Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Electric, thermal and thermoelectric response of a hot pion gas in a time dependent background magnetic field

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a hot pion gas under an exponentially decaying magnetic field, the electric, thermal, and thermoelectric transport coefficients all deviate from their constant-field values, with the deviations controlled by the field's decay timescale…

desk verdict Competent RTA extension to a pion gas in time-dependent B-fields, but the claimed τB effect is not separated from the instantaneous-field dependence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23283 v1 pith:HGREKTOR submitted 2025-07-31 hep-ph nucl-th

Ankit Kumar , Gowthama K K , Vinod Chandra , Sadhana Dash This is my paper
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords piongastime-dependentmagneticfieldtransportcoefficientsOhmicandHallconductivitiesthermalconductivitythermoelectriceffectellipticflowrelaxationtimeapproximation
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 that the transport coefficients of a hot pion gas—the medium that forms in the hadronic stage of heavy-ion collisions—are systematically modified when the background magnetic field is allowed to decay in time rather than held constant. Working with the profile $B(t)=B_0 e^{-t/\tau_B}$, the authors show that the Ohmic and Hall conductivities, the thermal conductivity and its Hall-like partner, and the magneto-Seebeck and Nernst coefficients all acquire corrections controlled by the decay timescale $\tau_B$, in addition to their known dependence on field strength and temperature. These corrections matter because simulations of the late hadronic phase typically assume a frozen magnetic field, so they would miss a real, $\tau_B$-dependent source of deviation in quantities like the elliptic flow $v_2$, which the paper also recomputes through the Knudsen number. The derivation is carried out within the relaxation time approximation to the relativistic Boltzmann equation, solved explicitly for the field-dependent expansion coefficients.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective magnetic frequency $F = \sqrt{B(B - \tau_R \dot{B})}$, which replaces the bare cyclotron frequency whenever the field varies in time; it enters the exponent $\eta_j = -t/\tau_R + a_j\,(i q_k/\epsilon_k)\int F\,dt$ of the solved expansion coefficients. The calculation is carried by the relativistic Boltzmann equation with the relaxation time approximation, using the non-equilibrium distribution ansatz $\delta f_k = (p\cdot\Xi)\,\partial f^0_k/\partial\epsilon_k$, where $\Xi$ is expanded in the fields $\mathbf{E}$, $\mathbf{B}$ and their first time derivatives $\dot{\mathbf{E}}$, $\dot{\mathbf{B}}$, and a curl term. Matching tensorial structures converts the kinetic equation into coupled ordinary differential equations for the coefficients $\alpha_i$, $\beta_i$, $\gamma_i$; solving those equations, and then performing the momentum integrals, produces every transport coefficient the paper reports.

What would settle it

Recompute the Ohmic and Hall conductivities of the pion gas for $B(t)=B_0 e^{-t/\tau_B}$ at $T=0.14$ GeV and $\mu_{\pi^\pm}=\pm0.1$ GeV, using a magnetic-field-dependent relaxation time instead of the fitted $\tau_R$ of Ref. [30]; the paper predicts a $\tau_B$-controlled crossover in the time evolution of $\sigma_e$ and $\sigma_H$ (Fig. 2), so if that crossover disappears or shifts materially, the fixed-$\tau_R$ premise is the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that replacing a constant magnetic field by an exponentially decaying one, $B(t)=B_0 e^{-t/\tau_B}$, changes the transport response of a hot pion gas in a specific and calculable way. The Ohmic conductivity $\sigma_e$ grows with time as the field decays and saturates at large times, the Hall conductivity $\sigma_H$ falls with time and vanishes in the late-time limit, and both display a crossover in their time evolution whose location depends on $\tau_B$ and the temperature. The thermal conductivity $\kappa$ rises as the field decays, while the Hall-like transverse thermal conductivity $\kappa_H = \bar{\kappa}_1 + \bar{\kappa}_2$ falls, reflecting the field's disappearance. The magnitude of the magneto-Seebeck coefficient $S_B$ decreases with both $B_0$ and $\tau_B$, and the normalized Nernst coefficient $N_B$ increases with $B_0$ and with faster decay. Finally, through the Knudsen number, the elliptic flow $v_2$ increases with $B_0$ and decreases with $\tau_B$, showing that the magnetic field's lifetime, not just its initial strength, leaves an imprint on a measured observable.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on assuming the pion relaxation time, fitted without any magnetic-field dependence, stays valid at every instant while the magnetic field decays; if scattering rates actually depend on the field or its decay, the predicted magnitudes and crossover times will shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hydrodynamic or transport simulations of the hadronic phase that assume a constant magnetic field will systematically misestimate the Ohmic and Hall conductivities; the paper's equations (11)-(15) provide the $\tau_B$-dependent corrections for an exponential decay profile.
  • Because $v_2$ rises with $B_0$ and falls with $\tau_B$, heavy-ion data on elliptic flow can in principle be used to constrain how long the magnetic field survived in the hadronic phase, provided the pion-gas transport sector is the dominant contributor.
  • The fast-decay limit ($\tau_B$ small) suppresses the Hall conductivity and Hall-like thermal conductivity while enhancing the Nernst coefficient, so thermoelectric measurements, if they become accessible, would be especially sensitive to short-lived fields.
  • The framework reduces to the established constant-field and zero-field results (Refs. [9], [30], [39], [40]) in the appropriate limits, so the new $\tau_B$-dependence is an extension that can be grafted onto existing hadronic-transport codes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same $F$-machinery predicts an analogous $\tau_B$-controlled behaviour for other charged hadrons such as kaons, whose larger mass shifts the temperature window, giving a testable mass hierarchy.
  • Beyond the paper: since the decay of a magnetic field in a conducting medium is itself governed by the Ohmic conductivity, the natural next step is a self-consistent calculation where $\sigma_e$ feeds back into $B(t)$; that coupling could change the predicted late-time saturation of $\sigma_e$.
  • Beyond the paper: the exponential profile is an input assumption; rerunning the same derivation with a magnetohydrodynamically computed field decay (e.g., from Ref. [14]) would test whether the predicted crossovers in $\sigma_e$ and $\sigma_H$ survive for realistic decay shapes.
  • Beyond the paper: because $\tau_R$ is held fixed, the quoted magnitudes are likely upper bounds on the sensitivity; letting $\tau_R$ depend on $B$ would alter $F$ through the $\tau_R \dot{B}$ term and shift all coefficients, which Eq. (6) already shows explicitly.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the relaxation-time-approximation (RTA) treatment of a hot pion gas to a time-dependent, exponentially decaying magnetic field B(t)=B0 e^{-t/τB}. It derives closed-form expressions for the Ohmic and Hall conductivities, the thermal conductivity and Hall-like thermal conductivity, and the magneto-Seebeck and Nernst coefficients, and then applies the thermal conductivity to the Knudsen number and elliptic flow. The central claim is that the decay time τB produces systematic, non-trivial modifications of these transport coefficients relative to their constant-field values, with the deviations controlled by τB (Eqs. (11)-(15), (34)-(37), (48)-(49), Figs. 2-6).

Significance. If the τB-controlled deviations were cleanly established, the paper would be a useful step toward more realistic hadronic-phase transport, since magnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions decay on dynamical timescales. The manuscript has genuine strengths: it reproduces known constant-field and zero-field limits (Figs. 1 and 4 versus Refs. [30,39]), it provides explicit closed-form expressions for Seebeck and Nernst coefficients in a time-varying field, and it connects the thermal transport to the phenomenologically relevant elliptic flow. However, the quantitative central claim is not yet established: the comparison baseline for isolating the time-derivative effects is missing, and the solution of the time-dependent Boltzmann system is an uncontrolled adiabatic approximation whose error is of the same order as the claimed derivative effects. These issues are fixable but require substantive revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (6)-(12)] The proposed variation-of-constants solution is not an exact solution of the stated time-dependent system. The matrix A(t) in Eq. (8) has time-dependent eigenvectors; writing X=P Y, the transformed equation contains the extra term -P^{-1}P' Y, which is not included in the derivation. Substituting the final expressions (11)-(12) into Eq. (6) leaves an uncancelled term (F'/F) α1 in the equation for dα1/dt. The solution is therefore only a leading adiabatic approximation, valid when F'/F is negligible relative to the other scales. For the exponential profile used here, F'/F = -1/τB, so the neglected term is of order τR/τB relative to the damping term -α1/τR. That is the same order as the derivative corrections the paper claims to compute, so the derivation must either be made exact or be presented as a systematic expansion in τR/τB with its regime of validity stated.
  2. [Section V, Figs. 2-6] The τB dependence is not separated from the dependence on the instantaneous magnetic field strength. In these figures τB is varied at fixed t and B0, so B(t)=B0 e^{-t/τB} itself changes substantially; for example, at t=2.5 fm the field for τB=3 fm is about 28% lower than for τB=5 fm. The genuinely new τB-dependent effects in the formalism—the replacement B²→B²(1+τR/τB) in the cyclotron-type frequencies and the explicit Ḃ-proportional terms j_H^(2), κ̄2, and γ8—are O(τR/τB), i.e. a few percent for the parameters used, while the instantaneous-field variation is tens of percent. To support the central claim that the time dependence of B itself modifies the transport coefficients, the comparison baseline must be the constant-field coefficients evaluated at the same instantaneous B(t), not at B0 or at B=0. Without that baseline, the visible τB sensitivity in the plots is consistent with trivial instantaneous-field effects.
  3. [Sec. II, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The ansatz in Eq. (4) contains the term α9(∇×B), and the Boltzmann equation (5) retains the corresponding contributions, but α9 is never determined, set to zero, or argued to vanish. The statement that αi=0 for i=6,7,8 by parity does not cover α9, since ∇×B is a polar vector and is allowed by parity. If the magnetic field is intended to be spatially homogeneous, so that ∇×B=0, this should be stated explicitly before the ansatz is introduced; otherwise the solved system in Eqs. (6)-(7) is incomplete.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (29), (30), (41), (42)] Several displayed formulae have the same typo: the second exponential should be e^{η2}, not e^{η1}. Please check Eqs. (29), (30), (41), and (42) and correct the exponents; the analogous expressions in Eqs. (11)-(12) and (45) have the correct structure.
  2. [Sec. II, relaxation time parametrization] The units quoted for the coefficients a_i in the τR parametrization ('fm GeV^3') do not combine with the factor 1/T to give a time; please check and correct the dimensions of these coefficients.
  3. [Eqs. (34)-(35)] Please check the relative sign of the π0 contribution to the thermal conductivity. As typeset, Eq. (34) appears to subtract the positive quantity (κ)π0 defined in Eq. (35); if the total κ is meant to be the sum of the charged-pion and neutral-pion contributions, the sign should be corrected.
  4. [Figs. 2 and 5] The text refers to decay parameters of both the electric and magnetic fields, but the discussion and figures predominantly vary τB. Please state the values of τE used (or whether the electric field is taken to be constant) so the plots are reproducible.
  5. [Fig. 1] For the comparison with Ref. [30], please specify the values of τB and τE used for the time-dependent curves; without these values the claimed agreement with the constant-field results is not fully defined.
  6. [Sec. III] There is a typo in 'time time-decaying magnetic field' in the sentence above Eq. (33); it should read 'time-decaying magnetic field'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction is present: the transport coefficients are derived from the RTA Boltzmann equation with an external relaxation time, and the final results are benchmarked to independent constant-field and B=0 references.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the electrical coefficients α_i are solved in Eqs. (6)-(15) from the Boltzmann equation (2) and the explicitly stated ansatz (3)-(4), with the relaxation time τ_R taken from the external fit of Ref. [30], not from the paper's own outputs. The thermal and thermoelectric coefficients β_i and γ_i are obtained by the same kinetic procedure; the β_i calculation is attributed to the authors' earlier Ref. [38], which shares two authors with this paper, but that reference is a separate hot-QCD-medium calculation whose assumptions are repeated here and whose relevant limits are checked against external Refs. [39] and [30]. The central claim that τ_B controls deviations therefore does not reduce by construction to a fitted parameter or to a reused output: the time-dependent corrections enter through F = sqrt(B(B−τ_R Ḃ)) and through the explicit Ḃ-proportional current and heat-flow pieces, and they vanish smoothly in the constant-field limit. The paper itself flags the strongest assumptions in the outlook, noting that the treatment 'can be refined by considering the magnetic field dependence of the relaxation time'; this is an acknowledged modeling limitation, not a circular step. A separate interpretive concern, raised by the skeptical reading, is that Figs. 2-6 vary τ_B at fixed B0 and t, so B(t) = B0 e^{−t/τB} also changes and the plots do not separate the instantaneous-field effect from the genuinely new derivative/memory corrections; however, this is a comparison-baseline issue, not a case where a 'prediction' is equivalent to its input by definition. The self-citations are thus minor and non-load-bearing, and no specific equation reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no new dynamical entity; all freedom lies in the chosen field profile and the externally fitted relaxation time. The main caveat is that the relaxation time is assumed insensitive to B, which is explicitly acknowledged in the outlook.

free parameters (5)
  • relaxation time parametrization coefficients a0..a3 = a0=0.0145, a1=-0.0109, a2=0.0058, a3=0.0026 fm GeV^3
    Taken from Ref. [30], fitted to pion gas cross sections; enters every coefficient via τR. Not fit to the target observables here.
  • magnetic field amplitude B0 = 0.002, 0.005, 0.01, 0.02 GeV^2 in figures
    Chosen by hand as representative HIC hadronic-phase field strengths.
  • magnetic field decay time τB = 3, 5, 7 fm in figures
    Chosen by hand to model slowly decaying fields; the main scan parameter of the study.
  • electric field decay time τE = large values, not precisely specified in plots beyond 'large'
    Set large to mimic slowly decaying fields; exact values used in Fig. 3 not quoted.
  • baryon chemical potential for π± = ±0.1 GeV
    Chosen input; affects the difference between π+ and π− distributions.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Relaxation time approximation for the Boltzmann collision term
    Eq. (2) replaces the collision integral by -δfk/τR; standard but uncontrolled for strongly coupled pion gas.
  • domain assumption Fields and their derivatives are slowly varying; neglect derivatives above first order in space-time
    Stated after Eq. (5); used to drop ˙α2, ˙α4, ˙α5, ˙α9 and higher-order terms.
  • domain assumption Chiral chemical potential vanishes and parity is conserved, so α6=α7=α8=0
    Stated in Sec. II before Eq. (5), citing [35].
  • domain assumption B·X = 0 so β1 and β4 are neglected
    Stated in Sec. III after Eq. (32).
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetic field decays exponentially as B = B0 e^{-t/τB} with constant τB
    Phenomenological ansatz in Sec. II; not derived from magnetohydrodynamics. The results are contingent on this profile.
  • domain assumption Knudsen number and elliptic flow relations λ = 3κ/(v C_v) and v2 = v2^h / (1 + Kn/Kn0)
    Adopted from Refs. [43,44,47]; the v2-Kn relation is a fit to Monte Carlo, not a first-principles expression.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electric, thermal and thermoelectric response of a hot pion gas in a time dependent background magnetic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HGREKTOR

@misc{pith2026250723283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electric, thermal and thermoelectric response of a hot pion gas in a time dependent background magnetic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HGREKTOR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23283}
}
read the original abstract

The prime focus of the work is to determine the electric, thermal and thermoelectric transport coefficients of a hot pion gas in the presence of time-dependent background magnetic fields. The thermoelectric effect is analyzed by examining the magneto-Seebeck and Nernst coefficients in the hot pionic medium under such conditions. Furthermore, the phenomenologically relevant elliptic flow coefficient, linked to the Knudsen number, is examined. The analysis reveals the significant impact of both the strength and time dependence of the magnetic field on the transport coefficients of the pionic medium. The results are analyzed in contrast to those obtained under a constant magnetic field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23283 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Ohmic conductivity (left panel) and Hall conductivity (Right panel) as a function of temperature for different amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Ohmic conductivity (left panel) and Hall conductivity (Right panel) as a function of time for different amplitudes and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ohmic conductivity (left panel) and Hall conductivity (Right panel) as a function of amplitude and decay parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Thermal conductivity (left panel) and Hall-like Thermal conductivity (right panel) as a function of temperature for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Thermal conductivity (left panel) and Hall-like Thermal conductivity (right panel) as a function of time for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Magneto-Seebeck coefficient (left panel) and normalized Nernst coefficient (right panel) as a function of amplitude and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Knudsen number(left panel) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    K. K. Gowthama, M. Kurian, and V. Chandra, Ther- mal and thermoelectric responses of hot qcd medium in time-varying magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D 106, 034008 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009

    arXiv 2005

  3. [2]

    Adcox et al

    K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX), Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A 757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

    arXiv 2005

  4. [3]

    Back et al

    B. Back et al. (PHOBOS), The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC, Nucl. Phys. A 757, 28 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022

    arXiv 2005

  5. [4]

    Arsene et al

    I. Arsene et al. (BRAHMS), Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The Perspective from the BRAHMS experiment, Nucl. Phys. A 757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020

    arXiv 2005

  6. [5]

    Aamodt et al

    K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE), Charged-particle multiplic- ity density at mid-rapidity in central Pb-Pb collisions at√sN N= 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252301 (2010), arXiv:1011.3916 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [6]

    Turbide, R

    S. Turbide, R. Rapp, and C. Gale, Hadronic production of thermal photons, Phys. Rev. C 69, 014903 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [7]

    J. V. Steele, H. Yamagishi, and I. Zahed, Dilepton and photon emission rates from a hadronic gas, Physics Let- ters B 384, 255 (1996)

    work page 1996

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    A. Dash, S. Samanta, J. Dey, U. Gangopadhyaya, S. Ghosh, and V. Roy, Anisotropic transport properties of a hadron resonance gas in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. D 102, 016016 (2020), arXiv:2002.08781 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A. Das, H. Mishra, and R. K. Mohapatra, Transport coef- ficients of hot and dense hadron gas in a magnetic field: a relaxation time approach, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114004 (2019), arXiv:1909.06202 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    G. P. Kadam, H. Mishra, and L. Thakur, Electrical and thermal conductivities of hot and dense hadronic matter, Phys. Rev. D 98, 114001 (2018), arXiv:1712.03805 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    event by event p and cp violation

    D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, The effects of topological charge change in heavy ion collisions: “event by event p and cp violation”, Nuclear Physics A 803, 227 (2008)

    2008

  5. [12]

    Skokov, A

    V. Skokov, A. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, Estimate of the magnetic field strength in heavy-ion collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 5925 (2009), arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl- th]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [13]

    V. V. SKOKOV, A. Y. ILLARIONOV, and V. D. TONEEV, Estimate of the magnetic field strength in heavy-ion collisions, International Journal of Modern Physics A 24, 5925 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X09047570

    2009 doi

  7. [14]

    Huang, D

    A. Huang, D. She, S. Shi, M. Huang, and J. Liao, Dynam- ical magnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 107, 034901 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    Inghirami, M

    G. Inghirami, M. Mace, Y. Hirono, L. Del Zanna, D. E. Kharzeev, and M. Bleicher, Magnetic fields in heavy ion collisions: flow and charge transport, The European Physical Journal C 80, 293 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Fukushima, D

    K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, Chi- ral magnetic effect, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074033 (2008)

    2008

  10. [17]

    Kharzeev, J

    D. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. Voloshin, and G. Wang, Chiral magnetic and vortical effects in high-energy nuclear col- lisions—A status report, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 88, 1 (2016), arXiv:1511.04050 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Sadofyev and M

    A. Sadofyev and M. Isachenkov, The Chiral magnetic effect in hydrodynamical approach, Phys. Lett. B 697, 404 (2011), arXiv:1010.1550 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [19]

    D. E. Kharzeev and H.-U. Yee, Chiral magnetic wave, Phys. Rev. D 83, 085007 (2011)

    2011

  13. [20]

    Tuchin, Magnetic contribution to dilepton production in heavy-ion collisions, Phys

    K. Tuchin, Magnetic contribution to dilepton production in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024910 (2013)

    2013

  14. [21]

    I. A. Shovkovy, Magnetic catalysis: A review, in Strongly Interacting Matter in Magnetic Fields, edited by D. Kharzeev, K. Landsteiner, A. Schmitt, and H.- U. Yee (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,

  15. [22]

    Gusynin, V

    V. Gusynin, V. Miransky, and I. Shovkovy, Dimensional reduction and catalysis of dynamical symmetry break- ing by a magnetic field, Nucl. Phys. B 462, 249 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9509320

    1996 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Endr˝ odi, M

    G. Endr˝ odi, M. Giordano, S. D. Katz, T. G. Kovacs, and F. Pittler, Magnetic catalysis and inverse catalysis for heavy pions, Journal of high energy physics 2019, 1 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    Bocquet, S

    M. Bocquet, S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon, and J. No- vak, Rotating neutron star models with magnetic field (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9503044 [gr-qc]

    1995 arXiv

  18. [25]

    G. Baym, D. B¨ odeker, and L. McLerran, Magnetic fields produced by phase transition bubbles in the electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 53, 662 (1996)

    1996

  19. [26]

    Tuchin, Synchrotron radiation by fast fermions in heavy-ion collisions, Phys

    K. Tuchin, Synchrotron radiation by fast fermions in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 82, 034904 (2010)

    2010

  20. [27]

    Tuchin, Particle production in strong electromag- netic fields in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Advances in High Energy Physics 2013, 490495 (2013)

    K. Tuchin, Particle production in strong electromag- netic fields in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Advances in High Energy Physics 2013, 490495 (2013)

    2013

  21. [28]

    Stewart and K

    E. Stewart and K. Tuchin, Continuous evolution of elec- tromagnetic field in heavy-ion collisions, Nuclear Physics A 1016, 122308 (2021)

    2021

  22. [29]

    Ghosh and M

    R. Ghosh and M. Kurian, Magnetic-field-dependent electric-charge transport in hadronic medium at fi- nite temperature, Phys. Rev. C 107, 034903 (2023), arXiv:2211.06729 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Kalikotay, S

    P. Kalikotay, S. Ghosh, N. Chaudhuri, P. Roy, and S. Sarkar, Medium effects on the electrical and hall con- ductivities of a hot and magnetized pion gas, Phys. Rev. D 102, 076007 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    A. Das, H. Mishra, and R. K. Mohapatra, Magneto- seebeck coefficient and nernst coefficient of a hot and dense hadron gas, Phys. Rev. D 102, 014030 (2020)

    2020

  25. [32]

    A. Das, H. Mishra, and R. K. Mohapatra, Electrical con- ductivity and Hall conductivity of a hot and dense hadron gas in a magnetic field: A relaxation time approach, Phys. Rev. D 99, 094031 (2019), arXiv:1903.03938 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [33]

    D. Dey, G. K. K., S. Dash, and B. K. Nandi, Viscous effects of a hot QGP medium in a time dependent mag- netic field and their phenomenological significance, Phys. Rev. D 111, 096014 (2025), arXiv:2501.19349 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [34]

    G. K. K, M. Kurian, and V. Chandra, Electromagnetic response of hot QCD medium in the presence of back- ground time-varying fields, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094037 (2021), arXiv:2108.06791 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Satow, Nonlinear electromagnetic response in quark- gluon plasma, Phys

    D. Satow, Nonlinear electromagnetic response in quark- gluon plasma, Phys. Rev. D 90, 034018 (2014), arXiv:1406.7032 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Mitra and V

    S. Mitra and V. Chandra, Covariant kinetic theory for ef- fective fugacity quasiparticle model and first order trans- port coefficients for hot qcd matter, Phys. Rev. D 97, 034032 (2018)

    2018

  30. [37]

    S. R. Groot, W. A. Leeuwen, C. G. van Weert, and C. G. Weert, Relativistic kinetic theory: principles and applications (North Holland, 1980)

    1980

  31. [39]

    Mitra and S

    S. Mitra and S. Sarkar, Medium effects on the thermal conductivity of a hot pion gas, Phys. Rev. D 89, 054013 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Mitra and V

    S. Mitra and V. Chandra, Transport coefficients of a hot qcd medium and their relative significance in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. D 96, 094003 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    J. R. Bhatt, A. Das, and H. Mishra, Thermoelectric effect and Seebeck coefficient for hot and dense hadronic mat- ter, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014015 (2019), arXiv:1808.02789 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Rath and S

    S. Rath and S. Dash, Effects of weak magnetic field and finite chemical potential on the transport of charge and heat in hot qcd matter, The European Physical Journal A 59, 25 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    R. S. Bhalerao, J.-P. Blaizot, N. Borghini, and J.- Y. Ollitrault, Elliptic flow and incomplete equilibration at RHIC, Phys. Lett. B 627, 49 (2005), arXiv:nucl- th/0508009

    2005

  36. [44]

    Rath and S

    S. Rath and S. Dash, Momentum transport properties of a hot and dense qcd matter in a weak magnetic field, The European Physical Journal C 82, 797 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Chakraborty and J

    P. Chakraborty and J. I. Kapusta, Quasiparticle theory of shear and bulk viscosities of hadronic matter, Phys. Rev. C 83, 014906 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    PHENIX Collaboration, Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Au + Au collisions at √sN N = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 182301 (2003)

    2003

  39. [47]

    Gombeaud and J.-Y

    C. Gombeaud and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Elliptic flow in trans- port theory and hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. C77, 054904 (2008), arXiv:nucl-th/0702075

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Kalikotay, S

    P. Kalikotay, S. Ghosh, N. Chaudhuri, P. Roy, and S. Sarkar, Electrical conductivity and shear viscosity of a pion gas in a thermo-magnetic medium, The European Physical Journal A 60, 71 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Kumar Singh, S

    S. Kumar Singh, S. Bhadury, M. Kurian, and V. Chan- dra, Particle number diffusion in second-order relativistic dissipative hydrodynamics with momentum-dependent relaxation time, Phys. Rev. D 111, 114007 (2025), arXiv:2501.17442 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    S. K. Singh, M. Kurian, and V. Chandra, Revisit- ing shear stress tensor evolution: Nonresistive magne- tohydrodynamics with momentum-dependent relaxation time, Phys. Rev. D110, 014004 (2024), arXiv:2403.13160 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.