Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Spin polarization in a decoupling relativistic fluid is governed by the geometry of the decoupling surface at leading order, specifically its normal vector, not the fluid velocity.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 16:26 UTC pith:CYXKM3M6

load-bearing objection A real upgrade to the spin polarization formula for arbitrary decoupling surfaces, but the paper's gradient-expansion control and the status of the extra intersection terms are left under-argued. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.14301 v4 pith:CYXKM3M6 submitted 2025-09-17 nucl-th hep-phhep-th

An improved formula for Wigner function and spin polarization in a decoupling relativistic fluid at local thermodynamic equilibrium

Xin-Li Sheng , Francesco Becattini , Daniele Roselli This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-phhep-th
keywords spin polarizationWigner functionrelativistic heavy-ion collisionslocal thermodynamic equilibriumdecoupling hypersurfacethermal vorticitythermal sheargradient expansion
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 derives an upgraded formula for the Wigner function and spin polarization of fermions emitted from a relativistic fluid at local thermodynamic equilibrium, improving earlier expressions that relied on a simplified, effectively planar decoupling geometry. Its central result is that the leading-order spin polarization is controlled by the unit normal vector n of the arbitrarily shaped decoupling hypersurface rather than by the fluid velocity or a fixed time direction, and the thermal-vorticity term is multiplied by the sign of p·n. The derivation swaps the order of integration over momentum and over the decoupling surface, which produces a gradient expansion that automatically removes derivatives along the surface normal. A direct corollary is that on an isothermal decoupling surface, temperature gradients produce no net spin polarization, giving theoretical justification for a condition that earlier work imposed by hand. A reader should care because realistic heavy-ion decoupling surfaces are curved and have timelike branches, so the new expression changes what numerical simulations should compute.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, at leading order, the spin polarization of emitted fermions is S^μ(p) = -1/(8mN_p) ∫ dΣ(x)·p n_F(1-n_F) ε^{μνρλ} p_ν ∑_{ȳ(x,p)} sgn[p·n(ȳ)] [ ϖ_{ρλ}(ȳ) + 2 n_ρ(ȳ) ξ_{λα}(ȳ) p^α/(p·n(ȳ)) ] (Eq. 23), where the sum runs over all intersections of the particle's worldline with the decoupling hypersurface. This upgrades the known thermal-vorticity contribution with a sign factor sgn(p·n), replaces the fluid-velocity direction in the thermal-shear term with the unit normal n, and introduces additional intersection terms. The paper argues that this expression supersedes the earlier formulas in refs. [1,2] for local-equilibrium spin polarization on a decoupling surf

What carries the argument

The mechanism is an exchange of integration order: rather than integrating over the decoupling surface first (the earlier approach), the momentum q integral is done first, using the fact that the Fourier transform of the slowly varying inverse-temperature field is sharply peaked around q=0. This yields a gradient series governed by the operator D_y(ȳ) = -i Δ^{νρ}(ȳ) ∂^y_ρ ∂^q_ν, with Δ^{νρ} = g^{νρ} - n^ν p^ρ/(p·n), evaluated at every intersection ȳ(x,p) of the particle's off-shell worldline with the (possibly multi-branched, spacelike and timelike) hypersurface. The projector Δ^{νρ} is the piece that kills derivatives along the surface normal, which is why normal-direction gradients drop ou

Load-bearing premise

The whole expansion of the Wigner function, and hence the polarization formula, assumes the four-temperature field varies so slowly that its Fourier transform is sharply peaked around zero momentum, meaning both the thermodynamic gradient length and the purely geometric normal-vector gradient length L_G must be much larger than the microscopic correlation length; the paper states the L_G condition is believed but not established.

What would settle it

On a known decoupling surface, compute the full small-q integral in Eq. (8) and compare it with the truncated gradient series in Eq. (16): if the difference is not suppressed when l_c/L_H and l_c/L_G are small, the claimed leading-order formula (23) fails. Alternatively, measure l_c/L_G on a realistic hydrodynamic hypersurface; if L_G is comparable to or smaller than the correlation length, the series is uncontrolled.

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

If this is right

  • Simulations of spin polarization in relativistic heavy-ion collisions should evaluate the shear-induced term using the unit normal n of the decoupling hypersurface (with the factor 1/|p·n|) rather than the fluid velocity or a fixed time direction.
  • When the decoupling hypersurface has timelike branches and a particle worldline crosses it more than once, the vorticity term changes sign branch by branch through sgn(p·n); ignoring this would give different predictions.
  • Gradients of thermodynamic fields along the hypersurface normal do not enter the Wigner function at any order of the new expansion, and on an isothermal decoupling surface the temperature-gradient pieces of the vorticity and shear terms cancel exactly.
  • The curvature of the decoupling surface does not appear in the leading-order spin polarization formula.
  • The same expansion method is applicable to particles of arbitrary spin, so analogous geometry-aware formulas can be derived for other spin observables.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the new formula is right, existing numerical predictions that used an approximate 'constant-time' or planar hypersurface may shift once the normal-vector dependence is implemented; the size and sign of that shift is a concrete, testable prediction.
  • The extra intersection terms have a quantum-interference interpretation, and the paper itself suggests they may be spurious because free fields were used for the in-plasma Wigner operator; checking the θ(p·n) cutoff prescription against a calculation with interacting fields would settle whether they should be kept.
  • The requirement that the normal-vector gradient length L_G be much larger than the correlation length is a new geometric condition; verifying it on realistic hydrodynamic decoupling surfaces is a direct validity test of the whole gradient series.
  • If the isothermal cancellation holds in data, that would be evidence that the decoupling surface is effectively isothermal, since any temperature-gradient-induced polarization would be absent by construction.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives a new leading-order expression for the spin polarization of spin-1/2 fermions emitted from a decoupling hypersurface in a relativistic fluid at local equilibrium. Starting from the Zubarev density operator and linear response theory, the authors exchange the order of the momentum and hypersurface integrations and obtain a gradient expansion in which derivatives normal to the decoupling hypersurface are projected out. Truncating at first order and evaluating the axial Wigner function, they arrive at Eq. (23): the polarization is a sum over all intersections of the particle worldline with the hypersurface, containing a thermal-vorticity term with a sign factor sgn(p·n) and an upgraded shear term in which the unit normal n of the hypersurface replaces the fluid velocity, with the surface curvature shown not to contribute at this order. The paper also argues that temperature-gradient contributions cancel on an isothermal decoupling surface, and states that the framework can be extended to arbitrary spin.

Significance. If Eq. (23) is correct, it supersedes the earlier shear polarization formulas in refs. [1,2] and provides a first-principles expression applicable to realistic, curved, and partially timelike decoupling surfaces such as those obtained in 3+1D hydrodynamic simulations. The derivation has notable strengths: it is based on the Zubarev local-equilibrium density operator, contains no fitted parameters, reproduces the known thermal-vorticity contribution as a cross-check, and includes an explicit Schouten-identity proof that the leading curvature term vanishes. The result is therefore significant for heavy-ion spin phenomenology, provided the two conditions that the paper itself flags as not fully established are resolved: the control of the gradient expansion for geometric normal-vector gradients, and the physical status of the extra intersections ybar != x in Eq. (23).

major comments (3)
  1. [After Eq. (20), 'The speed of convergence...'] The central formula Eq. (23) is obtained by truncating the gradient series (16) at N=1. This truncation is legitimate only if l_c/L_H << 1 and l_c/L_G << 1, as stated after Eq. (20). The first condition is standard, but the second, l_c/L_G << 1, is not demonstrated: L_G = |n|/|∂n| is a purely geometric quantity and is never estimated for realistic decoupling surfaces. For the CLVisc surface shown in Fig. 1, the normal can vary rapidly near spacelike-timelike transitions, folds, or corners, so L_G could be comparable to l_c ~ 1/T. If the small-q expansion of G^{μν}(q) is uncontrolled, higher-order geometric corrections beyond the N=1 curvature term could contribute to Eq. (23). The paper states the condition is 'believed to be generally satisfied' but provides no evidence. This is a load-bearing validity requirement, and the authors should either compute L_G on realistic hydrodynamic deco
  2. [Eq. (23) and the paragraph beginning 'Finally...'] Eq. (23) includes a sum over all intersections ybar(x,p) of the particle worldline with the decoupling hypersurface, including ybar != x. The text then states that these additional contributions may be spurious, arising from the use of free fields rather than interacting fields, and suggests that they 'could be discarded' by introducing a cutoff θ(p·n(x))θ(p·n(ybar)). This leaves the central result ambiguous: the advertised formula as written contains terms whose physical meaning is explicitly left open, while the same paragraph indicates that the formula to be used in simulations may be a different one. Because the abstract itself lists these contributions as part of the new method, the referee cannot tell whether Eq. (23) is the final prediction. The authors should either prove that the ybar != x terms vanish, justify the cutoff from the derivation, or unambiguously state that Eq. (23)
  3. [Around Eq. (13) and Eq. (23)] The derivation of the hypersurface integral reduction in Eq. (13) assumes p·σ != 0, i.e., p·n(ybar) != 0. However, the final formula Eq. (23) contains sgn[p·n(ybar)] and denominators 1/(p·n(ybar)) in the shear term. For a decoupling hypersurface with timelike branches, p·n = 0 occurs on a codimension-one set of momenta; if the numerator does not vanish at those points, the shear term is singular and the momentum-space integral defining S^μ(p) may be ill-defined. The paper does not specify how tangential emission is to be treated (principal value, limiting procedure, or cancellation). Since the method is advertised as applicable to arbitrary geometry, this is not merely a measure-zero technicality: the divergence could affect the integrability of the polarization. Please address the p·n = 0 case explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (23) and following paragraph] There are several typos: 'mofidication' should be 'modification'; 'imposeda priori' lacks a space; 'space-.time' in the Conclusion. Please correct throughout.
  2. [Reference [51]] Reference [51] is incomplete: it lists only '(2025), 2506.05499' with no authors or title. This needs to be completed.
  3. [Eqs. (10)-(11)] The notation for the rank-N function I is inconsistent: Eq. (10) writes I with subscripts/superscripts, while Eq. (11) writes I without them. Please define a single unambiguous notation.
  4. [Paragraph before Eq. (10)] The text describes F^{μν}(q) as a 'Fourier transform in the variable q integrated in the variable y.' This is imprecise: F^{μν}(q) is a surface integral with an oscillatory factor, not a full spacetime Fourier transform. Clarify the wording.
  5. [Eq. (23) and 'normal gradients' discussion] The claim that the new expression 'naturally excludes contributions from space-time gradients in the normal direction' is initially surprising because ϖ and ξ in Eq. (23) contain full derivatives. The cancellation is demonstrated in the Supplemental Material, but a forward reference or a one-sentence explanation in the main text would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Eq. (23) is derived from the free-field Wigner function and linear response, with no fitted parameter and no equation defined in terms of the result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the Zubarev density operator (1) and linear response (4), the Wigner function correction is rewritten as an integral over q (8), expanded in small q with G(q) computed explicitly for free fermions (21), and converted via the delta-function identity (13) into the gradient series (16). The spin polarization follows by tracing the axial component, leading to Eq. (23). No parameter is fitted, and the new n/(p·n) shear term is obtained algebraically from the projector Δ^{νρ} in (17)-(18), not imported by assumption. Citations to the authors' earlier works [1,2] are used for comparison and context, not as load-bearing support for the new term. The isothermal cancellation is a conditional algebraic consequence of Eq. (65)-(67), not an input. The only concerns are assumptions about convergence of the gradient expansion, especially l_c/L_G ≪ 1 in Eq. (20), which the paper itself flags as 'believed to be generally satisfied' without demonstration; this is an unverified approximation, not circularity. The exclusion of exactly tangential emission (p·n ≠ 0) is also an explicit technical condition, not a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The derivation relies on standard linear response and gradient expansion assumptions of relativistic spin hydrodynamics. No fitted constants appear, and no new particles or fields are introduced. The load-bearing assumptions are the peaking of F(q) at q=0, the free-field approximation, and the nonzero p.n condition, all stated in the paper.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium is described by the Zubarev density operator (eq. 1), with the 4D dissipative integral in eq. (2) neglected.
    The paper states it confines to LTE at decoupling and drops the 4D integral; if dissipative corrections matter, the formula is incomplete.
  • domain assumption The beta field is slowly varying so F^{mu nu}(q) is peaked around q=0, permitting a small-q expansion of G^{mu nu}(q).
    Hydrodynamic-limit assumption; convergence condition eq. (20) is asserted as 'believed', not proven.
  • domain assumption The decoupling hypersurface can be split into branches y^0=f_k(y) and p.n(bar-y) != 0 at crossings.
    Needed for the delta-function reduction in eq. (13); excludes p.n=0 tangential emission.
  • domain assumption The stress tensor and Wigner operator are those of free Dirac fields at decoupling.
    Authors invoke free-field operators; they note this may make the extra bar-y != x terms spurious.
  • standard math Schouten identity and the symmetry of partial_kappa sigma^nu when contracted with epsilon are valid.
    Used in the supplement to prove the curvature term vanishes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16971 in / 12298 out tokens · 126244 ms · 2026-08-04T16:26:38.062797+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present an upgraded formula for Wigner function and spin polarization of fermions emitted by a relativistic fluid at local thermodynamic equilibrium at the decoupling which improves the one obtained in refs. [1, 2] and used in numerical simulations of relativistic nuclear collisions. By using a new expansion method, applicable to decoupling hypersurfaces with arbitrary geometry, we reproduce the known term proportional to thermal vorticity and obtain an upgraded form of the spin-shear term which captures the dependence on the geometry. The new method also includes additional contributions whose physical nature is to be assessed. The new expression also naturally excludes contributions from space-time gradients in the normal direction of the hypersurface, providing a theoretical justification for the isothermal condition previously imposed a priori. This framework can be extended to particles with arbitrary spin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.14301 by Daniele Roselli, Francesco Becattini, Xin-li Sheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A slice of the decoupling hypersurface Σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.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 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Bayesian constraints on the transport coefficients $\eta/s$ and $\zeta/s$ from spin polarization in relativisitic heavy-ion collisions

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Bayesian analysis incorporating Lambda hyperon spin polarization alongside bulk data shifts the posterior for zeta/s to larger values without achieving statistical significance at 68% credibility.

  2. Exact expectation values in a boost-invariant fluid of Dirac fermions with finite spin density

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Exact calculations in a boost-invariant free Dirac fermion fluid show spin polarization arises only from finite spin potential, with shear-induced polarization and spin Hall effect absent.

  3. Nonlinear causality and stability of perfect spin hydrodynamics and its nonperturbative character

    hep-ph 2025-11 accept novelty 6.0

    All four studied formulations of perfect spin hydrodynamics satisfy divergence-type structure and are nonlinearly causal and stable when exact, nonperturbative distribution functions are used.

  4. Tensor spin polarization induced by curved freeze-out hypersurface

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    The curvature of the freeze-out hypersurface induces a tensor spin polarization of vector mesons at leading gradient order, with predicted phi-meson spin alignment around -10^-4 to -10^-3.

  5. Pseudo-Gauge Stabilizers and Fibration Structure of the Cooper--Frye Map at Freeze-Out

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The Cooper-Frye map at freeze-out admits a stratified fibration induced by pseudo-gauge stabilizers, classifying observables and recovering the Belinfante-canonical obstruction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 42 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Advanced probes of the Quark Gluon Plasma

    appear not fully appropriate. In this work we pro- pose a new approach for evaluating quantities at LTE, which applies to hypersurfaces with arbitrary geometry; in essence, this method relies on an exchange of the or- der of integrations for the leading order correction of the Wigner function, which sheds light on the nature of the correction itself. Alth...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, and A. Palermo, Phys. Lett. B820, 136519 (2021), 2103.10917

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    S. Y. F. Liu and Y. Yin, JHEP07, 188 (2021), 2103.09200

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    J. C. Collins and M. J. Perry, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 1353 (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    E. V. Shuryak, Sov. Phys. JETP47, 212 (1978)

    1978

  6. [6]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 339 (2018), 1802.04801

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Stoecker and W

    H. Stoecker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rept.137, 277 (1986)

    1986

  8. [8]

    D. H. Rischke, S. Bernard, and J. A. Maruhn, Nucl. Phys. A595, 346 (1995), nucl-th/9504018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  9. [9]

    D. H. Rischke, Y. Pursun, and J. A. Maruhn, Nucl. Phys. A595, 383 (1995), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 596, 717–717 (1996)], nucl-th/9504021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  10. [10]

    Jaiswal and V

    A. Jaiswal and V. Roy, Adv. High Energy Phys.2016, 9623034 (2016), 1605.08694

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Jaiswal et al., Int

    A. Jaiswal et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. E30, 2130001 (2021), 2007.14959

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    D. N. Zubarev, Soviet Physics Doklady10, 850 (1966), translated from Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 162 (1965) 1064

    1966

  13. [13]

    D. N. Zubarev, A. V. Prozorkevich, and S. A. Smolyan- skii, Theor. Math. Phys.40, 821 (1979)

    1979

  14. [14]

    D. N. Zubarev and M. V. Tokarchuk, Teor. Mat. Fiz. 88N2, 286 (1991)

    1991

  15. [15]

    van Weert, Annals of Physics140, 133 (1982), ISSN 0003-4916, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect

    C. van Weert, Annals of Physics140, 133 (1982), ISSN 0003-4916, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0003491682903384

    arXiv 1982

  16. [16]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, and E. Grossi, Particles2, 197 (2019), 1902.01089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Becattini, V

    F. Becattini, V. Chandra, L. Del Zanna, and E. Grossi, Annals Phys.338, 32 (2013), 1303.3431

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    Becattini, Lect

    F. Becattini, Lect. Notes Phys.987, 15 (2021), 2004.04050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, G. Inghirami, I. Karpenko, and A. Palermo, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 272302 (2021), 2103.14621

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Liu and X.-G

    Y.-C. Liu and X.-G. Huang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. As- tron.65, 272011 (2022), 2109.15301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Sheng, F

    X.-L. Sheng, F. Becattini, X.-G. Huang, and Z.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C110, 064908 (2024), 2407.12130

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Zhang, X.-G

    Z.-H. Zhang, X.-G. Huang, F. Becattini, and X.-L. Sheng, JHEP07, 224 (2025), 2412.19416

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Li and S

    Y. Li and S. Y. F. Liu (2025), 2501.17861

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Buzzegoli (2025), 2502.15520

    M. Buzzegoli (2025), 2502.15520

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), 1701.06657

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C98, 014910 (2018), 1805.04400

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 132301 (2019), 1905.11917

    arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C101, 044611 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 105, 029902 (2022)], 1909.01281

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Nature614, 244 (2023), 2204.02302

    arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Liang and X.-N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  31. [31]

    Becattini, Rept

    F. Becattini, Rept. Prog. Phys.85, 122301 (2022), 2204.01144

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, T. Niida, S. Pu, A.-H. Tang, and Q. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430006 (2024), 2402.04540

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B629, 20 (2005), nucl-th/0411101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  34. [34]

    Chen, Z.-T

    J. Chen, Z.-T. Liang, Y.-G. Ma, and Q. Wang, Sci. Bull. 68, 874 (2023), 2305.09114

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Chen, Z.-T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Belinfante, Physica7, 449 (1940), ISSN 0031- 8914, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S003189144090091X

    F. Belinfante, Physica7, 449 (1940), ISSN 0031- 8914, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S003189144090091X

    1940

  37. [37]

    Freeze-out is the stage when interactions between hadrons cease and it is conceptually different from the former

    Note1, in this work the stage at which the fluid ceases to exist is called decoupling. Freeze-out is the stage when interactions between hadrons cease and it is conceptually different from the former

  38. [38]

    J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D27, 140 (1983)

    1983

  39. [39]

    Luzum and P

    M. Luzum and P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. C78, 034915 (2008), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 79, 039903 (2009)], 0804.4015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [40]

    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), ISBN 978-1-108-48368-1, 978-1-108-75002- 8, 1712.05815

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    H. Song, S. A. Bass, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C83, 024912 (2011), 1012.0555

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    C. Shen, Z. Qiu, H. Song, J. Bernhard, S. Bass, and U. Heinz, Comput. Phys. Commun.199, 61 (2016), 1409.8164

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Plumberg and U

    C. Plumberg and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C91, 054905 (2015), 1503.05605

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    Elfner and B

    H. Elfner and B. M¨ uller, J. Phys. G50, 103001 (2023), 2210.12056

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 97, 064918 (2018), 1802.04449

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Wu, G.-Y

    X.-Y. Wu, G.-Y. Qin, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C105, 034909 (2022), 2107.04949. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    X.-Y. Wu, C. Yi, G.-Y. Qin, and S. Pu, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064909 (2022), 2204.02218

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    S. R. De Groot,Relativistic Kinetic Theory. Principles and Applications(1980)

    1980

  49. [49]

    U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 351 (1983)

    1983

  50. [50]

    H. T. Elze, M. Gyulassy, and D. Vasak, Nucl. Phys. B 276, 706 (1986)

    1986

  51. [51]

    Vasak, M

    D. Vasak, M. Gyulassy, and H. T. Elze, Annals Phys. 173, 462 (1987)

    1987

  52. [52]

    Chen, W.-j

    H.-L. Chen, W.-j. Fu, X.-G. Huang, and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 032302 (2025), 2410.20704

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Sheng, X.-Y

    X.-L. Sheng, X.-Y. Wu, D. H. Rischke, and X.-N. Wang (2025), 2508.03496

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Sun, D.-N

    K.-J. Sun, D.-N. Liu, Y.-P. Zheng, J.-H. Chen, C. M. Ko, and Y.-G. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 022301 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    Liu, Y.-P

    D.-N. Liu, Y.-P. Zheng, W.-H. Zhou, J.-H. Chen, C. M. Ko, Y.-G. Ma, K.-J. Sun, and S. Zhang (2025), 2508.12193

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Becattini and F

    F. Becattini and F. Piccinini, Annals Phys.323, 2452 (2008), 0710.5694

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  57. [57]

    B. Fu, S. Y. F. Liu, L. Pang, H. Song, and Y. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 142301 (2021), 2103.10403

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Arslan, W.-B

    A. Arslan, W.-B. Dong, G.-L. Ma, S. Pu, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. C111, 044911 (2025), 2411.17285

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Arslan, W.-B

    A. Arslan, W.-B. Dong, C. Gale, S. Jeon, Q. Wang, and X.-Y. Wu (2025), 2509.00796

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Oliinychenko, P

    D. Oliinychenko, P. Huovinen, and H. Petersen, Phys. Rev. C91, 024906 (2015), 1411.3912

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  61. [61]

    K. A. Bugaev, Nucl. Phys. A606, 559 (1996), nucl- th/9906047

    arXiv 1996

  62. [62]

    Anderlik, L

    C. Anderlik, L. P. Csernai, F. Grassi, W. Greiner, Y. Hama, T. Kodama, Z. I. Lazar, V. K. Magas, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. C59, 3309 (1999), nucl- th/9806004

    arXiv 1999

  63. [63]

    Grassi, Braz

    F. Grassi, Braz. J. Phys.35, 52 (2005), nucl-th/0412082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  64. [64]

    An improved formula for Wigner function and spin polarization in a decoupling relativistic fluid at local thermodynamic equilibrium

    P. Huovinen and H. Petersen, Eur. Phys. J. A48, 171 (2012), 1206.3371. Supplemental Material for “An improved formula for Wigner function and spin polarization in a decoupling relativistic fluid at local thermodynamic equilibrium” ON THE WIGNER FUNCTION A T LOCAL THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM In this section we show how to determine the expression (6) and (7)...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012