On SU(3) effective models and chiral phase-transition

TL;DR

This paper reviews various effective models like PNJL, PLSM, and HRG to study the QCD chiral phase transition, comparing their results with lattice QCD and experimental data, highlighting their strengths and limitations.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of effective models for chiral phase transition and evaluates their consistency with lattice QCD and experimental results.

Findings

PLSM accurately reproduces chiral order parameters.

HRG model matches net-strange condensate but overestimates chiral temperature.

PNJL and QLSM show discrepancies with lattice QCD results.

Abstract

The sensitivity of Polyakov Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (PNJL) model as an effective theory of quark dynamics to chiral symmetry has been utilized in studying the QCD phase-diagram. Also, Poyakov linear sigma-model (PLSM), in which information about the confining glue sector of the theory was included through Polyakov-loop potential. Furthermore, from quasi-particle model (QPM), the gluonic sector of QPM is integrated to LSM in order to reproduce recent lattice calculations. We review PLSM, QLSM, PNJL and HRG with respect to their descriptions for the chiral phase-transition. We analyse chiral order-parameter M(T), normalized net-strange condensate Delta_{q,s}(T) and chiral phase-diagram and compare the results with lattice QCD. We conclude that PLSM works perfectly in reproducing M(T) and Delta_{q,s}(T). HRG model reproduces Delta_{q,s}(T), while PNJL and QLSM seem to fail. These differences are present in QCD chiral phase-diagram. PLSM chiral boundary is located in upper band of lattice QCD calculations and agree well with freeze-out results deduced from high-energy experiments and thermal models. Also, we find that the chiral temperature calculated from from HRG model is larger than that from PLSM. This is also larger than the freeze-out temperatures calculated in lattice QCD and deduced from experiments and thermal models. The corresponding temperature T and chemical potential mu sets are very similar to that of PLSM. This might be explained, because the chiral T and mu are calculated using different order parameters; in HRG vanishing quark-antiquark condensate but in PLSM crossing (equaling) chiral condensates and Polyakov loop potentials. The latter assumed that the two phase transitions; chiral and deconfinement, take place at the same temperature.