Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Quantum simulation of bottomonium dynamics in the quark-gluon plasma via the Lindblad equation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum circuit with 10 system qubits and one ancilla reproduces the Lindblad evolution of in-medium bottomonium, and the circuit shows that color-octet states barely affect the final Upsilon(1S) survival probability.

desk verdict A credible quantum-circuit benchmark for a known two-channel Lindblad model, but the 'negligible octet contribution' physics claim is inherited from a single parameter set and needs a sensitivity scan. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06754 v1 pith:EOO6J5EG submitted 2026-08-07 nucl-th

Linyuan Wei , Jin Hu , Anping Huang , Yunpeng Liu , Baoyi Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 12.38.Mh25.75.-q03.65.Yz
keywords quantumsimulationLindbladequationbottomoniumquark-gluonplasmaUpsilon(1S)color-octetstateopensystemBjorkencooling
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

The paper claims that the non-unitary Lindblad evolution of bottomonium in a hot quark-gluon plasma can be carried out on a digital quantum circuit by dilating the dissipative dynamics into a larger unitary evolution. Using 10 qubits for the quarkonium wave function and three ancilla qubits for the medium, the circuit reproduces the $\Upsilon(1S)$ survival probability obtained with a classical Lindblad solver across a Bjorken-cooling temperature profile. The authors then use the circuit to isolate the color-octet contribution, finding that octet-to-singlet transitions barely change the final $\Upsilon(1S)$ yield at LHC energies. They further optimize the algorithm so that a single ancillary qubit, reset after each Trotter factor, reproduces the original results within error. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete instance in which an open quantum system of physical interest in heavy-ion collisions is mapped onto a small quantum circuit with a clear benchmark.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective Hamiltonian $J=\sum_i(|i\rangle\langle 0|\otimes L_i+|0\rangle\langle i|\otimes L_i^\dagger)$ built from the six Lindblad operators $L_i$; evolving with $e^{-iJ\sqrt{\delta t}}$ on the system-plus-ancilla Hilbert space and then tracing out the ancilla implements one dissipative Lindblad step. The circuit alternates this dissipative gate with the Hamiltonian gate $e^{-i\bar H\delta t}$ carrying the color-singlet and color-octet potentials, using a reduced spherical-coordinate discretization in the radial coordinate $r$ and angular momentum $l$ that packs the quarkonium state into 10 system qubits. The optimized version replaces the multi-qubit ancilla encoding by first-order Trotter decomposition and immediate reset of a single ancilla after each jump-operator factor.

What would settle it

Compare the circuit's predicted $\Upsilon(1S)$ suppression, computed with the Bjorken profile and $\hat\kappa=4$, $\hat\gamma=-2.6$, against the measured $\Upsilon(1S)$ $R_{AA}$ in Pb-Pb collisions at LHC energies; a significant mismatch would rule out the parameter set. A more direct check is to rerun the same circuit with $\hat\kappa$ and $\hat\gamma$ varied over the range allowed by lattice or hydro inputs; if the octet-to-singlet channel becomes sizable for parameter values still consistent with data, the claim that this channel is negligible is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the isotropic next-to-leading-order Lindblad equation for bottomonium, with six transition operators and rates taken from the effective-field-theory model of Ref. [42], is faithfully simulated by the dilated time evolution $e^{-iJ\sqrt{\delta t}}$ alternated with the unitary Hamiltonian step $e^{-i\bar H\delta t}$, and that the extracted $\Upsilon(1S)$ survival probabilities agree with a classical solver. The physical discovery is that initializing the system in a color-octet state yields only a minimal transition probability into the $\Upsilon(1S)$ state, and switching off octet-to-singlet transitions leaves the survival probability essentially unchanged, so color-octet states have negligible impact on the final $\Upsilon(1S)$ production in a Bjorken-expanding medium at LHC temperatures. A separate algorithmic claim is that Trotterizing the dilation into factors $e^{-iJ_i\sqrt{\delta t}}$ and resetting a single ancilla after each factor reproduces the original multi-ancilla results within error, reducing the medium register to one qubit.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation inherits the in-medium Lindblad model from an earlier derivation, including the six jump operators, the transition rates, and the coefficients $\hat\kappa=4$ and $\hat\gamma=-2.6$; the paper does not derive or test that model, so if those ingredients misdescribe real bottomonium in the quark-gluon plasma, the circuit is faithfully simulating the wrong dynamics and the negligible color-octet conclusion could reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The quantum-circuit results agree with the classical Lindblad solver, so the circuit is a validated independent route for computing $\Upsilon(1S)$ survival in a cooling medium.
  • Within the adopted model, the final $\Upsilon(1S)$ yield is governed almost entirely by color-singlet evolution, since octet-to-singlet transitions are negligible.
  • The optimized single-ancilla algorithm reproduces the original multi-ancilla results within error, so the medium register can be reduced to one qubit even with six Lindblad operators.
  • The circuit follows the full Bjorken cooling history down to the freeze-out temperature, giving a time-resolved prediction for $\Upsilon(1S)$ suppression rather than a single final suppression number.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to run the same circuit for $\Upsilon(2S)$ and $\chi_b$ states; because the spatial encoding already supports $\Delta l=\pm1$ jumps, the added cost should be small and would show whether octet insensitivity is specific to the ground state.
  • The single-ancilla reset recipe generalizes: any Lindblad simulation whose jump operators can be applied sequentially can drop its ancilla register to one qubit, at the price of first-order Trotter error.
  • The physical conclusion is parameter-dependent; scanning $\hat\kappa$ and $\hat\gamma$ inside their phenomenological uncertainty would show whether the negligible octet contribution is stable or an artifact of the chosen coefficients.
  • If the octet channel is genuinely negligible, regeneration of $\Upsilon(1S)$ through octet intermediates is not the dominant mechanism in this model, so LHC $R_{AA}$ data would constrain the singlet sector of the Lindblad dynamics more strongly than the octet sector.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a quantum-circuit simulation of the isotropic next-to-leading-order Lindblad equation for bottomonium in a quark-gluon plasma, using a reduced spherical-coordinate representation and the Qiskit simulator. The authors compare their circuit results with the classical QuTiP solver for the Upsilon(1S) survival probability and for the color-octet-to-singlet transition probability, and they propose an optimized algorithm that uses a single ancillary qubit. The central physics claim is that color-octet-to-singlet transitions have a negligible effect on the final Upsilon(1S) survival probability in a Bjorken-cooling medium at LHC energies.

Significance. The paper is potentially relevant both as a demonstration of quantum algorithms for open quantum systems in heavy-ion physics and as a step toward reducing the qubit cost of Lindblad evolution. The agreement between the quantum circuit and QuTiP in Figs. 2 and 3 is a concrete strength, and the single-ancilla resetting scheme in Eq. (25) and Fig. 5 is a useful optimization that should be reproducible from the described circuit. However, the significance of the physics conclusion is currently conditional: it rests on a specific imported pNRQCD Lindblad model at one parameter point, without sensitivity analysis or a quantitative threshold for 'negligible'. The algorithmic claims are also not fully reproducible because key discretization and encoding details are omitted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Numerical Simulations and Results] The manuscript does not specify the radial grid (number of points, spacing, boundary conditions), the truncation of the orbital angular momentum l, the qubit encoding of the |r> and |l> registers, or the explicit discretization of the derivative operators appearing in Eqs. (3)-(10). Since the 10-qubit encoding is central to the claim that the circuit faithfully simulates the Lindblad dynamics, these omissions make the numerical setup irreproducible and prevent the reader from checking convergence of the spatial representation.
  2. [Numerical Simulations and Results, Figs. 2-4] The agreement between the quantum circuit and QuTiP in Figs. 2 and 3 validates the circuit only against the same discretized Lindblad equation; it is a self-consistency check of the implementation, not a test of the imported pNRQCD model or of the chosen parameters kappa-hat = 4 and gamma-hat = -2.6. The central physics conclusion about octet-to-singlet transitions being negligible (Fig. 4 and the Conclusion) is therefore inherited from a single parameter point. Because the competition between the octet-to-singlet rates in Eqs. (13)-(14), the octet loss rates in Eqs. (15)-(16), and the octet Hamiltonian in Eq. (4) can plausibly shift with kappa-hat and gamma-hat, the manuscript should include a sensitivity scan over the allowed range of these coefficients and state a quantitative threshold for 'negligible' (e.g., the change in final survival probability relative to the octet-suppressed calculation). Without this, the central physics claim is not robust.
  3. [Optimized Algorithm and Fig. 6] The optimized algorithm is based on a first-order Trotter decomposition in Eq. (25) and on resetting the ancillary qubit after each differential gate. The manuscript states that the results agree with the original algorithm 'within the error margin' but does not report the actual error, the chosen time step delta-t, or any convergence study in delta-t or Trotter order. A quantitative comparison of the optimized and original circuits for varying delta-t is needed to support the claim that the single-ancilla reset approximation accurately reproduces the Lindblad evolution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The phrase 'using the Qiskit simulator [42]' cites Ref. [42], which is the Brambilla et al. pNRQCD Lindblad paper, not the Qiskit package; a proper citation for Qiskit should be added.
  2. [Introduction] The text contains a duplicated phrase: 'have have been applied' should read 'have been applied'.
  3. [Quantum Circuit for Lindblad Equation, Eq. (18)] The sentence 'The total wave function consists of medium components and the heavy quarkonium components, which are restored in each register' appears to mean 'stored' rather than 'restored'.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The sentence following the circuit diagram is incomplete and should be finished: 'The corresponding Quantum circuit with the optimized algorithm is shown in Fig.5 The results...' should be split into proper sentences with a period after 'Fig. 5'.
  5. [Conclusion] The phrase 'with one qubit to restore the medium information' is unclear; it should say 'with a single ancillary qubit to represent the environment' or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the circuit is benchmarked against QuTiP as an internal consistency check, and the physics conclusion is inherited from an independently cited pNRQCD Lindblad model, not derived from the circuit itself.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The Lindblad equation, the singlet/octet Hamiltonian, the six jump operators, and the dissipation rates (Eqs. 3-16) are imported from Refs. [42,43], which are external works by different authors. These are model inputs, not outputs of the present calculation. The quantum circuit is constructed from the effective Hamiltonian J (Eq. 17) and the Trotterized evolution, and it is validated by comparing with the classical QuTiP solver (Figs. 2, 3, 6). That comparison is a self-consistency check that the circuit implements the same discretized Lindblad dynamics; it is not presented as independent physical evidence, so it does not make the derivation circular. The conclusion that octet-to-singlet transitions have a negligible effect on the final Upsilon(1S) survival probability follows from the imported model evaluated at kappa-hat = 4 and gamma-hat = -2.6. This is model dependence, not circularity, because those parameters are not fitted to the survival probability in this paper and no parameter is adjusted to force the stated conclusion. The single-ancilla optimization builds on Ref. [57], which is explicitly cited, and is tested against the original algorithm. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the cited model sources [42,43] have no author overlap with the present paper. No step reduces by construction to its own input, and no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction. The physics conclusion is conditional on the imported model and parameter set, which is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on external Lindblad model parameters and idealized medium and initial conditions. The quantum algorithm itself adds no new free parameters, but its numerical verification depends on unstated discretization choices.

free parameters (4)
  • kappa-hat (dimensionless momentum diffusion coefficient) = 4
    Input to the Lindblad rates in Eqs. (11)-(16); taken from Ref [42] and not varied. The octet contribution estimate depends on this value.
  • gamma-hat (dimensionless color-electric screening coefficient) = -2.6
    Input to the Hamiltonians in Eqs. (3)-(4); fixed to a single value with no sensitivity study.
  • Initial temperature T0 = 0.5 GeV
    Sets the Bjorken cooling curve in Eq. (23); estimated from hydrodynamic simulations of LHC heavy-ion collisions, not derived in this paper.
  • Initial time t0 = 0.6 fm/c
    Start time for the Lindblad evolution from Ref [52]; affects the accumulated survival probability over the medium lifetime.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The open quantum system dynamics of bottomonium is exactly described by the next-to-leading-order pNRQCD Lindblad master equation with the operators and rates of Ref [42].
    Eqs. (1)-(16) import the Lindblad operators, rates, and Hamiltonians from prior theoretical work; the paper does not derive or validate this model.
  • domain assumption Medium temperature follows Bjorken hydrodynamics T(t) = T0 (t0 / t)^(1/3).
    Eq. (23) and the surrounding text assume longitudinal Bjorken expansion with fixed T0 and t0.
  • standard math First-order Trotter decomposition is accurate for the chosen time step and discretization.
    Eq. (25) uses exp(-iJ sqrt(delta t)) approximately equal to the product of exp(-iJ_i sqrt(delta t)); no convergence analysis in delta t is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper The radial wavefunction and l basis can be faithfully encoded in 10 qubits with the unspecified discretization.
    The mapping to qubits is described only schematically; grid points and angular momentum truncation are not specified, yet the numerical results depend on them.
  • domain assumption The initial state is a pure color-singlet Upsilon(1S) radial wavefunction with no initial octet population or continuum recombination.
    Eq. (19) sets this initial condition; the final production claim does not include realistic initial octet or recombination contributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum simulation of bottomonium dynamics in the quark-gluon plasma via the Lindblad equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EOO6J5EG

@misc{pith2026260806754,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum simulation of bottomonium dynamics in the quark-gluon plasma via the Lindblad equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EOO6J5EG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06754}
}
abstract

Quantum computing provides a powerful framework for simulating real-time dynamics in open quantum systems, offering key advantages for modeling heavy-quarkonium transport in high-energy nuclear collisions. In this work, we perform quantum simulations of the isotropic next-to-leading-order Lindblad equation for bottomonium in the quark-gluon plasma using a reduced spherical coordinate representation. We discretize operators and wavefunctions, map the physical state onto qubits, and execute time evolution via parameterized quantum gate operations. By extracting the $\Upsilon(1S)$ survival probability, we quantitatively isolate the color-octet contribution, demonstrating that its overall impact is small in the final production of the bottomonium ground state $\Upsilon(1S)$ in the hot QCD medium at temperatures accessible at the Large Hadron Collider. Additionally, we have further optimized the quantum simulation algorithm for the Lindblad equation. The improved algorithm requires only a single ancillary qubit to realize the Lindblad evolution, thereby minimizing the circuit significantly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06754 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison between the results from quantum com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Transition probability from a color octet state to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Schematic diagram of the quantum circuit for imple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The Υ(1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the Υ(1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Apolin´ ario, Y.-J

    L. Apolin´ ario, Y.-J. Lee, and M. Winn, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127, 103990 (2022), arXiv:2203.16352 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Andronic and R

    A. Andronic and R. Arnaldi, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science75, 351 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Review of the EFT treatment of quarkonium at finite temperature

    J. Ghiglieri, PoSConfinementX, 004 (2012), arXiv:1303.6438 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Mocsy, P

    A. Mocsy, P. Petreczky, and M. Strickland, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1340012 (2013), arXiv:1302.2180 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    E. G. Ferreiro, Nucl. Phys. A982, 127 (2019), arXiv:1810.00477 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    K. R. Mattioli, Symmetry16(2024), 10.3390/sym16020225

    work page doi:10.3390/sym16020225 2024

  7. [7]

    R. Rapp, D. Blaschke, and P. Crochet, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.65, 209 (2010), arXiv:0807.2470 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Matsui and H

    T. Matsui and H. Satz, Physics Letters B178, 416 (1986)

    1986

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Mocsy and P

    A. Mocsy and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 211602 (2007), arXiv:0706.2183 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C. R. Singh, P. K. Srivastava, S. Ganesh, and M. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C92, 034916 (2015), arXiv:1505.05674 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Zhao and M

    S. Zhao and M. He, Phys. Rev. D110, 074040 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Chen and M

    S. Chen and M. He, Phys. Lett. B786, 260 (2018), arXiv:1805.06346 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Brambilla, M

    N. Brambilla, M. A. Escobedo, J. Ghiglieri, and A. Vairo, JHEP05, 130 (2013), arXiv:1303.6097 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Liu, W.-J

    F.-L. Liu, W.-J. Xing, X.-Y. Wu, G.-Y. Qin, S. Cao, and X.-N. Wang, The European Physical Journal C82, 350 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Yao and T

    X. Yao and T. Mehen, JHEP02, 062 (2021), arXiv:2009.02408 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Y. Fu, T. Krishna, W. Ke, S. A. Bass, and R. Rapp, EPJ Web Conf.364, 08007 (2026), arXiv:2510.08923 [hep-ph]

    2026

  9. [17]

    Greco, Eur

    V. Greco, Eur. Phys. J. ST155, 45 (2008), arXiv:0710.0486 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. B571, 36 (2003), arXiv:nucl- th/0303036

    2003

  11. [19]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. B652, 259 (2007), arXiv:nucl- th/0701079

    2007

  12. [20]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Nucl. Phys. A789, 334 (2007), arXiv:nucl- th/0611023

    2007

  13. [21]

    Braun-Munzinger and J

    P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, Landolt-Bornstein 23, 424 (2010), arXiv:0901.2500 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, J. Phys. G37, 094014 (2010), arXiv:1002.4441 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, M. K. K¨ ohler, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. B797, 134836 (2019), arXiv:1901.09200 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Wen and B

    L. Wen and B. Chen, Phys. Lett. B839, 137774 (2023), arXiv:2208.10050 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    L. Dong, Y. Guo, A. Islam, A. Rothkopf, and M. Strick- land, JHEP09, 200 (2022), arXiv:2205.10349 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  19. [27]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Su- darshan, Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 821 (1976), eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/17/5/821/19090720/821 1 online.pdf

    1976

  20. [28]

    Akamatsu, Phys

    Y. Akamatsu, Phys. Rev. D91, 056002 (2015), arXiv:1403.5783 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Armesto, M

    N. Armesto, M. ´A. Escobedo, E. G. Ferreiro, and V. L´ opez-Pardo, (2026), arXiv:2605.19985 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Barata, J.-P

    J. Barata, J.-P. Blaizot, and Y. Mehtar-Tani, Phys. Rev. D108, 014039 (2023), arXiv:2305.10476 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Borghini and C

    N. Borghini and C. Gombeaud, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2000 (2012), arXiv:1109.4271 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Miura, Y

    T. Miura, Y. Akamatsu, M. Asakawa, and A. Rothkopf, Phys. Rev. D101, 034011 (2020), arXiv:1908.06293 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Delorme, R

    S. Delorme, R. Katz, T. Gousset, P. B. Gossiaux, and J.- P. Blaizot, JHEP06, 060 (2024), arXiv:2402.04488 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    V. B. R. and R. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D112, 114038 (2025), arXiv:2504.19348 [hep-ph]

    2025

  27. [35]

    Qian, EPJ Web Conf.339, 01012 (2025), arXiv:2504.20683 [hep-ph]

    W. Qian, EPJ Web Conf.339, 01012 (2025), arXiv:2504.20683 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Barata and C

    J. Barata and C. A. Salgado, PoSEPS-HEP2021, 294 (2022), arXiv:2110.02586 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    N. F. Castro, J. G. Milhano, and M. G. J. Oliveira, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1324 (2025), arXiv:2502.03431 [hep-ph]

    2025

  30. [38]

    Barata, M

    J. Barata, M. Li, W. Qian, C. A. Salgado, and J. M. Silva, (2026), arXiv:2604.11616 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  31. [39]

    F. J. Twagirayezu, (2025), arXiv:2507.02202 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Du and W

    X. Du and W. Qian, Phys. Rev. D109, 076025 (2024), arXiv:2312.16294 [hep-ph]. 6

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cleve and C

    R. Cleve and C. Wang (2016) arXiv:1612.09512 [quant- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Brambilla, M

    N. Brambilla, M. ´A. Escobedo, A. Islam, M. Strick- land, A. Tiwari, A. Vairo, and P. Vander Griend, JHEP08, 303 (2022), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 079 (2025)], arXiv:2205.10289 [hep-ph]

    2022

  35. [43]

    Islam, N

    A. Islam, N. Brambilla, M. ´Angel Escobedo, M. Strick- land, A. Vairo, and P. Vander Griend, PoSQCHSC24, 162 (2025), arXiv:2503.22507 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Akamatsu and T

    Y. Akamatsu and T. Miura, EPJ Web Conf.258, 01006 (2022), arXiv:2111.15402 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Akamatsu, Prog

    Y. Akamatsu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.123, 103932 (2022), arXiv:2009.10559 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Miura, Y

    T. Miura, Y. Akamatsu, M. Asakawa, and Y. Kaida, Phys. Rev. D106, 074001 (2022), arXiv:2205.15551 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Strickland, Rev

    M. Strickland, Rev. Mex. Fis. Suppl.3, 0308118 (2022), arXiv:2112.11492 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    W. A. De Jong, M. Metcalf, J. Mulligan, M. P losko´ n, F. Ringer, and X. Yao, Phys. Rev. D104, 051501 (2021), arXiv:2010.03571 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    W. A. de Jong, K. Lee, J. Mulligan, M. P losko´ n, F. Ringer, and X. Yao, Phys. Rev. D106, 054508 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    S. Endo, J. Sun, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 010501 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Borras and M

    E. Borras and M. Marvian, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023076 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Chatterjee and D

    R. Chatterjee and D. K. Srivastava, Nuclear Physics A 830, 503c (2009), quark Matter 2009

    2009

  45. [53]

    Csanad and I

    M. Csanad and I. Majer, Central Eur. J. Phys.10, 850 (2012), arXiv:1101.1279 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Gigu‘ere, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Su’arez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, Physics Reports1153, 1 (2026)

    2026

  47. [55]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Di Bartolomeo, M

    G. Di Bartolomeo, M. Vischi, T. Feri, A. Bassi, and S. Donadi, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043321 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    H. F. Trotter, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society10, 545 (1959)

    1959

  51. [59]

    Suzuki, Communications in Mathematical Physics51, 183 (1976)

    M. Suzuki, Communications in Mathematical Physics51, 183 (1976)

    1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.