- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Information theoretical view of QCD effective model with heavy quarks

Kouji Kashiwa1,* and Hiroaki Kouno2,†

  • 1Fukuoka Institute of Technology, Wajiro, Fukuoka 811-0295, Japan
  • 2Department of Physics, Saga University, Saga 840-8502, Japan

  • *kashiwa@fit.ac.jp
  • †kounoh@cc.saga-u.ac.jp
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 103, 014014 – Published 12 January, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014014

Abstract

To understand the phase transition phenomena, information theoretical approaches can pick up some important properties of the phenomena based on the probability distribution. In this paper, we show information theoretical aspects of the three-dimensional three-state Potts model with the external field which is corresponded to the QCD effective model with heavy quarks. The transfer mutual information which represents the information flow of two spin variables is numerically estimated based on the Markov-chain Monte Carlo method. The transfer mutual information has the peak near the confinement-deconfinement transition, and it may be used to detect the precursors of the transition. Since the transfer mutual information still has the peak even if the Polyakov-loop changes continuously and smoothly, we may pick up some aspects of the confinement-deconfinement nature from the information flow properties. Particularly, the transfer mutual information shows the significantly different behavior below and above the Roberge-Weiss endpoint existed in the pure imaginary chemical potential region, which may indicate the system change by the confinement-deconfinement transition.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (60)

  1. M. Sato, Phys. Rev. D 77, 045013 (2008).
  2. X. G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 04, 239 (1990).
  3. K. Kashiwa and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Lett. B 750, 282 (2015).
  4. K. Kashiwa and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. D 93, 116002 (2016).
  5. K. Kashiwa and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Lett. B 772, 669 (2017).
  6. N. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 35, 2495 (1987).
  7. K. Kashiwa, Symmetry 11, 562 (2019).
  8. P. Castorina, D. Lanteri, and S. Mancani, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 43 (2020).
  9. B. Zhang, S.-S. Wan, and M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D 101, 016014 (2020).
  10. S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, Ann. Math. Stat. 22, 79 (1951).
  11. K. Kashiwa and A. Ohnishi, arXiv:1712.06220.
  12. K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B 591, 277 (2004).
  13. L. Barnett, J. T. Lizier, M. Harré, A. K. Seth, and T. Bossomaier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 177203 (2013).
  14. C. Gattringer, Phys. Lett. B 690, 179 (2010).
  15. S. Borsanyi, J. Danzer, Z. Fodor, C. Gattringer, and A. Schmidt, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 312, 012005 (2011).
  16. G. Endrodi, C. Gattringer, and H.-P. Schadler, Phys. Rev. D 89, 054509 (2014).
  17. T. Hirakida, K. Kashiwa, J. Sugano, J. Takahashi, H. Kouno, and M. Yahiro, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2050049 (2020).
  18. M. Harré and T. Bossomaier, Europhys. Lett. 87, 18009 (2009).
  19. Z. Deng, J. Wu, and W. Guo, Phys. Rev. E 90, 063308 (2014).
  20. G. Carbone and I. Giannoccaro, Eur. Phys. J. B 88, 339 (2015).
  21. H. W. Lau and P. Grassberger, Phys. Rev. E 87, 022128 (2013).
  22. H. Edelsbrunner, D. Letscher, and A. Zomorodian, in Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, New York, 2000), pp. 454–463, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/892133.
  23. A. Zomorodian and G. Carlsson, Discrete Comput. Geom. 33, 249 (2005).
  24. T. Nakamura, Y. Hiraoka, A. Hirata, E. G. Escolar, and Y. Nishiura, Nanotechnology 26, 304001 (2015).
  25. K. Fukushima, T. Kojo, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D 102, 096017 (2020).
  26. B. Olsthoorn, J. Hellsvik, and A. V. Balatsky, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043308 (2020).
  27. F.-Y. Wu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54, 235 (1982).
  28. M. G. Alford, S. Chandrasekharan, J. Cox, and U. J. Wiese, Nucl. Phys. B602, 61 (2001).
  29. S. Kim, P. de Forcrand, S. Kratochvila, and T. Takaishi, Proc. Sci. LAT2005 (2006) 166 [arXiv:hep-lat/0510069], https://pos.sissa.it/020/.
  30. P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 152001 (2010).
  31. M. Fukugita and M. Okawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 13 (1989).
  32. Y. Delgado Mercado, H. G. Evertz, and C. Gattringer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1920 (2012).
  33. F. Karsch and S. Stickan, Phys. Lett. B 488, 319 (2000).
  34. F. Karsch, C. Schmidt, and S. Stickan, Comput. Phys. Commun. 147, 451 (2002).
  35. C. Bonati and M. D’Elia, Phys. Rev. D 82, 114515 (2010).
  36. C. Gattringer, D. Göschl, and P. Törek, Nucl. Phys. B956, 115008 (2020).
  37. A. Alexandru, G. Bergner, D. Schaich, and U. Wenger, Phys. Rev. D 97, 114503 (2018).
  38. A. Hasenfratz and D. Toussaint, Nucl. Phys. B371, 539 (1992).
  39. F. Wang and D. Landau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2050 (2001).
  40. A. Bazavov and B. A. Berg, Phys. Rev. D 75, 094506 (2007).
  41. N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953).
  42. T. Schreiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 461 (2000).
  43. A. Nakamura and K. Nagata, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2016, 033D01 (2016).
  44. R. Fukuda, A. Nakamura, and S. Oka, Phys. Rev. D 93, 094508 (2016).
  45. J. Lin, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 37, 145 (1991).
  46. T. Hirakida, H. Kouno, J. Takahashi, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. D 94, 014011 (2016).
  47. P. de Forcrand, Proc. Sci. LAT2009 (2009) 010 [arXiv:1005.0539].
  48. M. Matsumoto and T. Nishimura, ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 8, 3 (1998).
  49. J. Engels, S. Mashkevich, T. Scheideler, and G. Zinovev, Phys. Lett. B 365, 219 (1996).
  50. Z. Fodor and S. Katz, Phys. Lett. B 534, 87 (2002).
  51. Z. Fodor, S. Katz, and K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B 568, 73 (2003).
  52. Z. Fodor and S. Katz, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2002) 014.
  53. Z. Fodor and S. Katz, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2004) 050.
  54. P. de Forcrand and T. Rindlisbacher, EPJ Web Conf. 175, 07026 (2018).
  55. A. Roberge and N. Weiss, Nucl. Phys. B275, 734 (1986).
  56. M. D’Elia and M.-P. Lombardo, Phys. Rev. D 67, 014505 (2003).
  57. P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B642, 290 (2002).
  58. P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B673, 170 (2003).
  59. M. D’Elia and M.-P. Lombardo, Phys. Rev. D 70, 074509 (2004).
  60. L. D. McLerran and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D 24, 450 (1981).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 103, 014014– Published 12 January, 2021
  • Received 2 October 2020
  • Accepted 9 December 2020
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation