Finite temperature QCD crossover at non-zero chemical potential: A Dyson-Schwinger approach

Anish Ghoshal; Arpan Chatterjee; Marco Frasca; Stefan Groote

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Finite temperature QCD crossover at non-zero chemical potential: A Dyson-Schwinger approach

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the chiral crossover temperature as a function of baryon chemical potential analytically from QCD, with a single fitted scale reproducing both lattice Taylor coefficients $\kappa_2$ and $\kappa_4$.

desk verdict Solid technical core, but the single-scale claim does not survive contact with the paper's own definitions: the m0 that fits kappa2 is not the m0 that gives the physical Tc. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02070 v2 pith:Z2GULUPZ submitted 2025-02-04 hep-ph hep-lathep-th

Arpan Chatterjee , Marco Frasca , Anish Ghoshal , Stefan Groote This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-lathep-th MSC 81T1381V0581T28

keywords QCDphasediagramchiralcrossoverDyson-SchwingerequationsNambu-Jona-Lasiniomodelchemicalpotentialcriticaltemperatureellipticfunctionsmassgapequation

topics Yang-Mills Mass Gap

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

The paper aims to show that the chiral crossover temperature of QCD at nonzero chemical potential can be derived analytically, not just extracted from numerical simulation. It solves the Dyson–Schwinger equations for the gluon sector with an exact elliptic-function solution, reduces the resulting quark dynamics to a non-local Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model, and evaluates the mass gap equation at finite temperature and quark chemical potential. The single free scale, fixed by the running strong coupling at about 600 MeV, reproduces the lattice values of both Taylor coefficients $\kappa_2$ and $\kappa_4$ that describe the curvature of the crossover line in $\mu_B$. If correct, this gives a first-principles analytic route into a regime where lattice QCD suffers from the sign problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exact Yang–Mills propagator built from the Jacobi elliptic sine, $G_1(x)=\mu\,\mathrm{sn}(k\cdot x+\theta\,|\,\kappa)$, whose Fourier form is a sum over pole masses $m_n=(2n+1)m_0$ with coefficients $B_n$. This propagator converts the quark-gluon interaction into a non-local NJL action with kernel $C(z)$, whose bosonisation leads to the mass gap equation (47) for the reduced condensate $\hat\sigma$ with chemical-potential-shifted Matsubara frequencies. The matching procedure then uses implicit differentiation of the mass gap function $F(\hat\mu_f^2,\hat m_0^2)=1$ to obtain the Taylor coefficients $\kappa_2$ and $\kappa_4$ without solving the full equation.

What would settle it

Evaluate the mass gap equation (47) at imaginary chemical potential and compare the resulting curvature coefficients with a direct lattice simulation at imaginary $\mu_B$: if the predicted $\kappa_4$ falls outside the lattice band when $m_0$ is fixed by $\kappa_2$, the claim that a single QCD scale controls the crossover line is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dependence of the chiral crossover temperature $T_c$ on the quark chemical potential $\mu_f$ (hence on the baryon chemical potential $\mu_B = 3\mu_f$) follows from the QCD action itself once the Yang–Mills Dyson–Schwinger system is solved by elliptic functions. Inserting that exact gluon propagator into the quark equation of motion and Fierz-rearranging produces a non-local NJL action whose bosonised gap equation, evaluated with Matsubara frequencies shifted by the chemical potential, yields the crossover line after fixing one scale $m_0$. The matching procedure gives $\kappa_2 = 0.0153$ and $\kappa_4 = 0.000314$, in agreement with the lattice results $\kappa_2 = 0.0153(18)$ and $\kappa_4 = 0.00032(67)$, with the single scale corresponding to a strong-coupling scale of about 599.56 MeV.

Load-bearing premise

The computation stands on the validity of the earlier mapping theorem, cited rather than re-derived here, that reduces the full Yang–Mills Dyson–Schwinger system to the scalar equations solved by the elliptic-function propagator; if that mapping is not exact for QCD, the derived NJL action and all subsequent numbers collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The whole normalized crossover curve $T_c(\mu_B)/T_c(0)$ is fixed by the same single scale, so lattice measurements at larger $\mu_B$ or at imaginary chemical potential can be compared with a parameter-free prediction beyond the two fitted coefficients.
The analytic mass gap equation can be evaluated in regions of chemical potential that are inaccessible to direct lattice simulation because of the sign problem.
The derivation provides a direct link between the QCD scale $m_0$ and the phase boundary, so an independent determination of $m_0$ from hadron spectroscopy would test the framework.
If the model is correct, the same non-local NJL action also supplies an equation of state at finite density, which the authors state they plan to compute.

Reading between the lines

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

The parametric plot in the paper suggests $T_c$ is not a single-valued function of $\mu_f$; reading that literally, the method could be used to locate a critical endpoint or a first-order boundary by scanning for regions where the mass gap equation admits multiple solutions at fixed $\mu_f$.
Fixing $m_0$ to reproduce $\kappa_2$ rather than the lattice scale itself makes the agreement for $\kappa_4$ a genuine prediction; a cleaner formulation of the model might instead predetermine $m_0$ from the $0^{++}$ glueball or string tension and then predict both coefficients.
The residue-summation technique used for the mass gap function could be extended to compute higher-order cumulants of baryon number, which are measured on the lattice and would provide an independent check of the non-local kernel $C(z)$.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Ravi, quick take. The technical core is real: the finite-T/μ extension of the Frasca exact Yang-Mills solution, the derivation of the non-local NJL action, and the Matsubara-plus-residue summation in Appendix B are all non-trivial and clearly presented. That is genuine work, not fluff. But the headline claim—one scale parameter, derived from QCD—does not hold on their own equations.

The stress-test is right. Eq. (40) defines \hat m0 = m0/(2T). Matching κ2 = 0.0153 gives \hat m0 = 7.7503. With the physical Tc(0) ≈ 156.5 MeV used in the lattice normalization, that same \hat m0 implies m0 ≈ 2.42 GeV. The text instead assigns m0 = 599.56 MeV, which would give Tc(0) ≈ 39 MeV. Figure 2 then uses m0 between 1000 and 2157 MeV. So the single parameter is actually two: one fixed by the κ2 matching via the gap equation, another chosen to set the temperature scale. The gap equation also requires αs ≈ 4.05, which four-loop running at 600 MeV does not produce; the authors themselves call it "just another fitting parameter." That is honest, but it severs the link to a first-principles derivation.

The reader's take was moderate, and I think it underweights this. The κ4 agreement is a legitimate internal consistency check within the fitted \hat m0, but it is not a clean prediction while the scale identification is internally inconsistent.

What else is soft: the mapping theorem from Yang-Mills to the scalar DSE system is inherited from Refs. [56,57] and not re-derived; the paper conflates m0 as the glueball mass with m0 as the renormalization scale; and the crossover is never really tracked through \barσ(T)—the mass-gap function F(\hat μ2, \hat m02) = 1 is used as an implicit relation, so the claim that this is the chiral crossover is asserted more than demonstrated.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee—the computation is substantial and the flaws are identifiable and fixable. But it should not be accepted as is. The authors need to either fix the scale identification or honestly reframe the model as having two calibrated parameters. If they do that, the κ4 match becomes a genuine test. Bring it to the reading group, but with the stress-test in hand.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper aims to derive the chiral crossover temperature T_c(µ_B) of QCD at finite temperature and chemical potential from an infrared effective non-local Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model obtained via an exact elliptic-function solution of the Yang-Mills Dyson–Schwinger equations. After bosonisation, the authors obtain a mass gap equation (47), match the second Taylor coefficient κ2 of T_c(µ_B)/T_c(0) to the lattice value by fixing the dimensionless parameter hat m0, and find κ4 = 0.000314, which is within the lattice uncertainty. They then plot T_c(µ_f) for several values of the scale m0 and claim that the solution depends on a single scale parameter and is analytically derived from QCD.

Significance. If the one-scale claim were correct, this would be an important analytical handle on a regime where lattice QCD suffers from the sign problem. The paper contains substantial analytic work: the Matsubara sums and residue evaluations in Appendix B, the explicit derivative formulas in Eq. (53), and the fact that κ4 is obtained from the same mass-gap function that fixes κ2 are genuine strengths. However, as detailed below, the single-scale interpretation is not supported by the matching procedure, and the comparison with the lattice κ4 is weakened by the large lattice error. The result is best viewed as a two-parameter effective-model construction with one non-trivial internal consistency check.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.3, Eqs. (40), (54), (56), and Fig. 2] The paper claims a single free parameter m0, but the matching procedure actually requires two independent parameters. Matching κ2 fixes hat m0 = 7.7503, and the mass gap equation F(0, hat m0^2)=1 then forces α_s = 4.05379. Since hat m0 = m0/(2T) (Eq. (40)), reproducing the physical T_c(0) ≈ 156.5 MeV fixes m0 ≈ 2.42 GeV, not 599.56 MeV as stated. Conversely, with m0 = 599.56 MeV the predicted T_c(0) is about 38.7 MeV. Figure 2 sidesteps this by plotting curves for m0 = 1000, 1500, 2000, and 2157 MeV at fixed α_s, which makes m0 a second free parameter. Thus the reported κ4 = 0.000314 is a consequence of a two-parameter fit, and the abstract's 'single scale parameter' claim is not supported.
[Section 3.3, after Eq. (56)] The assignment of α_s = 4.05379 to the scale m0 = 599.56 MeV via four-loop running with α_s(m_Z) = 0.1175 is numerically inconsistent with standard four-loop running, which gives α_s ≈ 0.5–1 at 600 MeV and α_s = 4.05 only at scales near the Landau pole (below roughly 300 MeV). Furthermore, even if that value were accepted, the same m0 gives T_c(0) ≈ 38.7 MeV from T_c = m0/(2 hat m0), contradicting the physical scale used in Fig. 2. The relation between the scale appearing in the gluon propagator and the scale at which the running coupling is evaluated must be defined unambiguously; as it stands, the two scales are conflated.
[Sections 2.1–2.2, Eqs. (9)–(15)] The derivation of the non-local NJL action (23) rests on the mapping theorem of Refs. [56,57] and on the exact solution G1(x) = µ sn(k·x+θ|κ) for Yang-Mills, neither of which is re-derived or tested in this manuscript. If this mapping is not valid for QCD, the action (23), the mass gap equation (47), and all results based on them fail. A concrete check would be to compare the gluon propagator (14), an infinite tower of massive poles with m_n = (2n+1)m0, with lattice Yang-Mills gluon propagators in the infrared; the authors should either supply such a comparison or state clearly that this is an assumption. As written, the abstract's claim that the study is 'analytically derived from QCD' overstates the status of the derivation.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.3, text after Eq. (50)] The line 'Having obtained hat m0^2 = 0.3747572 = 0.140443' appears to contain a typographical error; the numbers are consistent with hat m0 = 0.374757 and hat m0^2 = 0.140443. Please correct.
[Section 3.3, Eq. (55) and following text] The two methods give (hat m0^2)'' = 0.0055 and 0.0110326, a factor-of-two difference that is attributed only to mesh size. Please provide an error estimate for κ4 arising from this numerical uncertainty, since the matched value κ4 = 0.000314 may be sensitive to it.
[Section 3.3, Eq. (48) and footnote] The footnote notes that Ref. [21] normalizes the chemical potential to T_c(µ_B) rather than T_c(0); the potential impact of this normalization difference on κ2 and κ4 should be quantified or at least discussed.
[Section 4, bullet list] The claim 'excellent agreement with lattice data' is overstated, because the lattice error on κ4 is ±0.00067, which is larger than the central value 0.00032; the model value 0.000314 is within error but does not constitute a high-precision test.
[Section 3.2, after Eq. (47)] The phrase 'the dependence Tc(µf ) is not a function' is confusing; if the parametric plot has multiple branches, this should be stated more precisely.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The paper's central κ2 agreement is an input fitted to lattice data; the QCD derivation additionally rests on self-cited mapping/exact-solution results.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (56) and following text]
"In order to adjust to the lattice values κ2 = 0.0153(18) and κ4 = 0.00032(67) found in Ref. [21], we have to solve (m̂2 0)′ = 72m̂2 0κ2, or ... which is an implicit equation for m̂0. For κ2 = 0.0153, the matching procedure gives m̂0 = 7.7503."

The only free parameter m̂0 is solved from the lattice value of κ2 via Eq. (56), so the subsequent agreement in κ2 is enforced by construction rather than derived from QCD. The text explicitly says the coupling choice 'can now be used to adjust our prediction to the lattice data.' κ4 is then evaluated at the fitted m̂0 and is not adjusted, so it retains partial predictive content; but the claimed QCD derivation of the leading Taylor coefficient reduces to a one-point fit.
self citation load bearing [Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (9)-(11), citing Refs. [43,56,57]]
"Using the mapping theorem for Yang–Mills [57, 56] with G(2)ab µν(x,y) = δabηµνG2(x−y), ... leads to the scalar equations ... The corresponding homogeneous equation is solved by G1(x) = µ sn(k ·x + θ|κ). ... We use an exact solution to the gluonic sector of QCD recently obtained in Ref. [43]."

The reduction of the full Yang–Mills Dyson–Schwinger system to the scalar equations (9)-(10), and the elliptic-function form of the gluon propagator (11), (14), are imported from prior papers by the same author (Frasca 2008, 2009, 2017) and are not re-derived or independently verified here. Every later step — the NJL action (23), the mass gap equation (47), and the Taylor coefficients — inherits this self-citation chain, so the advertised 'derivation from QCD' is partly an adoption of the authors' own earlier unverified claims.

1 more flagged steps

fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3, paragraph after Eq. (56)]
"Indeed, with the current knowledge of the running coupling in a strong coupled regime, this should be considered just another fitting parameter and our choice arise from pure consistency reasons."

This sentence admits that the strong coupling used to produce the reported values is not obtained from QCD but treated as a fitting parameter. Combined with the κ2-matching equation, the single 'QCD scale' that the paper presents as the theory's only free parameter is in practice an adjustable input chosen to reproduce the lattice result it is then said to agree with.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuine non-perturbative construction: a DSE-derived nonlocal NJL model, bosonization, and a mass gap equation (47) that yields Tc(μB) once m̂0 is specified. The computed κ4 = 0.000314 at the fitted value is an independent output, and the Tc(μB) curve is not a trivial identity. However, the central headline agreement in κ2 is not a prediction: Eq. (56) solves for m̂0 using the lattice κ2 as input, and the text states explicitly that the scale choice is used to 'adjust our prediction to the lattice data.' The model therefore has one fitted number doing real work; the leading Taylor coefficient is an input by construction. A second concern is that the derivation depends on the mapping theorem and exact Yang–Mills solution from Refs. [43,56,57], all by the same author, and these load-bearing results are not re-established in this paper. Additionally, the scale derived from the matching (m0 = 599.56 MeV) is inconsistent with the values used for the physical curves in Fig. 2 (m0 = 1000–2157 MeV), which indicates a second effective adjustment in presenting the Tc curve. Because κ4 and the crossover shape retain predictive content, the circularity is partial, not total; score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's predictive content is limited by one fitted scale (m0, equivalently the strong coupling at 600 MeV). The mapping theorem and exact solution are imported from the authors' earlier papers. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

m0 (QCD scale parameter) = 599.56 MeV (dimensionless m0 = 7.7503)
Chosen in Section 3.3 so that the model's kappa2 equals the lattice value 0.0153(18).
kappa (elliptic modulus) = -1
Set to -1 in the numerical analysis, giving G as the inverse string tension (Section 3.1). Not fitted to the lattice data used here.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The mapping theorem reduces the Yang-Mills DSE system to the scalar equations (9) and (10).
Invoked in Section 2.1 with citations to Refs. [56,57]; not re-derived in this paper.
domain assumption The elliptic-function solution G1(x) = mu sn(k.x + theta | kappa) with propagator (15) is the exact solution for the gluonic sector.
Used in Section 2.1; the validity of this exact solution for QCD is not established within this paper.
ad hoc to paper The four-loop perturbative running coupling remains usable at energies around 600 MeV.
Section 3.3 calculates alpha_s = 4.05379 at m0 = 599.56 MeV and acknowledges the regime is deeply non-perturbative and the value should be considered another fitting parameter.
domain assumption The Fierz rearrangement and mean-field bosonization retain only scalar-isoscalar and pseudoscalar-isovector channels.
Sections 2.2 and 2.3; the vector/axial and octet channels are dropped because they are repulsive or vanish at large Nc.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite temperature QCD crossover at non-zero chemical potential: A Dyson-Schwinger approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z2GULUPZ

@misc{pith2026250202070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite temperature QCD crossover at non-zero chemical potential: A Dyson-Schwinger approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z2GULUPZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02070}
}

read the original abstract

We study QCD at finite temperature and non-zero chemical potential to derive the critical temperature at the chiral phase transition (crossover). We solve a set of Dyson--Schwinger partial differential equations using the exact solution for the Yang--Mills quantum field theory based on elliptical functions. We derive a Nambu-Jona--Lasino (NJL) model of the quarks and obtain a very good agreement with recent lattice computations regarding the dependence of the critical temperature on the strong coupling scale. The solution depends on a single scale parameter, as typical for the theory and already known from studies about asymptotic freedom. The study is analytically derived from QCD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02070 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Values for κ2 (upper panel) and κ4 (lower panel) in dependence on the strong coupling scale, as compared to the values from lattice calculations (yellow band with central line, values taken from Ref. [21]) 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Dependence of the critical temperature Tc on the quark chemical potential µf . As stated in the text, we evaluate the running coupling through its value in the asymptotic regime, extending the validity at the energy scale fitted to the lattice. 4 Discussion and Conclusions Using a closed-form solution for the correlation functions of the Yang–Mills theory, we show how to derive a non-local Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model d… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

[1]

B. Chen, P. Zhuang and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) no.4, 044917

2016
[2]

Okawa [sPHENIX], EPJ Web Conf

H. Okawa [sPHENIX], EPJ Web Conf. 276 (2023), 05004

2023
[3]

T. J. Tarnowsky [STAR], Indian J. Phys. 85 (2011), 1091-1095

2011
[4]

Cifarelli and F

L. Cifarelli and F. Bellini, Physics, Oxford University Press and Ame rical Institute of Physics, 2024

2024
[5]

[ATLAS], ATLAS-CONF-2023-054

2023
[6]

Velkovska, CERN Cour

J. Velkovska, CERN Cour. 52N7 (2012), 18-24

2012
[7]

Vagnoni [LHCb], [arXiv:2503.23093 [hep-ex]]

V. Vagnoni [LHCb], [arXiv:2503.23093 [hep-ex]]

arXiv
[8]

Arslandok et al

M. Arslandok et al. [arXiv:2303.17254 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv

Show all 86 references

[9]

An et al

X. An et al. Nucl. Phys. A 1017, 122343 (2022)

2022
[10]

J. H. Putschke et al. [arXiv:1903.07706 [nucl-th]]

1903 arXiv
[11]

D. R. Phillips et al. J. Phys. G 48, no.7, 072001 (2021)

2021
[12]

Fodor, S

Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, JHEP 0203, 014 (2002)

2002
[13]

Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, K. K. Szabo, Nature 443, 675-678 (2006). 25

2006
[14]

Y. Aoki, S. Borsanyi, S. Durr, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg an d K. K. Szabo, JHEP 0906, 088 (2009)

2009
[15]

Bazavov et al

A. Bazavov et al. , Phys. Rev. D 80, 014504 (2009)

2009
[16]

de Forcrand, PoS LAT2009, 010 (2009)

P. de Forcrand, PoS LAT2009, 010 (2009)

2009
[17]

Borsanyi, G

S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Rat ti and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 08, 053 (2012)

2012
[18]

Bazavov, H

A. Bazavov, H. T. Ding, P. Hegde, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E . Laermann, Y. Maezawa, S. Mukherjee, H. Ohno and P. Petreczky, et al. Phys. Rev. D 95, no.5, 054504 (2017)

2017
[19]

Bonati, M

C. Bonati, M. D’Elia, F. Negro, F. Sanﬁlippo and K. Zambello, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.5, 054510 (2018)

2018
[20]

Bazavov et al

A. Bazavov et al. [HotQCD], Phys. Lett. B 795, 15-21 (2019)

2019
[21]

Borsanyi, Z

S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, R. Kara, S. D. Katz, P . Parotto, A. Pasztor, C. Ratti and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, no.5, 052001 (2020)

2020
[22]

Bors´ anyi, Z

S. Bors´ anyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, R. Kara, S. D. Katz, P. Parotto, A. P´ asztor, C. Ratti and K. K. Szab´ o, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.23, 232001 (2021)

2021
[23]

Kahangirwe, S

M. Kahangirwe, S. A. Bass, E. Bratkovskaya, J. Jahan, P. Mo reau, P. Parotto, D. Price, C. Ratti, O. Soloveva and M. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.9, 094046 (2024)

2024
[24]

Splittorﬀ and J

K. Splittorﬀ and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. D 75, 116003 (2007)

2007
[25]

S. D. H. Hsu and D. Reeb, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 53-67 (2010)

2010
[26]

Aarts, PoS LATTICE2012, 017 (2012)

G. Aarts, PoS LATTICE2012, 017 (2012). 26

2012
[27]

Nagata, Prog

K. Nagata, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 127, 103991 (2022)

2022
[28]

Y. Lu, F. Gao, Y. X. Liu and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.1, 014036 (2024)

2024
[29]

Borsanyi et al

S. Borsanyi et al. [Wuppertal-Budapest], JHEP 09, 073 (2010)

2010
[30]

Bazavov et al

A. Bazavov et al. Phys. Rev. D 85, 054503 (2012)

2012
[31]

Bhattacharya et al

T. Bhattacharya et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, no.8, 082001 (2014)

2014
[32]

Bazavov et al

A. Bazavov et al. [HotQCD], Phys. Rev. D 90, 094503 (2014)

2014
[33]

Fukushima, Phys

K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B 591, 277-284 (2004)

2004
[34]

Megias, E

E. Megias, E. Ruiz Arriola and L. L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev. D 74, 065005 (2006)

2006
[35]

Ratti, M

C. Ratti, M. A. Thaler and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D 73, 014019 (2006)

2006
[36]

B. J. Schaefer, J. M. Pawlowski and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D 76, 074023 (2007)

2007
[37]

Skokov, B

V. Skokov, B. Stokic, B. Friman and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C 82, 015206 (2010)

2010
[38]

T. K. Herbst, J. M. Pawlowski and B. J. Schaefer, Phys. Lett . B 696, 58-67 (2011)

2011
[39]

Drews and W

M. Drews and W. Weise, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 69-107 (2017)

2017
[40]

Fukushima and V

K. Fukushima and V. Skokov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 96, 154-199 (2017)

2017
[41]

C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45, S1-S103 (2000)

2000
[42]

C. S. Fischer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 105, 1-60 (2019)

2019
[43]

Frasca, Eur

M. Frasca, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132, no.1, 38 (2017) [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132, no.5, 242 (2017)]

2017
[44]

Fubini, Nuovo Cim

S. Fubini, Nuovo Cim. A 34, 521 (1976). 27

1976
[45]

L. N. Lipatov, Sov. Phys. JETP 45, 216-223 (1977). LENINGRAD-76-255

1977
[46]

Frasca, A

M. Frasca, A. Ghoshal and S. Groote, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.11, 114036 (2021)

2021
[47]

Boccaletti, S

A. Boccaletti, S. Borsanyi, M. Davier, Z. Fodor, F. Frech, A. G erardin, D. Giusti, A. Y. Kotov, L. Lellouch and T. Lippert, et al. [arXiv:2407.10913 [hep-lat]]

arXiv
[48]

Bazavov et al

A. Bazavov et al. [Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD and MILC], [arXiv:2411.09656 [hep-lat]]

arXiv
[49]

D. P. Aguillard et al. [Muon g-2], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.16, 161802 (2023)

2023
[50]

D. P. Aguillard et al. [Muon g-2], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 032009 (2024)

2024
[51]

Frasca, Int

M. Frasca, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 18, 693 (2009)

2009
[52]

Frasca, Phys

M. Frasca, Phys. Rev. C 84, 055208 (2011)

2011
[53]

Frasca, AIP Conf

M. Frasca, AIP Conf. Proc. 1492, 177 (2012)

2012
[54]

Frasca, Nucl

M. Frasca, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 234, 329 (2013)

2013
[55]

Frasca, J

M. Frasca, J. Nonlin. Math. Phys. 18, 291 (2011)

2011
[56]

Frasca, Mod

M. Frasca, Mod. Phys. Lett. A24, 2425-2432 (2009)

2009
[57]

Frasca, Phys

M. Frasca, Phys. Lett. B 670, 73 (2008)

2008
[58]

Vogl and W

U. Vogl and W. Weise, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 27, 195-272 (1991)

1991
[59]

S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 649-708 (1992)

1992
[60]

Michael Buballa, Phys. Rept. 407, 205-376 (2005)

2005
[61]

T. Hell, S. R¨ oßner, M. Cristoforetti and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D 79, 014022 (2009)

2009
[62]

Frasca, A

M. Frasca, A. Ghoshal and S. Groote, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138209 (2023). 28

2023
[63]

D. J. Schwarz, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 13, 2771-2778 (1998)

1998
[64]

Maggiore, Phys

M. Maggiore, Phys. Rept. 331, 283-367 (2000)

2000
[65]

Mazumdar and G

A. Mazumdar and G. White, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82, no.7, 076901 (2019)

2019
[66]

N. Seto, S. Kawamura and T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 221103 (2001)

2001
[67]

Sato et al

S. Sato et al. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 840, no.1, 012010 (2017)

2017
[68]

Amaro-Seoane et al

P. Amaro-Seoane et al. [LISA], [arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]]

arXiv
[69]

Janssen et al

G. Janssen et al. PoS AASKA14, 037 (2015)

2015
[70]

Lentati et al

L. Lentati et al. [EPTA], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 453, no.3, 2576-2598 (2015)

2015
[71]

Hajkarim, J

F. Hajkarim, J. Schaﬀner-Bielich, S. Wystub and M. M. Wygas, P hys. Rev. D 99, no.10, 103527 (2019)

2019
[72]

Drees, F

M. Drees, F. Hajkarim and E. R. Schmitz, JCAP 06, 025 (2015)

2015
[73]

Steigman, B

G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 86, 023506 (2012)

2012
[74]

Capozziello, M

S. Capozziello, M. Khodadi and G. Lambiase, Phys. Lett. B 789, 626-633 (2019)

2019
[75]

Khodadi, U

M. Khodadi, U. K. Dey and G. Lambiase, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.6, 063039 (2021)

2021
[76]

Castorina, D

P. Castorina, D. Lanteri and S. Mancani, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.2, 023007 (2018)

2018
[77]

Anand, U

S. Anand, U. K. Dey and S. Mohanty, JCAP 03, 018 (2017)

2017
[78]

D. J. Schwarz, Annalen Phys. 12, 220-270 (2003)

2003
[79]

Stuke, D

M. Stuke, D. J. Schwarz and G. Starkman, JCAP 03, 040 (2012)

2012
[80]

Saikawa and S

K. Saikawa and S. Shirai, JCAP 05, 035 (2018). 29

2018
[81]

Hindmarsh and O

M. Hindmarsh and O. Philipsen, Phys. Rev. D 71, 087302 (2005)

2005
[82]

Borsanyi et al

S. Borsanyi et al. Nature 539, no.7627, 69-71 (2016)

2016
[83]

M. W. Li, Y. Yang and P. H. Yuan, [arXiv:1812.09676 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[84]

Witten, Phys

E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272-285 (1984)

1984
[85]

Asakawa and K

M. Asakawa and K. Yazaki, Nucl. Phys. A 504, 668-684 (1989)

1989
[86]

D. J. Schwarz and M. Stuke, JCAP 11, 025 (2009) [erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2010)]. 30

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

B. Chen, P. Zhuang and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) no.4, 044917

2016

[2] [2]

Okawa [sPHENIX], EPJ Web Conf

H. Okawa [sPHENIX], EPJ Web Conf. 276 (2023), 05004

2023

[3] [3]

T. J. Tarnowsky [STAR], Indian J. Phys. 85 (2011), 1091-1095

2011

[4] [4]

Cifarelli and F

L. Cifarelli and F. Bellini, Physics, Oxford University Press and Ame rical Institute of Physics, 2024

2024

[5] [5]

[ATLAS], ATLAS-CONF-2023-054

2023

[6] [6]

Velkovska, CERN Cour

J. Velkovska, CERN Cour. 52N7 (2012), 18-24

2012

[7] [7]

Vagnoni [LHCb], [arXiv:2503.23093 [hep-ex]]

V. Vagnoni [LHCb], [arXiv:2503.23093 [hep-ex]]

arXiv

[8] [8]

Arslandok et al

M. Arslandok et al. [arXiv:2303.17254 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv