Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Higher-order hydrodynamic attractors converge to the second-order attractor before the Navier-Stokes limit.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-04 20:52 UTC pith:TUV3TQEU

load-bearing objection Useful cross-theory attractor comparison; the structural result is sound, but the quantitative merge-by-w~20 claim depends on a zero-c2,2 choice that the paper's own Fig. 5 shows matters. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08864 v1 pith:TUV3TQEU submitted 2025-09-10 nucl-th hep-ph

Attractor of hydrodynamic attractors

Shile Chen , Shuzhe Shi This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-ph
keywords hydrodynamic attractorheavy-ion collisionsquark-gluon plasmasecond-order hydrodynamicsslow-roll expansiontransport coefficientsBjorken flowhydrodynamization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper asks whether higher-order hydrodynamic theories, which capture far-from-equilibrium physics, eventually agree with the commonly used second-order equations. Studying boost-invariant conformal plasmas, it claims that all theories sharing the same second-order transport coefficients converge to the same attractor by scaled time w~20, well before any of them reaches the Navier-Stokes solution at w~400. This means the intermediate-time evolution of the energy-momentum tensor is controlled by second-order coefficients alone, regardless of higher-order structure. If true, second-order hydrodynamics with correctly chosen coefficients is adequate from an intermediate time onward, even when the far-from-equilibrium stage would require higher-order theory.

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that, for boost-invariant, transversely homogeneous conformal systems, the attractor of a higher-order hydrodynamic theory converges to the attractor of a second-order theory before either reaches the Navier-Stokes limit. Writing the shear anisotropy in a slow-roll expansion in 1/w, the leading non-trivial coefficient depends only on the second-order coefficients c2,1 and c2,2; higher-order transport coefficients enter only at the next order. Since the compared second- and third-order theories share the same second-order coefficients, their attractors merge by w~20. The paper calls this an 'attractor of attractors' and concludes that second-order hydrodynamics with pro

What carries the argument

The key objects are the normalized shear anisotropy phi = Pi/epsilon and the scaled time w = tau T, which turn the conservation and relaxation equations into first-order ODEs: a standalone equation for phi (Eq. 5) or a coupled system with a four-index non-equilibrium moment Phi (Eq. 6). The load-bearing identity is the slow-roll expansion phi = sum A_n/w^n: A1 is the Navier-Stokes term, A2 depends only on the second-order coefficient combination (c2,1 - 16 C_eta/(9 C_tau) c2,2), and third-order coefficients appear only in A3 and beyond. Because the compared theories share c2,1=10/21 and c2,2=0, their attractors coincide before approaching the Navier-Stokes limit.

Load-bearing premise

The cross-theory comparison sets the nonlinear coefficient c2,2 to zero for the DNMR and PJP theories by adopting the relaxation-time approximation (stated just before Eq. 5), yet Figure 5 shows that choosing the hard-sphere value c2,2=27/70 changes how quickly each theory's attractor converges.

What would settle it

Solve Eq. (5) for DNMR and PJP with c2,2=27/70 instead of 0 and record where their attractors merge with the coupled-theory attractor; the paper's own Figure 5 indicates a later merging, so the claim that all theories with identical second-order coefficients merge by w~20 would be falsified if the merging point shifts beyond the intermediate window.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • All theories with identical second-order coefficients share the same attractor by w~20, well before any reaches the Navier-Stokes limit at w~400.
  • Higher-order transport coefficients and additional four-index moments affect only the A3 and higher slow-roll terms, so they do not change intermediate-time stress-tensor evolution.
  • Second-order hydrodynamics with correctly chosen transport coefficients is adequate from an intermediate time onward, even when the far-from-equilibrium regime would require a higher-order description.
  • Slow-roll truncations at third order reproduce the full attractor to about 10^-3 relative accuracy for w>~5, while Navier-Stokes converges only for w>~100.
  • Practical heavy-ion simulations can retain second-order equations without losing accuracy for late-time collective flow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The quantitative merging point w~20 likely depends on the choice c2,2=0; with the hard-sphere value c2,2=27/70, Figure 5 suggests the convergence window shifts, so the universal claim is really a statement about the relaxation-time approximation.
  • The slow-roll argument probably extends to non-conformal and transversely inhomogeneous systems, which the paper lists as a next step; if so, second-order codes would remain sufficient for a wider class of observables.
  • The attractor-of-attractors hierarchy implies that the leading late-time stress-tensor behavior is fixed by the second-order transport sector alone, which could guide how kinetic-theory results are matched to hydrodynamic codes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies attractor solutions of transient relativistic hydrodynamics in a conformal, boost-invariant, transversely homogeneous Bjorken flow. For several second-order (MIS, DNMR) and third-order (PJP, BD, YJG) theories, written as ordinary differential equations for the shear anisotropy φ and, for BD/YJG, a fourth-rank moment Φ, it compares the exact attractor with a late-time slow-roll expansion in powers of 1/w. It derives the expansion coefficients A_s^3 and A_c^3, shows that the A2/w^2 subleading term depends only on second-order transport coefficients, and demonstrates numerically that the listed theories with common second-order coefficients merge at w~20 (MIS at w~100) before the Navier-Stokes limit at w~400. The conclusion is that the energy-momentum tensor evolution of higher-order theories is reproduced by properly matched second-order hydrodynamics from an intermediate time onward.

Significance. If correct, the result is practically useful: it would make second-order hydrodynamic simulations adequate at intermediate and late times even when far-from-equilibrium corrections require higher-order moments. The slow-roll coefficients are obtained by direct substitution into the stated equations and are not fitted to the target attractor, and the numerical attractors are computed separately from the evolution equations, so the main line is not circular. The random-coefficient scan over 10^4 samples is a genuine stress test of sensitivity to higher-order coefficients. However, the claim as stated needs additional support for nonzero c2,2 values before the practical conclusion is fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eqs. (8)-(10), Supplemental Fig. 5] The quantitative cross-theory merging claim at w≳20 is only demonstrated for the relaxation-time value c2,2=0. A2 in Eq. (8) is linear in (16/9)c2,2Cη, so at fixed c2,1 the subleading correction changes with c2,2. The paper's own Supplemental Fig. 5 shows that the DNMR hard-sphere value c2,2=27/70 and the MIS value c2,2=-3Cλ/(8Cη) delay convergence to the c2,2=0 attractor. Since the abstract's practical conclusion invokes "correct transport coefficients," this is not a cosmetic choice. The central claim has not been tested for common nonzero c2,2 values. I request either a direct numerical scan over c2,2 (with fixed common c2,1 and random higher-order coefficients) with reported merging times, or a restriction of the advertised conclusion to the c2,2=0/RTA class.
  2. [Section "Attractors and asymptotic behaviors", paragraph after Eq. (10)] The statement that theories with the same combination c2,1 - (16Cη/(9Cτ))c2,2 exhibit identical late-time behavior is stronger than Eq. (8) supports. A_s^3 depends on c2,1^2, c2,2^2 and c2,1c2,2 separately, not only through this combination. Thus two theories can have the same A2 but different A3 and different convergence before φNS; this is also consistent with MIS's delayed convergence in Fig. 2. Please qualify the claim to "identical at the A2/w^2 order" or prove that the extra terms cancel at the relevant w.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Definitions around Eqs. (5)-(6)] Please define Cη, Cτ, CΦ, and Cλ explicitly at first use; Cτ appears in Eq. (5), CΦ in Eq. (6), and Cλ later in the text without formal definitions.
  2. [Introduction and Table I] DMMZ is listed as a third-order theory in the introduction but has no coefficients in Table I and is absent from Fig. 2; state explicitly that it is not included in the quantitative comparison because its coefficients are unspecified.
  3. [Numerical methods] The numerical procedure for extracting the attractor (e.g., backward integration from large w or solving the boundary condition at w→0) is not described. A short paragraph in the Supplemental Material would make the figures reproducible.
  4. [Figs. 2 and 5] The "converge by w≳20" statement is assessed via visual percent-deviation insets. Give a quantitative convergence threshold and list the deviations for each curve, including the c2,2≠0 cases in Fig. 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the attractor-of-attractors result is obtained by substituting the slow-roll expansion into the given evolution equations and by independent numerical solution; the main caveat is the disclosed c2,2=0 modeling choice, which limits the universality claim but is not a circular fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The input is the generic evolution equations (5) and (6) with coefficients fixed by Tables I and II from the cited theories (MIS, DNMR, PJP, BD, YJG), none of which are defined by or fitted to the paper's target conclusion. The slow-roll coefficients (8), (10), (11) follow by direct substitution of Eq. (7)/(9) into the equations; the paper does not assume that third-order terms are negligible in order to derive the result, it derives that third-order coefficients appear only at A3 and higher. The numerical attractor curves (Figs. 1, 2) are computed from the full ODEs, not from the slow-roll expansion, so the w~20 merging observation is a genuine numerical output. The random-coefficient bands are a sensitivity study over ranges stated explicitly and not tuned to force convergence. No parameter is fitted to the claimed universal attractor, no self-citation carries the load, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The review rule about in-scope limitations: the paper itself discloses the key modeling choice in the paragraph before Eq. (5): 'While DNMR theory predicts c2,2=27/70 for hard-sphere collisions, we adopt the relaxation-time approximation from Ref. [52] for better cross-theory comparison (see Supplemental Materials for c2,2 effects).' Supplemental Fig. 5 then shows that with nonzero c2,2 the DNMR (27/70) and MIS (-3 C_lambda/8 C_eta) attractors do not coincide with the c2,2=0 curves at w~20 and that convergence rates change. This is a genuine scope limitation, because the abstract's universal claim is stronger than what is demonstrated for physical c2,2 values, but it is a correctness/robustness caveat, not circularity. The claim is not defined in terms of the input nor is any output forced by fitting. Score 1 reflects the minor, disclosed modeling dependence rather than a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to reproduce the target result. Cη=1/(4π), Cτ=CΦ=5Cη, and Cλ=1/π are theory inputs from the cited literature; the random coefficient ranges in the robustness scan are hand-picked but are not fit parameters. The only notable modeling choice is the relaxation-time approximation for c2,2, which is listed as an ad hoc axiom.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The system is conformal, boost-invariant, and transversely homogeneous (Bjorken flow), so the only nonvanishing shear component is ϖ and the expansion rate is θ=1/τ.
    Invoked in the paragraph before Eq. (3); restricts the result to an idealized geometry. The paper lists relaxing these symmetries as future work.
  • domain assumption The evolution equations (4) and (6), with transport coefficients from Tables I and II, correctly describe the corresponding hydrodynamic theories.
    The paper adopts these equations from Refs. [12,13,14,52,53,54,56,57]; any error in those derivations would propagate into this analysis.
  • standard math The slow-roll expansion φ=Σ A_n/w^n is an asymptotic late-time expansion and its truncation at n=3 captures the relevant intermediate-time behavior.
    Used after Eq. (7) following Heller-Spalinski [20]; the paper relies on it to derive A2 and A3.
  • domain assumption The attractor is the solution satisfying w∂wφ=w∂wΦ=0 as w→0 and is unique.
    Used in Figs. 1-2 and Supplemental; standard in the attractor literature, but the construction method is not detailed.
  • ad hoc to paper The relaxation-time approximation value c2,2=0 is used for DNMR and PJP instead of the hard-sphere DNMR value c2,2=27/70, and the same RTA choice is applied to MIS for comparison.
    Stated in the paragraph before Eq. (5): 'we adopt the relaxation-time approximation from Ref. [52] for better cross-theory comparison'. Figure 5 shows c2,2 changes convergence, so the quantitative result depends on this choice.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attractor of hydrodynamic attractors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUV3TQEU

@misc{pith2026250908864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attractor of hydrodynamic attractors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUV3TQEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08864}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Understanding how hydrodynamics emerges rapidly in the medium produced by relativistic heavy-ion collisions remains a key theoretical challenge. While the attractor solution -- manifesting as a non-thermal fixed point during the early evolution stage -- offers a potential explanation, it does not fully account for how far-from-equilibrium systems quickly approach near-equilibrium states. In this Letter, we demonstrate that the attractor in a higher-order hydrodynamic theory converges to the same solution as a second-order theory before reaching the Navier--Stokes limit. This finding suggests that commonly used second-order hydrodynamic equations, provided they incorporate the correct transport coefficients, are adequate to approximate the system's behavior starting from an intermediate time -- even when using a higher-order theory that would be more suitable for describing the far-from-equilibrium evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08864 by Shile Chen, Shuzhe Shi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Attractor solutions in YJG theory [Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Attractor solutions for different theories (top) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Attractor solutions for the BD theory (cf. Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Attractor solutions for the standalone evolution equa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Non-equilibrium Dynamical Attractors and Thermalisation of Charm Quarks in Nuclear Collisions at the LHC Energy

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Charm quarks develop dynamical attractors in expanding QGP but with lattice-QCD diffusion coefficients require ~5 fm to relax, leading to O(1) deviations from equilibrium already at pT ~ 3 GeV and incomplete thermaliz...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Shuryak, Strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions, Rev

    E. Shuryak, Strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035001 (2017), arXiv:1412.8393 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    C. Shen, Z. Qiu, H. Song, J. Bernhard, S. Bass, and U. Heinz, The iEBE-VISHNU code package for relativis- tic heavy-ion collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun.199, 61 (2016), arXiv:1409.8164 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Elliptic and triangu- lar flow in event-by-event (3+1)D viscous hydrodynam- ics, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 042301 (2011), arXiv:1009.3244 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Karpenko, P

    I. Karpenko, P. Huovinen, and M. Bleicher, A 3+1 dimensional viscous hydrodynamic code for relativistic heavy ion collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 3016 (2014), arXiv:1312.4160 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    van der Schee, P

    W. van der Schee, P. Romatschke, and S. Pratt, Fully Dy- namical Simulation of Central Nuclear Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 222302 (2013), arXiv:1307.2539 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, and X.-N. Wang, Pseudo- rapidity distribution and decorrelation of anisotropic flow within the open-computing-language implementa- tion CL Visc hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. C97, 064918 (2018), arXiv:1802.04449 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Du and U

    L. Du and U. Heinz, (3+1)-dimensional dissipative rel- ativistic fluid dynamics at non-zero net baryon den- sity, Comput. Phys. Commun.251, 107090 (2020), arXiv:1906.11181 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Equation of state in ( 2+1 )-flavor QCD, Phys

    A. Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Equation of state in ( 2+1 )-flavor QCD, Phys. Rev. D90, 094503 (2014), arXiv:1407.6387 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo (Wuppertal-Budapest), Is there still anyT c mystery in lattice QCD? Results with physical masses in the continuum limit III, JHEP09, 073, arXiv:1005.3508 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Fluid mechanics(1959)

    work page 1959

  11. [11]

    Baier, P

    R. Baier, P. Romatschke, D. T. Son, A. O. Starinets, and M. A. Stephanov, Relativistic viscous hydrodynam- ics, conformal invariance, and holography, JHEP04, 100, arXiv:0712.2451 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Muller, Zum Paradoxon der Warmeleitungstheorie, Z

    I. Muller, Zum Paradoxon der Warmeleitungstheorie, Z. Phys.198, 329 (1967)

    1967

  13. [13]

    Israel and J

    W. Israel and J. M. Stewart, Transient relativistic ther- modynamics and kinetic theory, Annals Phys.118, 341 (1979)

    1979

  14. [14]

    G. S. Denicol, H. Niemi, E. Molnar, and D. H. Rischke, Derivation of transient relativistic fluid dynamics from the Boltzmann equation, Phys. Rev. D85, 114047 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 039902 (2015)], arXiv:1202.4551 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. G¨ ursoy, and R. Snellings, Bayesian analysis of heavy ion collisions with the heavy ion computational framework Trajectum, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054909 (2021), arXiv:2010.15134 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. G¨ ursoy, and R. Snellings, Transverse Momentum Differential Global Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 202301 (2021), arXiv:2010.15130 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Wang and M

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in p p, p A and A A collisions, Phys. Rev. D44, 3501 (1991)

    1991

  18. [18]

    Gyulassy and X.-N

    M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, HIJING 1.0: A Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high-energy hadronic and nuclear collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun.83, 307 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9502021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  19. [19]

    Schenke, P

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Fluctuating Glasma initial conditions and flow in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 252301 (2012), arXiv:1202.6646 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    M. P. Heller and M. Spalinski, Hydrodynamics Beyond the Gradient Expansion: Resurgence and Resummation, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 072501 (2015), arXiv:1503.07514 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and T. Preis, Prescaling Relaxation to Nonthermal Attractors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 071602 (2024), arXiv:2307.07545 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Baier, A

    R. Baier, A. H. Mueller, D. Schiff, and D. T. Son, ’Bottom up’ thermalization in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B 502, 51 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0009237

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  23. [23]

    Berges, K

    J. Berges, K. Boguslavski, S. Schlichting, and R. Venu- gopalan, Universal attractor in a highly occupied non- Abelian plasma, Phys. Rev. D89, 114007 (2014), arXiv:1311.3005 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    Kurkela and Y

    A. Kurkela and Y. Zhu, Isotropization and hydrody- namization in weakly coupled heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 182301 (2015), arXiv:1506.06647 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    Observation of universal dynamics in a spinor Bose gas far from equilibrium

    M. Pr¨ ufer, P. Kunkel, H. Strobel, S. Lannig, D. Lin- nemann, C.-M. Schmied, J. Berges, T. Gasenzer, and M. K. Oberthaler, Observation of universal dynamics in a spinor Bose gas far from equilibrium, Nature563, 217 (2018), arXiv:1805.11881 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    S. Erne, R. B¨ ucker, T. Gasenzer, J. Berges, and J. Schmiedmayer, Universal dynamics in an isolated one- dimensional Bose gas far from equilibrium, Nature563, 225 (2018), arXiv:1805.12310 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    S. P. Johnstone, A. J. Groszek, P. T. Starkey, C. J. Billington, T. P. Simula, and K. Helmerson, Evolution of large-scale flow from turbulence in a two-dimensional superfluid, Science364, 1267 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aat5793

    doi:10.1126/science.aat5793 2019

  28. [28]

    Observation of subdiffusive dynamic scaling in a driven and disordered Bose gas

    G. Martirosyan, C. J. Ho, J. Etrych, Y. Zhang, A. Cao, Z. Hadzibabic, and C. Eigen, Observation of Subdiffusive Dynamic Scaling in a Driven and Disordered Bose Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 113401 (2024), arXiv:2304.06697 6 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    M. P. Heller and C. Werthmann, Early time hydrody- namic attractor in a nearly-unitary Fermi gas, (2025), arXiv:2507.02838 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Micha and I

    R. Micha and I. I. Tkachev, Relativistic turbulence: A Long way from preheating to equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 121301 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210202

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  31. [31]

    Berges, A

    J. Berges, A. Rothkopf, and J. Schmidt, Non-thermal fixed points: Effective weak-coupling for strongly corre- lated systems far from equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 041603 (2008), arXiv:0803.0131 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  32. [32]

    M. P. Heller, R. A. Janik, and P. Witaszczyk, Hydrody- namic Gradient Expansion in Gauge Theory Plasmas, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 211602 (2013), arXiv:1302.0697 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    Romatschke, Relativistic Fluid Dynamics Far From Local Equilibrium, Phys

    P. Romatschke, Relativistic Fluid Dynamics Far From Local Equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 012301 (2018), arXiv:1704.08699 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Romatschke, Relativistic Hydrodynamic Attractors with Broken Symmetries: Non-Conformal and Non- Homogeneous, JHEP12, 079, arXiv:1710.03234 [hep-th]

    P. Romatschke, Relativistic Hydrodynamic Attractors with Broken Symmetries: Non-Conformal and Non- Homogeneous, JHEP12, 079, arXiv:1710.03234 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Fluid dynamics of out of equi- librium boost invariant plasmas, Phys. Lett. B780, 283 (2018), arXiv:1712.03856 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    On the hydrodynamic attractor of Yang-Mills plasma

    M. Spali´ nski, On the hydrodynamic attractor of Yang–Mills plasma, Phys. Lett. B776, 468 (2018), arXiv:1708.01921 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    V. E. Ambrus, S. Busuioc, J. A. Fotakis, K. Gallmeis- ter, and C. Greiner, Bjorken flow attractors with trans- verse dynamics, Phys. Rev. D104, 094022 (2021), arXiv:2102.11785 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Kurkela, W

    A. Kurkela, W. van der Schee, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu, Early- and Late-Time Behavior of Attractors in Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 102301 (2020), arXiv:1907.08101 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Almaalol, A

    D. Almaalol, A. Kurkela, and M. Strickland, Nonequi- librium Attractor in High-Temperature QCD Plasmas, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 122302 (2020), arXiv:2004.05195 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Emergence of hydrodynamical behavior in expanding ultra-relativistic plasmas, Annals Phys.412, 167993 (2020), arXiv:1904.08677 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Analytical attractor for Bjorken flows, Phys. Lett. B820, 136478 (2021), arXiv:2006.08815 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Attractor and fixed points in Bjorken flows, Phys. Rev. C104, 055201 (2021), arXiv:2106.10508 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Chen and S

    S. Chen and S. Shi, Attractor for (1+1)D viscous hydro- dynamics with general rapidity distribution, Phys. Rev. C111, L021902 (2025), arXiv:2407.15209 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Romatschke and U

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke,Relativistic Fluid Dynamics In and Out of Equilibrium, Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2019) arXiv:1712.05815 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Alqahtani, M

    M. Alqahtani, M. Nopoush, and M. Strickland, Relativis- tic anisotropic hydrodynamics, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 101, 204 (2018), arXiv:1712.03282 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Florkowski, M

    W. Florkowski, M. P. Heller, and M. Spalinski, New the- ories of relativistic hydrodynamics in the LHC era, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 046001 (2018), arXiv:1707.02282 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Berges, M

    J. Berges, M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Venu- gopalan, QCD thermalization: Ab initio approaches and interdisciplinary connections, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035003 (2021), arXiv:2005.12299 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Shen and L

    C. Shen and L. Yan, Recent development of hydrody- namic modeling in heavy-ion collisions, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 31, 122 (2020), arXiv:2010.12377 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Bazow, G

    D. Bazow, G. S. Denicol, U. Heinz, M. Martinez, and J. Noronha, Analytic solution of the Boltzmann equation in an expanding system, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 022301 (2016), arXiv:1507.07834 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  50. [50]

    Lu and S

    X. Lu and S. Shi, Spectral BBGKY: a scalable scheme for nonlinear Boltzmann and correlation kinetics, (2025), arXiv:2507.14243 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    G. S. Denicol and J. Noronha, Analytical attractor and the divergence of the slow-roll expansion in relativis- tic hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D97, 056021 (2018), arXiv:1711.01657 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Strickland, J

    M. Strickland, J. Noronha, and G. Denicol, Anisotropic nonequilibrium hydrodynamic attractor, Phys. Rev. D 97, 036020 (2018), arXiv:1709.06644 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    S. M. Diles, L. A. H. Mamani, A. S. Miranda, and V. T. Zanchin, Third-order relativistic hydrodynamics: disper- sion relations and transport coefficients of a dual plasma, JHEP2020(5), 1, arXiv:1909.05199 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  54. [54]

    Panday, A

    P. Panday, A. Jaiswal, and B. K. Patra, Causal third-order viscous hydrodynamics within relaxation- time approximation, Phys. Rev. D109, 096039 (2024), arXiv:2404.06381 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    G. S. Denicol, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Transport Co- efficients of Bulk Viscous Pressure in the 14-moment approximation, Phys. Rev. C90, 024912 (2014), arXiv:1403.0962 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    C. V. P. de Brito and G. S. Denicol, Third-order rel- ativistic dissipative fluid dynamics from the method of moments, Phys. Rev. D108, 096020 (2023), arXiv:2302.09097 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    D. Ye, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Evolution equation for the energy-momentum moments of the nonequilibrium density function and regularized relativistic third-order hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. C110, 024907 (2024), arXiv:2404.08204 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Chen and S

    S. Chen and S. Shi, Anisotropic hydrodynamics with a boost-noninvariant expansion, Phys. Rev. D111, 014001 (2025), arXiv:2409.19897 [nucl-th]. 7 Supplementary Material More about Attractors 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0φ MIS NS 102 5 20 50 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 w φ/φMIS-1 (%) 1st (NS) 2nd 3rd 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0φ DNMR NS 102 5 20 50 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 w φ/...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    For coupled equations (6), we find: Φ(w→0) = cΦ,φφ0 cΦ,Φ +c Φ,2φ0 ,(13) whereφ 0 solves: φ2 0 +c 2,1φ0 − cφ,ΦcΦ,φφ0 cΦ,Φ +c Φ,2φ0 = 16Cη 9Cτ .(14)

    andw∂ wφ= 0 yields: (1 +c 3,2)φ2 0 +c 2,1φ0 − 16Cη 9Cτ =−c 3,1 Cτ φ0 w .(12) This gives: •Whenc 3,1 ̸= 0:φ 0 → 16Cηw 9c3,1C2τ ; •Otherwise:φ 0 = q c2 2,1+ 64Cη 9Cτ (1+c3,2)−c2,1 2(1+c3,2) . For coupled equations (6), we find: Φ(w→0) = cΦ,φφ0 cΦ,Φ +c Φ,2φ0 ,(13) whereφ 0 solves: φ2 0 +c 2,1φ0 − cφ,ΦcΦ,φφ0 cΦ,Φ +c Φ,2φ0 = 16Cη 9Cτ .(14)

    work page

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.