Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 106 references

Magnetization and Magnetic Field-Induced Correction: Implications for QGP Thermal Photon Production in Magnetohydrodynamic

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 Thermal photons from a magnetized quark-gluon plasma are shaped by the initial field and a weak-field correction to quark distributions, not by magnetic susceptibility.

desk verdict The MHD temperature part is mostly fine, but the f_EM photon enhancement is killed by an exact cancellation in the paper's own equations, leaving Fig. 13 without support. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13364 v1 pith:P2ZHXUWE submitted 2026-08-13 hep-ph nucl-th

Jing Jing , Duan She , Ze-Fang Jiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords thermalphotonsquark-gluonplasmarelativisticmagnetohydrodynamicsmagneticsusceptibilityweak-fielddistributioncorrectionphotonellipticflowBjorkenheavy-ioncollisions
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

This paper tries to establish which magnetic-field effects in a quark-gluon plasma actually show up in the thermal photons it emits. It builds a (1+1)-dimensional ideal magnetohydrodynamic description of the expanding plasma, adds magnetic susceptibility $\chi_m$ in constant and lattice-QCD forms, and adds a weak-field quantum correction $f_{\rm EM}$ to the quark distribution functions. The paper's case is that the initial field strength and its decay rate dominate the photon spectrum through the MHD temperature evolution, that $\chi_m$ is essentially invisible, and that $f_{\rm EM}$—being linear in the field—produces a measurable enhancement at intermediate transverse momentum and, more importantly, a photon elliptic flow that survives at realistic field strengths. If true, this gives experiment a way to see the magnetic field's direct effect on quarks rather than on the bulk flow.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the additive electromagnetic correction to the quark distribution, $f_{\rm EM}$ (Eq. 33), obtained from the Boltzmann-Vlasov equation in the relaxation-time approximation: $f_{\rm EM}=e_f B\, (c/8\alpha_{\rm EM})(\sigma_{\rm el} n_{\rm eq}/T^3)\,\sinh\eta_s/\cosh(y-\eta_s)$. Because antiquarks carry opposite charge, the correction flips sign between quarks and antiquarks, and it enters the photon rate additively through $f=f_0(1+\delta f_{\rm EM})$, so the field-induced spectrum correction is linear in $B$. The supporting machinery is the analytic Pu-Bjorken MHD temperature solution (Eq. 17) of the boost-invariant (1+1)-dimensional ideal flow, which carries the $\chi_m$ dependence through the factor $(1-a-\chi_m)$ and makes the temperature profile—and therefore the photon yield—depend on the initial field strength $\sigma$ and decay exponent $a$.

What would settle it

Compute the spacetime integral of Eq. (33) at $y=0$ with a homogeneous transverse magnetic field and a symmetric $\eta_s$ window, without invoking a tilt: the $f_{\rm EM}$ contribution is identically zero by parity, so the Fig. 13 surplus appears only after the tilt is explicitly modeled. A second check is to measure direct-photon elliptic flow in mid-central Au+Au collisions at $|eB|/m_\pi^2\sim0.1$–$0.5$ and ask whether an additional $v_2$ of order 0.5–0.6 appears when the background $v_2$ is small.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the weak-field, magnetic-field-induced correction to quark distributions, $f_{\rm EM}$, is the only magnetic ingredient considered that leaves an observable imprint on thermal photons. The paper derives $f_{\rm EM}$ from the Boltzmann-Vlasov equation with a relaxation time, obtains the compact form $f_{\rm EM}\propto \sinh\eta_s/\cosh(y-\eta_s)$ times the magnetic field and electrical conductivity, and inserts it linearly into the photon rate. After integrating over the boost-invariant spacetime evolution, this correction enhances the $p_T$ spectrum at intermediate $p_T$ (1–3 GeV), while the magnetic susceptibility $\chi_m$—whether constant or from lattice QCD—changes the temperature profile and hence the spectrum only negligibly. The paper also argues that because $f_{\rm EM}$ is linear in $B$ rather than in the MHD-modified temperature, its leading observable impact may be the photon elliptic flow, $v_2^{\rm EM}\approx0.5$–$0.6$, which is nearly independent of field magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The positive $f_{\rm EM}$ enhancement at midrapidity depends on a tilted fireball shape that the paper cites but does not explicitly implement; if the fireball is mirror-symmetric, the magnetic correction integrates to exactly zero over the symmetric rapidity window and the central result disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At realistic initial field strengths $\sigma\lesssim0.1$, the $\chi_m$-driven temperature modification is too small to change the photon spectrum, so magnetization should not be expected to appear in inclusive photon yields.
  • The $f_{\rm EM}$ yield correction scales as $\sqrt{\sigma}$ and is still about 0.18 of its $\sigma=3$ value at $\sigma=0.1$, placing it within reach of high-precision measurements.
  • The $f_{\rm EM}$-induced photon elliptic flow is predicted to be $v_2^{\rm EM}\approx0.5$–$0.6$ and nearly field independent, making azimuthal anisotropy a cleaner magnetic-field signature than the yield itself.
  • Low-$p_T$ photons receive contributions from the full QGP lifetime, while $p_T\gtrsim2$ GeV photons are dominated by the first roughly 1.5 fm/c, so high-$p_T$ thermal photons act as an early-time probe.
  • The framework provides a benchmark for future (3+1)-dimensional dissipative MHD and spin-magnetohydrodynamics calculations of electromagnetic observables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The rapidity-odd form of $f_{\rm EM}$ means its contribution to midrapidity yields rests entirely on a tilted-fireball dipole that the paper invokes by reference but does not explicitly implement; an explicit tilt implementation is needed before the Fig. 13 enhancement can be taken as quantitative.
  • Because $f_{\rm EM}$ is linear in $B$ while magnetization effects enter through temperature changes, the relative importance of the two may invert at very small fields—$f_{\rm EM}$ could dominate even where $\chi_m$ is negligible—and also at large fields where the weak-field expansion breaks down.
  • If the predicted photon elliptic flow is realized, direct-photon anisotropy could be used to infer the initial magnetic field strength, complementing dilepton and spin-polarization probes.
  • Extending the same additive $f_{\rm EM}$ machinery to (3+1)-dimensional MHD with event-by-event fields would test whether the intermediate-$p_T$ enhancement survives transverse expansion and realistic field profiles.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies thermal photon emission from a magnetized quark-gluon plasma in (1+1)-dimensional ideal magnetohydrodynamics, incorporating magnetic susceptibility in constant and lattice-QCD-derived forms and a weak-field correction f_EM to the quark distribution functions. It derives analytic temperature evolutions, computes C+A, bremsstrahlung, and A+S photon rates, and integrates them over a Bjorken spacetime history. The central claimed result is that f_EM produces a distinct enhancement of the thermal photon spectrum at intermediate p_T (Fig. 13) and, through its linear-in-B structure, a potentially observable photon elliptic flow (Sec. IV). The MHD temperature-evolution part of the paper is internally consistent and reduces to known limits, but the f_EM contribution to the photon rate is identically zero by the paper's own equations, so the central positive claim is not supported.

Significance. If the f_EM result were correct, the unified MHD+chi_m+f_EM framework would be a useful benchmark for future dissipative MHD studies of electromagnetic observables. The paper has real strengths: the analytical solutions for T(τ) with constant and temperature-dependent chi_m are explicit, the reduction to the Pu-Bjorken limits in Eqs. (18) and (19) is correct as far as the derivation goes, and the parameter scans over σ, a, and chi_m are systematic. However, the claimed linear-in-B enhancement of the photon yield and the associated v_2 observability argument are zero by construction in the calculation as written, because the quark and antiquark corrections cancel exactly. The remaining results, mainly that chi_m has negligible influence on the bulk temperature evolution, are plausible but do not constitute the paper's advertised central advance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.D, Eqs. (33)-(36), Fig. 13] The magnetic-field-induced correction to the photon rate vanishes identically. Equation (36) sums f_EM^(f) + f_bar_EM^(f), and the text explicitly states f_bar_EM = -f_EM because the antiquark carries opposite electric charge. Since all photon rates in Eqs. (23), (25), and (27) depend on the quark distributions through the common factor sum_f e_f^2, the linear-in-B correction is zero at every phase-space point before any integration is performed. The two escape routes proposed in Sec. II.D do not work: the kinematic kernel cannot weight quarks and antiquarks differently when f_bar_EM = -f_EM pointwise, and a tilted fireball changes the integration domain but cannot make a pointwise-zero integrand nonzero. Moreover, the tilted-fireball dipole is cited from Ref. [71] but is never implemented in Eq. (29). Consequently, the enhancement shown in Fig. 13 and the v_2-based observability argument in Sec. IV have no calculational basis.
  2. [Eq. (32)] Equation (32) is internally inconsistent as written: F^{mu nu} p_mu p_nu vanishes identically by antisymmetry of the Faraday tensor, so the displayed expression for f_EM is zero regardless of any other factors. If the intended contraction was F^{mu nu} p_mu u_nu as in Eq. (31), the equation must be corrected; as it stands, the derivation of Eq. (33) from Eq. (32) is not valid.
  3. [Eq. (34) and Sec. III scaling discussion] Equation (34) writes the magnetic field as B(τ) = σ T_0^2 (τ_0/τ)^{2a}, which is inconsistent with Eq. (12), B(τ) = B_0 (τ_0/τ)^a, and Eq. (14), B_0^2 = σ T_0^4. The correct expression would be B(τ) = sqrt(σ) T_0^2 (τ_0/τ)^a. This also contradicts the paper's own statement in Sec. III that f_EM scales as sqrt(σ); as printed, Eq. (34) would make f_EM scale as σ and would give the wrong parametric dependence for the claimed correction.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Fig. 15 caption] The caption of Fig. 15 appears to be a copy of the Fig. 3 caption, describing magnetic susceptibility versus temperature, while the figure actually compares perturbative and numerical temperature evolution T(τ). The caption should be rewritten to describe the comparison shown.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (14)] The notation introduces both σ_0 = B_0^2/ε_0 and σ = B_0^2/T_0^4 in the same equation; the relation between the two, σ_0 = σ/a_1 for the conformal equation of state, should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
  3. [Sec. III and Eq. (29)] The freeze-out condition in Eq. (29) is described as 'when the QGP cools to T_c = 140 MeV', but the text later quotes τ_f ≈ 5.5 ± 2.0 fm/c. Please specify whether τ_f is determined by the condition T(τ_f) = T_c or taken as a fixed parameter, since the photon yield depends on this choice.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline f_EM enhancement is cancelled to zero by the paper's own Eq. (36) plus f_bar_EM = -f_EM; the MHD temperature evolution is otherwise self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II D, Eqs. (33)-(36); claimed in Sec. III Fig. 13 and Sec. IV conclusion (iii)]
    "Substituting the full quark distribution f q =f 0 +f EM (and analogously f¯q=f 0 +f ¯EM, with f ¯EM =−f EM since the antiquark carries opposite electric charge e ¯q=−e q)... E dNEM/d3p d4x ∝ I Σ_f (f (f) EM + f (f¯) EM). Although f ¯q EM =−f q EM at the level of the distribution function, the net EM contribution to the photon rate does not vanish after phase-space integration..."

    By the paper's own definitions, f_EM^(f) is proportional to e_f (Eq. 33) and f_bar_EM^(f) = -f_EM^(f). Eq. (36) then defines the EM photon-rate correction as proportional to Σ_f (f_EM^(f) + f_bar_EM^(f)), which vanishes identically at every momentum before any phase-space integration. The two rescue arguments in Sec. II D fail: the kinematic kernel is the same function of momentum for quark and antiquark except for the sign of e_f, and a tilted fireball cannot make a pointwise-zero integrand nonzero. The Fig. 13 enhancement and the Sec. IV observability claim are therefore not outputs of the derivation; they are fixed to zero by the input definitions, i.e., the prediction reduces by construction.

full rationale

The MHD temperature evolution (Eqs. 16-20) is derived in the paper from the Pu-Bjorken energy-momentum tensor and is independent of the f_EM claim; the chi_m inputs are lattice-QCD parametrizations used as external benchmarks, not fitted to the paper's target observable. The self-citations (Refs. 36, 41, 48) are contextual and not load-bearing. However, the paper's most emphasized positive result, the f_EM-induced enhancement of the thermal photon spectrum and its observability via v_2, is internally void: the correction is defined as a sum over flavors of f_EM^(f) + f_bar_EM^(f), and since f_bar_EM = -f_EM pointwise, each term cancels before integration. The paper explicitly acknowledges f_bar_EM = -f_EM and then asserts the integrated result is nonzero, but no phase-space weight or tilt can make a zero integrand nonzero. This is a self-definitional reduction of the central claim rather than a fitted-parameter circularity; the non-cancelling parts of the paper (temperature profiles, channel decomposition, sigma dependence) are self-contained. Because one of the two headline predictions reduces to zero by the paper's own definitions, the circularity score is 6 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, fields, or conserved quantities are introduced; f_EM and chi_m are imported from prior literature. The free parameters are scan parameters and one unstated input (sigma_el). The axioms are standard assumptions in the heavy-ion MHD phenomenology, plus one ad hoc assumption about the tilted fireball that is never implemented.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial magnetic field strength (sigma) = scanned as 0,1,3,10,20,30; realistic range 10^-4 to 10^-1
    The photon yields and temperature profiles depend strongly on sigma; the paper scans it but does not fit it. The chi_m-driven MHD effect scales with sigma and is negligible at realistic values.
  • Magnetic field decay exponent (a) = a=2 for most results; also a=1 and a=2/3
    The field profile B proportional to tau^-a is assumed; a is the dominant regulator of the yield enhancement, chosen to represent fast and slow decay rather than derived.
  • Magnetic susceptibility (chi_m) = constant values 0,0.1,0.2,0.5, plus lattice chi_m(T) forms
    chi_m is an input; the paper concludes it has negligible effect. The lattice forms are external fits, and the constant values are hand-picked.
  • Electrical conductivity (sigma_el) = not specified
    The f_EM correction in Eqs. (33)-(34) is proportional to sigma_el, but the paper never states the numerical value used to produce Fig. 13, leaving the magnitude of the claimed enhancement undetermined.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD energy-momentum tensor with magnetization (Eq. 1) and frozen-flux condition (Eq. 3) hold throughout the QGP evolution.
    Adopted from Refs [39,40]; the entire temperature evolution rests on this.
  • domain assumption Conformal equation of state p=epsilon/3 and epsilon=a_1 T^4 with two active flavors.
    Used in Eq. (16) and in the photon rate integration; ignores lattice-QCD c_s(T).
  • domain assumption Magnetic field decays as a pure power law B(tau)=B_0(tau_0/tau)^a with constant a.
    Eq. (12); the paper's conclusions about sigma and a dominance depend on this phenomenological form.
  • domain assumption Weak-field Boltzmann-Vlasov solution f_EM (Eqs. 30-33) from Refs [45-47] is valid and can be added linearly to the photon rate.
    Imported from external work; the paper relies on it without re-deriving the full collision term.
  • domain assumption HTL-resummed rates for C+A, Bremsstrahlung, A+S (Eqs. 23,25,27) remain valid when folded with f_EM.
    The additive decomposition Eq. (35) assumes the small-angle approximation and equilibrium-like matrix elements.
  • ad hoc to paper The f_EM contribution survives the symmetric rapidity integration via a tilted-fireball dipole coupling.
    Sec. II D and Sec. III Fig. 13; no tilted geometry is implemented in the calculation, so this assumption supplies the non-zero result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetization and Magnetic Field-Induced Correction: Implications for QGP Thermal Photon Production in Magnetohydrodynamic." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P2ZHXUWE

@misc{pith2026260813364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetization and Magnetic Field-Induced Correction: Implications for QGP Thermal Photon Production in Magnetohydrodynamic},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P2ZHXUWE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13364}
}
abstract

We investigate thermal photon emission from magnetized quark-gluon plasma (QGP) within (1+1)-dimensional relativistic magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), systematically incorporating magnetic susceptibility $\chi_m$---encompassing both constant and lattice-QCD-derived temperature-dependent $\chi_m(T)$ parametrizations---and weak-field quantum corrections to quark distribution functions $f_{\rm EM}$. Employing the Pu-Bjorken MHD framework, we calculate photon production rates from Compton scattering, $q\bar{q}$ annihilation, bremsstrahlung, and annihilation with rescattering, and integrate these over the QGP spacetime evolution to obtain transverse momentum ($p_T$) spectra. Our results demonstrate that photon yields are predominantly governed by the initial magnetic field strength and its temporal decay profile, with $\chi_m$ exerting negligible influence in the explored parameter space. In contrast, the weak-field correction $f_{\rm EM}$ induces a distinct enhancement in thermal photon production at intermediate $p_T$. This work establishes a rigorous theoretical framework for quantifying electromagnetic observables in magnetized QGP and provides the foundation for future dissipative MHD studies incorporating spin-magnetization dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13364 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) Evolution of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) Temperature dependence of the magnetic sus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: (Color online) Temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) Evolution of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online) Total thermal photon production rates as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (Color online) Hard thermal photon spectrum as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (Color online) Total thermal photon production spectra as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: (Color online) Total thermal photon production spectra vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: (Color online) Thermal photon production from the QGP in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: (Color online) Total thermal photon production spectra vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: (Color online) Temperature dependence of the magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [71]

    Continuous evolution of electromagnetic field in heavy-ion collisions.Nucl

    Evan Stewart and Kirill Tuchin. Continuous evolution of electromagnetic field in heavy-ion collisions.Nucl. Phys. A, 1016:122308, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    We consider light quarks (u, d) withe u = 2/3ande d =−1/3, whilec≈0.23is an HTL-derived constant

    Compton Scattering +q¯qAnnihilation (C+A) This composite channel unifies contributions from quark- gluon Compton scattering and quark-antiquark annihilation, described by the HTL-resummed rate: E dNC+A d3pd4x = 1 2π2 ααs  X f e2 f   T 2e−E/T ln cE αsT , (23) whereα= 1/137(electromagnetic fine-structure constant), αs (strong coupling constant), andef (...

  3. [2]

    The energy conservation equation gen- eralizes to: ∂T ∂τ + (κ+ 1)T 4κτ + [1−a−χ m(T)] σT 4 0 τ 2a 0 4κa1T 3τ 2a+1 = 0

    Temperature-Dependent Magnetic Susceptibility (χm =χ m(T)) For realistic descriptions of the QGP, we adopt temperature- dependent magnetic susceptibilities derived from lattice QCD calculations [43, 44]. The energy conservation equation gen- eralizes to: ∂T ∂τ + (κ+ 1)T 4κτ + [1−a−χ m(T)] σT 4 0 τ 2a 0 4κa1T 3τ 2a+1 = 0. (20) We employ two lattice QCD par...

    2014

  4. [3]

    The∝1/E 2 dependence highlights the soft nature of this channel, making it dominant at low photon energies

    Bremsstrahlung (Bre) Bremsstrahlung describes photon emission from quarks scattered by other partons (quarks/gluons) in the QGP, with a rate dominated by soft photon production: E dNBre d3pd4x = 1 8π5 ααs  X f e2 f   T 4 E2 e−E/T (JT −JL)I(E, T), (25) Here,J T ≈1.11andJ L ≈ −1.06are transverse/longitudinal flow parameters from two-loop calculations [3...

  5. [4]

    Adams and others (STAR Collaboration).Nucl

    J. Adams and others (STAR Collaboration).Nucl. Phys. A, 757:102–183, 2005

    2005

  6. [5]

    Aamodt and others (ALICE Collaboration).JINST, 3:S08002, 2008

    K. Aamodt and others (ALICE Collaboration).JINST, 3:S08002, 2008

    2008

  7. [6]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang.Phys. Rev. C, 85:044907, 2012

    2012

  8. [7]

    Li, X.-L

    H. Li, X.-L. Sheng, and Q. Wang.Phys. Rev. C, 94(4):044903, 2016

    2016

Show all 106 references
  1. [8]

    Gursoy, D

    U. Gursoy, D. E. Kharzeev, and K. Rajagopal.Phys. Rev. C, 89(5):054905, 2014

    2014

  2. [9]

    Dynamical magnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions

    Anping Huang, Duan She, Shuzhe Shi, Mei Huang, and Jin- feng Liao. Dynamical magnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions. Phys. Rev. C, 107(3):034901, 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa.Nucl. Phys. A, 803:227–253, 2008

    2008

  4. [11]

    Fukushima, D

    K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa.Phys. Rev. D, 78:074033, 2008

    2008

  5. [12]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. V oloshin, and G. Wang.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 88:1–28, 2016

    2016

  6. [13]

    G ¨ursoy, D

    U. G ¨ursoy, D. E. Kharzeev, E. Marcus, K. Rajagopal, and C. Shen.Phys. Rev. C, 98(5):055201, 2018

    2018

  7. [14]

    Jiang, S.-S

    Z.-F. Jiang, S.-S. Cao, W.-J. Xing, X.-Y . Wu, C. B. Yang, and B.-W. Zhang.Phys. Rev. C, 105(5):054907, 2022

    2022

  8. [15]

    Adamczyk and others (STAR Collaboration).Phys

    L. Adamczyk and others (STAR Collaboration).Phys. Rev. Lett., 114(25):252302, 2015

    2015

  9. [16]

    A. M. Sirunyan and others (CMS Collaboration).Phys. Rev. C, 97(4):044912, 2018

    2018

  10. [17]

    Abdallah and others (STAR Collaboration).Phys

    M. Abdallah and others (STAR Collaboration).Phys. Rev. C, 105(1):014901, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 63:123– 151, 2013

    2013

  12. [19]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 28:1340011, 2013

    2013

  13. [20]

    Becattini and Iu

    F. Becattini and Iu. Karpenko.Phys. Rev. Lett., 120(1):012302, 2018

    2018

  14. [21]

    Jiang, S.-S

    Z.-F. Jiang, S.-S. Cao, X.-Y . Wu, C. B. Yang, and B.-W. Zhang.Phys. Rev. C, 105(3):034901, 2022

    2022

  15. [22]

    W. Zhao, C. Shen, and B. Schenke.Phys. Rev. Lett., 129(25):252302, 2022

    2022

  16. [23]

    Inghirami, L

    G. Inghirami, L. D. Zanna, A. Beraudo, M. Moghaddam, F. Becattini, and M. Bleicher.Eur . Phys. J. C, 76(12):659, 2016

    2016

  17. [24]

    Nakamura, T

    K. Nakamura, T. Miyoshi, C. Nonaka, and H. R. Takahashi. Phys. Rev. C, 107(1):014901, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    Mayer, A

    M. Mayer, A. Dash, G. Inghirami, H. Elfner, L. Rezzolla, and D. H. Rischke.Phys. Rev. C, 111(4):044908, 2025

    2025

  19. [26]

    H. T. Ding, A. Francis, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E. Laer- mann, and W. Soeldner.Phys. Rev. D, 83:034504, 2011

    2011

  20. [27]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, and A. Schafer.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:042301, 2014

    2014

  21. [28]

    H.-T. Ding, O. Kaczmarek, and F. Meyer.Phys. Rev. D, 94(3):034504, 2016

    2016

  22. [29]

    L.-G. Pang, G. Endr ˝odi, and H. Petersen.Phys. Rev. C, 93(4):044919, 2016

    2016

  23. [30]

    Jiang, Z.-H

    Z.-F. Jiang, Z.-H. Zhang, X.-F. Yuan, and B.-W. Zhang.Phys. Rev. C, 110(1):014902, 2024

    2024

  24. [31]

    Huang, X.-Y

    A. Huang, X.-Y . Wu, and M. Huang.Phys. Rev. D, 110(9):094032, 2024

    2024

  25. [32]

    Gale and Kevin L

    C. Gale and Kevin L. Haglin. pages 364–429, 6 2003

    2003

  26. [33]

    J. R. Bhatt, H. Mishra, and V . Sreekanth.JHEP, 11:106, 2010

    2010

  27. [34]

    Thermal Pho- tons and Collective Flow at the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Col- lider.Phys

    Hendrik van Hees, Charles Gale, and Ralf Rapp. Thermal Pho- tons and Collective Flow at the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Col- lider.Phys. Rev. C, 84:054906, 2011

    2011

  28. [35]

    Thermal photons as a quark-gluon plasma ther- mometer reexamined.Phys

    Chun Shen, Ulrich W Heinz, Jean-Francois Paquet, and Charles Gale. Thermal photons as a quark-gluon plasma ther- mometer reexamined.Phys. Rev. C, 89(4):044910, 2014

    2014

  29. [36]

    Denicol, Matthew Luzum, Bj¨orn Schenke, Sangyong Jeon, and Charles Gale

    Jean-Franc ¸ois Paquet, Chun Shen, Gabriel S. Denicol, Matthew Luzum, Bj¨orn Schenke, Sangyong Jeon, and Charles Gale. Production of photons in relativistic heavy-ion colli- sions.Phys. Rev. C, 93(4):044906, 2016

    2016

  30. [37]

    I. A. Wang, X.and Shovkovy, L. Yu, and M. Huang.Phys. Rev. D, 102(7):076010, 2020

    2020

  31. [38]

    Dwibedi, A

    A. Dwibedi, A. K. Panda, S. Ghosh, and V . Roy.arXiv: 2508.16988, 8 2025

    2025 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Thermal photon emission from quark-gluon plasma: 1+1D magnetohydrodynamics results*.Chin

    Jie Xiong, Xiang Fan, Jing Jing, Weishan Yang, Duan She, and Ze-Fang Jiang. Thermal photon emission from quark-gluon plasma: 1+1D magnetohydrodynamics results*.Chin. Phys., 50(4):044105, 2026

    2026

  33. [40]

    C. T. Traxler and M. H. Thoma.Phys. Rev. C, 53:1348–1352, 1996

    1996

  34. [41]

    F. D. Steffen and M. H. Thoma.Phys. Lett. B, 510:98–106,

  35. [42]

    Shokri and N

    M. Shokri and N. Sadooghi.JHEP, 11:181, 2018

    2018

  36. [43]

    V . Roy, S. Pu, L. Rezzolla, and D. Rischke.Phys. Lett. B, 750:45–52, 2015

    2015

  37. [44]

    S. Pu, V . Roy, L. Rezzolla, and D. H. Rischke.Phys. Rev. D, 93(7):074022, 2016

    2016

  38. [45]

    She, Z.-F

    D. She, Z.-F. Jiang, D. Hou, and C.-B. Yang.Phys. Rev. D, 100(11):116014, 2019

    2019

  39. [46]

    Estimating the magnetic field strength in heavy-ion collisions via direct photon elliptic flow

    Jing-An Sun and Li Yan. Estimating the magnetic field strength in heavy-ion collisions via direct photon elliptic flow. Phys. Rev. C, 109(3):034917, 2024

    2024

  40. [47]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endr ¨odi, S. D. Katz, and A. Sch ¨afer. The QCD equation of state in background mag- netic fields.JHEP, 08:177, 2014

    2014

  41. [48]

    Bali, Gergely Endr˝odi, and Stefano Piemonte

    Gunnar S. Bali, Gergely Endr˝odi, and Stefano Piemonte. Mag- netic susceptibility of QCD matter and its decomposition from the lattice.JHEP, 07:183, 2020

    2020

  42. [49]

    Sun and L

    J.-A. Sun and L. Yan.Phys. Lett. B, 858:139046, 2024

    2024

  43. [50]

    G. L. Kasza.arXiv: 2507.13240, 7 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Weak magnetic effect in quark- gluon plasma and local spin polarization*.Chin

    Jing-An Sun and Li Yan. Weak magnetic effect in quark- gluon plasma and local spin polarization*.Chin. Phys. C, 49(7):071001, 2025

    2025

  45. [52]

    Jiang, S.-Y

    Z.-F. Jiang, S.-Y . Liu, T.-Y . Hu, H.-J. Zheng, and D. She.Chin. Phys., 49(11):114104, 2025

    2025

  46. [53]

    Yang, and Defu Hou

    Ze Fang Jiang, Duan She, C.B. Yang, and Defu Hou. Pertur- bation solutions of relativistic viscous hydrodynamics forlon- gitudinally expanding fireballs.Chin. Phys. C, 44(8):084107, 15 2020

    2020

  47. [54]

    Role of magnetic field in photon excess in heavy ion collisions.Phys

    Kirill Tuchin. Role of magnetic field in photon excess in heavy ion collisions.Phys. Rev. C, 91(1):014902, 2015

    2015

  48. [55]

    Haddadi M., W

    M. Haddadi M., W. M. Alberico, D. She, A. F. Kord, and B. Azadegan.Phys. Rev. D, 102(1):014017, 2020

    2020

  49. [56]

    Khwahish Kushwah, Caio V . P. de Brito, and Gabriel S. Deni- col. Relativistic resistive magnetohydrodynamics for a two- component plasma.arXiv: 2511.14787, 11 2025

    2025

  50. [57]

    Electromagnetic radiation by quark-gluon plasma in a magnetic field.Phys

    Kirill Tuchin. Electromagnetic radiation by quark-gluon plasma in a magnetic field.Phys. Rev. C, 87(2):024912, 2013

    2013

  51. [58]

    Flows and polarization of early photons with magnetic field at strong coupling.Phys

    Ho-Ung Yee. Flows and polarization of early photons with magnetic field at strong coupling.Phys. Rev. D, 88(2):026001, 2013

    2013

  52. [59]

    B. G. Zakharov. Effect of magnetic field on the photon radi- ation from quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions.Eur . Phys. J. C, 76(11):609, 2016

    2016

  53. [60]

    Electrical Conductivity of Quark-Gluon Plasma in Strong Magnetic Fields.Phys

    Koichi Hattori and Daisuke Satow. Electrical Conductivity of Quark-Gluon Plasma in Strong Magnetic Fields.Phys. Rev. D, 94(11):114032, 2016

    2016

  54. [61]

    Shovkovy

    Xinyang Wang and Igor A. Shovkovy. Circularly polarized photon emission from magnetized chiral plasmas.Phys. Rev. D, 110(11):116005, 2024

    2024

  55. [62]

    Biswas, A

    R. Biswas, A. Dash, N. Haque, S. Pu, and V . Roy.JHEP, 10:171, 2020

    2020

  56. [63]

    Elliptic flow from thermal photons with magnetic field in holography.Phys

    Berndt Muller, Shang-Yu Wu, and Di-Lun Yang. Elliptic flow from thermal photons with magnetic field in holography.Phys. Rev. D, 89(2):026013, 2014

    2014

  57. [64]

    Holographic Photon Pro- duction with Magnetic Field in Anisotropic Plasmas.JHEP, 08:032, 2013

    Shang-Yu Wu and Di-Lun Yang. Holographic Photon Pro- duction with Magnetic Field in Anisotropic Plasmas.JHEP, 08:032, 2013

    2013

  58. [65]

    Huovinen, P.and Petreczky

    P. Huovinen, P.and Petreczky. QCD Equation of State and Hadron Resonance Gas.Nucl. Phys. A, 837:26–53, 2010

    2010

  59. [66]

    Dynamical evolution of a mag- netic field in the preequilibrium quark-gluon plasma.Phys

    Li Yan and Xu-Guang Huang. Dynamical evolution of a mag- netic field in the preequilibrium quark-gluon plasma.Phys. Rev. D, 107(9):094028, 2023

    2023

  60. [67]

    Binary neutron star merg- ers: a review of Einstein’s richest laboratory.Rept

    Luca Baiotti and Luciano Rezzolla. Binary neutron star merg- ers: a review of Einstein’s richest laboratory.Rept. Prog. Phys., 80(9):096901, 2017

    2017

  61. [68]

    Muronga.Phys

    A. Muronga.Phys. Rev. Lett., 88:062302, 2002. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 89, 159901 (2002)]

    2002

  62. [69]

    Muronga.Phys

    A. Muronga.Phys. Rev. C, 69:034903, 2004

    2004

  63. [70]

    Quark produc- tion, Bose–Einstein condensates and thermalization of the quark–gluon plasma.Nucl

    Jean-Paul Blaizot, Bin Wu, and Li Yan. Quark produc- tion, Bose–Einstein condensates and thermalization of the quark–gluon plasma.Nucl. Phys. A, 930:139–162, 2014

    2014

  64. [72]

    Karsch.Z

    F. Karsch.Z. Phys. C, 38:147, 1988

    1988

  65. [73]

    D. K. Srivastava.Eur . Phys. J. C, 10:487–490, 1999. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 20, 399–400 (2001)]

    2001

  66. [74]

    Chatterjee, P

    R. Chatterjee, P. Dasgupta, and D. K. Srivastava.Phys. Rev. C, 96(1):014911, 2017

    2017

  67. [75]

    Chatterjee and P

    S. Chatterjee and P. Bo˙zek. Large directed flow of open charm mesons probes the three dimensional distribution of matter in heavy ion collisions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 120(19):192301, 2018

    2018

  68. [76]

    Multimessenger heavy-ion collision physics.Phys

    Charles Gale, Jean-Franc ¸ois Paquet, Bj¨orn Schenke, and Chun Shen. Multimessenger heavy-ion collision physics.Phys. Rev. C, 105(1):014909, 2022

    2022

  69. [77]

    C. Shen, U. W. Heinz, J.-F. Paquet, I. Kozlov, and C. Gale. Phys. Rev. C, 91(2):024908, 2015

    2015

  70. [78]

    Spin hydrodynamics and sym- metric energy-momentum tensors – A current induced by the spin vorticity –.Phys

    Kenji Fukushima and Shi Pu. Spin hydrodynamics and sym- metric energy-momentum tensors – A current induced by the spin vorticity –.Phys. Lett. B, 817:136346, 2021

    2021

  71. [79]

    Petersen, Qun Wang, and Xin-Nian Wang

    Long-Gang Pang, H. Petersen, Qun Wang, and Xin-Nian Wang. V ortical Fluid andΛSpin Correlations in High-Energy Heavy-Ion Collisions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 117(19):192301, 2016

    2016

  72. [80]

    Anomalous magnetohydrodynamics with temperature- dependent electric conductivity and application to the global polarization.Phys

    Hao-Hao Peng, Sihao Wu, Ren-jie Wang, Duan She, and Shi Pu. Anomalous magnetohydrodynamics with temperature- dependent electric conductivity and application to the global polarization.Phys. Rev. D, 107(9):096010, 2023

    2023

  73. [81]

    Fate of spin polarization in a relativistic fluid: An entropy-current analysis.Phys

    Koichi Hattori, Masaru Hongo, Xu-Guang Huang, Mamoru Matsuo, and Hidetoshi Taya. Fate of spin polarization in a relativistic fluid: An entropy-current analysis.Phys. Lett. B, 795:100–106, 2019

    2019

  74. [82]

    Canonical and phenomenological formulations of spin hydrodynamics.Phys

    Asaad Daher, Arpan Das, Wojciech Florkowski, and Radoslaw Ryblewski. Canonical and phenomenological formulations of spin hydrodynamics.Phys. Rev. C, 108(2):024902, 2023

    2023

  75. [83]

    Relativistic spin hy- drodynamics with torsion and linear response theory for spin relaxation.JHEP, 11:150, 2021

    Masaru Hongo, Xu-Guang Huang, Matthias Kaminski, Mikhail Stephanov, and Ho-Ung Yee. Relativistic spin hy- drodynamics with torsion and linear response theory for spin relaxation.JHEP, 11:150, 2021

    2021

  76. [84]

    Stephanov, and Ho-Ung Yee

    Shiyong Li, Mikhail A. Stephanov, and Ho-Ung Yee. Nondissipative Second-Order Transport, Spin, and Pseudo- gauge Transformations in Hydrodynamics.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127(8):082302, 2021

    2021

  77. [85]

    Rela- tivistic viscous hydrodynamics with angular momentum.Sci

    Duan She, Anping Huang, Defu Hou, and Jinfeng Liao. Rela- tivistic viscous hydrodynamics with angular momentum.Sci. Bull., 67:2265–2268, 2022

    2022

  78. [86]

    Relativistic hydrodynamics for spin-polarized fluids

    Wojciech Florkowski, Avdhesh Kumar, and Radoslaw Ry- blewski. Relativistic hydrodynamics for spin-polarized fluids. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 108:103709, 2019

    2019

  79. [87]

    Relativistic second- order spin hydrodynamics: An entropy-current analysis.Phys

    Rajesh Biswas, Asaad Daher, Arpan Das, Wojciech Florkowski, and Radoslaw Ryblewski. Relativistic second- order spin hydrodynamics: An entropy-current analysis.Phys. Rev. D, 108(1):014024, 2023

    2023

  80. [88]

    Ideal Spin Hydrodynamics from the Wigner Function Ap- proach.Chin

    Hao-Hao Peng, Jun-Jie Zhang, Xin-Li Sheng, and Qun Wang. Ideal Spin Hydrodynamics from the Wigner Function Ap- proach.Chin. Phys. Lett., 38(11):116701, 2021

    2021

  81. [89]

    Relativistic fluid dynamics with spin.Phys

    Wojciech Florkowski, Bengt Friman, Amaresh Jaiswal, and Enrico Speranza. Relativistic fluid dynamics with spin.Phys. Rev. C, 97(4):041901, 2018

    2018

  82. [90]

    Spin relaxation rate for heavy quarks in weakly coupled QCD plasma.JHEP, 08:263, 2022

    Masaru Hongo, Xu-Guang Huang, Matthias Kaminski, Mikhail Stephanov, and Ho-Ung Yee. Spin relaxation rate for heavy quarks in weakly coupled QCD plasma.JHEP, 08:263, 2022

    2022

  83. [91]

    Quantum Kinetic Theory of Spin Polarization of Massive Quarks in Perturbative QCD: Leading Log.Phys

    Shiyong Li and Ho-Ung Yee. Quantum Kinetic Theory of Spin Polarization of Massive Quarks in Perturbative QCD: Leading Log.Phys. Rev. D, 100(5):056022, 2019

    2019

  84. [92]

    Relativistic dis- sipative spin dynamics in the relaxation time approximation

    Samapan Bhadury, Wojciech Florkowski, Amaresh Jaiswal, Avdhesh Kumar, and Radoslaw Ryblewski. Relativistic dis- sipative spin dynamics in the relaxation time approximation. Phys. Lett. B, 814:136096, 2021

    2021

  85. [93]

    From chiral ki- netic theory to relativistic viscous spin hydrodynamics.Phys

    Shuzhe Shi, Charles Gale, and Sangyong Jeon. From chiral ki- netic theory to relativistic viscous spin hydrodynamics.Phys. Rev. C, 103(4):044906, 2021

    2021

  86. [94]

    A. D. Gallegos, U. G ¨ursoy, and A. Yarom. Hydrodynamics of spin currents.SciPost Phys., 11:041, 2021

    2021

  87. [95]

    Nora Weickgenannt, David Wagner, Enrico Speranza, and Dirk H. Rischke. Relativistic second-order dissipative spin hydrodynamics from the method of moments.Phys. Rev. D, 106(9):096014, 2022

    2022

  88. [96]

    Relativistic Spin Magnetohydrodynamics.Phys

    Samapan Bhadury, Wojciech Florkowski, Amaresh Jaiswal, Avdhesh Kumar, and Radoslaw Ryblewski. Relativistic Spin Magnetohydrodynamics.Phys. Rev. Lett., 129(19):192301, 2022

    2022

  89. [97]

    Nora Weickgenannt, David Wagner, Enrico Speranza, and Dirk H. Rischke. Relativistic dissipative spin hydrodynam- ics from kinetic theory with a nonlocal collision term.Phys. Rev. D, 106(9):L091901, 2022. 16

    2022

  90. [98]

    Gen- eralized relativistic second-order spin hydrodynamics from Zubarev’s nonequilibrium statistical operator.Phys

    Duan She, Yi-Wei Qiu, Ze-Fang Jiang, and Defu Hou. Gen- eralized relativistic second-order spin hydrodynamics from Zubarev’s nonequilibrium statistical operator.Phys. Rev. D, 112(9):096013, 2025

    2025

  91. [99]

    A. D. Gallegos, U. Gursoy, and A. Yarom. Hydrodynamics, spin currents and torsion.JHEP, 05:139, 2023

    2023

  92. [100]

    Linear response the- ory and effective action of relativistic hydrodynamics with spin.Phys

    David Montenegro and Giorgio Torrieri. Linear response the- ory and effective action of relativistic hydrodynamics with spin.Phys. Rev. D, 102(3):036007, 2020

    2020

  93. [101]

    Relativistic second- order spin hydrodynamics: A Kubo-type formulation for the quark-gluon plasma.Phys

    Duan She, Yi-Wei Qiu, and Defu Hou. Relativistic second- order spin hydrodynamics: A Kubo-type formulation for the quark-gluon plasma.Phys. Rev. D, 111(3):036027, 2025

    2025

  94. [102]

    X.-Y . Wu, H. Gao, B. Forster, C. Gale, and S. Jackson, G.and Jeon.Phys. Rev. Lett., 134(24):242301, 2025. Appendix A: Perturbative Solution of MHD We derive the approximate solution for the MHD tem- perature evolution equation in the case of the lattice-derived magnetic susce...

    2025

  95. [103]

    Wang, X.-Q

    D.-L. Wang, X.-Q. Xie, S. Fang, and S. Pu.Phys. Rev. D, 105(11):114050, 2022

    2022

  96. [104]

    Anisotropic linear waves and breakdown of the momentum expansion in spin magnetohydrodynamics.Phys

    Zhe Fang, Koichi Hattori, and Jin Hu. Anisotropic linear waves and breakdown of the momentum expansion in spin magnetohydrodynamics.Phys. Rev. D, 112(7):076016, 2025

    2025

  97. [105]

    K. Shen, T. S. Biro, and E. Wang.Physica A, 492:2353–2360, 2018

    2018

  98. [2001]

    [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 660, 604–606 (2008)]

    2008

Pith tools

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