Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Viscous coefficients and thermal conductivity of a $\pi K N$ gas mixture in the medium

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Dressing resonance propagators in a hot medium raises hadron-gas viscosities.

desk verdict Competent, approximate calculation of in-medium transport coefficients for a πKN gas; the main qualitative claim is plausible, but the total- vs transport-cross-section issue leaves the size of the medium effect uncertain. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02933 v3 pith:IJOUVCCG submitted 2019-08-08 nucl-th hep-ph

Pallavi Kalikotay , Nilanjan Chaudhuri , Snigdha Ghosh , Utsab Gangopadhyaya , Sourav Sarkar This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph PACS 25.75.-q51.20.+d
keywords shearviscositybulkthermalconductivityrelaxationtimeapproximationin-mediumcrosssectionsfieldtheoryhadrongasheavyioncollisions
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 asks whether a hot, dense gas of pions, kaons, and nucleons dissipates momentum and heat differently when the scattering cross sections feeding the collision term are computed inside the medium rather than in vacuum. The authors show that dressing the exchanged ρ, σ, K*, and Δ excitations with one-loop thermal self-energies suppresses the in-medium ππ, πK, and πN cross sections by roughly 50–70% at T = 160 MeV. Through the relaxation time approximation, that suppression lengthens collision times and raises the shear viscosity η, bulk viscosity ζ, and scaled thermal conductivity λ/T² relative to vacuum-cross-section results. The specific shear viscosity η/s stays within the KSS bound and matches existing hadronic-cascade estimates, so the medium correction is quantitative rather than a qualitative change of behavior.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the complete s-channel propagator, D = D0 + D0 Π D, formed by summing one-loop thermal self-energies Πρ, Πσ, ΠΔ, and ΠK* into the exchanged ρ, σ, Δ, and K* lines of ππ, πN, and πK scattering. The real parts of Π shift the resonance poles slightly; the imaginary parts, built from decay and Landau-damping processes in the real-time formalism, broaden the widths and suppress the peak cross sections. That suppression enters the Boltzmann collision term through the relaxation time τ_k (Eq. (28)), whose inverse is the density-weighted average of σ v_rel with Bose enhancement and Pauli blocking factors; the transport coefficients then follow from first-order Chapman-Enskog expressions (33)–(35). The machinery works because the cross sections are fixed to vacuum data first, so the medium effect is isolated.

What would settle it

Measure the elastic ππ, πN, and πK cross sections in a hot, dense hadronic environment—for instance, by extracting pion and nucleon yields and correlations from central heavy-ion collisions at chemical freeze-out, or by computing the same amplitudes with the t/u channels also thermally dressed—and check whether the resonance peaks are suppressed by 50–70% at T ≈ 160 MeV and µN ≈ 200 MeV. If the suppression is substantially smaller or larger, the transport-coefficient shifts predicted here scale accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the transport coefficients of a πKN hadron gas are observably medium-modified because the resonance widths that dominate pion interactions broaden in the thermal bath. Replacing the vacuum s-channel propagators of ρ, σ, K*, and Δ with complete Dyson-Schwinger propagators carrying one-loop thermal self-energies turns the elastic cross sections into in-medium quantities: at T = 160 MeV with µN = 200 MeV the resonance-peak cross sections drop by 50–70%, and the small real-part shifts move the peaks slightly. Since the relaxation time in the relaxation time approximation is inversely proportional to density times cross section, the suppression feeds directly into Eqs. (33)–(35): η, ζ, and λ/T² all increase relative to vacuum-based calculations over T = 100–160 MeV, with the increase growing with chemical potential. The ratios η/s and ζ/s change much less because the interacting entropy density computed from the same resonance channels rises with the medium, and η/s for vanishing chemical potentials agrees with existing estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the only important medium modification of the cross sections is the dressing of the s-channel resonance propagators, with all t/u-channel exchanges, vertices, and form factors left at their vacuum values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heavy-ion fireball simulations that use vacuum cross sections underestimate η, ζ, and λ/T² in the hadronic phase, and the correction grows as the chemical potential increases.
  • Including kaons and nucleons alongside pions shortens relaxation times at fixed T, so multicomponent mixtures are less viscous than a pure pion gas; the medium still raises each coefficient relative to vacuum.
  • The η/s ratio for vanishing chemical potentials stays near existing cascade estimates and above the KSS bound, so the in-medium suppression does not push the hadron gas toward the perfect-fluid limit.
  • The finite baryon-density results (µN up to 200 MeV) give concrete predictions for the dense hadronic matter probed at future heavy-ion facilities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the t- and u-channel exchanges or vertex form factors also acquire medium dressing, the 50–70% suppression could change in either direction; a natural next step is to compare the in-medium σππ against pion-nucleus data or lattice-inspired in-medium widths.
  • The relaxation time approximation uses total cross sections rather than transport-weighted (1−cos²θ) cross sections, so redoing the same calculation in Chapman-Enskog with transport cross sections would test how much of the viscosity shift is due to the in-medium input rather than the collision-integral approximation.
  • The same dressed propagators could feed a Kubo-formula calculation, where thermal widths enter spectral functions directly; agreement or disagreement with the present relaxation-time results would isolate the approximation of the collision term.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes shear viscosity, bulk viscosity, and thermal conductivity for a hot, dense gas mixture of pions, kaons, and nucleons using the Boltzmann equation linearized à la Chapman-Enskog, with the collision integral handled in the relaxation time approximation (RTA). The dynamical input is the set of ππ, πK, and πN elastic cross sections, obtained in vacuum and in medium, where the in-medium version is generated by replacing the s-channel resonance propagators (ρ, σ, Δ, K*) with propagators dressed by one-loop thermal self-energies imported from earlier work. The central claim is that the in-medium suppression of these cross sections enhances the relaxation times by about 10–15%, leading to visible modifications of η, ζ, and λ/T² relative to vacuum-based calculations, while the specific shear viscosity η/s remains consistent with earlier estimates.

Significance. If the central claim is quantitatively robust, the paper would provide a useful estimate of how in-medium hadronic cross sections feed into dissipative transport coefficients in the hadronic phase, a relevant input for the hydrodynamics of heavy-ion collisions at moderate temperatures. The calculation is not circular: the vacuum cross sections are fitted to experimental data, the model parameters are not tuned to the transport outputs, and the transport coefficients follow from a standard kinetic-theory framework. The authors also compare their η/s with cascade results from UrQMD, SMASH, and B3D. The main weakness is that the claimed medium effect (10–15%) is comparable in size to the acknowledged uncertainty of the RTA method itself, and the paper's own cited CE/RTA check is performed only in vacuum. The significance is therefore moderate rather than high.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (28) and the discussion following Eq. (35)] The central quantitative claim is that in-medium cross-section suppression enhances the relaxation times by 10–15% and thereby observably modifies η, ζ, and λ/T². The relaxation times, however, are built from the total cross section σ_kl, whereas the first-order Chapman-Enskog collision integral should be weighted by the transport cross section, as the authors acknowledge. Their cited CE/RTA check from Refs. [54,55] concerns a pure pion gas with vacuum cross sections, giving a ratio of about 1.18 at T=100 MeV and about 1.1 at 160 MeV. That check does not control the comparison at issue: vacuum versus medium transport. The in-medium dressing broadens and suppresses the resonance peak (Fig. 1), which changes the angular distribution of the cross section, so the CE/RTA ratio for the medium could differ from the vacuum ratio by an amount comparable to the claimed 10–15% medium effect. Please provide an estimate of the CE/RTA ratio using the in-medium cross sections, for example by computing the first-order CE shear viscosity with the angular weight (1−cos²θ) for both vacuum and medium inputs, or otherwise show that the relative medium effect is stable under this change.
  2. [Sections III and V, Eqs. (37)–(48), Fig. 1] The system is a three-component mixture of pions, kaons, and nucleons, and the relaxation time in Eq. (28) sums over all species l. The paper presents cross sections only for ππ, πK, and πN scattering (Fig. 1), plus an unplotted KK amplitude in Eqs. (47)–(48); no KN or NN cross sections appear anywhere. As a result, the kaon and nucleon relaxation times in Fig. 3, and therefore the mixture values of η, ζ, and λ in Figs. 4–5, are computed from an incomplete collision sum. This is load-bearing for the mixture results. The authors should either include the missing binary channels with their appropriate cross sections, or state explicitly that those channels are neglected and quantify their expected contribution to the relaxation times and transport coefficients.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (37)–(46), and Section IV] The in-medium cross-section model is restricted to dressing the s-channel resonance propagators (ρ, σ, Δ, K*) with one-loop thermal self-energies, while all t- and u-channel exchanges retain their vacuum form, and the detailed self-energies are imported from Refs. [57,60] rather than derived here. The predicted 50–70% suppression of the cross sections (Sec. V) is the entire source of the claimed transport modification, so the sensitivity of this result to the omitted t/u and vertex contributions should be quantified. A concrete test would be to apply the same thermal self-energy to one representative t- or u-channel amplitude, or to compare with an alternative in-medium model for a single channel such as ππ, and show that the sign and approximate magnitude of the medium effect survive.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (28)] Equation (28) displays d³p_k as the integration variable in the expression for [τ_k]^{-1}; from the preceding derivation this should be d³p_l, since one integrates over the momentum of the collision partner. Please correct this typo.
  2. [Fig. 8 and Sec. V] The text refers to 'Figs. 8(d)-(f)' for η/s and later also for ζ/s, but the figure caption assigns the three sets to panels (a)-(c) and (d)-(f) for the two ratios. The panel numbering and the cross-references in the text should be reconciled.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. V] The abstract describes 'notable deviations' in η, ζ, and λ, while Sec. V reports a 10–15% change in the relaxation times. Please state the numerical range of the medium-induced changes in the transport coefficients themselves, so that the reader can judge what is meant by 'observable modification.'
  4. [Throughout] The source text contains numerous LaTeX artifact symbols, such as '∝vecp', '∝vecρ', 'csh', and '/summationdisplay'. These will need to be typeset correctly in the published version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: transport coefficients are computed from independently normalized in-medium cross sections; no target quantity enters as an input.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. The coupling constants and cutoff parameters (g_pi_pi_rho, g_sigma_pi_pi, f_pi_N_Delta, g_pi_K_Kstar, Lambda_pi_N, Lambda_pi_K) are fixed by experimental decay widths and by fitting the vacuum cross sections to experimental data, as stated in Section III and shown in Figure 1; no transport coefficient is used in this calibration. The in-medium modifications enter only through the one-loop self-energies Pi_rho, Pi_sigma, Pi_Delta, and Pi_Kstar, whose general real-time-formalism expressions are stated in Section IV, with the detailed N functions taken from Refs. [57,60]. Those papers are by overlapping authors, but they present parameter-free thermal-field-theory calculations of hadronic self-energies that are externally checked against the vacuum cross-section fits; they do not assume or contain the eta, zeta, or lambda values reported here. Equations (28), (33), (34), and (35) then compute relaxation times and transport coefficients as integrals over these cross sections, so the medium enhancement of tau and hence of eta, zeta, and lambda/T^2 is a consequence of the computed cross-section suppression rather than a fitted target. The acknowledged RTA use of the total rather than transport-weighted cross section in Section II is a quantitative limitation and a correctness risk, not a circularity, because no part of the claimed medium effect is built into the input cross sections by construction. No step reduces to its own input, and no self-citation is invoked to forbid alternatives or to define the target result.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces two cutoff parameters by hand, relies on the Boltzmann/RTA kinetic theory, and imports one-loop self-energy expressions from prior work by the same group. The entropy density is approximated by a free gas plus second virial coefficient from the selected resonance channels. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • ΛπN = 600 MeV
    Cutoff in the hadronic form factor at the πNΔ vertex, chosen by hand in Section III; it affects the πN cross-section and hence the transport coefficients.
  • ΛπK = 350 MeV
    Cutoff in the hadronic form factor at the πKK* vertex, chosen by hand in Section III; affects the πK cross-section and transport coefficients.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The hadron gas is described by the relativistic Boltzmann equation with binary collisions only.
    Used throughout Section II; ignores three-body collisions and off-shell effects.
  • domain assumption The collision integral can be treated in the relaxation time approximation, where only the test particle is out of equilibrium and the relaxation time is the same for all tensor ranks.
    Stated in Section II around Eq. (25); the paper acknowledges the limitation (no transport cross-section weighting).
  • ad hoc to paper In-medium cross sections are obtained by dressing only the s-channel propagators of the resonances (ρ, σ, Δ, K*) with one-loop self-energies, leaving t/u channels vacuum-like.
    Described in Section III, Eqs. (37)-(46); this is a modeling choice specific to this paper.
  • domain assumption The self-energy expressions N^ρ_ij, N^σ_ij, and N^Δ_ij from Refs. [57,60] are correct and complete.
    The paper defers the detailed one-loop self-energy formulas to prior work, Section IV; the results rest on those.
  • domain assumption The entropy density of the interacting gas is well approximated by the free gas value plus the second virial coefficient from the considered resonance channels only.
    Section V, Eq. (57); neglects higher virials and non-resonant channels.
  • domain assumption The analytic integration over final momenta uses f^{(0)}_{p'} ≈ f^{(0)}_p and f^{(0)}_{k'} ≈ f^{(0)}_k.
    Section II, after Eq. (27); standard approximation in RTA.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Viscous coefficients and thermal conductivity of a $\pi K N$ gas mixture in the medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJOUVCCG

@misc{pith2026190802933,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Viscous coefficients and thermal conductivity of a $\pi K N$ gas mixture in the medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJOUVCCG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02933}
}
abstract

The temperature and density dependence of the relaxation times, thermal conductivity, shear viscosity and bulk viscosity for a hot and dense gas consisting of pions, kaons and nucleons have been evaluated in the kinetic theory approach. The in-medium cross-sections for $\pi\pi$, $\pi K$ and $\pi N$ scatterings were obtained by using complete propagators for the exchanged $\rho$, $\sigma$, $K^*$ and $\Delta$ excitations derived using thermal field theoretic techniques. Notable deviations can be observed in the temperature dependence of $\eta$, $\zeta$ and $\lambda$ when compared with corresponding calculations using vacuum cross-sections usually employed in the literature. The value of the specific shear viscosity $\eta/s$ is found to be in agreement with available estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02933 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The (a)ππ → ππ, (b)πN → πN and (c) πK → πK elastic scattering cross section as a function of centre of mass energy compared among experiment, vacuum and medium corresponds to T = 160 MeV, µπ = µK = 0 and µN = 200 MeV. Experimental data have been taken from Ref. [17] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean relaxation time of pions for three different sy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Momentum averaged relaxation time of pions, nucle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: λ/T 2 as a function of temperature for (a) Set-1, (b) Set-2 and (c) Set-3 of chemical potentials of individual components. Having been studied the behaviour of the relaxation times of different species, we now turn our attention to the transport coefficients. The tempe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Shear viscosity(η) and bulk viscosity (ζ) as a function of temperature (T) for a pion-kaon-nucleon hadronic gas mixture for (a) Set-1, (b) Set-2 and (c) Set-3 of chemical potentials of individual components with and without including medium effects. density of a non-in…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phase shifts in different resonance channels as a fu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Entropy density scaled by the cube of temperature ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Specific shear viscosity (η/s) and specific bulk viscosity (ζ/s) as a function of temperature (T) for a pion-kaon-nucleon hadronic gas mixture for (a) Set-1, (b) Set-2 and (c) Set-3 of chemical potentials of individual components with and without including medium effec…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Shear viscosity to entropy density ratio ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Bulk viscosity to entropy density ratio ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Thermal conductivity scaled with inverse of temp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The result obtained in this paper compared to vari [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. From Non-interacting to Interacting Picture of Quark Gluon Plasma in presence of magnetic field and its fluid property

    hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A parametrized quasiparticle model fitted to finite-magnetic-field lattice QCD thermodynamics predicts that magnetic fields and QCD interactions suppress the shear viscosity and electrical conductivity of the quark-gl...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), (2019), arXiv:1906.02740 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    (4), the expression for φk which is related to δ fk by Eq

    and ¯I µ q as expressed in Eq. (4), the expression for φk which is related to δ fk by Eq. ( 7) is written as a linear combination of thermodynamic forces of different tensorial ranks multiplied by suitable coefficients [ 53]. Thus for the case of thermal conductivity, shear and bulk v iscosity φk is chosen to be φk = Ak(∂ · u) − Bν kq ∆µν ( ∇µT T ) − Cµν k ⟨...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Sarkar, H

    S. Sarkar, H. Satz, and B. Sinha, Lect. Notes Phys. 785, pp.1 (2010) . 21

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Aamodt et al

    K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252302 (2010) , arXiv:1011.3914 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Luzum and P

    M. Luzum and P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. C 78, 034915 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    L. P. Csernai, J. I. Kapusta, and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 152303 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    ( 4), (13) and ( 14) and hence making the comparison of the coefficients with Eq

    and ( 11) in Eqs. ( 4), (13) and ( 14) and hence making the comparison of the coefficients with Eq. ( 2) the expressions for thermal condcutivity λ, shear viscosity η and bulk viscosity ζ is obtained as: λ = − N/summationdisplay.1 k=1 1 3T gk /uniB.dspd3pk (2π)3Ek (pν kuν − hk) f (0) k (1 ± f (0) k ) ∆α σ pσ k Bkq α , (15) η = − N/summationdisplay.1 k=1 ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Dobado, F

    A. Dobado, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, and J. M. Torres-Rincon , Phys. Rev. D 80, 114015 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Ozvenchuk, O

    V . Ozvenchuk, O. Linnyk, M. I. Gorenstein, E. L. Bratkovs kaya, and W. Cassing, Phys. Rev. C 87, 064903 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Sasaki and K

    C. Sasaki and K. Redlich, Nucl. Phys. A832, 62 (2010) , arXiv:0811.4708 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    P. K. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 111601 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Kharzeev and K

    D. Kharzeev and K. Tuchin, JHEP 09, 093 (2008) , arXiv:0705.4280 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chen and J

    J.-W. Chen and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 79, 044913 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Fernández-Fraile and A

    D. Fernández-Fraile and A. G. Nicola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 121601 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Ullrich, B

    T. Ullrich, B. Wyslouch, and J. W. Harris, Nucl. Phys. A904-905, pp. 1c (2013)

    2013

  8. [17]

    D. N. Zubarev, Nonequilibrium Statistical Thermodynamics, Studies in Soviet science (Consultants Bureau, 1974)

    1974

  9. [18]

    Gavin, Nucl

    S. Gavin, Nucl. Phys. A435, 826 (1985)

    1985

  10. [19]

    Prakash, M

    M. Prakash, M. Prakash, R. Venugopalan, and G. Welke, Phys. Rept. 227, 321 (1993)

    1993

  11. [20]

    Davesne, Phys

    D. Davesne, Phys. Rev. C 53, 3069 (1996)

    1996

  12. [21]

    Dobado and S

    A. Dobado and S. N. Santalla, Phys. Rev. D 65, 096011 (2002)

    2002

  13. [22]

    Dobado and F

    A. Dobado and F. J. Llanes-Estrada, Phys. Rev. D 69, 116004 (2004)

    2004

  14. [23]

    Chen, Y .-H

    J.-W. Chen, Y .-H. Li, Y .-F. Liu, and E. Nakano, Phys. Rev. D 76, 114011 (2007)

    2007

  15. [24]

    Itakura, O

    K. Itakura, O. Morimatsu, and H. Otomo, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014014 (2008)

    2008

  16. [25]

    Fernandez-Fraile and A

    D. Fernandez-Fraile and A. Gomez Nicola, Proceedings, Workshop for Young Scientists on the Physics of Ultrarelativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (Hot Quarks 2008): Estes Park, USA, August 18-23 , 2008, Eur. Phys. J. C62, 37 (2009) , arXiv:0902.4829 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Noronha-Hostler, J

    J. Noronha-Hostler, J. Noronha, and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 172302 (2009)

    2009

  18. [27]

    Demir and S

    N. Demir and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 172302 (2009)

    2009

  19. [28]

    Sasaki and K

    C. Sasaki and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C 79, 055207 (2009)

    2009

  20. [29]

    Dobado and J

    A. Dobado and J. M. Torres-Rincon, Phys. Rev. D 86, 074021 (2012)

    2012

  21. [30]

    Dobado, F

    A. Dobado, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, and J. M. Torres Rincon , in Quarks and nuclear physics. Proceedings, 4th Internationa l Conference, QNP 2006, Madrid, Spain, June 5-10, 2006 (2007) arXiv:hep-ph/0702130 [HEP-PH]

    2007 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Fernandez-Fraile and A

    D. Fernandez-Fraile and A. Gomez Nicola, Hadron physics. Proceedings, 10th International Workshop , Florianopolis, Brazil, April 26-31, 2007, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E16, 3010 (2007) , arXiv:0706.3561 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Greif, F

    M. Greif, F. Reining, I. Bouras, G. S. Denicol, Z. Xu, and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. E 87, 033019 (2013)

    2013

  24. [33]

    G. S. Denicol, H. Niemi, I. Bouras, E. Molnar, Z. Xu, D. H. Rischke, and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. D89, 074005 (2014) , arXiv:1207.6811 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Danielewicz and M

    P. Danielewicz and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D 31, 53 (1985)

    1985

  26. [35]

    Hosoya and K

    A. Hosoya and K. Kajantie, Nucl. Phys. B250, 666 (1985)

    1985

  27. [36]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP 11, 001 (2000) , arXiv:hep-ph/0010177 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  28. [37]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP 05, 051 (2003) , arXiv:hep-ph/0302165 [hep-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Rahaman, S

    M. Rahaman, S. Ghosh, S. Ghosh, S. Sarkar, and J.-e. Alam , Phys. Rev. C 97, 035201 (2018)

    2018

  30. [39]

    Ghosh, G

    S. Ghosh, G. Krein, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. C89, 045201 (2014) , arXiv:1401.5392 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Ghosh, Phys

    S. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. C90, 025202 (2014) , arXiv:1503.06927 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Ghosh, Braz

    S. Ghosh, Braz. J. Phys. 45, 687 (2015) , arXiv:1507.01705 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Pitaevskii and E

    L. Pitaevskii and E. Lifshitz, Physical Kinetics, v. 10 (Elsevier Science, 2012)

    2012

  34. [43]

    Reif, Fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics / [by] F

    F. Reif, Fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics / [by] F. Re if , international student ed. ed. (McGraw-Hill Kogakusha Tok yo,

  35. [44]

    S. R. De Groot, Relativistic Kinetic Theory. Principles and Applications , edited by W. A. Van Leeuwen and C. G. Van Weert (1980)

    1980

  36. [45]

    R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 12, 570 (1957)

    1957

  37. [46]

    Jeon, Phys

    S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. D52, 3591 (1995) , arXiv:hep-ph/9409250 [hep-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Jeon and L

    S. Jeon and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. D53, 5799 (1996) , arXiv:hep-ph/9512263 [hep-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Lu and G

    E. Lu and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. C 83, 044901 (2011)

    2011

  40. [49]

    Mitra and S

    S. Mitra and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 87, 094026 (2013)

    2013

  41. [50]

    Mitra and S

    S. Mitra and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 89, 054013 (2014)

    2014

  42. [51]

    Gangopadhyaya, S

    U. Gangopadhyaya, S. Ghosh, S. Sarkar, and S. Mitra, Phys. Rev. C 94, 044914 (2016)

    2016

  43. [52]

    R. Lang, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A48, 109 (2012) , arXiv:1205.6648 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Wiranata, V

    A. Wiranata, V . Koch, M. Prakash, and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C88, 044917 (2013) , arXiv:1307.4681 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Weinberg, Astrophys

    S. Weinberg, Astrophys. J. 168, 175 (1971)

    1971

  46. [55]

    Polak, W

    P. Polak, W. van Leeuwen, and S. de Groot, Physica 66, 455 (1973)

    1973

  47. [56]

    Wiranata and M

    A. Wiranata and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. C85, 054908 (2012) , arXiv:1203.0281 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Plumari, A

    S. Plumari, A. Puglisi, F. Scardina, and V . Greco, Phys. Rev. C86, 054902 (2012) , arXiv:1208.0481 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [58]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1 (1986)

    1986

  50. [59]

    Mitra, S

    S. Mitra, S. Ghosh, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. C 85, 064917 (2012)

    2012

  51. [60]

    Krehl, C

    O. Krehl, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald, and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. C 62, 025207 (2000)

    2000

  52. [61]

    C. M. Ko and D. Seibert, Phys. Rev. C 49, 2198 (1994)

    1994

  53. [62]

    Ghosh, S

    S. Ghosh, S. Sarkar, and S. Mitra, Phys. Rev. D 95, 056010 (2017)

    2017

  54. [63]

    Mallik and S

    S. Mallik and S. Sarkar, Hadrons at Finite Temperature (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016)

    2016

  55. [64]

    M. L. Bellac, Thermal Field Theory , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011). 22

    2011

  56. [65]

    Bebie, P

    H. Bebie, P. Gerber, J. L. Goity, and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B378, 95 (1992)

    1992

  57. [66]

    Venugopalan and M

    R. Venugopalan and M. Prakash, Nucl. Phys. A546, 718 (1992)

    1992

  58. [67]

    Romatschke and S

    P. Romatschke and S. Pratt, (2014), arXiv:1409.0010 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [68]

    J.-B. Rose, J. M. Torres-Rincon, A. Schäfer, D. R. Oliin ychenko, and H. Petersen, Phys. Rev. C 97, 055204 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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