Freezeout at constant energy density and spin polarization in heavy-ion collisions

Andrea Palermo; Masoud Shokri

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Freezeout at constant energy density and spin polarization in heavy-ion collisions

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives Lambda spin-polarization formulas for constant-energy-density freezeout and shows the corrections to isothermal freezeout stay below ten percent at RHIC energies.

desk verdict A clean generalization of isothermal freezeout to constant energy density with a useful coefficient C, but the headline 10% bound is an inference from C, not a computed polarization. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18761 v3 pith:T2A6NQ2S submitted 2025-07-24 hep-ph nucl-th

Andrea Palermo , Masoud Shokri This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 25.75.Nq

keywords Lambdahyperonspinpolarizationheavy-ioncollisionsfreezeouthypersurfaceiso-energydensitylocalequilibriumoperatorlinearresponsetheorythermodynamiccoefficientRHICbeam-energyscan

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

At freezeout, hydrodynamic simulations typically stop on a surface of constant energy density, while spin-polarization formulas have been built assuming constant temperature. This paper derives what changes for Lambda hyperon spin polarization when the freezeout surface is genuinely iso-energy, using the local equilibrium density operator and keeping the surface geometry explicit before expanding in gradients. The entire correction is controlled by one thermodynamic coefficient, $C = (\partial e/\partial\mu)_T/(\partial e/\partial T)_\mu$, and the paper finds that $C$ stays below 0.1 for the equations of state and freezeout conditions relevant to RHIC, down to $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=11.5$ GeV. The finite-density corrections to the isothermal formulas are therefore at most about ten percent, but they can still matter for local polarization observables and for equations of state with a critical point.

What carries the argument

The central object is the thermodynamic coefficient $C=(\partial e/\partial\mu)_T/(\partial e/\partial T)_\mu$, which measures how much temperature must change to compensate a chemical-potential change when energy density is held fixed. The argument combines this coefficient with the surface identity $\delta T=-C\,\delta\mu$ and a guiding rule: on an iso-energy-density surface, approximate the larger of the two variations by its spacetime Taylor expansion and determine the smaller one from the constraint. Inserting these geometric variations into the linear-response expansion of the local equilibrium density operator yields the polarization formulas, and taking $C\to 0$ returns the isothermal results.

What would settle it

Take a computed freezeout surface from a 3+1D hydrodynamic simulation at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=11.5$ GeV, evaluate the exact tangent variations of $T$ and $\mu$ on the surface, and compare them with $\delta T=-C\,\delta\mu$ using spacetime gradients; if the mismatch is comparable to the gradient size rather than suppressed by $C$, the central formulas fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for freezeout on an iso-energy-density hypersurface, the surface constraint forces the temperature variation and chemical-potential variation to be linked by $\delta T = -C\,\delta\mu$, where $C$ is the ratio of the energy-density derivatives. In the relevant regime $|C|<1$, the chemical-potential variation should be approximated by its spacetime gradient and the temperature variation eliminated through the constraint; this produces modified spin-vector formulas for thermal vorticity, thermal shear, and the spin-Hall effect, shown in Eqs. (30). The formulas reduce exactly to the isothermal freezeout result when $C\to 0$. Evaluating $C$ with the EOS3 and hadron-resonance-gas equations of state, the paper finds $|C|\lesssim 0.1$ at freezeout conditions corresponding to RHIC energies from 200 GeV down to 11.5 GeV, so the isothermal approximation is correct to about ten percent.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on trusting that the larger change—in temperature or in the baryon chemical potential—along the freezeout surface is well described by its local spacetime gradient, with the smaller change then fixed by the constant-energy-density relation. If the true surface variation is not captured by that gradient, the smallness of $C$ does not by itself keep the formulas accurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At RHIC beam energies from 200 GeV down to 11.5 GeV, $|C|$ remains below about 0.1 for both EOS3 and HRG, so the $|C|<1$ formulas in Eq. (30) are the relevant ones.
The isothermal freezeout approximation for Lambda polarization is safe at the ten-percent level across the RHIC energy scan, so sizable deviations in global polarization data cannot be blamed on finite-density freezeout geometry.
Finite-density corrections can still shift local polarization observables in low-energy collisions, where the relative orientation of gradients changes from cell to cell.
The prescription extends to multiple conserved charges by choosing the intensive variable with the largest $|\partial e/\partial X|$ as the dependent one, which fixes the form of the corrections when more than one chemical potential is present.
The $C>1$ regime, a near iso-chemical-potential freezeout, is not reached by the two equations of state considered.

Reading between the lines

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

If a future equation of state with a critical point makes $|C|$ grow, the same formulas predict where and when isothermal freezeout breaks down; evaluating $C$ along the freezeout curve of a critical-point EoS is a direct test of that sensitivity.
The geometry-informed substitution is not limited to spin: any observable computed with the local equilibrium density operator on a constant-energy-density surface should receive analogous $O(C)$ corrections, so spectra and flow harmonics are natural places to look for the same effect.
Comparing Eq. (30) with the isothermal formulas on identical hydrodynamic freezeout surfaces would isolate whether the predicted ten-percent shifts are visible in current local-polarization measurements or hidden by their statistical uncertainties.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Short version: Palermo and Shokri extend the linear-response spin polarization formalism to freezeout on an iso-energy density hypersurface, and they do it cleanly. The new piece is a thermodynamic coefficient C that relates tangent variations of T and μ on the surface, and formulas (30) that reduce to the known isothermal ones when C→0. They also evaluate C for two equations of state and find |C| ≲ 0.1 even at √sNN=11.5 GeV. That part is solid and worth having: it gives a compact criterion for when isothermal freezeout is a good approximation.

The soft spot is the step from |C| small to "corrections at most 10%". The paper does not compute the polarization from Eq. (30); it infers the size of the correction from the size of C alone. That inference ignores the ratios that actually enter the integrand: the extra terms are C β_[ρ ∂σ] μ and ζ C ∂σ μ, which compare to the leading vorticity/shear terms as C times (β∂μ)/ω, plus ζC in the spin-Hall channel. In regions where ω is small, that ratio can be large even if C is 0.1. The abstract's "at most 10%" is therefore stronger than what the derivation supports.

There is also a more technical concern about the Sec. III.A prescription itself. The paper replaces the exact hypersurface variation δμ with a spacetime Taylor term and then sets δT = -C(y-x)·∂μ. That is a first-order-in-coordinate-difference statement, and the neglected quadratic terms are not bounded relative to the retained C term. The authors are aware that hypersurface and spacetime variations differ; their argument that the error is "suppressed by C" compares the C term to the naive (y-x)·∂T alternative, not to the truncation error. So the geometric correction is plausible but not rigorously error-controlled. A numerical freezeout test with an actual hydrodynamic surface would settle both issues: compute (30) against a full evaluation of (12) with exact variations.

None of this kills the paper. The formalism is coherent, the limits C→0 and C→∞ behave as expected, and the multi-chemical-potential extension is a nice addition. The result is a legitimate extension of Becattini et al. and is not circular. But the headline quantitative claim is conditional on a numerical test that the paper explicitly leaves to future work. For a referee: this deserves serious review, not a desk reject, because the framework is useful and the flaw is fixable. I would probably cite it for the formulas and the C criterion, with a caveat about the 10% bound.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a linear-response formalism for Lambda spin polarization at a constant-energy-density freezeout hypersurface. Starting from the local equilibrium density operator, the authors relate variations of temperature and chemical potential along the iso-energy surface through the thermodynamic coefficient C = (d e/d mu)|_T / (d e/d T)|_mu. For |C| < 1 they propose replacing the chemical-potential variation by its spacetime Taylor expansion and determining the temperature variation from delta T = -C delta mu, obtaining modified polarization formulas in Eqs. (30) that reduce to the isothermal expressions when C tends to zero. They evaluate C for two equations of state, EOS3 and HRG, find |C| <~ 0.1 for freezeout conditions down to sqrt(s_NN) = 11.5 GeV, and conclude that corrections to isothermal freezeout are at most 10%, although they may matter for local polarization observables.

Significance. If correct, the formulas provide a simple, equation-of-state-dependent improvement over the isothermal freezeout prescription for the Beam Energy Scan, and the paper is careful in separating the exact hypersurface relation from the subsequent Taylor expansion. The explicit reduction to prior results and the evaluation of C for two equations of state are useful. However, the quantitative 10% claim is not derived from the polarization integrals themselves, and the approximation underlying Eqs. (30) lacks a controlled error estimate, so the significance is conditional on further numerical validation.

major comments (2)

[Sec. III.A, Eqs. (23)-(26)] The approximation step is uncontrolled. Equation (23) is derived from delta e = 0 and therefore holds only for displacements tangent to the iso-energy surface, while Eq. (26) promotes it to a relation between full spacetime Taylor coefficients of mu and T, including normal components. Moreover, replacing the hypersurface variation delta mu by (y-x)^alpha d_alpha mu leaves an error of order (y-x)^2 d^2 mu that is not proportional to C and can be comparable to the retained C-dependent terms in Eqs. (30). The statement that the error is suppressed by C compares delta T with (y-x) dot dT, but it does not bound the residual relative to the correction terms. A numerical test on a hydrodynamical freezeout surface, or at least an estimate of the neglected second derivatives, is required to validate Eqs. (30).
[Abstract and Sec. IV, Fig. 1] The claim that corrections to isothermal freezeout are at most 10% is inferred from the smallness of C, but it is not computed from Eq. (30). The correction terms in Eqs. (30) are C beta_[rho d_sigma] mu and zeta C d_sigma mu, so their relative size is set by C times ratios such as (beta d mu)/omega, plus zeta C in the spin-Hall channel; those ratios can be large in the regions that dominate local or harmonic polarization. The paper's own caveat that local observables may become relevant acknowledges this. To support the abstract's quantitative statement, the authors should evaluate the polarization with and without the geometric corrections on a realistic freezeout surface, or at least estimate the relevant gradient ratios.

minor comments (6)

[Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains a duplicated sentence: "Lines of constant chemical potential are also shown:" appears twice.
[Sec. I, second-to-last paragraph] In the paper organization sentence, "the local equilibrium density operation" should presumably be "the local equilibrium density operator."
[Sec. III.A, after Eq. (28)] The text refers to the "C > 1 regime" where the earlier discussion used |C| > 1; the absolute value should be kept for consistency, since C can be negative.
[Eq. (28)] There is an index mismatch in Eq. (28a): the left-hand side is written as delta beta^mu while the right-hand side is expressed in terms of nu indices; this should be corrected for readability.
[Sec. V vs Abstract] The abstract states that corrections are "at most a 10% effect," while Sec. V says they are "typically below 10%"; these statements are not identical and should be reconciled.
[Eqs. (32a)-(32c)] The bracket notation in Eqs. (32) is difficult to parse because the antisymmetrization brackets are opened on u and closed on different gradient terms; using explicit parentheses or a displayed symmetrization convention would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the coefficient C is computed from external equations of state, and Eqs. (30) are derived from the local equilibrium density operator rather than assumed.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The defining thermodynamic relation Eq. (23), delta-T = -C delta-mu, follows on the freezeout hypersurface from delta-e = 0 and Eq. (22); it is not the predicted output. The subsequent approximation for |C| < 1, replacing delta-mu by its spacetime Taylor expansion and setting delta-T = -C (y-x)^alpha partial_alpha mu, is an explicit modeling approximation whose accuracy is testable, not a tautological restatement of the result. Inserting that approximation into the linear response expression Eq. (12) yields Eqs. (30); the reduction to the isothermal formula at C -> 0 is a consistency limit and is exact by construction, but it is not an imported conclusion. The coefficient C is evaluated from two external equations of state, EOS3 and HRG (Refs. [39-41]), and is not fitted to polarization data, so the central claim is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to Refs. [28,29] provide the isothermal linear-response baseline and prior context, but the new geometric-thermodynamic correction terms are derived in this paper from the local equilibrium density operator rather than borrowed as premises. No uniqueness theorem or unverified prior result is invoked to force the choice of formulas. The abstract's at-most-10% statement is an inference from the smallness of C rather than a direct numerical evaluation of the polarization integrals in Eq. (30); that is a robustness or completeness concern for a future hydrodynamic implementation, not circularity. The paper explicitly defers a full hydrodynamic implementation to future work, which further confirms that the present derivation is not being validated by its own output.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on three inputs: the local equilibrium density operator formalism (standard background), the assumption of iso-energy density freezeout (model choice), and a heuristic rule for approximating hypersurface variations by spacetime gradients (introduced ad hoc in this paper). No new physical entities are introduced, and C is a thermodynamic derivative, not a fitted parameter.

free parameters (1)

N_f (effective number of massless quark flavors in EOS3) = 2.5
Taken from the BEShydro equation of state (Ref. [39]); influences the computed value of C in the EOS3 evaluation.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Freezeout occurs on an iso-energy-density hypersurface, e(x) = e0.
Defined in Sec. III, Eq. (18); this is the central modeling assumption of the paper.
domain assumption Variations of the Lagrange multipliers beta and zeta between points on the freezeout surface are small, justifying the linear response expansion.
Assumed in Sec. II when expanding the density operator to first order; standard in the Zubarev local equilibrium formalism.
ad hoc to paper The larger of the hypersurface variations of T or mu is well approximated by its spacetime Taylor expansion.
Introduced in Sec. III.A as the guiding criterion; this is a heuristic choice not derived from the geometry of the hypersurface.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Freezeout at constant energy density and spin polarization in heavy-ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T2A6NQ2S

@misc{pith2026250718761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Freezeout at constant energy density and spin polarization in heavy-ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T2A6NQ2S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18761}
}

abstract

Using the local equilibrium density operator, we develop a geometry-informed linear response theory that takes into account the parameterization of the freezeout hypersurface before the gradient expansion is carried out. Assuming local equilibrium on an iso-energy density hypersurface, we study the $\Lambda$ hyperon spin polarization, and compute corrections to the isothermal case due to finite density. We argue that corrections to isothermal freezeout should be small, and that even in heavy ion collisions with energy as low as $\sqrt{s_{NN}}= 11.5$ GeV they constitute at most a $10\%$ effect. They may, however, become relevant for local polarization observables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18761 by the authors.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[1]

Liang and X.-N

Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 102301 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)], arXiv:nucl- th/0410079

arXiv 2005
[2]

Global polarization of QGP in non-central heavy ion collisions at high energies

Z.-t. Liang, J. Phys. G 34, S323 (2007), arXiv:0705.2852 [nucl-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2007
[3]

Gao, S.-W

J.-H. Gao, S.-W. Chen, W.-t. Deng, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 77, 044902 (2008), arXiv:0710.2943 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2008
[4]

Becattini, F

F. Becattini, F. Piccinini, and J. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. C 77, 024906 (2008), arXiv:0711.1253 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2008
[5]

Becattini, M

F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, T. Niida, S. Pu, A.-H. Tang, and Q. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33, 2430006 (2024), arXiv:2402.04540 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2024
[6]

Chen, Z.-T

J.-H. Chen, Z.-T. Liang, Y.-G. Ma, X.-L. Sheng, and Q. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 211001 (2025), arXiv:2407.06480 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025
[7]

Adamczyk et al

L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Nature 548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2017
[8]

Adam et al

J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 132301 (2019), arXiv:1905.11917 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2019

Show all 46 references

[9]

Abdulhamid et al

M. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 202301 (2023), arXiv:2303.09074 [nucl-ex]

2023
[10]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 172005 (2022), arXiv:2107.11183 [nucl-ex]

2022 arXiv
[11]

Abou Yassine et al

R. Abou Yassine et al. (HADES), Phys. Lett. B 835, 137506 (2022), arXiv:2207.05160 [nucl-ex]. 12

2022 arXiv
[12]

M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 104, L061901 (2021), arXiv:2108.00044 [nucl-ex]

2021
[13]

Adam et al

J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 98, 014910 (2018), arXiv:1805.04400 [nucl-ex]

2018 arXiv
[14]

M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 108, 014910 (2023), arXiv:2305.08705 [nucl-ex]

2023 arXiv
[15]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 101, 044611 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 105, 029902 (2022)], arXiv:1909.01281 [nucl-ex]

2020 arXiv
[16]

Hayrapetyan et al

A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), (2025), arXiv:2502.07898 [nucl-ex]

2025
[17]

D. N. Zubarev, A. V. Prozorkevich, and S. A. Smolyanskii, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 40 (1979), 10.1007/BF01032069

1979 doi
[18]

van Weert, Annals of Physics 140, 133 (1982)

C. van Weert, Annals of Physics 140, 133 (1982)

1982
[19]

Becattini, M

F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, and E. Grossi, Particles 2, 197 (2019), arXiv:1902.01089 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2019 arXiv
[20]

S. Y. F. Liu and Y. Yin, JHEP 07, 188 (2021), arXiv:2103.09200 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[21]

B. Fu, S. Y. F. Liu, L. Pang, H. Song, and Y. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 142301 (2021), arXiv:2103.10403 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[22]

Weickgenannt, E

N. Weickgenannt, E. Speranza, X.-l. Sheng, Q. Wang, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 052301 (2021), arXiv:2005.01506 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[23]

Wagner, Phys

D. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 111, 016008 (2025), arXiv:2409.07143 [nucl-th]

2025
[24]

Sapna, S. K. Singh, and D. Wagner, (2025), arXiv:2503.22552 [hep-ph]

2025
[25]

S. K. Singh, R. Ryblewski, and W. Florkowski, Phys. Rev. C 111, 024907 (2025), arXiv:2411.08223 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[26]

Wagner, M

D. Wagner, M. Shokri, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043103 (2024), arXiv:2405.00533 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[27]

Chiarini, J

A. Chiarini, J. Sammet, and M. Shokri, (2024), arXiv:2412.19854 [gr-qc]

2024
[28]

Becattini, M

F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, and A. Palermo, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136519 (2021), arXiv:2103.10917 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[29]

Becattini, M

F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, G. Inghirami, I. Karpenko, and A. Palermo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 272302 (2021), arXiv:2103.14621 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[30]

Becattini, Lect

F. Becattini, Lect. Notes Phys. 987, 15 (2021), arXiv:2004.04050 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[31]

S. R. De Groot, Relativistic Kinetic Theory. Principles and Applications (North-Holland Publishing Company, 1980)

1980
[32]

Becattini, M

F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, and A. Palermo, JHEP 02, 101 (2021), arXiv:2007.08249 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[33]

Palermo, M

A. Palermo, M. Buzzegoli, and F. Becattini, JHEP 10, 077 (2021), arXiv:2106.08340 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[34]

Palermo and F

A. Palermo and F. Becattini, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 547 (2023), arXiv:2304.02276 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[35]

Shokri and D

M. Shokri and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 108, 096029 (2023), arXiv:2309.07003 [physics.flu-dyn]

2023 arXiv
[36]

Buzzegoli, Nucl

M. Buzzegoli, Nucl. Phys. A 1036, 122674 (2023), arXiv:2211.04549 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[37]

Y. B. Ivanov and A. A. Soldatov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 116, 137 (2022), arXiv:2206.06927 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[38]

Adamczyk et al

L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 96, 044904 (2017), arXiv:1701.07065 [nucl-ex]

2017 arXiv
[39]

Du and U

L. Du and U. Heinz, Comput. Phys. Commun. 251, 107090 (2020), arXiv:1906.11181 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[40]

L. Du, X. An, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 104, 064904 (2021), arXiv:2107.02302 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[41]

The hadron resonance gas model,

C. Ratti and R. Bellwied, “The hadron resonance gas model,” in The Deconfinement Transition of QCD: Theory Meets Experiment (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021) pp. 111–131

2021
[42]

Floerchinger, E

S. Floerchinger, E. Grossi, and J. Lion, Phys. Rev. C 100, 014905 (2019), arXiv:1811.01870 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[43]

Devetak, A

D. Devetak, A. Dubla, S. Floerchinger, E. Grossi, S. Masciocchi, A. Mazeliauskas, and I. Selyuzhenkov, JHEP 06, 044 (2020), arXiv:1909.10485 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[44]

Capellino, A

F. Capellino, A. Dubla, S. Floerchinger, E. Grossi, A. Kirchner, and S. Masciocchi, Phys. Rev. D 108, 116011 (2023), arXiv:2307.14449 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[45]

Floerchinger and M

S. Floerchinger and M. Martinez, Phys. Rev. C 92, 064906 (2015), arXiv:1507.05569 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[46]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics, Part 1, Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 5 (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1980)

1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Liang and X.-N

Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 102301 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)], arXiv:nucl- th/0410079

arXiv 2005

[2] [2]

Global polarization of QGP in non-central heavy ion collisions at high energies

Z.-t. Liang, J. Phys. G 34, S323 (2007), arXiv:0705.2852 [nucl-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2007

[3] [3]

Gao, S.-W

J.-H. Gao, S.-W. Chen, W.-t. Deng, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 77, 044902 (2008), arXiv:0710.2943 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2008

[4] [4]

Becattini, F

F. Becattini, F. Piccinini, and J. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. C 77, 024906 (2008), arXiv:0711.1253 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2008

[5] [5]

Becattini, M

F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, T. Niida, S. Pu, A.-H. Tang, and Q. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33, 2430006 (2024), arXiv:2402.04540 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Chen, Z.-T

J.-H. Chen, Z.-T. Liang, Y.-G. Ma, X.-L. Sheng, and Q. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 211001 (2025), arXiv:2407.06480 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025

[7] [7]

Adamczyk et al

L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Nature 548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2017

[8] [8]

Adam et al

J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 132301 (2019), arXiv:1905.11917 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2019