Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Quantum thermalization of Quark-Gluon Plasma

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lattice simulation of the Schwinger model shows that strong coupling makes all four components of the quark Wigner function thermalize, while weak coupling leaves the scalar and axial-vector components out of equilibrium.

desk verdict Solid finite-system ETH study in the Schwinger model with an interesting Wigner-function pattern, but the scar mechanism is asserted rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00662 v1 pith:5MMZJYMP submitted 2024-12-01 hep-ph nucl-thquant-ph

Shile Chen , Li Yan , Shuzhe Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-thquant-ph
keywords quantumthermalizationeigenstatehypothesismany-bodyscarsSchwingermodelWignerfunctionquark-gluonplasmathetavacuumlatticegaugetheory
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 tries to establish that quantum thermalization in a quark-gluon plasma is not an unconditional consequence of strong interactions: it depends on the coupling strength and on the parity of the observable being measured. Simulating the real-time evolution of the massive Schwinger model on a 20-site lattice, the authors find that at strong coupling all four components of the quark Wigner function relax to microcanonical and canonical expectation values, while at weak coupling the scalar and axial-vector components do not thermalize because quantum many-body scars violate the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis. The result matters because it gives a first-principles, non-perturbative picture of why a strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma becomes hydrodynamic quickly, and it predicts which momentum-space observables would fail to equilibrate in a weakly coupled or heavy-quark setting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the lattice Schwinger Hamiltonian with staggered fermions, a single independent gauge-link operator at the boundary with electric-field cutoff $\Lambda=2$, and the four gauge-invariant Wigner operators built from the fermion two-point correlator: scalar $\hat{w}_s$, pseudoscalar $\hat{w}_p$, vector $\hat{w}_0$, and axial-vector $\hat{w}_1$. On the lattice these Wigner operators are discrete Fourier transforms of non-local fermion bilinears, so their expectation values give momentum-resolved quark and antiquark distributions without any weak-coupling assumption. The argument then runs through the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis: ETH holds when the diagonal matrix elements $\langle E_n|\hat{w}_i|E_n\rangle$ form a smooth band as a function of energy $E_n$, and it fails when the band splits. The split is caused by an athermal, parity-even tower of quantum many-body scar states $|Q_\alpha\rangle$ with equally spaced energies $E_0+\alpha m(1+O(g/m))$; parity selection makes this tower invisible to parity-odd operators, which is why pseudoscalar and vector components still thermalize.

What would settle it

Fix $m/g=2$ and $ag=1/2$, then compute the diagonal matrix elements $\langle E_n|\hat{w}_s(p=0)|E_n\rangle$ for larger lattice sizes in the full Hilbert space rather than the 400-state truncation. If the five sub-bands merge into a single smooth band as $N$ grows, the claimed ETH violation disappears; if they remain separated and the long-time average of $\hat{w}_s$ stays outside the microcanonical band, the scar mechanism is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the massive Schwinger model, a 1+1-dimensional stand-in for QCD, thermalizes or fails to thermalize in an operator-dependent way. With zero bare mass, which on this lattice means an effective mass $m_{\rm eff}=g/16$ and hence strong coupling, the long-time averages of all four Wigner-function components $\hat{w}_s$, $\hat{w}_p$, $\hat{w}_0$, and $\hat{w}_1$ agree with microcanonical and canonical ensemble averages within thermal fluctuations. At $m=2g$, the weak-coupling case, the pseudoscalar and vector components still thermalize, but the scalar and axial-vector components do not: their long-time averages remain outside the thermal band. The authors attribute the failure to a parity-even tower of quantum many-body scar states that violates the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis for parity-even operators, and they confirm the mechanism by setting $\theta=\pi/2$, where the mass term becomes parity-odd and the thermalization behavior of the scalar and pseudoscalar components swaps. Entanglement entropy and Boltzmann entropy support the same division: both saturate at strong coupling and oscillate without saturating at weak coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The finite, truncated lattice Schwinger model with 20 sites and only the 400 lowest eigenstates is assumed to represent the thermalization behavior of a real quark-gluon plasma, so that the mass- and theta-dependence found here would survive the continuum limit and the move to 3+1 dimensions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At strong coupling, thermalization occurs by a time $t\sim 2/g$, which the authors map to roughly $4\,\mathrm{fm}/c$ when the lightest meson is identified with the pion, the same order of magnitude as the phenomenological starting time of hydrodynamics in heavy-ion collisions.
  • In the weakly coupled or heavy-quark regime, the scalar component (quark number) and axial-vector component (chirality) remain out of equilibrium, so heavy quarks such as charm in a low-energy collision would not be described by a thermal distribution.
  • Thermalization is not a property of the Hamiltonian alone: the parity of the observable decides whether the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis applies, with parity-even operators being the vulnerable ones.
  • The topological vacuum controls which observables equilibrate: at $\theta=\pi/2$ the scalar and pseudoscalar components swap their thermalization behavior.
  • Entanglement entropy and Boltzmann entropy both confirm the strong-coupling thermalization and weak-coupling failure, but neither entropy captures the thermalization of the pseudoscalar component, so entropy alone is an incomplete diagnostic of quantum thermalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the parity selection rule survives in 3+1D QCD, pseudoscalar meson multiplicities should appear thermal even in systems where quark-number or chirality distributions do not; the paper's closing discussion points toward this possibility.
  • A sharper test would apply the same four-component Wigner decomposition to a 2+1D SU(2) lattice gauge theory: the prediction is that increasing the fermion mass makes the parity-even scalar component fail to thermalize while the parity-odd pseudoscalar component keeps thermalizing.
  • The truncation to 400 eigenstates could be checked by full diagonalization at intermediate lattice sizes beyond N=14; if the five sub-bands in the scalar component persist in the full Hilbert space, the quantum-many-body-scar explanation is on firmer ground.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies quantum thermalization in the massive Schwinger model on a lattice as a tractable proxy for quark-gluon plasma. The authors simulate real-time evolution of four components of the spatially averaged Wigner function, compare long-time averages to microcanonical and canonical ensemble predictions, and test the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis. They report that at strong coupling (m=0) all components thermalize, while at weak coupling (m=2g) the scalar and axial-vector components fail to thermalize, a failure they attribute to quantum many-body scars; at θ=π/2 they find that the scalar and pseudoscalar components swap their thermalization behavior. They also present entanglement entropy and Boltzmann entropy results consistent with these conclusions.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a valuable demonstration of operator-dependent thermalization in a gauge theory, linking ETH/QMBS concepts to a QCD-like model and providing a falsifiable prediction about θ-vacuum effects. The paper's strengths include a parameter-free thermal comparison (no fitted parameters), direct eigenstate and time-evolution data, consistency checks across N=8–14, and a physically motivated observable (the Wigner function) with connections to heavy-ion phenomenology. The finite-system evidence for the thermalization pattern is solid, but the causal mechanism attributed to QMBS is not directly verified, which is the main weakness.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (18)–(19), Fig. 4] The claim that the ETH violation for ws and w1 at m=2g is caused by quantum many-body scars is not directly verified. The paper constructs the free-fermion scar tower |Qα⟩ in Eqs. (18)–(19) and asserts that it persists with O(g/m) corrections when the gauge field is coupled, but no overlap |⟨Qα|En⟩|² is computed, no equally spaced energy tower is demonstrated in the coupled spectrum, and for m=2g the correction is O(1) rather than small. The circumstantial evidence—sub-bands, quantized ⟨ψψ⟩ values, and correlations between ws and w1—is also consistent with an approximate conserved pair number producing fragmented weak ETH. Since the abstract's central claim ('thermalization fails progressively as a consequence of the gradually increased significance of quantum many-body scar states') rests on this attribution, the missing overlap and level-spacing checks are load-bearing. I recommend computing the overlaps for N=14 and quantifying the athermal fraction as a function of m/g.
  2. [Section IV, Fig. 4] The 'progressive' mass dependence asserted in the abstract is not quantified. Figure 4 visually shows that sub-bands appear as m increases, but no quantitative measure of scar significance (e.g., variance of diagonal matrix elements within an energy window, participation ratio, or overlap fraction) is provided as a function of m/g. Without such a measure, the statement that scars become 'gradually more significant' remains a qualitative impression. A quantitative diagnostic would make the central claim testable and would also help distinguish the QMBS mechanism from other weak-ETH scenarios.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 6] The θ=π/2 swap of scalar and pseudoscalar thermalization is demonstrated only in the diagonal matrix elements (Fig. 6), not in real-time evolution. The paper's operational definition of thermalization is based on long-time averages, as in Figs. 2 and 3, and the 'more importantly' claim about the topological vacuum would be strengthened by direct time-evolution data at θ=π/2 for at least one representative component. Alternatively, the authors should explicitly state that the swap is an ETH-based prediction and that dynamical verification is left for future work.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section I] There is a typo in the first paragraph: 'meansurements' should be 'measurements'.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (12)] The symbol N is used both for the number of lattice sites and for the number of states inside the microcanonical energy shell. Using a different symbol, e.g., N_shell, would avoid confusion.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (18)] The definition of Q†_α is hard to parse; the meaning of 'perm.' in the subscript and the product over I_i (identity operators) should be stated more explicitly.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says the momentum is chosen separately for each curve so that each has the most significant deviation, but the figure does not indicate which momentum corresponds to each curve. Please add this information to the caption.
  5. [Section IV, Fig. 4 caption] The notation ⟨ŵ⟩_n is introduced in the caption but used in the text before the reader reaches the figure. Define it explicitly in the text, e.g., in the paragraph introducing Fig. 4.
  6. [Appendix B, Fig. 9] The truncation validation for the canonical ensemble is shown for m=0 and m=g/2 but not for the weakly coupled m=2g case, which is the key non-thermalization scenario. A similar check for m=2g would strengthen confidence in the N=20 truncated results used in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the thermalization comparison is self-contained, and the few self-citations are peripheral rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central numerical claim compares long-time averages of the Wigner functions against microcanonical and canonical averages constructed independently from the lattice Hamiltonian (Eqs. (12)-(13)); no fitted parameter enters the comparison. The initial state is deliberately engineered away from thermal equilibrium in Appendix D, so the observed approach to the thermal bands is not imposed by construction. Appendix B independently validates the Ntrunc=400 truncation against full diagonalization for N=8, 10, and 12, so the Hilbert-space restriction is checked rather than assumed. The only self-citations are peripheral: Sec. II cites Refs. [72,78] (sharing author S. Shi) to support the choice of lattice spacing a=1/(2g), and Ref. [14] is one item in a hydrodynamic-attractor literature list; none of these supplies a result to which the paper's Wigner thermalization derivation reduces. The QMBS attribution is imported from the external Ref. [103] and, as the skeptic notes, is under-verified because no eigenstate overlap is computed; but missing verification is a correctness concern, not circularity. The theta=pi/2 swap follows from the chiral rotation used to derive Eq. (4) and is presented as a numerical consistency check rather than a fitted prediction. No step was found in which an output equals an input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation is a parameter scan over lattice size, mass, and θ, with no fitted physical constants. The main uncharged inputs are the truncation choices and the assumption that the Schwinger model surrogate captures QGP thermalization; these are listed above. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The quantum many-body scar states are a known phenomenon, not original to this paper.

free parameters (7)
  • Lattice spacing a = 1/(2g)
    Sets UV cutoff Λ_UV=2g; with N=20 gives IR cutoff g/10. Chosen from computational resource limits, not from a convergence study.
  • Gauge field truncation Λ = 2
    Electric field eigenvalues restricted to -2,...,2; Hilbert space dimension (2Λ+1)2^N. No systematic check of Λ dependence.
  • Lattice size N = 20 main; 14 for ETH scans
    Largest grid allowed by memory; finite-size checks only for N=8,10,12,14, no continuum extrapolation for Wigner thermalization.
  • Eigenstate truncation Ntrunc = 400
    Only lowest 400 eigenstates used for time evolution and thermal averages; CE shown reliable only up to T≈0.6g.
  • Fermion mass m/g = 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2
    Chosen to scan strong-to-weak coupling; m=0 actually has meff=g/16 from lattice correction, so it is not the massless continuum limit.
  • θ angle = 0 and π/2
    Chosen to compare parity-even and parity-odd mass terms.
  • Initial-state targets f_s, f_0, f_1, f_p = not specified
    Gradient descent in Appendix D optimizes coefficients toward unstated target Wigner functions; exact initial states are not reproducible from the text.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Unitary time evolution and the ETH framework apply to the lattice Schwinger model observables.
    Used throughout Sections III-IV to define long-time averages and interpret them via diagonal matrix elements.
  • domain assumption The massive Schwinger model is a faithful proxy for QCD quark-gluon plasma because both have confinement and chiral symmetry breaking.
    Section I and VI; the entire QGP relevance rests on this analogy.
  • domain assumption The staggered-fermion Jordan-Wigner lattice Hamiltonian with Gauss law and periodic boundary conditions correctly represents the continuum Schwinger model.
    Appendix A; discretization at a=1/(2g) is not taken to the continuum limit.
  • ad hoc to paper Truncating the gauge field to Λ=2 and the Hilbert space to Ntrunc=400 lowest eigenstates preserves the thermalization physics.
    Appendix B validates thermal condensate up to T=0.6g only; time-evolution truncation effects are not directly benchmarked.
  • ad hoc to paper The free-fermion QMBS tower persists in the interacting lattice Hamiltonian with O(g/m) corrections and causes the observed band structure.
    Section IV, Eq. (19); no overlap of the actual eigenstates with the scar states is computed.
  • domain assumption The scalar Wigner function approximates the quark plus antiquark phase-space distribution, so its thermalization is a valid proxy for QGP thermalization.
    Section I, Eq. (2) and the discussion after Eq. (6); relies on the semi-classical on-shell limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum thermalization of Quark-Gluon Plasma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MMZJYMP

@misc{pith2026241200662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum thermalization of Quark-Gluon Plasma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MMZJYMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00662}
}
read the original abstract

The thermalization of quark gluon plasma created in relativistic heavy-ion collisions is a crucial theoretical question in understanding the onset of hydrodynamics, and in a broad sense, a key step to the exploration of thermalization in isolated quantum systems. Addressing this problem theoretically, in a first principle manner, requires a real-time, non-perturbative method. To this end, we carry out a fully quantum simulation on a classical hardware, of a massive Schwinger model, which well mimics QCD as it shares the important properties such as confinement and chiral symmetry breaking. We focus on the real-time evolution of the Wigner function, namely, the two-point correlation function, which approximates quark momentum distribution. In the context of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and the evolution of entropy, our solution reveals the emergence of quantum thermalization in quark-gluon plasma with a strong coupling constant, while thermalization fails progressively as a consequence of the gradually increased significance of quantum many-body scar states in a more weakly coupled system. More importantly, we observe the non-trivial role of the topological vacuum in thermalization, as the thermalization properties differ dramatically in the parity-even and parity-odd components of the Wigner function.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00662 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the setup of a lattice Schwinger model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Top to bottom) Momentum dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time evolution of summed difference between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Expectation values of scalar Wigner function with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of ETH violation in the massive case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Boltzmann entropy as function of time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Time evolution of entanglement entropy with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Temperature dependence of scalar condensate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Left) Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Probabilities of state occupation versus energy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum simulating multi-particle processes in high energy nuclear physics: dijet production and color (de)coherence

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A quantum-circuit framework maps partonic cross-sections for multi-particle QCD processes in media, benchmarked on dipole formation and antenna radiation at leading order.

  2. Thermalization from quantum entanglement: jet simulations in the massive Schwinger model

    hep-ph 2025-06

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

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

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

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

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

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

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Romatschke, Relativistic Fluid Dynamics Far From Local Equilibrium, Phys

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

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Romatschke, Relativistic Hydrodynamic Attractors with Broken Symmetries: Non-Conformal and Non- Homogeneous, JHEP 12, 079, arXiv:1710.03234 [hep- th]

    P. Romatschke, Relativistic Hydrodynamic Attractors with Broken Symmetries: Non-Conformal and Non- Homogeneous, JHEP 12, 079, arXiv:1710.03234 [hep- th]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Fluid dynamics of out of equi- librium boost invariant plasmas, Phys. Lett. B 780, 283 (2018), arXiv:1712.03856 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Spali´ nski, On the hydrodynamic attractor of Yang–Mills plasma, Phys

    M. Spali´ nski, On the hydrodynamic attractor of Yang–Mills plasma, Phys. Lett. B 776, 468 (2018), arXiv:1708.01921 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    V. E. Ambrus, S. Busuioc, J. A. Fotakis, K. Gallmeis- ter, and C. Greiner, Bjorken flow attractors with trans- verse dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094022 (2021), arXiv:2102.11785 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Kurkela, W

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

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Almaalol, A

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

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Blaizot and L

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

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Analytical attractor for Bjorken flows, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136478 (2021), arXiv:2006.08815 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Attractor and fixed points in Bjorken flows, Phys. Rev. C 104, 055201 (2021), arXiv:2106.10508 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chen and S

    S. Chen and S. Shi, Attractor for 1+1D viscous hy- drodynamics with general rapidity distribution, (2024), arXiv:2407.15209 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Baier, A

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

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kurkela and Y

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

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Blaizot, F

    J.-P. Blaizot, F. Gelis, J.-F. Liao, L. McLerran, and R. Venugopalan, Bose–Einstein Condensation and Thermalization of the Quark Gluon Plasma, Nucl. Phys. A 873, 68 (2012), arXiv:1107.5296 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Blaizot, J

    J.-P. Blaizot, J. Liao, and L. McLerran, Gluon Trans- port Equation in the Small Angle Approximation and the Onset of Bose-Einstein Condensation, Nucl. Phys. A 920, 58 (2013), arXiv:1305.2119 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Berges and D

    J. Berges and D. Sexty, Bose condensation far from equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 161601 (2012), arXiv:1201.0687 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Berges, K

    J. Berges, K. Boguslavski, S. Schlichting, and R. Venu- gopalan, Universality far from equilibrium: From super- fluid Bose gases to heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 061601 (2015), arXiv:1408.1670 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Blaizot, B

    J.-P. Blaizot, B. Wu, and L. Yan, Quark production, Bose–Einstein condensates and thermalization of the quark–gluon plasma, Nucl. Phys. A 930, 139 (2014), arXiv:1402.5049 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Z. Xu, K. Zhou, P. Zhuang, and C. Greiner, Thermaliza- tion of gluons with Bose-Einstein condensation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 182301 (2015), arXiv:1410.5616 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Martinez and M

    M. Martinez and M. Strickland, Dissipative Dynamics of Highly Anisotropic Systems, Nucl. Phys. A 848, 183 (2010), arXiv:1007.0889 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Martinez, R

    M. Martinez, R. Ryblewski, and M. Strickland, Boost- Invariant (2+1)-dimensional Anisotropic Hydrodynam- ics, Phys. Rev. C 85, 064913 (2012), arXiv:1204.1473 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ryblewski and W

    R. Ryblewski and W. Florkowski, Highly-anisotropic hydrodynamics in 3+1 space-time dimensions, Phys. Rev. C 85, 064901 (2012), arXiv:1204.2624 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Strickland, J

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

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Strickland, The non-equilibrium attractor for kinetic theory in relaxation time approximation, JHEP12, 128, arXiv:1809.01200 [nucl-th]

    M. Strickland, The non-equilibrium attractor for kinetic theory in relaxation time approximation, JHEP12, 128, arXiv:1809.01200 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Romatschke and U

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

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Berges, M

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

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gelis and S

    F. Gelis and S. Hauksson, Isotropization of a longitudi- nally expanding system of scalar fields in the 2PI for- malism, JHEP 08, 135, arXiv:2403.11908 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Alqahtani, M

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

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Florkowski, M

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

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Shen and L

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

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system, Phys. Rev. A 43, 2046 (1991)

    1991

  27. [35]

    Srednicki, Chaos and Quantum Thermalization, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Chaos and Quantum Thermalization, Phys. Rev. E 50, 10.1103/PhysRevE.50.888 (1994), arXiv:cond-mat/9403051

    1994 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum sys- 18 tems, Nature 452, 854 (2008), arXiv:0708.1324 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Rigol, Breakdown of Thermalization in Finite One- Dimensional Systems, Phys

    M. Rigol, Breakdown of Thermalization in Finite One- Dimensional Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 100403 (2009), arXiv:0904.3746 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Biroli, C

    G. Biroli, C. Kollath, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Effect of Rare Fluctuations on the Thermalization of Isolated Quan- tum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 250401 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quan- tum thermalization through entanglement in an isolated many-body system, Science 353, 794–800 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Mori, Weak eigenstate thermalization with large de- viation bound (2016), arXiv:1609.09776 [cond-mat.stat- mech]

    T. Mori, Weak eigenstate thermalization with large de- viation bound (2016), arXiv:1609.09776 [cond-mat.stat- mech]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of Diffusion in Certain Ran- dom Lattices, Phys. Rev. 109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  34. [42]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many- body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Na- ture 551, 579–584 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Schecter and T

    M. Schecter and T. Iadecola, Weak Ergodicity Breaking and Quantum Many-Body Scars in Spin-1 XY Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 147201 (2019), arXiv:1906.10131 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    G.-X. Su, H. Sun, A. Hudomal, J.-Y. Desaules, Z.-Y. Zhou, B. Yang, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, Z. Papi´ c, and J.-W. Pan, Observation of many-body scarring in a Bose-Hubbard quantum simulator, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023010 (2023), arXiv:2201.00821 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    T. Mori, T. N. Ikeda, E. Kaminishi, and M. Ueda, Ther- malization and prethermalization in isolated quantum systems: a theoretical overview, J. Phys. B 51, 112001 (2018), arXiv:1712.08790 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Adv. Phys. 65, 239 (2016), arXiv:1509.06411 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many body localiza- tion and thermalization in quantum statistical mechan- ics, Ann. Rev. Condensed Matter Phys. 6, 15 (2015), arXiv:1404.0686 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ueda, Quantum equilibration, thermalization and prethermalization in ultracold atoms, Nature Rev

    M. Ueda, Quantum equilibration, thermalization and prethermalization in ultracold atoms, Nature Rev. Phys. 2, 669 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Quan- tum many-body scars and Hilbert space fragmentation: a review of exact results, Rept. Prog. Phys. 85, 086501 (2022), arXiv:2109.00548 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Quantum many-body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity, Na- ture Phys. 17, 675 (2021), arXiv:2011.09486 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    J. S. Schwinger, Gauge Invariance and Mass. 2., Phys. Rev. 128, 2425 (1962)

    1962

  44. [52]

    J. H. Lowenstein and J. A. Swieca, Quantum electrody- namics in two-dimensions, Annals Phys. 68, 172 (1971)

    1971

  45. [53]

    Jayewardena, SCHWINGER MODEL ON S(2), Helv

    C. Jayewardena, SCHWINGER MODEL ON S(2), Helv. Phys. Acta 61, 636 (1988)

    1988

  46. [54]

    A. V. Smilga, On the fermion condensate in Schwinger model, Phys. Lett. B 278, 371 (1992)

    1992

  47. [55]

    Adam, Instantons and vacuum expectation values in the Schwinger model, Z

    C. Adam, Instantons and vacuum expectation values in the Schwinger model, Z. Phys. C 63, 169 (1994)

    1994

  48. [56]

    Adam, Massive Schwinger model within mass pertur- bation theory, Annals Phys

    C. Adam, Massive Schwinger model within mass pertur- bation theory, Annals Phys. 259, 1 (1997), arXiv:hep- th/9704064

    1997

  49. [57]

    S. R. Coleman, More About the Massive Schwinger Model, Annals Phys. 101, 239 (1976)

    1976

  50. [58]

    Adam, The Schwinger mass in the massive Schwinger model, Phys

    C. Adam, The Schwinger mass in the massive Schwinger model, Phys. Lett. B 382, 383 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9507331

    1996

  51. [59]

    Adam, General bound state structure of the mas- sive Schwinger model, Phys

    C. Adam, General bound state structure of the mas- sive Schwinger model, Phys. Lett. B 382, 111 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9602175

    1996 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Adam, The boson-boson bound state in the massive Schwinger model, Z

    C. Adam, The boson-boson bound state in the massive Schwinger model, Z. Phys. C 74, 727 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9601227

    1997

  53. [61]

    C. W. Bauer et al., Quantum Simulation for High- Energy Physics, PRX Quantum 4, 027001 (2023), arXiv:2204.03381 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulation of fundamental parti- cles and forces, Nature Rev. Phys. 5, 420 (2023), arXiv:2404.06298 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Morris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougov- ski, and M. J. Savage, Quantum-classical computation of Schwinger model dynamics using quantum comput- ers, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032331 (2018), arXiv:1803.03326 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, Scalable Circuits for Preparing Ground States on Dig- ital Quantum Computers: The Schwinger Model Vac- uum on 100 Qubits, PRX Quantum 5, 020315 (2024), arXiv:2308.04481 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Sav- age, Quantum simulations of hadron dynamics in the Schwinger model using 112 qubits, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114510 (2024), arXiv:2401.08044 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    T. V. Zache, N. Mueller, J. T. Schneider, F. Jen- drzejewski, J. Berges, and P. Hauke, Dynamical Topo- logical Transitions in the Massive Schwinger Model with a θ Term, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 050403 (2019), arXiv:1808.07885 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Ikeda, D

    K. Ikeda, D. E. Kharzeev, and Y. Kikuchi, Real- time dynamics of Chern-Simons fluctuations near a critical point, Phys. Rev. D 103, L071502 (2021), arXiv:2012.02926 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    D. E. Kharzeev and Y. Kikuchi, Real-time chiral dy- namics from a digital quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023342 (2020), arXiv:2001.00698 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [69]

    W. A. de Jong, K. Lee, J. Mulligan, M. P losko´ n, F. Ringer, and X. Yao, Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermalization in the Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054508 (2022), arXiv:2106.08394 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    X.-D. Xie, X. Guo, H. Xing, Z.-Y. Xue, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu (QuNu), Variational thermal quantum simulation of the lattice Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054509 (2022), arXiv:2205.12767 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Belyansky, S

    R. Belyansky, S. Whitsitt, N. Mueller, A. Fahimniya, E. R. Bennewitz, Z. Davoudi, and A. V. Gorshkov, High-Energy Collision of Quarks and Mesons in the Schwinger Model: From Tensor Networks to Cir- cuit QED, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 091903 (2024), arXiv:2307.02522 [quant-ph]. 19

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Florio, D

    A. Florio, D. Frenklakh, K. Ikeda, D. Kharzeev, V. Ko- repin, S. Shi, and K. Yu, Real-Time Nonperturbative Dynamics of Jet Production in Schwinger Model: Quan- tum Entanglement and Vacuum Modification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 021902 (2023), arXiv:2301.11991 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Florio, Two-fermion negativity and confinement in the Schwinger model, Phys

    A. Florio, Two-fermion negativity and confinement in the Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 109, L071501 (2024), arXiv:2312.05298 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    J. a. Barata, W. Gong, and R. Venugopalan, Realtime dynamics of hyperon spin correlations from string frag- mentation in a deformed four-flavor Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 109, 116003 (2024), arXiv:2308.13596 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Ikeda, D

    K. Ikeda, D. E. Kharzeev, R. Meyer, and S. Shi, De- tecting the critical point through entanglement in the Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 108, L091501 (2023), arXiv:2305.00996 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Ikeda, D

    K. Ikeda, D. E. Kharzeev, and S. Shi, Nonlinear chi- ral magnetic waves, Phys. Rev. D 108, 074001 (2023), arXiv:2305.05685 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    K. Lee, J. Mulligan, F. Ringer, and X. Yao, Liouvillian dynamics of the open Schwinger model: String breaking and kinetic dissipation in a thermal medium, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094518 (2023), arXiv:2308.03878 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Florio, D

    A. Florio, D. Frenklakh, K. Ikeda, D. E. Kharzeev, V. Korepin, S. Shi, and K. Yu, Quantum real-time evo- lution of entanglement and hadronization in jet produc- tion: Lessons from the massive Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 110, 094029 (2024), arXiv:2404.00087 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Ghim and M

    D. Ghim and M. Honda, Digital Quantum Simula- tion for Spectroscopy of Schwinger Model, PoS LA T- TICE2023, 213 (2024), arXiv:2404.14788 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    T. Li, X. Guo, W. K. Lai, X. Liu, E. Wang, H. Xing, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu (QuNu), Partonic collinear structure by quantum computing, Phys. Rev. D 105, L111502 (2022), arXiv:2106.03865 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    T. Li, X. Guo, W. K. Lai, X. Liu, E. Wang, H. Xing, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu (QuNu), Exploring light- cone distribution amplitudes from quantum comput- ing, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 281011 (2023), arXiv:2207.13258 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    T. Li, W. K. Lai, E. Wang, and H. Xing (QuNu), Scattering amplitude from quantum computing with reduction formula, Phys. Rev. D 109, 036025 (2024), arXiv:2301.04179 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    A. M. Czajka, Z.-B. Kang, H. Ma, and F. Zhao, Quan- tum simulation of chiral phase transitions, JHEP 08, 209, arXiv:2112.03944 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    Carena, H

    M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Im- proved Hamiltonians for Quantum Simulations of Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 051601 (2022), arXiv:2203.02823 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Yao, SU(2) gauge theory in 2+1 dimensions on a plaquette chain obeys the eigenstate thermaliza- tion hypothesis, Phys

    X. Yao, SU(2) gauge theory in 2+1 dimensions on a plaquette chain obeys the eigenstate thermaliza- tion hypothesis, Phys. Rev. D 108, L031504 (2023), arXiv:2303.14264 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Ebner, B

    L. Ebner, B. M¨ uller, A. Sch¨ afer, C. Seidl, and X. Yao, Eigenstate thermalization in (2+1)-dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 109, 014504 (2024), arXiv:2308.16202 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Ikeda, Z.-B

    K. Ikeda, Z.-B. Kang, D. E. Kharzeev, W. Qian, and F. Zhao, Real-time chiral dynamics at finite tem- perature from quantum simulation, JHEP 10, 031, arXiv:2407.21496 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  80. [88]

    Hayata and Y

    T. Hayata and Y. Hidaka, String-net formulation of Hamiltonian lattice Yang-Mills theories and quantum many-body scars in a nonabelian gauge theory, JHEP 09, 126, arXiv:2305.05950 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Hayata, Y

    T. Hayata, Y. Hidaka, and K. Nishimura, Dense QCD2 with matrix product states, JHEP 07, 106, arXiv:2311.11643 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  82. [90]

    Hidaka and A

    Y. Hidaka and A. Yamamoto, Quantum circuit for Z3 lattice gauge theory at nonzero baryon density, (2024), arXiv:2409.17349 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    S. Wu, W. Du, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary, Efficient and precise quantum simulation of ultrarelativistic quark- nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056044 (2024), arXiv:2404.00819 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Carena, H

    M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Quantum error thresholds for gauge-redundant digitizations of lat- tice field theories, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054516 (2024), arXiv:2402.16780 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    W. Qian, M. Li, C. A. Salgado, and M. Kreshchuk, Ef- ficient Quantum Simulation of QCD Jets on the Light Front, (2024), arXiv:2411.09762 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Rajagopal and F

    K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, Static and dynamic criti- cal phenomena at a second order QCD phase transition, Nucl. Phys. B 399, 395 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9210253

    1993 arXiv

  87. [95]

    J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D 11, 395 (1975)

    1975

  88. [96]

    Susskind, Lattice Fermions, Phys

    L. Susskind, Lattice Fermions, Phys. Rev. D 16, 3031 (1977)

    1977

  89. [97]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. P. Wigner, About the Pauli exclusion principle, Z. Phys. 47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  90. [98]

    A. F. Shaw, P. Lougovski, J. R. Stryker, and N. Wiebe, Quantum Algorithms for Simulating the Lattice Schwinger Model, Quantum 4, 306 (2020), arXiv:2002.11146 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Brenes, M

    M. Brenes, M. Dalmonte, M. Heyl, and A. Scardic- chio, Many-body localization dynamics from gauge invariance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 030601 (2018), arXiv:1706.05878 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Dempsey, I

    R. Dempsey, I. R. Klebanov, S. S. Pufu, and B. Zan, Discrete chiral symmetry and mass shift in the lattice Hamiltonian approach to the Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043133 (2022), arXiv:2206.05308 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Smith, J

    A. Smith, J. Knolle, D. Kovrizhin, and R. Moessner, Disorder-free localization, Physical Review Letters 118, 10.1103/physrevlett.118.266601 (2017)

    2017 doi

  94. [102]

    Papaefstathiou, A

    I. Papaefstathiou, A. Smith, and J. Knolle, Disorder-free localization in a simple U (1) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. B 102, 165132 (2020), arXiv:2003.12497 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Desaules, D

    J.-Y. Desaules, D. Banerjee, A. Hudomal, Z. Papi´ c, A. Sen, and J. C. Halimeh, Weak ergodicity breaking in the Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. B 107, L201105 (2023), arXiv:2203.08830 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory, J. Phys. A 42, 504005 (2009), arXiv:0905.4013 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2009 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Everett et al

    D. Everett et al. (JETSCAPE), Phenomenological con- straints on the transport properties of QCD matter with data-driven model averaging, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 242301 (2021), arXiv:2010.03928 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Everett et al

    D. Everett et al. (JETSCAPE), Multisystem Bayesian constraints on the transport coefficients of QCD mat- 20 ter, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054904 (2021), arXiv:2011.01430 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  99. [107]

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

    2021 arXiv

  100. [108]

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

    2021 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Andronic, F

    A. Andronic, F. Beutler, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Statistical hadronization of heavy flavor quarks in elementary collisions: Suc- cesses and failures, Phys. Lett. B 678, 350 (2009), arXiv:0904.1368 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Redlich, A

    K. Redlich, A. Andronic, F. Beutler, P. Braun- Munzinger, and J. Stachel, Canonical Statistical Model and hadron production in e+ e- annihilations, J. Phys. G 36, 064021 (2009), arXiv:0903.1610 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  103. [111]

    F. Becattini, An Introduction to the Statistical Hadronization Model, in International School on Quark- Gluon Plasma and Heavy Ion Collisions: past, present, future (2009) arXiv:0901.3643 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy, Nature 561, 321 (2018), arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  105. [113]

    He and R

    M. He and R. Rapp, Charm-Baryon Production in Proton-Proton Collisions, Phys. Lett. B 795, 117 (2019), arXiv:1902.08889 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  106. [114]

    S. Chen, S. Shi, and L. Yan, in progress,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.