1: % Please use the skeleton file you have received in the
2: % invitation-to-submit email, where your data are already
3: % filled in. Otherwise please make sure you insert your
4: % data according to the instructions in PoSauthmanual.pdf
5: \documentclass{PoS}
6: \title{Screening masses in the SU(3) pure gauge theory and universality}
7:
8: \ShortTitle{Screening masses in the SU(3) pure gauge theory and universality}
9:
10: \author{\speaker{R. Falcone$^a$}, R. Fiore$^a$, M. Gravina$^a$ and A. Papa$^a$\\
11: \llap{$^a$}Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a della Calabria,\\
12: and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Gruppo collegato di Cosenza\\
13: I--87036 Arcavacata di Rende, Cosenza, Italy\\
14: E-mail: \email{rfalcone,fiore,gravina,papa@cs.infn.it} }
15:
16: \abstract{We determine from Polyakov loop correlators the screening masses in the deconfined
17: phase of the (3+1)$d$ SU(3) pure gauge theory at finite temperature near the transition,
18: for two different channels of angular momentum and parity.
19: Their ratio is compared with that of the massive excitations with the same quantum numbers
20: in the 3$d$ 3-state Potts model in the broken phase near the transition point at zero
21: magnetic field.
22: Moreover we study the inverse decay length of the correlation between the real parts and
23: between the imaginary parts of the Polyakov loop and compare the results with expectations
24: from perturbation theory and mean-field Polyakov loop models.}
25:
26: \FullConference{The XXV International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory\\
27: July 30-4 August 2007\\
28: Regensburg, Germany}
29:
30: \begin{document}
31:
32: \section{Introduction}
33:
34: In this work we compare the spectrum of the inverse decay lengths of Polyakov loop correlators
35: in the (3+1)$d$ SU(3) gauge theory in the deconfined phase near the transition with the spectrum
36: of massive excitations of the 3$d$ 3-state Potts model in the broken phase near the transition
37: at zero magnetic field, which were determined in Ref.~\cite{FFGP06}.
38: The aim of the work is to verify if and to what extent the Svetitsky-Yaffe
39: conjecture~\cite{Svetitsky:1982gs} also holds for theories which undergo a {\em weakly} first
40: order phase transition, using mass ratios as a probe. In particular we focus on the low-lying
41: masses in two different sectors of parity and orbital angular momentum, 0$^+$ and 2$^+$.
42: We expect that, if universality would apply in strict sense, these spectra should exhibit
43: the same pattern, as suggested by several numerical determinations in the 3$d$
44: Ising class~\cite{Caselle:1999tm,Caselle:2001im,Fiore:2002fj,Fiore-Papa-Provero-2003}.
45:
46: We extend our numerical analysis to temperatures far away from the transition
47: temperature $T_t$ in order to look for possible ``scaling'' of the fundamental masses
48: with temperature.
49: Moreover, we consider also the screening masses resulting from correlators of the real parts
50: and of the imaginary parts of the Polyakov loop. These determinations can represent useful
51: benchmarks for effective models of the high-temperature phase of SU(3), such as those based
52: on mean-field theories of the Polyakov loop, suggested by R.~Pisarski~\cite{Pisarski0101168}.
53:
54: \section{Screening masses from Polyakov loop correlators}
55:
56: Screening masses are defined as the inverse decay lengths of the Yukawa-like potential
57: between two static sources. They are generally determined through the
58: correlation of suitable operators. In our case correlations are between operators with
59: different spatial separation.
60: The general large distance behavior for the correlation function
61: $G(|z_1-z_2|)$, in an infinite lattice, is:
62: \begin{equation}
63: G(|z_1-z_2|)= \sum_n a_n e^{-m_n |z_1-z_2|}\ ,
64: \label{corr-funct}
65: \end{equation}
66: where $m_0$ is the fundamental mass, while $m_1$, $m_2$, ... are higher masses
67: with the same angular momentum and parity quantum numbers of the fundamental mass.
68: On a periodic lattice the above equation must be modified by the inclusion of the so called
69: ``echo'' term:
70: \begin{equation}
71: G(|z_1-z_2|)= \sum_n a_n\biggl[e^{-m_n |z_1-z_2|}+e^{-m_n (N_z-|z_1-z_2|)}\biggr]\ .
72: \label{corr-funct_echo}
73: \end{equation}
74: The fundamental mass in a definite channel can be extracted from wall-wall
75: correlators by looking for a plateau of the effective mass at large distances,
76: \begin{equation}
77: m_{\mbox{\footnotesize eff}}(z)= \ln \frac{G(z-1)}{G(z)} \ .
78: \label{m_eff}
79: \end{equation}
80:
81: In the 0$^+$-channel, the connected wall-wall correlator in the $z$-direction is defined as
82: \begin{equation}
83: G(|z_1-z_2|)=\mbox{Re}\langle \bar{P}(z_1) \bar{P}(z_2)^\dagger \rangle -|\langle P \rangle|^2\ ,
84: \label{corr0}
85: \end{equation}
86: where
87: \begin{equation}
88: \bar{P}(z)=\frac{1}{N_xN_y}\sum_{n_x=1}^{N_x} \sum_{n_y=1}^{N_y}P(n_x a,n_y a,z)\ ,
89: \label{wall0}
90: \end{equation}
91: represents the Polyakov loop averaged over the $xy$-plane at a given $z$.~\footnote{Here and in
92: the following, $N_i$ ($i=x, y, z$) is the number of lattice sites in the $i$-direction.}
93: The wall average implies the projection at zero momentum in the $xy$-plane.
94:
95: For the 2$^+$-channel, we used the variational
96: method~\cite{Kronfeld,Luscher-Wolff} (for more details, see~\cite{FFGP07} and references therein.)
97:
98: Our choice of wall-averaged operators in the 2$^+$-channel is
99: inspired by Ref.~\cite{Caselle1997} and reads
100: \begin{equation}
101: \bar{P}_n(z)=\frac{1}{N_xN_y}\sum_{n_x=1}^{N_x} \sum_{n_y=1}^{N_y}P(n_x a,n_y a,z)
102: \biggl[P(n_x a+na,n_y a,z)-P(n_x a,n_y a+na,z)\biggr]\ .
103: \label{wall2}
104: \end{equation}
105: In most cases we have taken 8 operators, corresponding to different values of $n$, with the
106: largest $n$ almost reaching the spatial lattice size $N_x$.
107:
108: We consider also correlators of the (wall-averaged) real and imaginary parts of the Polyakov
109: loop, defined as
110: \begin{eqnarray}
111: G_R(|z_1-z_2|) &=& \langle \mbox{Re} \bar P(z_1) \mbox{Re} \bar P(z_2)\rangle -
112: \langle \mbox{Re} \bar P(z_1)\rangle \langle \mbox{Re} \bar P(z_2)\rangle \;,
113: \label{Dumitru2:1}\\
114: G_I(|z_1-z_2|) &=& \langle \mbox{Im} \bar P(z_1) \mbox{Im} \bar P(z_2)\rangle\;.
115: \label{Dumitru2:2}
116: \end{eqnarray}
117: The corresponding screening masses, $\hat m_R$ and $\hat m_I$, can be extracted in the
118: same way as for the 0$^+$ mass.
119: We have studied the ratio $m_I/m_R$ over a wide interval of temperatures above the
120: transition temperature $T_t$ of (3+1)$d$ SU(3) and seen how it compares with the prediction from
121: high-temperature perturbation theory, according to which it should be equal to
122: 3/2~\cite{Nadkarni:1986cz,Dumitru:2002cf}, and with the prediction from the mean-field
123: Polyakov loop model of Ref.~\cite{Pisarski0110214}, according to which it should be equal to 3 in
124: the transition region. The interplay between the two regimes should delimit the
125: region where mean-field Polyakov loop models should be effective.
126:
127: \section{Numerical results}
128: \label{results}
129:
130: We used the Wilson lattice action and generated Monte Carlo configurations by a combination
131: of the modified Metropolis algorithm~\cite{Cabibbo-Marinari} with over-relaxation on
132: SU(2) subgroups~\cite{Adler}. The error analysis was performed by the jackknife method over bins
133: at different blocking levels. We performed our simulations on a 16$^3\times$4 lattice, for which
134: $\beta_t=5.6908(2)$~\cite{Boyd:1996bx}, over an interval of $\beta$ values ranging from
135: 5.69 to 9.0.
136:
137: Screening masses are determined from the plateau of $m_{\mbox{\footnotesize eff}}(z)$ as a
138: function of the wall separation $z$. In each case, the {\it plateau mass} is taken as the
139: effective mass (with its error) belonging to the {\it plateau} and having the minimal
140: uncertainty. We define {\it plateau} the largest set of consecutive data points, consistent with
141: each other within 1$\sigma$.
142: This procedure is more conservative than identifying the plateau mass and its error
143: as the results of a fit with a constant on the effective masses $m_{\mbox{\footnotesize eff}}(z)$,
144: for large enough $z$.
145:
146: Just above the critical value $\beta_t$ we find a large correlation length, which is not of
147: physical relevance. It is instead a genuine finite size effect~\cite{Gavai-Karsch-Petersson}
148: related to {\it tunneling} between degenerate vacua. This effect disappears by going to larger
149: lattice volumes or moving away from $\beta_t$ in the deconfined phase.
150: Tunneling can occur between the symmetric and the broken phase, and between
151: the three degenerate vacua of the deconfined phase.
152: When tunneling is active,
153: the correlation function has the following expression~\cite{Gavai-Karsch-Petersson}:
154: \begin{equation}
155: G(|z_1-z_2|)\sim a_0e^{-m_0 |z_1-z_2|}+b_0 e^{-m_t |z_1-z_2|}\;,
156: \label{corr_funct_tunneling}
157: \end{equation}
158: where $m_t$ is the inverse of the tunneling correlation length and is generally much smaller
159: than the fundamental mass $m_0$ and therefore behaves as a constant additive term
160: in the correlation function.~\footnote{In (\ref{corr_funct_tunneling})
161: we have taken into account only the
162: lowest masses in the spectrum and, for brevity, omitted to write the ``echo'' terms.}
163: The dependence on $m_t$ in the correlation function can be removed by extracting the
164: effective mass by use of the combination
165: \begin{equation}
166: m_{\mbox{\footnotesize eff}}(z)= \ln \frac{G(z)-G(z+1)}{G(z+1)-G(z+2)} \ .
167: \label{m_eff_1}
168: \end{equation}
169: %%For $\beta \gtrsim 5.71$ the only active tunneling is among the three broken minima, and since
170: %%the separation among them is so clear,
171: %%it is possible to ``rotate'' unambiguously all the configurations to the real sector
172: %%and to treat them on the same ground.
173: A typical example of the behavior of the effective mass with $z$
174: is shown in Fig.~\ref{eff_masses_5.75} for the 0$^+$ and the 2$^+$ channels.
175: In Figs.~\ref{masses_vs_beta_1} and~\ref{masses_vs_beta_2} we show the behavior with $\beta$ of
176: $\hat m_{0^+}$, $\hat m_{2^+}$, $\hat m_R$ and $\hat m_I$.
177: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
178: \begin{figure}[tb]
179: \centering
180: \bigskip
181: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{massa0.eps} \quad
182: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{massa2.eps}
183: \caption[]{Effective mass in the 0$^+$ (left) and the 2$^+$ (right) channel
184: as a function of the separation between walls on the $(x,y)$ plane at $\beta=5.75$.}
185: \label{eff_masses_5.75}
186: \end{figure}
187:
188: We observe from that $\hat m_{0^+}$ and $\hat m_R$ are consistent within statistical errors,
189: this indicating that the Polyakov loop correlation is dominated by the correlation between
190: the real parts.
191: We can see that the fundamental mass in the 0$^+$ channel, as well as $\hat m_R$,
192: becomes much smaller than 1 at $\beta_t$, as expected for a weakly
193: first order phase transition.
194: In the cases of $\hat m_{0^+}$ and of $\hat m_R$ we have made some determinations
195: {\it below} $\beta_t$ (see Figs.~\ref{masses_vs_beta_1} and \ref{masses_vs_beta_2}).
196: It turns out that masses in lattice units take their minimum value just at $\beta_t$, where
197: there is a ``cusp'' in the $\beta$-dependence. Such a behaviour was observed
198: also by the authors of Ref.~\cite{Datta:2002je}, whose results, when the comparison is possible,
199: agree with ours.
200: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
201: \begin{figure}[tb]
202: \centering
203: \bigskip
204: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{mass0_vs_beta.eps} \quad
205: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{mass2_vs_beta.eps}
206: \caption[]{Screening mass in the 0$^+$ channel (left) and in the 2$^+$ channel (right)
207: {\it vs.} $\beta$.}
208: \label{masses_vs_beta_1}
209: \end{figure}
210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
211: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
212: \begin{figure}[tb]
213: \centering
214: \bigskip
215: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{mass_r_vs_beta.eps} \quad
216: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{mass_i_vs_beta.eps}
217: \caption[]{Screening masses ${\hat m}_R$ (left) and ${\hat m}_I$ (right) {\it vs.} $\beta$.}
218: \label{masses_vs_beta_2}
219: \end{figure}
220: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
221: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
222: %%\begin{figure}[tb]
223: %%\centering
224: %\includegraphics[width=5cm]{mass_i_vs_beta.eps} (a)
225: %\includegraphics[width=5cm]{mass_r_vs_beta.eps} (b)
226: %\includegraphics[width=11.5cm,bb=40 40 700 620]{mass_i_vs_beta.eps} (a)
227: %\includegraphics[width=11.5cm,bb=40 40 700 620]{mass_r_vs_beta.eps} (b)
228: %%\caption[]{Screening mass $\hat m_I$ (a) and $\hat m_R$ (b) as a function of $\beta$.}
229: %%\label{masses_ri_vs_beta}
230: %%\end{figure}
231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
232: %\subsection{Scaling behavior and comparison with the Potts model}
233: We have also looked for a scaling law for the fundamental mass in the $0^+$ channel,
234: but with the understanding that any second-order-like scaling law, when applied to the
235: region near a first order phase transition, should be taken as an {\it effective} description,
236: which cannot hold too close to the transition point.
237: With this spirit, we have compared our data with the scaling law
238: \begin{equation}
239: \label{scal_rel}
240: \Bigg( \frac{\beta_1-\beta_t}{\beta_2-\beta_t} \Bigg)^{\nu} \sim
241: \frac{\hat m_{0^+}(\beta_1)}{\hat m_{0^+}(\beta_2)} \ ,
242: \end{equation}
243: where $\hat m_{0^+}(\beta_1)$ and $\hat m_{0^+}(\beta_2)$ are the
244: fundamental masses in the $0^+$ channel at $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$, respectively.
245: We have considered several choices of $\beta_1$
246: and found that for each of them there is a wide ``window'' of $\beta$ values above $\beta_t$ where
247: the scaling law~(\ref{scal_rel}) works, with a ``dynamical'' exponent $\nu$
248: (see Ref.~\cite{FFGP07} for a details).
249: %Our results are summarized in Table.~\ref{scaling_fits}.
250: For $\beta_1$=5.72 we have calculated also
251: the $\chi^2$/d.o.f. when $\nu$ is put exactly equal to 1/3 (suggested in
252: Ref.~\cite{Fisher-Berker} to apply
253: to the {\it standard} correlation function), getting $\chi^2$/d.o.f.=0.75 in the window
254: from $\beta=5.715$ to $\beta=5.78$. In Fig.~\ref{scaling} we show, for this choice of $\beta_1$,
255: the comparison between data and the ``scaling'' function with $\nu$ set equal to 1/3.\\
256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
257: %\begin{minipage}{.45\textwidth}
258: \begin{figure}[tb]
259: \centering
260: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{scaling_zoom.eps}
261: %\centering
262: \caption[]{Comparison between the scaling function $[(\beta_1-\beta_t)/(\beta-\beta_t)]^{1/3}$
263: and the mass ratio $m_{0^+}(\beta_1)/m_{0^+}(\beta)$ for varying $\beta$, with $\beta_1$=5.72.}
264: \label{scaling}
265: \end{figure}
266: %\end{minipage}
267: %\begin{minipage}[b]{.45\textwidth}
268: %\begin{table}[tb]
269: %\centering
270: %\caption{Summary of the fits of the mass ratios ${\hat m_{0^+}(\beta_1)}/{\hat m_{0^+}(\beta)}$
271: %with the function $((\beta_1-\beta_t)/(\beta-\beta_t))^\nu$. The second column
272: %contains the largest window of $\beta$ values for which the fit has a $\chi^2$/d.o.f. lower
273: %than 1.}
274: %\begin{tabular}{|l|c|l|l|}
275: %\hline
276: %$\beta_1$ & window of $\beta$ values & $\nu$ & $\chi^2$/d.o.f. \\
277: %\hline
278: %5.75 & 5.70 - 5.78 & 0.3619(90) & 0.90 \\
279: %5.74 & 5.70 - 5.78 & 0.365(11) & 0.92 \\
280: %5.73 & 5.695 - 5.85 & 0.329(12) & 0.77 \\
281: %5.72 & 5.695 - 5.78 & 0.354(12) & 0.73 \\
282: %5.717 & 5.715 - 5.81 & 0.3228(94) & 0.69 \\
283: %5.715 & 5.695 - 5.78 & 0.358(10) & 0.86 \\
284: %5.71 & 5.72 - 5.78 & 0.3951(76) & 0.33 \\
285: %5.705 & 5.705 - 5.78 & 0.448(22) & 0.89 \\
286: %5.70 & 5.695 - 5.90 & 0.3141(58) & 0.94 \\
287: %5.695 & 5.695 - 5.90 & 0.3095(67) & 0.41 \\
288: %\hline
289: %\end{tabular}
290: %\label{scaling_fits}
291: %\end{table}
292: %\end{minipage}
293: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
294:
295: Then, we have considered the $\beta$-dependence of the ratio $m_{2^+}/m_{0^+}$, shown in
296: Fig.~\ref{ratio_20}. We have found that this ratio can be interpolated with a constant
297: in the interval from $\beta_t$ to $\beta=5.77$. This constant turned out to be
298: 3.172(65), with a $\chi^2$/d.o.f equal to 1.085. In the fit we excluded the point at
299: $\beta$=5.695, for which the determination of $m_{2^+}$ is probably to be rejected.
300: If the point at $\beta$=5.695 is included, the constant becomes 3.214(64) with $\chi^2$/d.o.f
301: =2.21.
302: The fact that the ratio $m_{2^+}/m_{0^+}$ is compatible with a constant in the mentioned interval
303: suggests that $\hat m_{2^+}$ scales similarly to $\hat m_{0^+}$ near the transition. This constant
304: turns out to be larger than the ratio between the lowest massive excitations in the
305: same channels in the broken phase of the 3$d$ 3-state Potts model, which was determined
306: in Ref.~\cite{FFGP06} to be 2.43(10).
307:
308: We have calculated the ratio $m_I/m_R$ for $\beta$ ranging from 5.695 up to 9.0. We observe from
309: the right panel of Fig.~\ref{ratio_20} that this ratio is compatible with 3/2 at the largest
310: $\beta$ values considered,
311: in agreement with the high-temperature perturbation theory. Then, when the temperature is lowered
312: towards the transition, this ratio goes up to a value compatible with 3, in agreement with the
313: Polyakov loop model of Ref.~\cite{Pisarski0110214}, which contains only quadratic, cubic and
314: quartic powers of the Polyakov loop, i.e. the minimum number of terms required in order to be
315: compatible with a first order phase transition. The same trend has been observed also in
316: Ref.~\cite{Datta:2002je}.
317:
318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
319: \begin{figure}[tb]
320: \centering
321: \bigskip
322: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{ratio_20_new.eps}\quad
323: \includegraphics[scale=0.30]{ratio_ri.eps}
324: \caption[]{(Left) Ratio $m_{2^+}/m_{0^+}$ as a function of $\beta$ in the deconfined phase.
325: The three upper horizontal lines represent the constant (with its error) which fits the data (see
326: the text for details); the three lower horizontal lines represent the corresponding mass ratio
327: (with its error) found in the 3$d$ 3-state Potts model~\cite{FFGP06}.
328: (Right) Ratio $m_I/m_R$ as a function of $\beta$ in the deconfined phase. The vertical
329: line corresponds to the critical $\beta$ value.}
330: \label{ratio_20}
331: \end{figure}
332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
333:
334: \section{Conclusions and outlook}
335: In this work we have studied in the (3+1)$d$ SU(3) pure gauge theory above the deconfinement
336: transition the lowest masses in the 0$^+$ and the 2$^+$ channels of angular momentum and parity
337: and the screening masses resulting from the correlation between the real parts and between the
338: imaginary parts of the Polyakov loop.
339: The behavior of the ratio between the masses in the 0$^+$ and the 2$^+$ channels with the
340: temperature suggests that they have a common scaling above the transition temperature.
341: This ratio turns to be $\simeq$30\% larger than the ratio of the lowest massive excitations in
342: the same channels of the 3$d$ 3-state Potts model in the broken phase. This can be taken
343: as an estimate of the level of approximation by which the Svetitsky-Yaffe conjecture, valid in
344: strict sense only for continuous phase transitions, can play some role also for (3+1)$d$ SU(3)
345: at finite temperature.
346:
347: The dependence on the temperature of the ratio between the screening masses from the
348: correlation between the real parts and between the imaginary parts of the Polyakov loop
349: shows a nice interplay between the high-temperature regime, where perturbation theory should
350: work, and the transition regime, where mean-field effective Polyakov loop models could
351: apply.
352:
353: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
354:
355: %\cite{Falcone-Fiore-Gravina-Papa}
356: \bibitem{FFGP06}
357: R.~Falcone, R.~Fiore, M.~Gravina and A.~Papa,
358: %\emph{The Spectrum of massive excitations of 3$d$ 3-state Potts model and Universality.}
359: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \ {\bf 767} (2007) 385 [{\tt hep-lat/0612016}].
360: %arXiv: HEP-LAT 0612016
361:
362: %\cite{Svetitsky:1982gs}
363: \bibitem{Svetitsky:1982gs}
364: B.~Svetitsky and L.G.~Yaffe,
365: %``\emph{Critical Behavior At Finite Temperature Confinement Transitions.}''
366: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 210} (1982) 423.
367: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B210,423;%%
368:
369: %\cite{Caselle:1999tm}
370: \bibitem{Caselle:1999tm}
371: M.~Caselle, M.~Hasenbusch and P.~Provero,
372: %``\emph{Non-perturbative states in the 3D phi**4 theory.}''
373: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 556} (1999) 575 [{\tt hep-lat/9903011}].
374: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9903011;%%
375:
376: %\cite{Caselle:2001im}
377: \bibitem{Caselle:2001im}
378: M.~Caselle, M.~Hasenbusch, P.~Provero and K.~Zarembo,
379: %``\emph{Bound states and glueballs in three-dimensional Ising systems.}''
380: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 623} (2002) 474 [{\tt hep-th/0103130}].
381: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0103130;%%
382:
383: %\cite{Fiore:2002fj}
384: \bibitem{Fiore:2002fj}
385: R.~Fiore, A.~Papa and P.~Provero,
386: %``\emph{Spectrum of screening masses in the (3+1)D SU(2) pure gauge theory near
387: %the critical temperature.}''
388: Nucl.\ Phys.\ (Proc.\ Suppl.)\ {\bf 119} (2003) 490 [{\tt hep-lat/0208020}].
389: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0208020;%%
390:
391: %\cite{Fiore-Papa-Provero-2003}
392: \bibitem{Fiore-Papa-Provero-2003}
393: R.~Fiore, A.~Papa and P.~Provero,
394: %\emph{Spectrum of screening masses near T_c: Predictions from universality.}
395: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 114508 [{\tt hep-lat/0208020}].
396: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0208020;%%
397:
398: %\cite{Pisarski0101168}
399: \bibitem{Pisarski0101168}
400: R.D.~Pisarski,
401: %\emph{Why the Quark Gluon Plasma isn't a Plasma?}
402: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 111501 [{\tt hep-ph/0101168}].
403: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101168;%%
404:
405: %\cite{Kronfeld}
406: \bibitem{Kronfeld}
407: A.S.~Kronfeld,
408: %\emph{Improved methods for computing masses from numerical simulations.}
409: Nucl.\ Phys.\ (Proc.\ Suppl.)\ {\bf 17} (1990) 313.
410:
411: %\cite{Luscher-Wolff}
412: \bibitem{Luscher-Wolff}
413: M.~L\"uscher and U.~Wolff,
414: %\emph{How to calculate the elastic scattering matrix in two dimensional quantum field theories
415: %by numerical simulations.}
416: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 339} (1990) 222.
417:
418: %\cite{Falcone-Fiore-Gravina-Papa}
419: \bibitem{FFGP07}
420: R.~Falcone, R.~Fiore, M.~Gravina and A.~Papa,
421: %\emph{Screening masses in the SU(3) pure gauge theory and universality.}
422: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B. {\bf 785} (2007) 19 [{\tt arXiv:0704.3882 [hep-lat]}].
423:
424: %\cite{Caselle1997}
425: \bibitem{Caselle1997}
426: V.~Agostini, G.~Carlino, M.~Caselle and M.~Hasenbusch,
427: %\emph{Bound states and glueballs in three-dimensional Ising systems.}
428: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 484} (1997) 331 [{\tt hep-lat/9607029}].
429: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9607029 ;%%
430:
431: %\cite{Nadkarni:1986cz}
432: \bibitem{Nadkarni:1986cz}
433: S.~Nadkarni,
434: %\emph{Nonabelian Debye Screening. 1. The Color Averaged Potential.}
435: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 33} (1986) 3738.
436: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D33,3738;%%
437:
438: %\cite{Dumitru:2002cf}
439: \bibitem{Dumitru:2002cf}
440: A.~Dumitru and R.D.~Pisarski,
441: %\emph{Two-point functions for SU(3) Polyakov loops near T(c).}
442: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 096003 [{\tt hep-ph/0204223}].
443: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,096003;%%
444:
445: %\cite{Pisarski0110214}
446: \bibitem{Pisarski0110214}
447: A.~Dumitru and R.D.~Pisarski,
448: %\emph{Test of the Polyakov Loop Model.}
449: Nucl.\ Phys. (Proc. \ Suppl.) {\bf 106} (2002) 483 [{\tt hep-ph/0110214}].
450:
451: %\cite{Cabibbo-Marinari}
452: \bibitem{Cabibbo-Marinari}
453: N.~Cabibbo and E.~Marinari,
454: %\emph{A new method for updating SU(N) matrices in computer simulations of gauge theories.}
455: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 119} (1982) 387.
456: %arXiv:
457:
458: %\cite{Adler}
459: \bibitem{Adler}
460: S.L.~Adler,
461: %\emph{Over-relaxation method for the Monte Carlo evaluation of the partition function for
462: %multiquadratic actions.}
463: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23} (1981) 2901.
464: %arXiv:
465:
466: %\cite{Boyd:1996bx}
467: \bibitem{Boyd:1996bx}
468: G.~Boyd, J.~Engels, F.~Karsch, E.~Laermann, C.~Legeland, M.~Lutgemeier and B.~Petersson,
469: %\emph{Thermodynamics of SU(3) Lattice Gauge Theory.}
470: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 469} (1996) 419 [{\tt hep-lat/9602007}].
471: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B469,419;%%
472:
473: %\cite{Gavai-Karsch-Petersson}
474: \bibitem{Gavai-Karsch-Petersson}
475: R.V.~Gavai, F.~Karsch and B.~Petersson,
476: %\emph{A study of the correlation length near a first order transition:
477: %the 3-d three-state Potts model.}
478: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 322} (1989) 738 [{\tt cern-th-5221/88}].
479: %arXiv:CERN-TH-5221/88;%%
480:
481: %\cite{Datta:2002je}
482: \bibitem{Datta:2002je}
483: S.~Datta and S.~Gupta,
484: %\emph{Does the QCD plasma contain propagating gluons?}
485: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 054503 [{\tt hep-lat/0208001}].
486: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D67,054503;%%
487:
488: %\cite{Fisher-Berker}
489: \bibitem{Fisher-Berker}
490: M.E.~Fisher and A.N.~Berker,
491: %\emph{Scaling for first/order phase transition in thermodynamic and finite systems.}
492: Phys.\ Rev.\ B {\bf 26} (1982) 2507.
493: %arXiv:
494:
495: \end{thebibliography}
496:
497: \end{document}
498: