Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Anisotropic Photon and Dilepton Yield in a Thermalized Quark-Gluon Plasma under Magnetic Fluctuations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that stochastic magnetic noise, even at the small level Δ=10^{-3} MeV^{-1}, measurably reshapes the angular distribution of photons and dileptons emitted from a magnetized quark-gluon plasma, strongly modifying the…

desk verdict First computation of noise-induced anisotropic flow in a magnetized QGP, undercut by non-integrable angular singularities the paper notes but does not regulate, plus an unjustified T = 0.2 MeV phenomenology window. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14055 v2 pith:A7JCSZQI submitted 2024-12-18 hep-th hep-ph

Jorge David Castaño-Yepes , Enrique Muñoz This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph PACS 12.38.Mh25.75.-q
keywords quark-gluonplasmamagneticfluctuationsstochasticnoisephotonemissiondileptonanisotropicflowlowestLandaulevelheavy-ioncollisions
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 is trying to establish that stochastic magnetic noise—modeled as classical white noise about the uniform background field—visibly changes the angular distributions of photons and dileptons emitted from a magnetized quark-gluon plasma. Real heavy-ion collisions produce exactly this kind of randomness, and the standard constant-field calculations ignore it. If the claim is right, the measured flow harmonics v4 and v6 for photons and v1 for dileptons would carry a noise fingerprint that current analyses omit, which matters for interpreting the so-called photon puzzle. The calculation is perturbative in the noise autocorrelation Δ, and the authors report noticeable effects already at Δ=$10^{{-3}}$ $MeV^{{-1}}$. The numerical curves, however, are obtained at a fixed low temperature with a static, spatially delta-correlated noise model, so the quantitative predictions are conditional on that parameter window.

What carries the argument

The central object is the noise-dressed fermion propagator S_Δ(p), which extends the lowest Landau level propagator S_0(p) with a term proportional to Δ(|q_f B|/2π) containing the functions Θ_1, Θ_2, and Θ_3. This propagator is inserted into the one-loop Matsubara polarization tensor, analytically continued to the retarded tensor, and the emission rates are obtained through Im{g_{μν} $Π^{{μν}}$_R} using the standard rate formulas. The Θ functions generate the new angular thresholds, while the spin-projection operators $O^{{±}}$ enforce the lowest Landau level truncation; the analytic continuation of the Matsubara sums is what turns the noise corrections into the reshaped azimuthal distributions.

What would settle it

Repeat the calculation at realistic QGP temperatures (T ≈ 150–500 MeV) with a time-dependent magnetic field such as the one shown in the paper's Fig. 1, and check whether the reported strong modifications to v4 and v6 for photons and v1 for dileptons survive; if the noise corrections vanish or flip sign, the claim that stochastic magnetic noise measurably reshapes the emission fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that stochastic magnetic fluctuations around the intense background field are not a negligible correction to electromagnetic emission from the quark-gluon plasma. Using the noise-dressed fermion propagator in the lowest Landau level approximation, the authors compute the one-loop retarded polarization tensor and read off photon and dilepton rates from its imaginary part. They find that the noise adds new kinematic singularities in the azimuthal angle, at φ=π/2 ± arcsin(√(2 m_f)/ω), on top of the noiseless p_z=ω singularity. The consequences are concrete: for photons, v2 stays nearly unchanged while v4 and v6 are strongly modified, and the dominant emission lobules, normally aligned at φ=π/2 and 3π/2, are deflected and enhanced; for dileptons, v1 is strongly modified while v2, v3, and v5 remain weak. The odd harmonics v3=v5 vanish exactly in both cases, consistent with the symmetry of the setup.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical predictions assume a static, spatially delta-correlated magnetic noise and a fixed temperature of 0.2 MeV, far below realistic QGP temperatures; if either is relaxed, the size or even the sign of the noise corrections could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Low-energy photons, roughly ω ≲ 25 MeV, are the most reshaped by magnetic noise: the angular distribution becomes more focused along the collision plane and less synchrotron-like, so v2-based comparisons miss most of the noise signal.
  • Photon higher harmonics v4 and v6 become sensitive probes of magnetic noise, while v2 remains nearly constant; odd harmonics v3 and v5 stay exactly zero.
  • For dileptons the odd harmonic v1, not the elliptic flow v2, carries the strongest noise signature, and the effect weakens as the total momentum p_T grows large compared to the invariant mass M.
  • For both photons and dileptons, the average background field strength B affects the flow coefficients much more weakly than the noise parameter Δ, implying that stochastic initial conditions can dominate over the average field magnitude.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the calculations use T=0.2 MeV, far below realistic QGP temperatures around 150–500 MeV, so the quantitative size of the noise corrections may change substantially at physical temperatures; the claimed experimental relevance remains untested until the calculation is repeated there.
  • Beyond the paper: the static, white-noise model keeps fluctuations alive at all times, whereas the collision magnetic field decays quickly; a colored-noise or time-dependent extension would likely suppress the effect because only long-lived fluctuations can accumulate in the propagator.
  • Beyond the paper: a concrete testable extension is to evaluate v4 and v6 for pre-equilibrium or prompt photons, where the magnetic field is strongest, and compare with measured direct-photon azimuthal data; the mechanism predicts an excess of higher harmonics over hydrodynamic baselines.
  • Beyond the paper: the predicted deflection of the emission lobules away from φ=π/2 should also appear in dilepton angular correlations, providing a second observable beyond the v_n series that could discriminate noise effects from average-field effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 paper extends the authors' previous work on QED in a stochastic magnetic background to compute anisotropic emission rates and flow coefficients for photons and dileptons in a thermalized quark-gluon plasma. Using the noise-dressed fermion propagator (Eq. 14) in the lowest Landau level and the one-loop polarization tensor, it derives analytical expressions for the rate distributions (Eqs. 25-27) and then numerically evaluates the Fourier coefficients v_n from Eq. (5). It reports that a small noise autocorrelation Δ=10^-3 MeV^-1 leaves v_2 nearly unchanged but strongly modifies v_4 and v_6 for photons, modifies v_1 for dileptons, and shifts the emission lobules away from ϕ=π/2. The appendices give a detailed derivation of the polarization tensor, including Matsubara sums and analytic continuation.

Significance. The proposed mechanism—event-by-event randomness in the magnetic field as a source of photon and dilepton anisotropy—is an interesting and, in principle, falsifiable addition to the discussion of the 'photon puzzle.' The paper's main strength is its analytical control: the appendices provide a complete, traceable derivation from the noise-dressed propagator to the rate formulas, and no parameter is fitted to match the predicted anisotropies. The numerical predictions, however, are not yet trustworthy: the angular integrals defining v_n are singular for the noise contribution (see major comment), and the parameter window chosen (T=0.2 MeV, static noise) is far from the heavy-ion conditions the paper claims to address. The paper would be publishable if these issues are resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [III A, Eq. (26), Figs. 3-6] The integrals in Eq. (5) that define the flow coefficients are not well defined for the noise contribution. The function I in Eq. (26) contains a denominator factor ([E_-]^2 - m_f^2)^{3/2}. The paper itself states in Section III A that the angular distribution has 'sharp singularities' at ϕ = π/2 ± arcsin(sqrt(2m_f/ω)), precisely where [E_-]^2 = m_f^2. Near such an angle, writing δ = ϕ - ϕ0, the threshold behavior gives [E_-]^2 - m_f^2 ~ O(δ^2) and hence the denominator behaves as |δ|^3; the numerator of I does not vanish there (it approaches -m_f^4), and the Jacobian in Eq. (26) is finite. The integrand of Eq. (5) therefore diverges as |δ|^{-3}, which is non-integrable over the azimuthal angle. No regulator or cutoff is specified anywhere in Section III, and no cancellation among the s, s1, s2 sums is demonstrated. Consequently both R0 and the numerator of v_n are divergent, and the finite values of v4 and v6 shown in Figs. 3-6 are not consequences of the equations as written. The authors must either prove a cancellation, introduce a physical regulator (e.g., finite thermal width or finite correlation time of the noise), or state explicitly that the plotted values are cutoff-dependent.
  2. [III, Figs. 3-11] The numerical results are obtained at T = 0.2 MeV (captions of Figs. 3-11). This temperature is roughly three orders of magnitude below the QGP temperatures of 150-500 MeV that are relevant for the PHENIX and ALICE data cited in Refs. [18-20]. At T = 0.2 MeV the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac factors in Eqs. (7), (8), (21), (25) are exponentially small for the plotted momenta (ω and p_T of tens to hundreds of MeV), so the computed rates and anisotropies do not represent thermal QGP emission. The paper does not justify this parameter choice; if there is a reason (e.g., numerical convenience), it should be stated and the physical claims tempered; otherwise the calculations should be repeated at physical temperatures.
  3. [I, Eq. (2)] The noise model is static and delta-correlated in space, but the introduction emphasizes that the magnetic field in heavy-ion collisions decays rapidly, as shown by the field models in Fig. 1. A white-noise correlation with no time structure cannot capture the dynamical decay of the field, and it is not obvious that a quasi-static treatment is a controlled approximation. The paper should either generalize the noise correlation to include a temporal decay and estimate the effect on the flow coefficients, or explicitly delimit the claim to the static-noise model and discuss why the fast decay does not invalidate the qualitative conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3) and passim] The notation for the transverse momentum is inconsistent: Eq. (3) uses p_T while Eq. (7) and several figures use p_\. Please unify.
  2. [III A] Section III A states that v3 = v5 = 0 exactly vanish, but the symmetry argument is not given; please provide a one-sentence justification.
  3. [III A] The phrase 'three sharp singularities' in Section III A is not accompanied by any discussion of their integrability or of the numerical treatment; even if a regulator is introduced, the implementation should be described in the text.
  4. [Figs. 3-11] The captions of Figs. 3-11 specify T = 0.2 MeV; if the intended value is 0.2 GeV, the captions should be corrected; if not, the physical rationale should be given (see major comment 2).
  5. [Conclusions] The sentence in the conclusion that low-energy photons are more affected by the magnetic noise is a qualitative observation; after the regularization issue is resolved, this statement should be checked against the regulated results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted flow-coefficient modifications are new outputs obtained by inserting the previously derived noise-dressed propagator into standard rate formulas, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The stochastic-noise model (Eq. (2)) and the noise-dressed fermion propagator (Eq. (14)) are taken from the authors' prior work (Refs. [6,10]), but those results are inputs with stated assumptions (white-noise correlations, LLL approximation) and do not contain the paper's target outputs, the photon and dilepton anisotropic flow coefficients. The present paper computes the one-loop polarization tensor (Eq. (18)) from that propagator, extracts the imaginary part, inserts it into the standard emission-rate formulas (Eqs. (7)-(8)), and performs the Fourier decomposition (Eq. (5)) to obtain v2, v4, and v6. No parameter is fitted to the plotted anisotropies; Delta, T, B, and pT are inputs, not fit outputs. The self-citations are substantial previous derivations rather than unverified uniqueness claims, and they do not pre-empt the present flow-coefficient results. The questionable assumptions (T = 0.2 MeV, static white-noise magnetic fluctuations) and the possible non-integrable singularities in Eq. (25) are correctness risks, not instances of input-output circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. It assumes a stochastic classical background field with white-noise statistics, the LLL approximation, a first-order expansion in Δ, and the standard relation between the retarded polarization tensor and emission rates. The only manually chosen numeric parameters are the noise strength Δ and the temperature T.

free parameters (3)
  • noise autocorrelation Δ = 10^{-3} MeV^{-1} (in all figures)
    Strength of the white-noise fluctuations; chosen by hand as a 'moderately small' value; the claimed significance of the effects depends on this unconstrained parameter.
  • temperature T = 0.2 MeV
    Used in all numerical figures without justification; far below QGP temperatures and chosen so that the LLL approximation is safe.
  • background magnetic field B = 0.5 m_pi^2, m_pi^2, 1.5 m_pi^2
    Scenario values for the mean field; varied in figures but not fitted to experimental data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The stochastic magnetic fluctuations obey white-noise statistics, Eq. (2): ⟨δA_j^BG(x) δA_k^BG(x')⟩ = Δ δ_{jk} δ^{(3)}(x-x').
    This is the core model for the initial-state randomness; it is static and spatially uncorrelated, which is a strong idealization given that the HIC magnetic field decays on femtometer timescales (Fig. 1).
  • domain assumption The fermion propagator is computed in the lowest Landau level (LLL) approximation, justified by |q_f B|/m_f^2 ≫ 1 (Eq. 13).
    The LLL regime is used to write Eq. (14); together with the chosen T=0.2 MeV, this keeps the calculation in a regime far from thermal QGP.
  • domain assumption The noise average does not modify the Schwinger phase factor, and the propagator correction is expanded to first order in Δ (Eq. 14).
    The phase Φ(x,x') in Eq. (10) is written with the mean field only; the noise enters only through the translation-invariant part. This factorization is a non-trivial assumption inherited from the authors' prior work.
  • standard math The photon and dilepton emission rates are obtained from the imaginary part of the retarded polarization tensor via the standard formulas (Eqs. 7-8).
    This is the standard thermal field theory relation; it is not in question.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic Photon and Dilepton Yield in a Thermalized Quark-Gluon Plasma under Magnetic Fluctuations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7JCSZQI

@misc{pith2026241214055,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic Photon and Dilepton Yield in a Thermalized Quark-Gluon Plasma under Magnetic Fluctuations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7JCSZQI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14055}
}
read the original abstract

In this article, we analyze the effects of stochastic magnetic fluctuations with respect to an intense magnetic field background over the yields for photon and dilepton emission processes in a thermalized quark-gluon plasma phase. Such stochastic fluctuations model the effects of nearly random initial conditions for the nuclei participating in non-central heavy-ion collisions, which are the sources of the background magnetic field. Our theoretical results predict significant anisotropic effects due to stochastic magnetic noise over the angular distribution for photon and dilepton production rates in this scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14055 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Magnetic field with different models for QCD electric con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Feynman diagram for the polarization tensor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Anisotropic flow coefficients for emitted photons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Angular distribution components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Total angular distribution for emitted photons from Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Total angular distribution for emitted photons (in polar coordinates) from Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dilepton anisotropic flow coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Dilepton anisotropic flow coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Angular distribution components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Dilepton total angular distribution from Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Contour for complex integration of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Asymmetric muon-antimuon emission from $Z^0$ decays: a clear magnetometer in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    hep-ph 2025-06 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A proposal that Z0 to mu+ mu- decays in a strong magnetic field produce negative v2 and harder antimuon pT, offering a potential early-field magnetometer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dynamical magnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions,

    Anping Huang, Duan She, Shuzhe Shi, Mei Huang, and Jin- feng Liao, “Dynamical magnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 107, 034901 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Electrical conductivity of quark-gluon plasma in strong magnetic fields,

    Koichi Hattori and Daisuke Satow, “Electrical conductivity of quark-gluon plasma in strong magnetic fields,” Phys. Rev. D94, 114032 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Influence of magnetic field-induced anisotropic gluon pressure during pre-equilibrium in heavy-ion collisions: A faster road toward isotropization,

    Alejandro Ayala and Ana Julia Mizher, “Influence of magnetic field-induced anisotropic gluon pressure during pre-equilibrium in heavy-ion collisions: A faster road toward isotropization,” Phys. Rev. D 110, L111501 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    On gauge invariance and vacuum polariza- tion,

    Julian Schwinger, “On gauge invariance and vacuum polariza- tion,” Phys. Rev.82, 664–679 (1951)

    work page 1951

  5. [5]

    Effective Lagrangians in Quantum Electrodynamics,lecture notes in physics,

    W. Dittrich and M. Reuter, “Effective Lagrangians in Quantum Electrodynamics,lecture notes in physics,” (Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 1985)

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    QED fermions in a noisy magnetic field background,

    Jorge David Casta ˜no Yepes, Marcelo Loewe, Enrique Mu ˜noz, Juan Crist ´obal Rojas, and Renato Zamora, “QED fermions in a noisy magnetic field background,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 096014 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    QED fermions in a noisy magnetic field background: The effective action approach,

    Jorge David Casta ˜no Yepes, Marcelo Loewe, Enrique Mu ˜noz, and Juan Crist ´obal Rojas, “QED fermions in a noisy magnetic field background: The effective action approach,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 116013 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Replica field theory for ran- dom manifolds,

    Marc M ´ezard and Giorgio Parisi, “Replica field theory for ran- dom manifolds,” Journal de Physique I 1, 809–836 (1991)

    work page 1991

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Dynamic scaling of growing interfaces,

    M. Kardar, G. Parisi, and Y .-C. Zhang, “Dynamic scaling of growing interfaces,” Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 889–892 (1986)

    1986

  2. [10]

    Exploring magnetic fluctuation effects in qed gauge fields: Implications for mass generation,

    Jorge David Casta ˜no Yepes and Enrique Mu ˜noz, “Exploring magnetic fluctuation effects in qed gauge fields: Implications for mass generation,” Phys. Rev. D109, 056007 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Fermion self- energy and effective mass in a noisy magnetic background,

    Jorge David Casta ˜no Yepes and Enrique Mu˜noz, “Fermion self- energy and effective mass in a noisy magnetic background,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 056003 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Dilepton pro- duction from the quark-gluon plasma using (3+1 )-dimensional anisotropic dissipative hydrodynamics,

    Radoslaw Ryblewski and Michael Strickland, “Dilepton pro- duction from the quark-gluon plasma using (3+1 )-dimensional anisotropic dissipative hydrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 92, 025026 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Electromagnetic radiation from qcd matter: The- ory overview: The xxvth international conference on ultrarel- ativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions,

    Chun Shen, “Electromagnetic radiation from qcd matter: The- ory overview: The xxvth international conference on ultrarel- ativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions,” Nuclear Physics A 956, 184–191 (2016), the XXV International Conference on Ultra- relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Colli...

    2016

  6. [14]

    Prompt, pre-equilibrium, and thermal pho- tons in relativistic nuclear collisions,

    Akihiko Monnai, “Prompt, pre-equilibrium, and thermal pho- tons in relativistic nuclear collisions,” Journal of Physics G: Nu- clear and Particle Physics 47, 075105 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Prompt photon yield and ellip- tic flow from gluon fusion induced by magnetic fields in rela- tivistic heavy-ion collisions,

    Alejandro Ayala, Jorge David Casta ˜no Yepes, C. A. Dominguez, L. A. Hern ´andez, Sa ´ul Hern ´andez-Ortiz, and Mar´ıa Elena Tejeda-Yeomans, “Prompt photon yield and ellip- tic flow from gluon fusion induced by magnetic fields in rela- tivistic heavy-ion collisions,” Phys. Rev...

    2017

  8. [16]

    Centrality dependence of photon yield and elliptic flow from gluon fusion and splitting induced by magnetic fields in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,

    Alejandro Ayala, Jorge David Casta ˜no-Yepes, Is- abel Dominguez Jimenez, Jordi Salinas San Mart ´ın, and Mar´ıa Elena Tejeda-Yeomans, “Centrality dependence of photon yield and elliptic flow from gluon fusion and splitting induced by magnetic fields in relativistic heavy-ion ...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Anisotropic photon emission from gluon fusion and splitting in a strong magnetic background: The two-gluon one-photon vertex,

    Alejandro Ayala, Jorge David Casta˜no Yepes, L. A. Hern´andez, Ana Julia Mizher, Mar ´ıa Elena Tejeda-Yeomans, and R. Zamora, “Anisotropic photon emission from gluon fusion and splitting in a strong magnetic background: The two-gluon one-photon vertex,” Phys. Rev. C106, 064905 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Observation of direct-photon collective flow inAu+Au collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV ,

    A. et al. Adare (PHENIX Collaboration), “Observation of direct-photon collective flow inAu+Au collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV ,” Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 122302 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Azimuthally anisotropic emission of low-momentum direct photons in au + au collisions at √sN N= 200 gev,

    A. et al. Adare (PHENIX Collaboration), “Azimuthally anisotropic emission of low-momentum direct photons in au + au collisions at √sN N= 200 gev,” Phys. Rev. C 94, 064901 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Direct photon ellip- tic flow in pb–pb collisions at snn=2.76 tev,

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), “Direct photon ellip- tic flow in pb–pb collisions at snn=2.76 tev,” Physics Letters B 789, 308–322 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ellipticity of photon emission from strongly magnetized hot QCD plasma,

    Xinyang Wang, Igor A. Shovkovy, Lang Yu, and Mei Huang, “Ellipticity of photon emission from strongly magnetized hot QCD plasma,” Phys. Rev. D102, 076010 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Photon and dilepton emission anisotropy for a magnetized quark-gluon plasma,

    Xinyang Wang and Igor A. Shovkovy, “Photon and dilepton emission anisotropy for a magnetized quark-gluon plasma,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 056008 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Production of photons in relativistic heavy-ion colli- sions,

    Jean-Fran c ¸ois Paquet, Chun Shen, Gabriel S. Denicol, Matthew Luzum, Bj¨orn Schenke, Sangyong Jeon, and Charles Gale, “Production of photons in relativistic heavy-ion colli- sions,” Phys. Rev. C93, 044906 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Low-momentum direct-photon measurement in Cu + Cu collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV ,

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), “Low-momentum direct-photon measurement in Cu + Cu collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV ,” Phys. Rev. C98, 054902 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Low- pT direct-photon production in Au+Au collisions at √sN N= 39 and 62.4 GeV,

    N. J. Abdulameer et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), “Low- pT direct-photon production in Au+Au collisions at √sN N= 39 and 62.4 GeV,” Phys. Rev. C107, 024914 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Electromagnetic spectral properties and debye screening of a strongly magnetized hot medium,

    Aritra Bandyopadhyay, Chowdhury Aminul Islam, and Mun- shi G. Mustafa, “Electromagnetic spectral properties and debye screening of a strongly magnetized hot medium,” Phys. Rev. D 94, 114034 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Michel Le Bellac, Thermal Field Theory (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996)

    1996

  20. [28]

    Thermal corrections to the gluon magnetic debye mass,

    Alejandro Ayala, Jorge David Casta ˜no-Yepes, C. A. Dominguez, S. Hern ´andez-Ortiz, L. A. Hern ´andez, M. Loewe, D. Manreza-Paret, and R. Zamora, “Thermal corrections to the gluon magnetic debye mass,” Revista Mexicana de F ´ısica 66, 446–461 (2020). Appendix A: Contribution ...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Computation of gµν τ µν 1 After integrating the perpendicular momenta k⊥ = (k1, k2), the tensor structure τ µν 1 takes the form: τ µν 1 = 16iπ|qf B| (2π)2 exp − 2p2 ⊥ 3|qf B| Z d2k∥ (2π)2 h (k − p)2 ∥ + m2 f i h p∥ · k∥ − k2 ∥ + m2 f gµν ∥ + 2kµ ∥ kν ∥ − pµ ∥ kν ∥ − pν ∥kµ ∥ i...

  22. [30]

    Computation of gµν τ µν 3 After integrating the perpendicular momenta, τ µν 3 takes the form: τ µν 3 = 48iπ|qf B| (2π)2 exp − 2p2 ⊥ 3|qf B| Z d2k∥ (2π)2 (m2 f + k∥ · (p∥ − k∥))(gµν ∥ − gµν ⊥ ) + (kµ ∥ − pµ ∥ )kν ∥ + kµ ∥ (kν ∥ − pν ∥) (k2 ∥ − m2 f ) h (k − p)2 ∥ − m2 f i q (k0...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.