-pion taste contamination after summation over z and continuum extrapolation. The text states that this quantity has a convergent continuum limit, but no separate continuum limits of χ_π and χ_a0 are shown, and the phase-space argument used for the screening mass is not directly applicable to the integrated quantity. Since the zero crossing of the susceptibility difference at T ≈ 200 MeV is used to support the 1.3 Tpc restoration temperature, the paper should provide a quantitative check that the two-pion contribution is absent or negligible in the continuum limit of χ_a0, or should downgrade this conclusion accordingly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§IV C] The sentence 'the unphysical contribution cancels out if one would take the continuum limit for the correlator first' appears to describe an analysis that is not performed here; please clarify whether this statement refers to a theoretical property of the discretization or to a check that was actually carried out on the screening masses or susceptibilities.
  2. [Fig. 5 and Fig. 7] The channel labels 'A V S P' at the top of each panel are not expanded in the captions; please spell out axial vector, vector, scalar, pseudoscalar.
  3. [§III B and Fig. 1] The AICc-based fitting and plateau selection are described in the main text, but details of the fit ranges, the number of states used for each channel and temperature, and the stability checks against varying the fit interval are delegated to a PhD thesis [46]. Please provide at least a short summary of the typical fit ranges and systematic errors in the paper, so that the reader can assess the quoted uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation loop is present: screening masses are extracted from correlation functions, the scale is fixed by fK from independent zero-temperature data, and the EQCD and overlap/domain-wall comparisons are external checks; the scalar-channel caveat is a validity concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external inputs. Screening masses are defined by Eq. (2) and extracted from the correlator fits of Eq. (3); the continuum extrapolation uses only the scale fKa(β) from Appendix A, whose parameters c0, c2 and d2 are fitted to zero-temperature fK measurements, not to screening masses, so no fitted input is later renamed a prediction. The central symmetry conclusions follow from comparing independently extracted masses (Fig. 7) and from the susceptibility difference m_s^2(χπ−χa0) in Eq. (5)/Fig. 8, which is a separately computed integrated correlator with its own continuum limit. The only substantial caveat—the unphysical two-pion state in the light scalar channel (Sec. IV C and Fig. 3)—is explicitly acknowledged by the authors ('the scalar can decay into two pions at finite lattice spacing'); they argue that the channel may close near Tpc and then switch to the cleaner susceptibility difference. That is a robustness/validity issue, not a circularity: the claimed UA(1) temperature is not identical by construction to any input parameter, and no Eq. X = Eq. Y reduction or fitted-parameter-as-prediction step can be exhibited. Self-citations (HotQCD Tpc [6], scale [40,41], earlier staggered screening [12], EQCD references [43,44]) supply inputs or benchmarks that are independent of the screening-mass results being reported; none carries a load-bearing uniqueness theorem. Accordingly the score is 1: self-citations are frequent but not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard lattice QCD scale and quark-mass tuning, on the chosen continuum extrapolation form, and on the interpretation of the pathological staggered scalar channel. The listed free parameters are the scale-calibration coefficients, which are fitted to independent zero-temperature f_K data rather than to the screening masses.

free parameters (2)
  • fKa scale-fit coefficient c2 = 46049(1248)
    Coefficient in the f_K a(β) parametrization (Eq. A1) fitted to zero-temperature f_K data from Ref [41]; used to set the lattice spacing and temperature scale. Not fitted to the screening masses.
  • fKa scale-fit coefficient d2 = 3671(137)
    Second coefficient in the same f_K a(β) fit; together with c2 and the fixed c0 it defines the scale. Standard calibration, not a screening-mass fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The continuum limit is reached with a linear-in-1/Ntau^2 extrapolation of the screening masses after spline interpolation in T (Sec. IV C).
    Standard scaling for staggered fermions, but the functional form is not derived and the scalar channel shows visible cutoff dependence at small Ntau.
  • domain assumption The strange quark mass is fixed via M_eta_ss = 686 MeV from the leading-order chiral perturbation relation sqrt(2m_K^2 - m_pi^2) (Sec. III A).
    Standard tuning of the line of constant physics; any error shifts the ms/27 and ms/20 lines.
  • domain assumption For T > 1 GeV, Ntau = 8 data alone are representative of the continuum limit because Ntau=8 agrees with the continuum extrapolation for T > 300 MeV (Sec. IV D).
    Supporting evidence is shown in Fig. 9, but no continuum extrapolation is performed above 1 GeV.
  • ad hoc to paper The unphysical staggered pi-pi decay in the ud scalar channel is closed near Tpc due to lack of phase space, so the S-PS degeneracy around 200 MeV can be interpreted as UA(1) restoration (Sec. IV C).
    The paper's own caveat states no immediate conclusion can be drawn from the S-PS degeneracy; the phase-space argument is qualitative.
  • ad hoc to paper The renormalized susceptibility difference m_s^2(chi_pi - chi_a0) has a convergent continuum limit that is not contaminated by the staggered scalar pathology (Sec. IV C, Fig. 8).
    The paper does not analyze the susceptibility for the same pi-pi contamination; this underpins the UA(1) evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Meson Screening Masses in (2+1)-Flavor QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XTTQRT45

@misc{pith2026190809552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Meson Screening Masses in (2+1)-Flavor QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XTTQRT45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09552}
}
abstract

We present lattice QCD results for mesonic screening masses in the temperature range 140 MeV $\lesssim T \lesssim$ 2500 MeV. Our calculations were carried out using (2+1)-flavors of the Highly Improved Staggered Quark (HISQ) action, with a physical value for the strange quark mass and two values of the light quark mass corresponding to pion masses of 160 MeV and 140 MeV. Continuum-extrapolated results were obtained using calculations with a variety of lattice spacings corresponding to temporal lattice extents $N_\tau = 6 - 16$. We discuss the implications of these results for the effective restoration of various symmetries in the high temperature phase of QCD, as well as the approach toward the perturbative limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09552 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Screening masses for in the vector channel with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of point versus corner wall sources [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We note that results for most of the P S, V and AV mesons agree well with the physical zero temperature spectrum within errors. The scalar meson, in the ¯ud sec￾tor however, seems to have twice the pseudoscalar mass rather than the true scalar mass for ¯ud sector. This is a well-known staggered artifact [53–55] and we will also discuss its effect for non-zero temperatures in Sec. IV C. However, such definite trend i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: T = 0 masses of the four kinds of mesons studied in this work for the ¯ud, ¯us and ¯ss flavor channels, respectively. Horizontal lines correspond to the physical values of the masses [52]. The scalar meson mass is 2mπ instead of ma0 (or mπ +mη) due to a staggered artif…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Masses of the different taste partners of the pseudoscalar mesons, labeled by different Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left to right) Results for all four screening masses for the ¯u [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples for the continuum extrapolations for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Continuum bands for screening masses of all four types of mesons for ¯u [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Difference between the pseudoscalar and scalar sus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Screening masses divided by the temperature, for temperatures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of updated fKa(β) parametrization and the older one from Ref. [40]. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

  1. Leading-Order QCD Equation of State in Strong Magnetic Fields at Nonzero Baryon Chemical Potential

    hep-lat 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Continuum-estimated leading-order EoS coefficients in magnetized strangeness-neutral QCD at nonzero baryon chemical potential show temperature-band crossings in q1 and P2 and a possible sign change of the trace anomal...

  2. Symmetry of screening masses of mesons in two-flavor lattice QCD at high temperatures

    hep-lat 2025-01 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using Möbius domain-wall fermions in two-flavor QCD, the authors find that vector/axial-vector and tensor/axial-tensor screening masses become degenerate above Tc, while the chiral-spin A-X splitting stays around 40 M...

  3. Chiral condensates and screening masses of neutral pseudoscalar mesons from lattice QCD at physical quark masses

    hep-lat 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A continuum-estimated lattice QCD calculation shows that pi0 and K0 screening masses respond non-monotonically to magnetic fields while eta_s(s-bar) decreases monotonically, alongside magnetic catalysis and inverse ma...

  4. Probing the chiral and $U(1)$ axial symmetry restoration via meson susceptibilities in holographic QCD

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a soft-wall holographic QCD model, chiral symmetry restores at ~155 MeV while the U(1) axial symmetry restores near 190 MeV — a separation the authors present despite an admitted mismatch with lattice QCD below 175 MeV.

  5. Finite-size effects and scaling properties of chiral and baryon-number fluctuations

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In an effective chiral model retaining only the zero field mode, finite volume smooths the transition, regulates critical fluctuations, and shifts the baryon-kurtosis peak to lower collision energies.

  6. Symmetries in high-temperature lattice QCD with (u, d, s, c, b) optimal domain-wall quarks

    hep-lat 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In five-flavor lattice QCD with heavy up/down quarks, chiral symmetry restoration proceeds hierarchically from SU(2) to SU(5) with temperature, and the emergent chiral-spin symmetry windows are dominated by bottom-lig...

  7. Pseudoscalar Screening Mass at Finite Temperature and Magnetic Field from Lattice QCD with Physical Quark Masses

    hep-lat 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Continuum-estimated lattice QCD screening masses of neutral pseudoscalar mesons show a magnetic-field-induced minimum for pi and K, but not for the strange eta, near the QCD transition temperature.

  8. QCD Equation of State with Strong Magnetic Fields and Nonzero Baryon Density

    hep-lat 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Lattice QCD continuum estimates of leading-order baryon-density Taylor coefficients of the magnetized QCD equation of state show deviations from hadron gas and approach to a free gas at strong fields.

  9. Study of symmetries in finite temperature $N_f=2$ QCD with M\"obius Domain Wall Fermions

    hep-lat 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Screening-mass measurements in N_f=2 lattice QCD with Möbius domain-wall fermions indicate SU(2)_L x SU(2)_R and axial U(1)_A restoration near T_c ~ 165 MeV, while SU(2)_CS shows no clear emergence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Repeat the same for the odd points (Aodd φ,0 , modd φ,0 )

    At a small fit interval [ nσ,min : nσ,max = Nσ/2], perform one state fits on all even points of the cor- relator and we call the resulting fit parameters say Aeven φ,0 and meven φ,0 . Repeat the same for the odd points (Aodd φ,0 , modd φ,0 )

    work page

  2. [2]

    Assuming similar size of the non-oscillating and os- cillating mass, the fit parameters for the combined fit may be estimated withA− φ,0 = (Aeven φ,0 +Aodd φ,0 )/2, A+ φ,0 = ( Aeven φ,0 − Aodd φ,0 )/2 and m− φ,0 = m+ φ,0 = (meven φ,0 +modd φ,0 )/2

    work page

  3. [3]

    Using the parameters from step 2 as initial guess, perform a full one state fit with oscillating and non- oscillating part. 5

    work page

  4. [4]

    Guess the mass of the next excited state of either the even or the odd part (we used m−/+ φ,1 = 5/4m−/+ φ,0 )

    Increase the fit interval. Guess the mass of the next excited state of either the even or the odd part (we used m−/+ φ,1 = 5/4m−/+ φ,0 ). Adjust the correspond- ing amplitude ( A− φ,1 or A+ φ,1) such that the first point of the correlator in the fit interval is repro- duced

    work page

  5. [5]

    Use the pa- rameters from steps 3 and 4 as initial guess

    Perform a full fit with higher states. Use the pa- rameters from steps 3 and 4 as initial guess

    work page

  6. [6]

    Having developed a method to perform automated multiple state fits, we still have to find which set of fit parameters is the most reasonable one for a given fit interval

    Repeat steps 4 to 5 until the desired number of states is reached. Having developed a method to perform automated multiple state fits, we still have to find which set of fit parameters is the most reasonable one for a given fit interval. For that purpose we have used the corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc)[47, 48]: For each fit interval we have perfo...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Nature 561, 321 (2018), arXiv:1710.09425

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Aarts, C

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, D. De Boni, and B. J¨ ager, Phys. Rev. D99, 074503 (2019), arXiv:1812.07393 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Karsch and E

    F. Karsch and E. Laermann, , In *Hwa, R.C. (ed.) et al.: Quark gluon plasma* 1 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0305025

    2003 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aarts, C

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, D. De Boni, S. Hands, B. J¨ ager, C. Praki, and J.-I. Skullerud, JHEP 06, 034 (2017), arXiv:1703.09246

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    C. E. Detar and J. B. Kogut, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 399 (1987)

    1987

  4. [12]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD), Phys. Lett. B795, 15 (2019), arXiv:1812.08235. 16 T [GeV] mP [GeV] mV [GeV] mS [GeV] mA [GeV] 0.132 0.50(2) 0.88(2) 0.66(3) 1.17(6) 0.136 0.51(1) 0.89(2) 0.67(3) 1.16(6) 0.140 0.519(5) 0.90(2) 0.67(2) 1.14(5) 0.144 0.527(2) 0.91(2) 0.67(2) 1.12(3) 0...

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. 177, 2426 (1969), [,241(1969)]

    1969

  6. [14]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo Cim. A60, 47 (1969)

    1969

  7. [15]

    S. L. Adler and W. A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. 182, 1517 (1969), [,268(1969)]

    1969

  8. [16]

    D. J. Gross, R. D. Pisarski, and L. G. Yaffe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53, 43 (1981)

    1981

  9. [17]

    R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D29, 338 (1984)

    1984

  10. [18]

    Cheng et al

    M. Cheng et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1564 (2011), arXiv:1010.1216. T [GeV] mP [GeV] mV [GeV] mS [GeV] mA [GeV] 0.132 0.71(2) 1.026(7) 1.01(3) 1.36(5) 0.136 0.711(8) 1.032(6) 1.01(2) 1.34(5) 0.140 0.714(4) 1.040(5) 1.00(2) 1.33(4) 0.144 0.717(1) 1.048(4) 0.99(2) 1.32(3) 0.148 0...

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    H. Ohno, U. M. Heller, F. Karsch, and S. Mukher- jee, Proceedings, 30th International Symposium on Lat- tice Field Theory (Lattice 2012): Cairns, Australia, June 24-29, 2012 , PoS LA TTICE2012, 095 (2012), arXiv:1211.2591 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    V. Dick, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, S. Mukherjee, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D91, 094504 (2015), arXiv:1502.06190

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    H. T. Ding et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 062002 (2019), arXiv:1903.04801. 17

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    E. V. Shuryak, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 21, 235 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9310253

    1994 arXiv

  15. [23]

    M. C. Birse, T. D. Cohen, and J. A. McGovern, Phys. Lett. B388, 137 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9608255

    1996 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. H. Lee and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. D54, R1871 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9601373

    1996 arXiv

  17. [25]

    N. J. Evans, S. D. H. Hsu, and M. Schwetz, Phys. Lett. B375, 262 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9601361

    1996 arXiv

  18. [26]

    M. I. Buchoff et al. , Phys. Rev. D89, 054514 (2014), arXiv:1309.4149

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D86, 094503 (2012), arXiv:1205.3535

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Suzuki, S

    K. Suzuki, S. Aoki, Y. Aoki, G. Cossu, H. Fukaya, and S. Hashimoto (JLQCD) (2018) arXiv:1812.06621

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Tomiya, G

    A. Tomiya, G. Cossu, S. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, and J. Noaki, Phys. Rev. D96, 034509 (2017), [Addendum: Phys. Rev.D96,no.7,079902(2017)], arXiv:1612.01908

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chiu, W.-P

    T.-W. Chiu, W.-P. Chen, Y.-C. Chen, H.-Y. Chou, and T.-H. Hsieh (TWQCD), PoS LA TTICE2013, 165 (2014), arXiv:1311.6220

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sharma, V

    S. Sharma, V. Dick, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and S. Mukherjee, Proceedings, 25th International Conference on Ultra-Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (Quark Matter 2015): Kobe, Japan, September 27-October 3, 2015, Nucl. Phys. A956, 793 (2016), arXiv:1602.02197 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    B. B. Brandt, A. Francis, H. B. Meyer, O. Philipsen, D. Robaina, and H. Wittig, JHEP 12, 158 (2016), arXiv:1608.06882

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Karsch, E

    F. Karsch, E. Laermann, S. Mukherjee, and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. D85, 114501 (2012), arXiv:1203.3770

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bazavov, F

    A. Bazavov, F. Karsch, Y. Maezawa, S. Mukherjee, and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. D91, 054503 (2015), arXiv:1411.3018

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Hashimoto, A

    T. Hashimoto, A. Nakamura, and I. O. Stamatescu, Nucl. Phys. B400, 267 (1993)

    1993

  28. [36]

    M. F. L. Golterman, Nucl. Phys. B273, 663 (1986)

    1986

  29. [37]

    G. W. Kilcup and S. R. Sharpe, Nucl. Phys. B283, 493 (1987)

    1987

  30. [38]

    Altmeyer, K

    R. Altmeyer, K. D. Born, M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, E. Laermann, and G. Schierholz (MT(c)), Nucl. Phys. B389, 445 (1993)

    1993

  31. [39]

    Gupta, Phys

    S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D60, 094505 (1999), arXiv:hep- lat/9903019

    1999

  32. [40]

    G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D59, 074502 (1999), arXiv:hep- lat/9809157

    1999

  33. [41]

    Follana, Q

    E. Follana, Q. Mason, C. Davies, K. Hornbostel, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, H. Trottier, and K. Wong (HPQCD, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D75, 054502 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0610092

    2007 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (MILC), PoS LA TTICE2008, 033 (2008), arXiv:0903.0874

    2008 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (MILC), Phys. Rev. D82, 074501 (2010), arXiv:1004.0342

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bazavov and P

    A. Bazavov and P. Petreczky (HotQCD), PoS LA T- TICE2010, 169 (2010), arXiv:1012.1257

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Follana, C

    E. Follana, C. T. H. Davies, G. P. Lepage, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 062002 (2008), arXiv:0706.1726

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. , Phys. Rev. D85, 054503 (2012), arXiv:1111.1710

    2012 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D90, 094503 (2014), arXiv:1407.6387

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. , Phys. Rev. D95, 054504 (2017), arXiv:1701.04325

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bazavov, N

    A. Bazavov, N. Brambilla, H. T. Ding, P. Petreczky, H. P. Schadler, A. Vairo, and J. H. Weber, Phys. Rev. D93, 114502 (2016), arXiv:1603.06637

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bazavov, N

    A. Bazavov, N. Brambilla, P. Petreczky, A. Vairo, and J. H. Weber (TUMQCD), Phys. Rev. D98, 054511 (2018), arXiv:1804.10600

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hegde, PoS LA TTICE2011, 014 (2011), arXiv:1112.0364

    P. Hegde, PoS LA TTICE2011, 014 (2011), arXiv:1112.0364

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Sandmeyer, (PhD thesis 2019), 10.4119/unibi/2936264

    H. Sandmeyer, (PhD thesis 2019), 10.4119/unibi/2936264

    2019

  45. [53]

    Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716 (1974)

    H. Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716 (1974)

    1974

  46. [54]

    J. E. Cavanaugh, Statistics & Probability Letters 33, 201 (1997)

    1997

  47. [55]

    C. W. Bernard, M. C. Ogilvie, T. A. DeGrand, C. E. DeTar, S. A. Gottlieb, A. Krasnitz, R. L. Sugar, and D. Toussaint, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2125 (1992)

    1992

  48. [56]

    C. W. Bernard, T. Blum, T. A. DeGrand, C. E. De- tar, S. A. Gottlieb, A. Krasnitz, R. L. Sugar, and D. Toussaint, Phys. Rev. D48, 4419 (1993), arXiv:hep- lat/9305023

    1993

  49. [57]

    C. W. Bernard, T. Burch, K. Orginos, D. Toussaint, T. A. DeGrand, C. E. Detar, S. Datta, S. A. Gottlieb, U. M. Heller, and R. Sugar, Phys. Rev. D64, 054506 (2001), arXiv:hep-lat/0104002

    2001 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Prelovsek, Phys

    S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. D73, 014506 (2006), arXiv:hep- lat/0510080

    2006

  52. [60]

    Prelovsek, C

    S. Prelovsek, C. Dawson, T. Izubuchi, K. Orginos, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D70, 094503 (2004), arXiv:hep- lat/0407037

    2004

  53. [61]

    Bernard, C

    C. Bernard, C. E. DeTar, Z. Fu, and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. D76, 094504 (2007), arXiv:0707.2402

    2007 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Lee and S

    W.-J. Lee and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D60, 114503 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9905023

    1999 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Aarts, C

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, D. de Boni, S. Hands, B. J¨ ager, C. Praki, and J.-I. Skullerud, (2017), 10.1051/epj- conf/201817114005, [EPJ Web Conf.171,14005(2018)], arXiv:1710.00566

    2017

  56. [64]

    Datta, S

    S. Datta, S. Gupta, M. Padmanath, J. Maiti, and N. Mathur, JHEP 02, 145 (2013), arXiv:1212.2927

    2013 arXiv

  57. [65]

    S. Aoki, H. Fukaya, and Y. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D86, 114512 (2012), arXiv:1209.2061

    2012 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Suzuki, S

    K. Suzuki, S. Aoki, Y. Aoki, G. Cossu, H. Fukaya, and S. Hashimoto (JLQCD), EPJ Web Conf. 175, 07025 (2018), arXiv:1711.09239

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    C. E. Detar and J. B. Kogut, Phys. Rev. D36, 2828 (1987)

    1987

  60. [68]

    K. D. Born, S. Gupta, A. Irback, F. Karsch, E. Laer- mann, B. Petersson, and H. Satz (MT(c)), Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 302 (1991)

    1991

  61. [69]

    Banerjee, R

    D. Banerjee, R. V. Gavai, and S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D83, 074510 (2011), arXiv:1102.4465

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Laermann and F

    E. Laermann and F. Pucci, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2200 (2012), arXiv:1207.6615

    2012 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Gupta and N

    S. Gupta and N. Karthik, Phys. Rev. D87, 094001 (2013), arXiv:1302.4917

    2013 arXiv

  64. [72]

    B. B. Brandt, A. Francis, M. Laine, and H. B. Meyer, JHEP 05, 117 (2014), arXiv:1404.2404

    2014 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Braaten and A

    E. Braaten and A. Nieto, Phys. Rev. D53, 3421 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9510408. 18

    1996 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bazavov, H

    A. Bazavov, H. T. Ding, P. Hegde, F. Karsch, C. Miao, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, C. Schmidt, and A. Velytsky, Phys. Rev. D88, 094021 (2013), arXiv:1309.2317

    2013 arXiv

  67. [75]

    H. T. Ding, S. Mukherjee, H. Ohno, P. Petreczky, and H. P. Schadler, Phys. Rev. D92, 074043 (2015), arXiv:1507.06637

    2015 arXiv

  68. [76]

    V. Koch, E. V. Shuryak, G. E. Brown, and A. D. Jackson, Phys. Rev. D46, 3169 (1992), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D47,2157(1993)], arXiv:hep-ph/9204236

    1992 arXiv

  69. [77]

    E. V. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 1 (1993)

    1993

  70. [78]

    Laine and M

    M. Laine and M. Vepsalainen, JHEP 02, 004 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311268

    2004 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Laine and Y

    M. Laine and Y. Schroder, JHEP 03, 067 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0503061

    2005 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Rohrhofer, Y

    C. Rohrhofer, Y. Aoki, G. Cossu, H. Fukaya, C. Gat- tringer, L. Ya. Glozman, S. Hashimoto, C. B. Lang, and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. D100, 014502 (2019), arXiv:1902.03191

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.