pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07501 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · ✦ hep-ph · nucl-th

Recognition: unknown

Excitation function for global Λ polarization in relativistic heavy ion collisions with the Core Corona model

Alejandro Ayala , Jos\'e Jorge Medina Serna , Isabel Dom\'inguez , Mar\'ia Elena Tejeda-Yeomans
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph nucl-th
keywords global Lambda polarizationheavy-ion collisionscore-corona modelexcitation functionvortical motionchemical freeze-outsubthreshold production
0
0 comments X

The pith

Core-corona model of heavy-ion collisions describes Lambda polarization data and predicts a maximum near 3 GeV.

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

The paper establishes a core-corona framework to calculate the energy dependence of global Lambda polarization in semicentral heavy-ion collisions. The interaction region is divided into a dense core and a dilute corona based on participant density, with polarization arising from vortical motion incorporated in an effective fermion propagator. Mediators are gluons in the core and sigma mesons in the corona, with conditions set by the chemical freeze-out curve. By allowing subthreshold Lambda production and noting the corona's increasing importance at lower energies due to stopping, the model fits the existing data across the range. A key result is the prediction of a stable polarization peak near 3 GeV collision energy.

Core claim

We compute the excitation function of the global Λ polarization in semicentral heavy-ion collisions within a Core–Corona framework, where the interaction region is described as a dense core and a dilute corona separated by a critical value of the participant density. Intrinsic polarization functions in each region are computed from a field-theoretical approach including the vortical motion of the medium in an effective fermion propagator. The model provides a good description of the excitation function across the full experimental range and predicts a robust maximum near √s_NN ∼ 3 GeV that remains stable under reasonable variations of the freeze-out curve and the proton-proton Λ production t

What carries the argument

Core-corona separation of the collision region by participant density, with polarization derived from an effective fermion propagator that includes vortical motion at finite temperature and baryon chemical potential.

If this is right

  • The corona dominates the polarization signal for the centralities in the data.
  • The corona lifetime and volume increase at lower energies due to greater stopping.
  • Allowing the Lambda production cross section below the free nucleon-nucleon threshold fits the lowest energy data.
  • The predicted maximum at about 3 GeV is robust against changes in the freeze-out curve.
  • The model successfully reproduces the measured excitation function over the available energy range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Observing the predicted maximum would provide evidence for the role of stopping in enhancing the corona volume at low energies.
  • The framework could be applied to polarization of other particles to check consistency of the vortical motion effects.
  • If subthreshold production is confirmed, it implies significant nuclear medium modifications to particle production thresholds.
  • Future experiments at facilities reaching around 3 GeV could directly test the peak position and stability.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the cross section for Lambda production in the nuclear environment can be below the free nucleon-nucleon threshold and that the corona region has a lifetime that grows with decreasing collision energy due to increased stopping.

What would settle it

A measurement of global Lambda polarization near sqrt(s_NN) = 3 GeV that does not show the predicted maximum would challenge the model's key prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07501 by Alejandro Ayala, Isabel Dom\'inguez, Jos\'e Jorge Medina Serna, Mar\'ia Elena Tejeda-Yeomans.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. One-loop quark self-energy diagram describing the rate of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Core (red) and corona (blue) volumes as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Core (red) and corona (blue) regions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Global [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Global [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Global [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We compute the excitation function of the global $\Lambda$ polarization in semicentral heavy-ion collisions within a Core--Corona framework, where the interaction region is described as a dense core and a dilute corona separated by a critical value of the participant density. An important ingredient in the model are the intrinsic polarization functions in each of the two regions. These are computed from a field-theoretical approach where the vortical motion of the medium is included in an effective fermion propagator, which we derive explicitly. The interactions in the core and the corona are transmitted by suitable mediators at finite temperature and baryon chemical potential; gluons for the former and $\sigma$-mesons for the latter. The temperatures and baryon chemical potentials are related to the collision energies along the chemical freeze-out curve. By allowing the cross section for $\Lambda$ production in the nuclear environment to take on values below the nucleon-nucleon threshold cross section, the calculation describes the lowest energy polarization data point. For the centralities corresponding to the experimental data, we find that the contribution from the corona is the dominant one and that a lifetime, and correspondingly a volume of this region, which becomes larger for the smaller energies due to stopping, is an essential ingredient in the calculation. Overall, the model provides a good description of the excitation function across the full experimental range and predicts a robust maximum near $\sqrt{s_{NN}}\sim$ 3 GeV that remains stable under reasonable variations of the freeze-out curve and the proton-proton $\Lambda$ production threshold to account for subthreshold production in a nuclear environment.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a Core-Corona model for the excitation function of global Λ polarization in semicentral heavy-ion collisions. The interaction region is partitioned into a dense core and dilute corona by a critical participant density. Intrinsic polarization functions are obtained from a field-theoretic calculation that incorporates vortical motion through an effective fermion propagator, with gluon exchange in the core and σ-meson exchange in the corona. Temperatures and baryon chemical potentials are taken along the chemical freeze-out curve. The model reproduces the experimental data by allowing the Λ production cross section in the nuclear environment to fall below the nucleon-nucleon threshold and by adopting an energy-dependent corona lifetime that increases at lower √s_NN due to stopping; it predicts a maximum near √s_NN ∼ 3 GeV that is stated to remain stable under reasonable variations of the freeze-out curve and threshold.

Significance. If substantiated, the work supplies a single framework that accounts for the full energy dependence of global Λ polarization by combining core-corona separation with explicit vortical polarization functions. The field-theoretic derivation of the effective propagator and the identification of corona dominance at low energies constitute concrete strengths. The predicted maximum near 3 GeV offers a falsifiable target for upcoming low-energy runs at FAIR or NICA. However, the central result rests on two phenomenological adjustments whose independent justification is limited, which reduces the model's ab-initio character and the strength of the robustness claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the reproduction of the lowest-energy data point is achieved only after the Λ production cross section is permitted to take values below the nucleon-nucleon threshold. No derivation of the specific subthreshold value from nuclear-medium effects is supplied, so the fit depends on this post-hoc choice.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: corona dominance is obtained only after the corona lifetime (and volume) is allowed to grow at lower √s_NN because of stopping. This energy dependence is essential for the weight of the corona contribution and therefore for the shape of the excitation function, yet it is introduced without an independent dynamical justification beyond data fitting.
  3. The assertion that the maximum near 3 GeV remains stable under 'reasonable variations' of the freeze-out curve and the proton-proton threshold lacks quantitative support; no ranges for the variations, no resulting shifts in the polarization values, and no sensitivity plots are provided.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'reasonable variations' without defining the criterion used to select those variations or the range explored.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for acknowledging the potential of the Core-Corona framework to unify the excitation function of global Λ polarization. We address each major comment below in a point-by-point manner and indicate the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reproduction of the lowest-energy data point is achieved only after the Λ production cross section is permitted to take values below the nucleon-nucleon threshold. No derivation of the specific subthreshold value from nuclear-medium effects is supplied, so the fit depends on this post-hoc choice.

    Authors: We agree that the specific subthreshold value is selected phenomenologically to reproduce the lowest-energy data point and that a first-principles derivation from nuclear-medium effects is not provided in the current work. Subthreshold Λ production is a known feature of low-energy heavy-ion collisions arising from Fermi motion, collective potentials, and in-medium modifications, as documented in the literature. In the revised manuscript we will add a concise discussion of this physical motivation together with appropriate references, while noting that a detailed microscopic calculation of the in-medium cross section lies outside the scope of the present phenomenological model. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: corona dominance is obtained only after the corona lifetime (and volume) is allowed to grow at lower √s_NN because of stopping. This energy dependence is essential for the weight of the corona contribution and therefore for the shape of the excitation function, yet it is introduced without an independent dynamical justification beyond data fitting.

    Authors: The energy dependence of the corona lifetime is introduced to reflect the stronger nuclear stopping at lower beam energies, which enlarges the dilute interaction region and prolongs its lifetime. This expectation is consistent with results from transport and hydrodynamic models of low-energy collisions. In the revised version we will insert an explanatory paragraph that grounds the parametrization in these dynamical considerations and supplies relevant citations, thereby reducing reliance on data fitting alone. revision: partial

  3. Referee: The assertion that the maximum near 3 GeV remains stable under 'reasonable variations' of the freeze-out curve and the proton-proton threshold lacks quantitative support; no ranges for the variations, no resulting shifts in the polarization values, and no sensitivity plots are provided.

    Authors: We accept that the original manuscript provides insufficient quantitative evidence for the claimed robustness. We have now carried out explicit sensitivity studies and will include them in the revision: the freeze-out curve is varied within ±10 MeV in temperature (with corresponding μ_B shifts) and the threshold cross section is scaled by factors 0.5–2.0. The resulting polarization excitation functions and a new sensitivity figure will be presented to demonstrate that the maximum near 3 GeV persists with only modest changes in position and amplitude. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model parameters adjusted to data then used for extrapolation

full rationale

The derivation computes polarization via field-theoretic propagators in core and corona regions, maps along the chemical freeze-out curve, and weights contributions by volume and lifetime. The abstract explicitly states that subthreshold cross-section values and energy-dependent corona lifetime (larger at low energies due to stopping) are introduced to describe the lowest-energy data point. These are adjustable inputs chosen to match one datum, after which the model is evaluated across the excitation function to produce a maximum near 3 GeV. No equation is shown to reduce the predicted maximum to the fitted inputs by algebraic identity or by construction; the maximum is an output of the weighted sum evaluated at higher energies. No self-citation load-bearing step, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggling is present in the provided text. The central result therefore remains an independent computation once the two parameters are fixed, satisfying the requirement for self-contained derivation against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the core-corona density threshold, the choice of mediators (gluons vs sigma mesons), the relation of T and mu_B to collision energy via the chemical freeze-out curve, the explicit derivation of the vortical fermion propagator, and two adjustable quantities (subthreshold cross section and corona lifetime/volume) introduced to match data.

free parameters (3)
  • critical participant density separating core and corona
    Defines the boundary between dense and dilute regions
  • Lambda production cross section below NN threshold
    Set below the free nucleon-nucleon value to reproduce the lowest-energy data point
  • corona lifetime/volume
    Increased at lower energies due to stopping to make corona dominant
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Temperatures and baryon chemical potentials are taken from the chemical freeze-out curve to relate them to collision energy
    Used to connect model parameters to experimental energies
  • domain assumption Intrinsic polarization functions are computed from an effective fermion propagator that incorporates vortical motion
    Central to obtaining polarization in both regions
invented entities (1)
  • effective fermion propagator including vortical motion no independent evidence
    purpose: To compute intrinsic polarization functions in core and corona
    Derived explicitly in the field-theoretical approach

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5607 in / 1743 out tokens · 59616 ms · 2026-05-10T17:16:46.828704+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    3 2𝑥2 +1 𝑥𝜆1 −𝜆 2 + 5𝑥2 +1 𝛾𝑇 # 𝑥ln 𝑥+1 𝑥−1 −

    ,(58) where 𝑃2 =𝑝 2 0 −𝑝 2, 𝑀 2 𝜎 =𝑚 2 𝜎 +𝑀 2 𝑇 ,(59) 𝐹(𝑥)= " 3 2𝑥2 +1 𝑥𝜆1 −𝜆 2 + 5𝑥2 +1 𝛾𝑇 # 𝑥ln 𝑥+1 𝑥−1 − " 2 5𝑥2 +1 √ 3𝑥2 +1 𝛾𝑇 + 𝑥 10𝑥2 +7 √ 3𝑥2 +1 𝜆1 # ×𝑥 2 ln 𝑥2 + √ 3𝑥2 +1+1 𝑥2 − √ 3𝑥2 +1+1 ! + 4𝑥 2𝑥2 +1 𝜆1 +2𝜆 2 + 2 3 15𝑥2 −2 𝛾𝑇 ,(60) and 𝐴(𝑥)=𝛾 𝑇 5𝑥2 +1 𝑥− 2𝑥2 √ 3𝑥2 +1 +𝜆 1𝑥2 3(2𝑥 2 +1) − 𝑥(10𝑥 2 +7)√ 3𝑥2 +1 −𝜆 2,(61) and 𝑀2 𝑇 ≡ 2𝑔2 𝜎 𝑀𝑁𝑇 𝜋2 𝐾1 𝑀...

    2021

  2. [2]

    Gou (STAR), EPJ Web Conf.296, 04009 (2024)

    X. Gou (STAR), EPJ Web Conf.296, 04009 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Abou Yassineet al.(HADES), Phys

    R. Abou Yassineet al.(HADES), Phys. Lett. B835, 137506 (2022), arXiv:2207.05160 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C104, L061901 (2021), arXiv:2108.00044 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. C101, 044611 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 105, 029902 (2022)], arXiv:1909.01281 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C98, 014910 (2018), arXiv:1805.04400 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Aboonaet al.(STAR), Physics Letters B870, 139891 (2025)

    B. Aboonaet al.(STAR), Physics Letters B870, 139891 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    Abgaryanet al.(MPD), Eur

    V. Abgaryanet al.(MPD), Eur. Phys. J. A58, 140 (2022), arXiv:2202.08970 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Abdulinet al.(MPD), Rev

    R. Abdulinet al.(MPD), Rev. Mex. Fis.71, 041201 (2025), arXiv:2503.21117 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Hadron Physics Opportunities at FAIR,

    J. G. Messchendorpet al., “Hadron Physics Opportunities at FAIR,” (2025), arXiv:2512.15986 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    N. S. Tsegelnik, V. Voronyuk, and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Particles 7, 984 (2024), arXiv:2411.03901 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Troshin, Phys

    V. Troshin, Phys. Part. Nucl.55, 1161 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Nazarova, V

    E. Nazarova, V. Kolesnikov, P. Parfenov, A. Taranenko, O. Teryaev, V. Troshin, V. Voronyuk, and A. Zinchenko, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 85 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Nazarova, R

    E. Nazarova, R. Akhat, M. Baznat, O. Teryaev, and A. Zinchenko, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett.18, 429 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    Ayala, E

    A. Ayala, E. Cuautle, I. Dom ´ınguez, M. Rodr´ıguez-Cahuantzi, I. Maldonado, and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Part. Nucl.52, 730 (2021), arXiv:2010.12593 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Angular momentum conservation in heavy ion collisions at very high energy

    F. Becattini, F. Piccinini, and J. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. C77, 024906 (2008), arXiv:0711.1253 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  17. [17]

    Becattini, G

    F. Becattini, G. Inghirami, V. Rolando, A. Beraudo, L. Del Zanna, A. De Pace, M. Nardi, G. Pagliara, and V. Chan- dra, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 406 (2015), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 78, 354 (2018)], arXiv:1501.04468 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    Local thermodynamical equilibrium and the beta frame for a quantum relativistic fluid

    F. Becattini, L. Bucciantini, E. Grossi, and L. Tinti, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 191 (2015), arXiv:1403.6265 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    Global hyperon polarization at local thermodynamic equilibrium with vorticity, magnetic field and feed-down

    F. Becattini, I. Karpenko, M. Lisa, I. Upsal, and S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C95, 054902 (2017), arXiv:1610.02506 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Huang, Nucl

    X.-G. Huang, Nucl. Phys. A1005, 121752 (2021), arXiv:2002.07549 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    N. Sass, M. M¨ uller, O. Garcia-Montero, and H. Elfner (SMASH), Phys. Rev. C108, 044903 (2023), arXiv:2212.14385 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Karpenko, inStrongly Interacting Matter under Rotation, edited by F

    I. Karpenko, inStrongly Interacting Matter under Rotation, edited by F. Becattiniet al.(Springer, Cham, 2021) p. ??, arXiv:2101.04963 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    S. J. Barnett, Physical Review6, 239 (1915)

    1915

  24. [24]

    Einstein and W

    A. Einstein and W. J. de Haas, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Proceedings Series B Physical Sciences18, 696 (1915)

    1915

  25. [25]

    I. I. Gaspar, L. A. Hern ´andez, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094020 (2023), arXiv:2305.00101 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    L. A. Hern ´andez and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D111, 036003 (2025), arXiv:2410.17874 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Y. Guo, J. Liao, E. Wang, H. Xing, and H. Zhang, EPJ Web Conf.259, 11009 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Wu, L.-G

    H.-Z. Wu, L.-G. Pang, X.-G. Huang, and Q. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A1005, 121831 (2021), arXiv:2002.03360 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Thermal vorticity and spin polarization in heavy-ion collisions,

    D.-X. Wei, W.-T. Deng, and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C99, 014905 (2019), arXiv:1810.00151 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    X.-L. Xia, H. Li, Z.-B. Tang, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. C98, 024905 (2018), arXiv:1803.00867 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Deng, X.-G

    X.-G. Deng, X.-G. Huang, and Y.-G. Ma, Phys. Lett. B835, 137560 (2022), arXiv:2109.09956 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Deng, X.-G

    X.-G. Deng, X.-G. Huang, Y.-G. Ma, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C101, 064908 (2020), arXiv:2001.01371 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Study of Lambda polarization in relativistic nuclear collisions at sqrt{s}_NN = 7.7-200 GeV

    I. Karpenko and F. Becattini, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 213 (2017), arXiv:1610.04717 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    A. Lei, D. Wang, D.-M. Zhou, B.-H. Sa, and L. P. Csernai, Phys. Rev. C104, 054903 (2021), arXiv:2110.13485 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C93, 064907 (2016), arXiv:1603.06117 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    Causality and dissipation in relativistic polarizeable fluids,

    D. Montenegro and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. D100, 056011 (2019), arXiv:1807.02796 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    J. I. Kapusta, E. Rrapaj, and S. Rudaz, Phys. Rev. C101, 031901 (2020), arXiv:1910.12759 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    J. I. Kapusta, E. Rrapaj, and S. Rudaz, Phys. Rev. C101, 024907 (2020), arXiv:1907.10750 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Linear response theory and effective action of relativistic hydrodynamics with spin,

    D. Montenegro and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. D102, 036007 (2020), arXiv:2004.10195 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    J. I. Kapusta, E. Rrapaj, and S. Rudaz, Phys. Rev. D102, 125028 (2020), arXiv:2009.12010 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    J. I. Kapusta, E. Rrapaj, and S. Rudaz, Phys. Rev. C102, 064911 (2020), arXiv:2004.14807 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Torrieri and D

    G. Torrieri and D. Montenegro, Phys. Rev. D107, 076010 (2023), arXiv:2207.00537 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Ayala, I

    A. Ayala, I. Dom ´ınguez, I. Maldonado, and M. E. Tejeda- Yeomans, Phys. Rev. C105, 034907 (2022), arXiv:2106.14379 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Ayala, I

    A. Ayala, I. Dominguez, I. Maldonado, and M. E. Tejeda- Yeomans, Particles6, 405 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    Ayala, I

    A. Ayala, I. Dom ´ınguez, I. Maldonado, and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Rev. Mex. Fis. Suppl.3, 040914 (2022), arXiv:2207.10560 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Ayala, S

    A. Ayala, S. Bernal-Langarica, I. Dom ´ınguez Jim´enez, I. Mal- donado, J. J. Medina-Serna, J. Rend ´on, and M. E. Tejeda- Yeomans, Phys. Rev. D109, 074018 (2024), arXiv:2311.07859 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Ayala, D

    A. Ayala, D. De La Cruz, S. Hern ´andez-Ort´ız, L. A. Hern´andez, and J. Salinas, Phys. Lett. B801, 135169 (2020), arXiv:1909.00274 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Ayala, D

    A. Ayala, D. de la Cruz, L. A. Hern´andez, and J. Salinas, Phys. Rev. D102, 056019 (2020), arXiv:2003.06545 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Ayalaet al., Phys

    A. Ayalaet al., Phys. Lett. B810, 135818 (2020), arXiv:2003.13757 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Ayala, J

    A. Ayala, J. J. Medina-Serna, I. Dom´ınguez, I. Maldonado, and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Lett. B869, 139873 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    Ayala, L

    A. Ayala, L. A. Hern ´andez, K. Raya, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D103, 076021 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 104, 039901 (2021)], arXiv:2102.03476 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    A. Li, W. Zuo, A.-J. Mi, and G. F. Burgio, Chin. Phys.16, 1934 (2007)

    1934

  53. [53]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Lourenc ¸o, S. S. Avancini, B. V. Carlson, A. Delfino, D. P. Menezes, C. Providˆencia, S. Typel, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C90, 055203 (2014), arXiv:1405.3633 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2014

  54. [54]

    Z. X. Liu, C. J. Xia, W. L. Lu, Y. X. Li, J. N. Hu, and T. T. Sun, Phys. Rev. C98, 024316 (2018)

    2018

  55. [55]

    Oertel, C

    M. Oertel, C. Provid ˆencia, F. Gulminelli, and A. R. Raduta, J. Phys. G42, 075202 (2015), arXiv:1412.4545 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    Sun, C.-J

    T.-T. Sun, C.-J. Xia, S.-S. Zhang, and M. Smith, Chinese Physics C42, 025101 (2018)

    2018

  57. [57]

    German and D

    W. German and D. J. Diener, arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.12514 (2022). 14

    work page arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    S. N. Iablokov and A. V. Kuznetsov, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1390, 012078 (2019)

    2019

  59. [59]

    S. N. Iablokov and A. V. Kuznetsov, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1690, 012087 (2020), arXiv:2010.05195 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    S. N. Iablokov and A. V. Kuznetsov, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 193 (2022), arXiv:2105.05808 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    M. L. Bellac,Thermal Field Theory(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996)

    1996

  62. [62]

    Letessier, A

    J. Letessier, A. Tounsi, and J. Rafelski, Phys. Lett. B389, 586 (1996)

    1996

  63. [63]

    M. I. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C108, 014910 (2023), arXiv:2305.08705 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Nature561, 321 (2018), arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2018

  65. [65]

    Steinbrecher (HotQCD), Nucl

    P. Steinbrecher (HotQCD), Nucl. Phys. A982, 847 (2019), arXiv:1807.05607 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    Thermal Dileptons as Fireball Thermometer and Chronometer,

    R. Rapp and H. van Hees, Phys. Lett. B753, 586 (2016), arXiv:1411.4612 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    Galatyuk, P

    T. Galatyuk, P. M. Hohler, R. Rapp, F. Seck, and J. Stroth, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 131 (2016), arXiv:1512.08688 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2016

  68. [68]

    Kasza and T

    G. Kasza and T. Cs ¨org˝o, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A34, 1950147 (2019), arXiv:1811.09990 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    Global $\Lambda$ hyperon polarization in nuclear collisions: evidence for the most vortical fluid

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017