Holographic spin alignment of vector mesons in a spinning black-hole background

Fei Wang; Zi-qiang Zhang

REVIEW

Holographic spin alignment of vector mesons in a spinning black-hole background

Fei Wang, Zi-qiang Zhang

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 3 Nov 2026 · 69 references

Pith's verdict: Useful framework, but the central qualitative claim about opposite signs relies on an uncontrolled approximation that the authors themselves flag as uncontrolled.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on November 4, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 4 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2611.04110 (version 1)

Pith IDM5HOELSK, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationFei Wang, Zi-qiang Zhang. "Holographic spin alignment of vector mesons in a spinning black-hole background." arXiv:2611.04110 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M5HOELSK

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The paper does something useful: it puts J/ψ and φ in the same rotating holographic background with the same spectral prescription and maps spin alignment over momentum, rapidity, and azimuth. That is a step forward for this subfield. The methods are standard, the limitations are stated transparently, and the authors distinguish model-dependent numbers from qualitative features. Credit where it is due.

The problem is that the main qualitative feature — opposite helicity-frame sign for J/ψ and φ — rests on a narrow-width approximation (Eq. 38) applied to the φ meson, whose spectral functions show no narrow resonance (Fig. 5). The authors themselves say this is uncontrolled (b135–b137) and that a full ω integral is left for future work. Yet they then list the opposite sign as a stable qualitative observation (b256). That is not consistent. If the sign could flip under a controlled evaluation, then the central claim of the paper is not established. The stress-test note is correct: the φ sign is load-bearing and the support is missing.

The reader's soundness score seems to underweight this. The calculations of J/ψ are fine; the φ results are essentially unvalidated. The paper would benefit from either performing the full integral or, failing that, stating explicitly that the φ sign is provisional and not part of the stable model predictions.

Other soft spots are minor: the homogeneous rotating medium is a crude approximation to the QGP vorticity profile, but the authors acknowledge this. The paper is internally consistent and the algebra is laid out for checking.

Who is this for? Holographic QCD and heavy-ion spin physicists. It provides a reference calculation, but the φ sign should be treated with caution. I would cite this only for the J/ψ results and framework, not for the φ claim.

Recommendation: send to peer review. The paper has value, but the authors should be asked to either remove the φ sign from the stable features or provide a proper ω integral. As it stands, the strongest qualitative claim is not supported.

Referee report

Significance

If the qualitative predictions hold, the paper would demonstrate that a single homogeneous rotating strongly-coupled medium can generate opposite polarization preferences for charmonium and light vector mesons within a holographic framework. This provides a concrete baseline for future experimental tests at RHIC and the LHC: trends inconsistent with the predicted signs and azimuthal/rapidity patterns would challenge the simplest rotating-medium interpretation. The unified treatment of two mesons in the same background and spectral prescription is a methodological advance over earlier works, and the detailed mapping over momentum, rapidity, and azimuthal angle increases the testability of the predictions. The claimed qualitative features (opposite helicity-frame signs, stronger rotation effect along z, opposite azimuthal and rapidity trends, and O(10⁻²) deviations for φ) are well-defined and falsifiable.

Major objections (2)

[Sec. III, Eq. (38); lines b135–b137] The helicity-frame spin alignment for the φ meson is computed using the narrow-width approximation, Eq. (38), which evaluates the spectral functions at the vacuum mass M=m_φ. The authors explicitly state that the φ spectral functions show no narrow resonance (Fig. 5) and that this approximation is uncontrolled and should be read as an operational definition only (b135–b137). Despite this, the opposite sign of ρ₀₀ (ρ₀₀<1/3 for φ vs. ρ₀₀>1/3 for J/ψ) is listed as a stable qualitative feature in the main conclusions (b256). Because the central claim of opposite polarization preferences rests on this sign difference, the uncontrolled approximation directly affects a load-bearing result. A broad, structureless spectral function can yield a different sign after a full ω integration, especially because the polarization-dependent spectral shapes are also broad. The authors should either (a) evaluate the full ω integral for φ using the instantaneous freezeout framework (which they already set up), showing that the sign is robust, or (b) explicitly qualify the φ sign as provisional and remove it from the list of stable qualitative features, or (c) provide a sensitivity study (e.g., scanning the resonance width or using a Breit-Wigner spectral shape convolved with the in-medium spectral function) to demonstrate that the sign does not change under reasonable variations. Without such an analysis, the opposite-sign claim for φ is not established at the level required for a qualitative conclusion. The authors acknowledge this: “For the φ meson, the absence of a narrow resonance means that Eq. (38) s hould be read as an operational deﬁnition of the alignment at the vacuum mass rather than as a cont rolled narrow-width limit.”
[Sec. IV.B, Fig. 6; b199] The instantaneous freezeout approximation (b118) is used to relate in-medium spectral functions to final dilepton rates: after freezeout, the propagators are represented by vacuum Breit-Wigner forms (Eq. 32) with the vacuum meson mass. The authors note that for φ the vacuum propagator suppresses contributions far from m_φ (b199), but the in-medium spectral function itself has no narrow structure. The combination of the uncontrolled narrow-width approximation and the simplified freezeout prescription makes the absolute magnitude (and possibly sign) of the φ spin alignment uncertain. The paper should discuss how the freezeout ambiguity compounds the narrow-width problem and state clearly whether the qualitative opposite sign is expected to survive a more detailed freezeout treatment. The authors acknowledge this: “We use it for the qualitative comparison and treat the resulting absolute values for φ as carrying an additional model uncertainty.”

Minor objections (4)

[Abstract and Sec. I] Line b26 mentions the difficulty of separating rotation/vorticity from magnetization effects; this is an important caveat but is not mentioned again in the conclusions. Consider adding a brief remark in Sec. V to remind the reader that the present calculation neglects magnetic field effects that are inherent in a rotating conducting medium.
[Sec. IV.A, Fig. 2] The caption of Fig. 2 says that at finite a and propagation along x, small negative deviations at very low momentum are not shown. It would be more informative to include them (e.g., as an inset) or to state the approximate magnitude so that the reader can assess whether they are negligible.
[Sec. IV.B, Fig. 5] The φ spectral functions in Fig. 5 are shown at T=0.15 GeV. A label on each panel would help the reader distinguish the longitudinal and transverse contributions, which are already described in the caption but may be hard to identify in print (especially if the curves overlap near the upper end).
[Sec. V (b255–b256)] The paper lists four qualitative features as stable within the model class. Feature (i) includes the opposite helicity-frame signs. Given the narrow-width issue, I recommend adding a qualifier such as "within the operational definition of Eq. (38)" or moving this feature to a category of "features that depend on the uncontrolled approximation" until the robustness is verified.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

This paper places J/ψ and φ mesons in the same rotating holographic background and finds that a single homogeneous rotating medium can imprint opposite spin-alignment preferences on the two species over most of the momentum range at T =…

The reading

This paper attempts to settle whether a single rotating strongly coupled medium can simultaneously produce the opposite spin-alignment preferences observed in J/ψ (longitudinal polarization) and φ (transverse polarization) mesons produced in heavy-ion collisions. The authors place both meson species in the same holographic model—a soft-wall model on the planar limit of a five-dimensional equal-spin Myers–Perry AdS black hole—and compute the helicity-frame and global spin alignment from spectral functions within the same current-correlator framework. At T = 0.15 GeV, they find that J/ψ shows ρ00 > 1/3 (longitudinal preference) while φ shows ρ00 < 1/3 (transverse preference) over most of the momentum range, with rotation effects stronger along the beam direction than transverse to it. The opposite azimuthal patterns at midrapidity and opposite rapidity trends provide a reference for future experimental tests. If confirmed, the result supports a common rotation/vorticity origin for the opposite polarization preferences; if contradicted, it challenges the simplest homogeneous rotating-medium interpretation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the planar limit of the five-dimensional equal-spin Myers–Perry AdS black hole, which is equivalent to a uniformly boosted AdS–Schwarzschild black brane and provides a homogeneous rotating medium. The calculation uses a soft-wall holographic model with probe vector fields and a dilaton profile specific to each meson (c_{J/ψ} ≈ 2.40 GeV², c_φ ≈ 0.26 GeV²). Spectral functions are computed via the Son–Starinets prescription with ingoing-wave boundary conditions, and the spin alignment parameters are extracted using the relation between spin-resolved dilepton production rates and the spectral tensor developed by Sheng et al. [46].

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a single homogeneous rotating strongly coupled medium, modeled holographically, can imprint opposite helicity-frame spin-alignment preferences on J/ψ and φ mesons over most of the momentum range at T = 0.15 GeV, with J/ψ preferring longitudinal polarization (ρ00 > 1/3) and φ preferring transverse polarization (ρ00 < 1/3). Rotation enhances the positive deviation for J/ψ and the negative deviation for φ, more strongly along the rotation/beam direction z than along the transverse x direction. The global spin alignment shows opposite azimuthal patterns at midrapidity and opposite rapidity trends after azimuthal averaging, with the φ deviation reaching O($10^{{-2}}$), comparable in magnitude to STAR data. The authors distinguish these qualitative features, which are stable within the soft-wall model class, from model-dependent numerical details such as precise peak positions and crossing momenta.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the quark-gluon plasma is a homogeneous rotating medium, whereas the actual medium produced in heavy-ion collisions has a spatially varying vorticity field and time-dependent dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Future RHIC/LHC measurements of J/ψ and φ spin alignment in the kinematic range p_T = 1–10 GeV and rapidity Y = 0–1 can directly test whether the opposite helicity-frame signs and opposite rapidity ordering predicted here appear in data.
If data confirm these patterns, the simplest interpretation is that a common rotation/vorticity mechanism in the quark-gluon plasma underlies the opposite polarization preferences of charmonium and light vector mesons.
The prediction that rotation effects are stronger along the beam direction than along the transverse direction provides a directional test that could be checked by comparing measurements at different collision geometries or by varying the experimental coverage.
The φ deviation at the O(10^{-2}) level provides a specific benchmark for the experimental sensitivity needed to discriminate between rotation-induced and magnetically induced polarization.

Reading between the lines

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

The model's assumption of a homogeneous rotating medium limits its applicability; extending these calculations to backgrounds with radial or shear flow profiles could reveal whether the opposite sign patterns survive in more realistic QGP geometries with spatially varying vorticity.
The narrow-width approximation is poorly justified for φ given its broad spectral function; a full ω-integral evaluation might modify the absolute magnitude of the φ spin alignment, but the qualitative sign difference between J/ψ and φ may be robust if it originates from the different dilaton scales.
If the predicted opposite rapidity trends are confirmed experimentally, they could provide a new handle to disentangle rotation effects from magnetic field effects, which tend to produce different rapidity and azimuthal signatures.
The directional dependence of rotation effects (stronger along z) suggests that spin alignment could be used as a probe of the three-dimensional structure of the QGP's vorticity field, potentially discriminating between models that predict different radial profiles of angular momentum deposition.

Original abstract

Holographic predictions for vector-meson spin alignment are difficult to compare between charmonium and light vector mesons, as the two sectors are typically treated in different rotating backgrounds and spectral prescriptions. Consequently, it remains unclear whether a single rotating medium can generate the opposite polarization preferences observed in data. We address this by placing $J/\psi$ and $\phi$ in one soft-wall model on the planar limit of a five-dimensional equal-spin Myers--Perry (MP) AdS black hole, computing spectral functions and spin alignment within the same current-correlator framework; the nonrotating results of Sheng et al. [Phys. Rev. D 110, 056047 (2024)] are recovered at $a=0$. At $T=0.15~\mathrm{GeV}$, $J/\psi$ retains a clear resonance peak, whereas $\phi$ shows no narrow peak and instead behaves as a broad distribution consistent with unstable $s\bar{s}$ pairs. For $J/\psi$ along $z$, rotation enhances the positive deviation of $\rho_{00}^{h}$ from $1/3$ at low and intermediate momenta but suppresses it at high momenta; along $x$, the effect is small. For $\phi$, rotation enhances the negative deviation, more along $z$ than along $x$. The opposite helicity-frame signs and the opposing azimuthal and rapidity trends of the global alignment provide a reference for interpreting data: trends inconsistent with these would challenge the simplest single homogeneous rotating-medium interpretation. We distinguish model-dependent numerical details from qualitative features stable within this model class.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-11-04: 1 request, 6,560 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.08 · states limitation 0.88 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.70 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.72 · compares with prior results 0.95 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Holographic predictions for vector-meson spin alignment are difficult to compare between charmonium and light vector mesons, as the two sectors are typically treated in different rotating backgrounds and spectral prescriptions. Consequently, it remains unclear whether a single rotating medium can generate the opposite polarization preferences observed in data. We address this by placing $J/\psi$ and $\phi$ in one soft-wall model on the planar limit of a five-dimensional equal-spin Myers--Perry (MP) AdS black hole, computing spectral functions and spin alignment within the same current-correlator framework; the nonrotating results of Sheng et al. [Phys. Rev. D 110, 056047 (2024)] are recovered at $a=0$. At $T=0.15~\mathrm{GeV}$, $J/\psi$ retains a clear resonance peak, whereas $\phi$ shows no narrow peak and instead behaves as a broad distribution consistent with unstable $s\bar{s}$ pairs. For $J/\psi$ along $z$, rotation enhances the positive deviation of $\rho_{00}^{h}$ from $1/3$ at low and intermediate momenta but suppresses it at high momenta; along $x$, the effect is small. For $\phi$, rotation enhances the negative deviation, more along $z$ than along $x$. The opposite helicity-frame signs and the opposing azimuthal and rapidity trends of the global alignment provide a reference for interpreting data: trends inconsistent with these would challenge the simplest single homogeneous rotating-medium interpretation. We distinguish model-dependent numerical details from qualitative features stable within this model class.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Holographic predictions for vector-meson spin alignment are difficult to compare between charmonium and light vector mesons, as the two sectors are typically treated in different rotating backgrounds and spectral prescriptions.	background 0.85	0.05	0.02	asserted 0.99
s1	Consequently, it remains unclear whether a single rotating medium can generate the opposite polarization preferences observed in data.	gap 0.99	0.04	0.04	unclear 0.50
s2	We address this by placing $J/\psi$ and $\phi$ in one soft-wall model on the planar limit of a five-dimensional equal-spin Myers--Perry (MP) AdS black hole, computing spectral functions and spin alignment within the same current-correlator framework; the nonrotating results of Sheng et al. [Phys. Rev. D 110, 056047 (2024)] are recovered at $a=0$.	contribution 0.53	0.94	0.09	asserted 1.00
s3	At $T=0.15~\mathrm{GeV}$, $J/\psi$ retains a clear resonance peak, whereas $\phi$ shows no narrow peak and instead behaves as a broad distribution consistent with unstable $s\bar{s}$ pairs.	result 1.00	0.92	0.07	asserted 0.96
s4	For $J/\psi$ along $z$, rotation enhances the positive deviation of $\rho_{00}^{h}$ from $1/3$ at low and intermediate momenta but suppresses it at high momenta; along $x$, the effect is small.	result 1.00	0.95	0.13	asserted 1.00
s5	For $\phi$, rotation enhances the negative deviation, more along $z$ than along $x$.	result 1.00	0.93	0.15	asserted 1.00
s6	The opposite helicity-frame signs and the opposing azimuthal and rapidity trends of the global alignment provide a reference for interpreting data: trends inconsistent with these would challenge the simplest single homogeneous rotating-medium interpretation.	interpretation 1.00	0.79	0.59	asserted 0.70
s7	We distinguish model-dependent numerical details from qualitative features stable within this model class.	limitation 0.73	0.77	0.05	asserted 0.94

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.64 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Spectral functions ˜̺

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Helicity-frame spin alignment

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Global spin alignment

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Azimuthally averaged global spin alignment

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5: Spectral functions ˜̺

**Figure 6.** FIG. 6: Helicity-frame spin alignment

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7: Global spin alignment

**Figure 8.** FIG. 8: Azimuthally averaged global spin alignment

Figures reproduced from arXiv:2611.04110 by the authors.

References

Works cited (69)

[1]

S. A. Bass, M. Gyulassy, H. St¨ ocker, and W. Greiner, J. Ph ys. G 25, R1 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[2]

S. Scherer et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 42, 279 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[3]

E. Shuryak, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 62, 48 (2009)

View on Pith 2009
[4]

J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[5]

K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 184 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[6]

E. V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 64 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[7]

The angular projection structure is also similar to the correspon ding structure for vector-meson spin alignment in the quark-coalescence model [68]. For ﬁnite a or general kinematics, we use the polarization projection of the fu ll spectral tensor [46]: 10 /s48 /s50 /s52 /s54 /s56 /s49 /s48 /s48 /s46 /s48 /s48 /s48 /s46 /s48 /s50 /s48 /s46 /s48 /s52 /s48...

View on Pith
[8]

J. Casalderrey-Solana, H. Liu, D. Mateos, K. Rajagopal, and U. A. Wiedemann, arXiv:1101.0618 [hep-th] (2011)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[9]

J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[10]

S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Let t. B 428, 105 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[11]

E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[12]

O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rep. 323, 183 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[13]

Y. Q. Zhao and D. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1102 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[14]

Y. Q. Zhao and D. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1076 (2023)

View on Pith 2023
[15]

N. R. F. Braga, L. F. Ferreira, and A. Vega, Phys. Lett. B 774, 476 (2017)

View on Pith 2017
[16]

N. R. F. Braga and L. F. Ferreira, Phys. Lett. B 783, 186 (2018)

View on Pith 2018
[17]

L. A. H. Mamani, D. Hou, and N. R. F. Braga, Phys. Rev. D 105, 126020 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[18]

N. R. F. Braga and Y. F. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094017 (2023)

View on Pith 2023
[19]

Z. R. Zhu, M. Sun, R. Zhou, and J. Han, Chin. Phys. C 49, 053101 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[20]

N. R. F. Braga, M. A. Martin Contreras, and S. Diles, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 598 (2016)

View on Pith 2016
[21]

M. A. Martin Contreras, A. Vega, and S. Diles, Phys. Rev. D 103, 086008 (2021)

View on Pith 2021
[22]

B. Toniato, D. Dudal, S. Mahapatra, R. da Rocha, and S. S. Jena, Phys. Rev. D 111, 126021 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[23]

Y. Q. Zhao, Z. R. Zhu, and X. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 57 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[24]

S. Q. Feng, Y. Q. Zhao, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 101, 026023 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[25]

N. R. F. Braga and L. F. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 94, 094019 (2016)

View on Pith 2016
[26]

S. I. Finazzo and J. Noronha, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (201 3) 042

View on Pith
[27]

Y. Q. Zhao and D. Hou, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138271 (2023)

View on Pith 2023
[28]

N. R. F. Braga, Y. F. Ferreira, and L. F. Ferreira, Phys. R ev. D 105, 114044 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[29]

J. X. Chen, D. F. Hou, and H. C. Ren, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2024) 171

View on Pith 2024
[30]

J. Zhou, X. Chen, Y. Q. Zhao, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 102, 086020 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[31]

J. Zhou, X. Chen, Y. Q. Zhao, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 102, 126029 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[32]

Z. Q. Zhang, X. Zhu, and D. F. Hou, Nucl. Phys. B 989, 116149 (2023)

View on Pith 2023
[33]

S. Tahery, X. Chen, and Z. Q. Zhang, J. High Energy Phys. 0 3 (2023) 207

View on Pith 2023
[34]

Z. Q. Zhang, D. Hou, H. C. Ren, and L. Yin, J. High Energy Ph ys. 07 (2011) 035

View on Pith 2011
[35]

S. X. Chu, D. Hou, and H. C. Ren, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (20 09) 004

View on Pith
[36]

D. Hou and H. C. Ren, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2008) 029

View on Pith 2008
[37]

J. X. Chen and D. F. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 447 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[38]

Z. T. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 102301 (2005); 96, 039901(E) (2006)

View on Pith 2005
[39]

Z. T. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 629, 20 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[40]

L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nature (Londo n) 548, 62 (2017)

View on Pith 2017
[41]

J. Adam et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 98, 014910 (2018)

View on Pith 2018
[42]

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

View on Pith 2019
[43]

M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nature (Lon don) 614, 244 (2023)

View on Pith 2023
[44]

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Let t. 125, 012301 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[45]

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 815, 136146 (2021)

View on Pith 2021
[46]

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Let t. 131, 042303 (2023)

View on Pith 2023
[47]

X. L. Sheng, Y. Q. Zhao, S. W. Li, F. Becattini, and D. Hou, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056047 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[48]

Y. G. Yang, R. H. Fang, Q. Wang, and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 97, 034917 (2018)

View on Pith 2018
[49]

K. Schilling, P. Seyboth, and G. E. Wolf, Nucl. Phys. B 15, 397 (1970); 18, 332(E) (1970)

View on Pith 1970
[50]

P. Faccioli, C. Louren¸ co, J. Seixas, and H. K. W¨ ohri, E ur. Phys. J. C 69, 657 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[51]

Y. Q. Zhao, X. L. Sheng, S. W. Li, and D. Hou, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2024) 070

View on Pith 2024
[52]

M. Wei and M. Huang, Chin. Phys. C 47, 104105 (2023)

View on Pith 2023
[53]

F. Sun, J. Shao, R. Wen, K. Xu, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 116017 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[54]

R. Chen, H. A. Ahmed, Y. Chen, and M. Huang, arXiv:2608.3 0930

View on Pith
[55]

H. A. Ahmed, Y. Chen, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 111, 086006 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[56]

F. Wang and Z. Q. Zhang, arXiv:2609.01261

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[57]

L. F. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 112, 074043 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[58]

Z. R. Zhu, M. Sun, R. Zhou, Z. Ma, and J. Han, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1252 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[59]

G. W. Gibbons, M. J. Perry, and C. N. Pope, Classical Quan tum Gravity 22, 1503 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[60]

G. W. Gibbons, H. L¨ u, D. N. Page, and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev . Lett. 93, 171102 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[61]

M. Garbiso and M. Kaminski, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2020 ) 112

View on Pith 2020
[62]

A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Re v. D 74, 015005 (2006). 19

View on Pith 2006
[63]

D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (200 2) 042

View on Pith
[64]

C. Gale and J. I. Kapusta, Nucl. Phys. B 357, 65 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[65]

Y. Burnier, M. Laine, and M. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2009) 008

View on Pith 2009
[66]

L. D. McLerran and T. Toimela, Phys. Rev. D 31, 545 (1985)

View on Pith 1985
[67]

H. A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. D 42, 2384 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[68]

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[69]

X. L. Sheng, S. Pu, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 108, 054902 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

S. A. Bass, M. Gyulassy, H. St¨ ocker, and W. Greiner, J. Ph ys. G 25, R1 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[2] [2]

S. Scherer et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 42, 279 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[3] [3]

E. Shuryak, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 62, 48 (2009)

View on Pith 2009

[4] [4]

J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[5] [5]

K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 184 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[6] [6]

E. V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 64 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[7] [7]

The angular projection structure is also similar to the correspon ding structure for vector-meson spin alignment in the quark-coalescence model [68]. For ﬁnite a or general kinematics, we use the polarization projection of the fu ll spectral tensor [46]: 10 /s48 /s50 /s52 /s54 /s56 /s49 /s48 /s48 /s46 /s48 /s48 /s48 /s46 /s48 /s50 /s48 /s46 /s48 /s52 /s48...

View on Pith

[8] [8]

J. Casalderrey-Solana, H. Liu, D. Mateos, K. Rajagopal, and U. A. Wiedemann, arXiv:1101.0618 [hep-th] (2011)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[9] [9]

J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[10] [10]

S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Let t. B 428, 105 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[11] [11]

E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[12] [12]

O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rep. 323, 183 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[13] [13]

Y. Q. Zhao and D. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1102 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[14] [14]

Y. Q. Zhao and D. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1076 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

[15] [15]

N. R. F. Braga, L. F. Ferreira, and A. Vega, Phys. Lett. B 774, 476 (2017)

View on Pith 2017

[16] [16]

N. R. F. Braga and L. F. Ferreira, Phys. Lett. B 783, 186 (2018)

View on Pith 2018

[17] [17]

L. A. H. Mamani, D. Hou, and N. R. F. Braga, Phys. Rev. D 105, 126020 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[18] [18]

N. R. F. Braga and Y. F. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094017 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

[19] [19]

Z. R. Zhu, M. Sun, R. Zhou, and J. Han, Chin. Phys. C 49, 053101 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[20] [20]

N. R. F. Braga, M. A. Martin Contreras, and S. Diles, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 598 (2016)

View on Pith 2016

[21] [21]

M. A. Martin Contreras, A. Vega, and S. Diles, Phys. Rev. D 103, 086008 (2021)

View on Pith 2021

[22] [22]

B. Toniato, D. Dudal, S. Mahapatra, R. da Rocha, and S. S. Jena, Phys. Rev. D 111, 126021 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[23] [23]

Y. Q. Zhao, Z. R. Zhu, and X. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 57 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[24] [24]

S. Q. Feng, Y. Q. Zhao, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 101, 026023 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[25] [25]

N. R. F. Braga and L. F. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 94, 094019 (2016)

View on Pith 2016

[26] [26]

S. I. Finazzo and J. Noronha, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (201 3) 042

View on Pith

[27] [27]

Y. Q. Zhao and D. Hou, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138271 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

[28] [28]

N. R. F. Braga, Y. F. Ferreira, and L. F. Ferreira, Phys. R ev. D 105, 114044 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[29] [29]

J. X. Chen, D. F. Hou, and H. C. Ren, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2024) 171

View on Pith 2024

[30] [30]

J. Zhou, X. Chen, Y. Q. Zhao, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 102, 086020 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[31] [31]

J. Zhou, X. Chen, Y. Q. Zhao, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 102, 126029 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[32] [32]

Z. Q. Zhang, X. Zhu, and D. F. Hou, Nucl. Phys. B 989, 116149 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

[33] [33]

S. Tahery, X. Chen, and Z. Q. Zhang, J. High Energy Phys. 0 3 (2023) 207

View on Pith 2023

[34] [34]

Z. Q. Zhang, D. Hou, H. C. Ren, and L. Yin, J. High Energy Ph ys. 07 (2011) 035

View on Pith 2011

[35] [35]

S. X. Chu, D. Hou, and H. C. Ren, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (20 09) 004

View on Pith

[36] [36]

D. Hou and H. C. Ren, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2008) 029

View on Pith 2008

[37] [37]

J. X. Chen and D. F. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 447 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[38] [38]

Z. T. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 102301 (2005); 96, 039901(E) (2006)

View on Pith 2005

[39] [39]

Z. T. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 629, 20 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[40] [40]

L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nature (Londo n) 548, 62 (2017)

View on Pith 2017

[41] [41]

J. Adam et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 98, 014910 (2018)

View on Pith 2018

[42] [42]

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

View on Pith 2019

[43] [43]

M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nature (Lon don) 614, 244 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

[44] [44]

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Let t. 125, 012301 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[45] [45]

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 815, 136146 (2021)

View on Pith 2021

[46] [46]

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Let t. 131, 042303 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

[47] [47]

X. L. Sheng, Y. Q. Zhao, S. W. Li, F. Becattini, and D. Hou, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056047 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[48] [48]

Y. G. Yang, R. H. Fang, Q. Wang, and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 97, 034917 (2018)

View on Pith 2018

[49] [49]

K. Schilling, P. Seyboth, and G. E. Wolf, Nucl. Phys. B 15, 397 (1970); 18, 332(E) (1970)

View on Pith 1970

[50] [50]

P. Faccioli, C. Louren¸ co, J. Seixas, and H. K. W¨ ohri, E ur. Phys. J. C 69, 657 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[51] [51]

Y. Q. Zhao, X. L. Sheng, S. W. Li, and D. Hou, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2024) 070

View on Pith 2024

[52] [52]

M. Wei and M. Huang, Chin. Phys. C 47, 104105 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

[53] [53]

F. Sun, J. Shao, R. Wen, K. Xu, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 116017 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[54] [54]

R. Chen, H. A. Ahmed, Y. Chen, and M. Huang, arXiv:2608.3 0930

View on Pith

[55] [55]

H. A. Ahmed, Y. Chen, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 111, 086006 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[56] [56]

F. Wang and Z. Q. Zhang, arXiv:2609.01261

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[57] [57]

L. F. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 112, 074043 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[58] [58]

Z. R. Zhu, M. Sun, R. Zhou, Z. Ma, and J. Han, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1252 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[59] [59]

G. W. Gibbons, M. J. Perry, and C. N. Pope, Classical Quan tum Gravity 22, 1503 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[60] [60]

G. W. Gibbons, H. L¨ u, D. N. Page, and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev . Lett. 93, 171102 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[61] [61]

M. Garbiso and M. Kaminski, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2020 ) 112

View on Pith 2020

[62] [62]

A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Re v. D 74, 015005 (2006). 19

View on Pith 2006

[63] [63]

D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (200 2) 042

View on Pith

[64] [64]

C. Gale and J. I. Kapusta, Nucl. Phys. B 357, 65 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[65] [65]

Y. Burnier, M. Laine, and M. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2009) 008

View on Pith 2009

[66] [66]

L. D. McLerran and T. Toimela, Phys. Rev. D 31, 545 (1985)

View on Pith 1985

[67] [67]

H. A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. D 42, 2384 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[68] [68]

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[69] [69]

X. L. Sheng, S. Pu, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 108, 054902 (2023)

View on Pith 2023